As attorney general, Garland vows to tackle domestic extremism - CSMonitor.com
Category: News & Politics
Via: thomas • 3 years ago • 94 commentsBy: The Christian Science Monitor's Christa Case Bryant
Lets see how this goes.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Drew Angerer/Reuters
Merrick Garland testifies during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in Washington on Feb. 22, 2021.
Why We Wrote This
Merrick Garland's handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation was a turning point in his career - and may offer clues as to how he'll proceed as his department begins investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
March 10, 2021
- By Christa Case Bryant, Staff writer@christacbryant
After Merrick Garland won widespread praise for his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation in 1995, his nomination to become a U.S. circuit judge in Washington, D.C., languished for 18 months before the Senate confirmed him. When President Barack Obama later nominated him to the Supreme Court, the Republican-led Senate refused to hold a confirmation hearing.
On Tuesday, Judge Garland was confirmed in a 70-30 vote to a job that he described in a Feb. 22 hearing as "the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back [the United States]."
In confirmation hearings, Democrats presented the new attorney general as a brilliant and fair advocate for justice. Judge Garland was seen as a more centrist choice, but some Republicans nevertheless expressed concern that Attorney General Garland's Department of Justice may try to usher in sweeping reforms to policing and voting.
Still, amid fears of a resurgence in domestic extremism, his experience in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation suggests he will pursue the Jan. 6 investigation in a serious way that has a chance of winning bipartisan approval.
"The work that he did after the bombing in 1995 for Oklahoma, Oklahomans have never forgotten," says GOP Sen. James Lankford, who represents the state and voted to confirm. "He was very engaged. He was very good."
Washington
If the United States had not taken in Merrick Garland's grandmother when she fled anti-Semitism in Europe, it's not just that he would be living in Belarus. He wouldn't be living at all, he says.
"My grandparents knew that they owed their lives to the willingness of America to take them in. And the same is true for me," Judge Garland told University of New Hampshire (UNH) law school students in a talk last fall. "The reason that I and my siblings and my parents try to do as much public service and as much community service as we could was to pay the country back for the sanctuary that it provided to my family."
When the Harvard-trained lawyer got a call back in 1989 asking him to quit his private practice and come work for the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C., Mr. Garland said yes, leaving his law firm office for a windowless cubbyholestudded with stale cigarette butts.
It wasn't the last time his commitment to public service would be tested. After Mr. Garland won widespread praise for his handling of the Oklahoma City bombing investigation in 1995, his nomination to become a U.S. circuit judge in Washington, D.C., languished for 18 months before the Senate confirmed him. President Barack Obama thrice considered nominating him for a Supreme Court appointment; when Mr. Obama finally did, the Republican-led Senate refused to hold a confirmation hearing before the 2016 election, which ushered in President Donald Trump and a trio of conservative justices.
On Tuesday, the Senate confirmed him 70-30 to a job that he described in a Feb. 22 hearing as "the highest, best use of my own set of skills to pay back [the United States]."
Four decades earlier, fresh off a Harvard Law School education that he financed in part by selling his prized collection of Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Fantastic Four comic books for $1,000, there was no guarantee he would rise to such an influential position.
"I was sent to Oklahoma City"
In 1979, the young lawyer landed a job "in the room where it happens," as the saying goes. He was the special assistant to the attorney general of the United States in the post-Watergate era, amid the development of a set of norms intended to protect the independence of the department. "But you don't actually get to do anything about what happened, except give peanut gallery advice," he told UNH students in his talk, a Zoom event moderated by one of his former clerks, Maggie Goodlander, an adjunct professor of constitutional law at UNH's Franklin Pierce School of Law.
Fast-forward to April 19, 1995, and he was once again in the room, but this time he was no longer relegated to the peanut gallery. As top deputy to the deputy attorney general of the United States, he got an email that a gas explosion had occurred at the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which housed numerous agencies as well as a day-care center.
Ten minutes later came the update: It was a bomb, not a gas explosion. Images starting coming through on CNN that reminded him of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American military personnel. The U.S. attorney general in Oklahoma City had just become a federal judge, and the acting attorney general was a civil attorney.
"I was in the room … when the acting U.S. attorney called Attorney General [Janet] Reno and said, 'You have to send somebody,'" he told the UNH students. "I had a lot of experience filing crime cases - I was the only one in the room who did - and I was sent to Oklahoma City."
By the time Mr. Garland arrived, the FBI had a strong lead on Timothy McVeigh. Mr. Garland, the top DOJ official deployed to Oklahoma City, was taken to an Air Force base where Mr. McVeigh was brought for his first presentment.
Mr. Garland, determined to squelch any conspiracy theories, demanded that the press be allowed into the briefing room on the base. The FBI backed him up, and the Air Force eventually relented. Mr. McVeigh, a 26-year-old Gulf War veteran angered by the government's 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas, that left 76 dead, was charged with the bombing of the building.
AP/File The north side of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is shown after a bomb that killed 168 people and injured hundreds on April 19, 1995. When Merrick Garland, who was at the time the principal deputy to the deputy attorney general, was first taken to the site, he recalls it looking like a "battleground." He later won widespread praise for his handling of the investigation.
When Mr. Garland was taken to the bomb site, he recalls it looking like a "battleground," with National Guard troops stationed around it. People were worried it could be the beginning of a larger spate of domestic terrorism.
Mr. Garland insisted on doing everything "by the book," requiring a subpoena even when people offered to hand over evidence, and requiring a second warrant to search a car for a second time, the Los Angeles Times reported. Donna Bucella, former director of the executive office for United States attorneys, who was on the ground with him in Oklahoma City, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that he also made sure the applications for wiretaps, search warrants, and other investigative tools were reviewed and approved by each federal district where the evidence was sought, as well as by the FBI & DOJ. He welcomed and listened to diverse opinions, she added.
Indeed, many Republicans, and even the lawyers for Mr. McVeigh and his co-conspirator Terry Nichols, praised his work.
Mr. McVeigh was convicted along with Mr. Nichols and was executed in 2001. Mr. Nichols was given a life sentence without parole. Some 168 people were killed in the bombing, and Mr. Garland spent significant time meeting with survivors.
"The work that he did after the bombing in 1995 for Oklahoma, Oklahomans have never forgotten," says GOP Sen. James Lankford, who represents the state and voted to confirm Mr. Garland. "He was very engaged. He was very good."
Don Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general during George W. Bush's presidency, described Mr. Garland in a letter supporting his 1997 confirmation as someone "driven more by a sense of public service than of personal aggrandizement."
"My own service in the Justice Department during the last two Republican Administrations convinced me that government suffers greatly from a shortage of people combining such exceptional abilities with a primary drive to serve interests beyond their own," Mr. Ayer wrote, urging the Senate to seize the opportunity to add him to the bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He was confirmed 76-23 amid GOP opposition to adding another judge to the circuit at that time.
Policing and voting reforms
In this round of confirmation hearings, Democrats presented Judge Garland as a brilliant and fair advocate for justice, and particularly well suited to the task of investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
"He is personally driven to root out hate - and to, especially, stop its most violent manifestation in the terrorism of our fellow Americans," says Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Garland, who showed no public bitterness over the GOP's thwarting of his Supreme Court nomination nearly five years ago, also won support from some Republican senators before his confirmation Tuesday as attorney general- including Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who praised him for also recognizing the persistent threat of foreign terrorism.
But not all were convinced he'd be the right person to take the helm of the Justice Department as a major investigation into domestic extremism gets underway.
Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee and one of a handful of senators who on Jan. 6 objected to the Electoral College results from two battleground states that President Donald Trump lost in 2020, said he was disappointed that Judge Garland did not characterize left-wing assaults on the federal courthouse in Portland and the violence directed against numerous law enforcement officers as domestic terrorism.
Though the new attorney general was seen as a more centrist choice than some progressives were hoping for, some Republicans worried the Biden administration will use the Department of Justice to usher in sweeping reforms to policing and voting that Democrats say are necessary to combat systemic racism and voter suppression. They point in particular to how his more liberal deputies could steer the department, including civil rights lawyer Vanita Gupta, Mr. Biden's nominee for the No. 3 slot at the DOJ who faced a tough grilling from GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee March 9.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, another GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, pressed Mr. Garland on how exactly he would define systemic racism. The judge responded that it signified discrimination and widespread disparate treatment of communities of color caused by a combination of historic impact, unconscious bias, and sometimes conscious bias.
"I'm thinking it through in terms of whether he has what it takes to run the Justice Department in a fair and equitable manner - and that means fair to all Americans," says Senator Kennedy. "What worries me about many - not all, but many - of my Democratic friends is they just don't seem to care about average middle-class Americans unless they're part of a specific minority that they deem worthy. And I think we're all worthy in America."
Still, amid fears of a resurgence in domestic extremism, Mr. Garland's widely praised handling of the Oklahoma City bombing as well as his role in bringing the elusive Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, to justice the following year, suggests he will pursue the Jan. 6 investigation in a serious way that has a chance of winning bipartisan approval.
Prosecutors have so far charged more than 300 individuals in the attack, including Justice Department indictments against members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers. Judge Garland has pledged to make the investigation his top priority upon taking office.
"If anything was necessary to refocus our attention on white supremacists, that was the attack on the Capitol," he told Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, a Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, in the hearings. "I expect to put all departmental resources necessary to combat this problem into this area, to make sure both our agents and our prosecutors have the numbers and the resources to accomplish that mission."
Jamie Gorelick, who was Judge Garland's boss and the No. 2 official at the DOJ when the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, says in an interview that his collaborative approach enabled him to coordinate many different agencies in the wake of the bombing - an approach she says will be needed in the Jan. 6 investigation as well.
In addition to possessing a passion for justice and ensuring the nation's security, she identifies another reason for Judge Garland's determination when it comes to investigating such cases.
"He saw domestic terrorism up close, and he knows how divisive and terrifying it can be - and therefore that it must be addressed," she says.
Mark Sappenfield Editor
Tags
Who is online
207 visitors
An interesting section from the article:
Really, the italicized seems a bit disingenuous to me. Kind of like the "...some, I am sure are good people..." sandwiched in between rapists and murderers and drug runners of DJT.
The repukes are guilty of projection.
This is the same Kennedy that said this about the nominee for Secretary of the Interior, Deb Haaland.
Another nut job from the right.
an AG with a successful history of prosecuting right wing domestic terrorists is exactly what is needed.
I wonder if the 30 republicans that voted against Garland did so because they are worried about their offices having ties to white nationalist, and other fascist groups being unearthed?
Let's let Mr. Garland get to work in fumigating the remaining stench in the DOJ now that Sessions and Barr have been evicted.
I hope he's holding a 5 year grudge against moscow mitch and miss lindsey, and fully exercises it.
"What worries me about many - not all, but many - of my Democratic friends is they just don't seem to care about average middle-class Americans unless they're part of a specific minority that they deem worthy. And I think we're all worthy in America."
It's abundantly clear that the Democrat party, in general, has not cared about the hard working average American citizen for some time now. Instead, it's been taken over by radical leftist hardliners that pander to select special interest groups it deems worthy...seeking political advantage
You seem to believe the projections from the right as to what the Democratic party and the generalized left believes. You say that it is abundantly clear, but it is not abundantly clear to me.
The "radical, leftist hardliners" that you reference, who are they that wield so much power?
Pandering to special interest groups seems to be the way of divide and conquer politics these days in which all groups are special interest groups assembled at election time to try and achieve a majority of votes. Both major parties have their base voters who need to be pandered to. This is the particular dog whistle that Senator Kennedy was using, IMO.
What exactly have the Republicans done for the "hard working average American citizen", in the last 30 - 50 years?
NOT ONE GODDAMNED THING. . . NOTHING.
In the case of the now gqp - what have you done for me, ever?
24 hours and not one of the GOP apologists on NT has been able to offer one up.
You should talk to Greg about that then.
I seriously doubt that you have any.
You are aware that not one republican voted for the covid relief package, right? The package that went to helping middle class Americans?
Except for the fact that you trash all who are free thinkers.
Far right wing fascists are not worthy of consideration. Y'all suck black water.
If he can manage to officially label certain groups as domestic terrorists and take the necessary steps to remove them from society, then I will be impressed.
The problem with labeling any domestic group Terrorists is that they will counter that their free speech rights are being taken away. The government needs to show that the groups did indeed abrogate the rights of other individuals. That seems like a pretty fine line to walk.
Not really that 'fine of a line' to walk.
After all, since when have Nazis, Ku Kluxers and puppets of Putin ever defended the rights of other individuals?
Hell, remember when the ACLU defended and won Limbaugh's case about the Viagra thing and medical privacy? Now there is an instance when an organization defended an individual who spent a career denigrating the organization that saved his worthless arse. *************Can never say that about the Nazis and the rest of the right wing, right?
Well, can you think of a way, without violating the CotUS and the rights affirmed therein, to label any group that exists inside the US as a terrorist group?
As a society we tend to put the emphasis on actions and not words. When, exactly, do words become threats or an instigation to violence? To put down on paper, "Here. This is where we draw the line," has historically been virtually impossible before the fact. I don't know as if it is possible.
What ever. The MAGA bots beating the police officer with a Blue Line Flag while others screamed to, "Kill him with his own gun"----------.
Sorry, at least I would hope that America would be a safe haven from fascists'.
Those are actions, not speech. Criminal actions can be dealt with. Criminal words? What are those?
Don't get me wrong, I am as much for catching the people who participated in the insurrection at the capitol as anyone. But even they can say, "Hey! You are limiting my freedom of expression!"
Charles Manson did nothing. But he did. And people were murdered. Lie speech is not free speech, it is lie speech.
Unless someone is demonstrably harmed by the words that one utters, it is allowable to utter them.
These domestic terrorist's free speech rights end when it puts other people in physical danger.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
I don't believe that I have ever said that freedom of speech was equivalent to freedom from consequences.
I did say that I do not think that it is possible to classify a domestic group as terrorist. The KKK hasn't been exactly warm and welcoming to certain segments of society, yet they exist and are not defined as terrorists. I think that we need to have the discussion in this country over just what constitutes hate speech and how is that speech controlled. The libel, slander and defamation laws might be a good place to start, as they are areas where speech has been recognized to have consequences. .
We cannot just hope it goes away.
Please see my comment below at 5.1.9
I don't believe we should mollycoddle terrorists and I cannot believe that the KKK aren't considered/defined domestic terrorists.
It sounds like you're excusing them.
I am doing nothing of the sort. I condemn the violent insurrectionist attack on the capitol and think that the perpetrators should be dealt with in a manner that recognizes not only the severity of there actions but the sanctity of the Capitol building as the seat of democracy in America.
We have rights and laws in this country and we follow those laws to protect those rights. That is the way it works. You have rights. Accused criminals have rights. The KKK has rights. Everyone, no matter their affiliation with any group has rights as long as they are in this country. Period. If one person has rights then we all have to have those same rights.
Trump wanted us to think that people in custody should be "roughed up" because he was an asshole who would be king. We don't all, I am assuming, want to become like Trump, do we? So we cannot just set aside some of the laws sometimes and some of the rights sometimes like he would have us do, because that is the way of the tyrant. He wanted it his way, all the time, no matter the laws he had to ignore or change, no matter the rights that he had to squash. Fuck the Law and Order bullshit he spewed. That was just for people who were not paying attention to what he was doing.
Pretty sure that my assessment is the only assessment that matters.
Words count and tend to inspire actions.
I'll beat the shit out of anybody who says different.
As tempting as it is to call your bluff... Do you wanna take this outside?
Again, I did not say that words did not matter. I was defining the framework that is structurally in place in the US and questioning where we could begin to address defining groups as being domestic terror groups.
If what happened by the former occupant of the White House and his mob, isn't considered domestic terrorism, I don't know what is. I never said they didn't have rights. Their rights have nothing to do with it. These domestic terrorists conspired along with the former occupant of the White House and his mob and some new gqp members and other members of the gqp to 'Storm the Capitol!' 'It's an insurrection!
Do you have the evidence to prove those accusations? Cause they will be screaming, "I know my rights!" like that drunk guy on Youtube.
Due process is what we follow so that people who are proven to have committed crimes pay the price of same.
Where do I say anything about not following due process? The majority of these domestic terrorists have already provided ample evidence for their trails.
This is the line I was referring to (emphasis mine):
And, I really do not know who you are arguing with (are you?), since we are both approximately of the same opinion. But, hey. Keep up the good work. It is better than reading some of the other tripe on here. One can only deconstruct so many Tucker Carlson diatribes.....
Since we're on the same page then I will move along but I just wanted to provide some more evidence of these morons providing their own evidence for their trials:
2 Men Charged In Capitol Riot Recorded Bonkers Boasts They Crashed The White House
Mary Papenfuss
Two men who have been charged in the Capitol riot recorded gleeful — and embarrassing — shots of themselves in the Rotunda that day, boasting that they had “crashed the White House.”
Nope.
The goofy foul-up was exposed in an FBI affidavit late last month supporting criminal charges against wannabe big shots Jeffrey Shane Witcher and his friend Richard Franklin Barnard, both of Texas.
“I am in the White House! We crashed this! Our house! We did it! We did it, family, we did it!” Witcher said in a cellphone video, according to the affidavit.
Morons didn't even know where they were 'insurrecting'
Pretty sure that Charlie killed a few folk. Just not the famous ones.
I have a feeling that what comes out in a full investigation will be quite interesting.
The resurrection didn't happen in a vacuum, someone instigated it, planned it and initiated it.
Wonder who ?
Most say God.
Err, you mean 'gawd'?
Only fools "say god".
Resurrection? I think you meant insurrection because no one was brought back to life and no second coming occurred.
.... LOL ..... Opps
I'm thinking that it was your mother.
Follow the money. It's source, received by whom and it's dispersal from there. Into campaigns, SuperPacs, certain people's pockets and maybe into media.
Just follow the damn money.
Truer words were never spoken.
Here's a some domestic terrorism from yesterday. . Let's see if Garland is true to his word.
Of course, since the Biden DOJ already dropped charges against dozens of the Democrats' fellow traveler terrorists in Portland, we know nothing will happen.
Define "domestic terrorism."
Sure, here's the statute.
If what the former occupant of the White House and his mob did on 1/6/21 was not domestic terrorism THEN NOTHING IS.
I don't think that this passes the bar to domestic terrorism from the intentions points of the statute cited, because if it did, any violent protest could then be labeled domestic terrorism. However, it does pass the violent protest/riot test and should be prosecuted.
I think thats going to depend on if just one box of what sean posted has to be checked off or if some have to be or if all those things have to occur.
its something i would have to think about.
I believe it is A, B, and C with the subsections i, ii, iii being either or as it is stated. The link is in his comment, highlighted in blue.
Just yesterday, another BLM so called peaceful protest turned violent and business sustained major damage. I don't know if BLM could be classified as a DT organization or not, but BLM would seem to stand for Burn Loot Maim lately.
Are they BLM? BLM protests are usually organized during the day. The violent altercation in Portland started at night. BLM needs a leader like MLK to give them direction and keep the "brand" from being tainted by extremist elements both within the organization and from other external interests. Non-violence is what brought them so far in the 50's and 60's. Violence gives ammunition to their detractors, as we can see right here on NT. Then they can paint everything that BLM does as terroristic and violent, even though 95% of the protests last summer were peaceful.
Any politically based act of violence in the US is domestic violence/terrorism.
The FBI says far right wing fascist militant groups are at the top of their list.
As BLM is an organization, cities need to start going after them to pay for any and all property damage their members did in the name of "peaceful protests."
The statute that Sean linked to is tracked back to 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions
Without diving too deeply, I believe these are the United States statutory definitions for terrorism, published by the Legal Information Institute of the Cornell Law School. Within those definitions is contained the definition for domestic terrorism as per law in the US.
Are there other definitions per law? I ain't no lawyer so you will have to ask someone above my pay grade, but I believe that this is the standard working definition for the US. Mayhaps the definition has been refined by the case law, but, as I am not going to dive that deeply into this subject because I am pretty sure that it is quite a rabbit hole, and it is almost spring.
To whom the violence is ascribed and who doing that ascribing is an important question. We have to be careful when establishing these things that we do not throw out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater. Since you put the peaceful protests inside quotes I am thinking that you do not believe the protests where mainly peaceful Certain sections of the public and media (as well as some members on this site) would have you believe that most, if not all, of the protests last summer were 1) arranged by the BLM and the shadowy organization Antifa, and 2) were violent as a whole. If you actually look at the specific cases, the reality is that the overwhelming majority ( 95% or so ) of the protests organized by BLM were peaceful, daytime events.
From the above link:
It wasn't a protest. It was a mob/riot/insurrection. It was domestic terrorism.
A large majority of them 'Stormed the Capitol', 'It's a Revolution' on 1/6/21
It was domestic terrorism, plain and simple.
First off, it is unclear what you are referencing when you say "it". What is "it"? In my comment, I was referring to the violence in Portland, Oregon.
In the case of Portland, this statement does not fit if we follow the definition of domestic terrorism as it is defined in the statute. In the case of the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot well, lets see. The statute says:
It definitely passes that bar, so now does it
not really that one, How about (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?
I think that this would be applicable to the case in point.
How about (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?
Ehh, not really on that one. (Though there may be some argumentation for the Kidnapping part of it)
Yes, it is in fact where it occurred.
So Yes, the events of January, 6th, 2021 do in fact meet the definition of domestic terrorism.
Now, what do you do about it? Can they be prosecuted as a class? How, exactly, do we combine or separate the individuals who participated in these acts?
Well the video at your link doesn't show anything that qualifies under that statute.
"First off, it is unclear what you are referencing when you say "it". What is "it"? In my comment, I was referring to the violence in Portland, Oregon.
In the case of Portland, this statement does not fit if we follow the definition of domestic terrorism as it is defined in the statute. In the case of the January 6, 2021 Capitol Riot well, lets see. The statute says:
It definitely passes that bar, so now does it
not really that one, How about (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion?
I think that this would be applicable to the case in point.
How about (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping?
Ehh, not really on that one. (Though there may be some argumentation for the Kidnapping part of it)
So Yes, the events of January, 6th, 2021 do in fact meet the definition of domestic terrorism.
Now, what do you do about it? Can they be prosecuted as a class? How, exactly, do we combine or separate the individuals who participated in these acts?"
I've been referring to the Capitol Riot all along. If you've been referring to BLM, etc., then I'm sorry, I'm not on the same page as you then.
What happened at the Capitol was domestic terrorism, not the protests carried out by BLM, and others, etc., etc., etc.
Those who 'Stormed the Capitol' 'It's an Insurrection' will be tried separately as individuals.
How else would they be tried???????????????????????????
If a group of people can be shown to have participated in certain individual acts, it is not unheard of for them to be tried at the same time.
You may, if you so desire, apply the same statutory definition of domestic terrorism and see if you get a different result than I did in 8.1.14 .
Well Sen. Ron Johnson seems to disagree. He said they were trying to get him to vote the way they wanted him to. Sounds like Johnson admitted that their purpose was to 'coerce' to me...and the vast majority of the inhabitants in the Capitol are civilians.
Respectfully, I think that would fall under (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion since he is a member of the government and the building that was attacked was (of course!) a government building.
They need not influence the policy of a government if they could intimidate or coerce enough Senators to vote the way they wanted them to.
It would seem that is indeed what they were trying to accomplish, ie, they were attempting to coerce the Senators and the House Members and the Vice President, all members of the government, to discard the one set of electors for another. I think it clearly a stretch of credibility to consider these members of government a "civilian population".
Yet we characterize our military as 'civilian' controlled even though it's Commander in Chief is the Executive of that same government.
By the definitions given for the purposes of making the legislation clear, I do not think that a member of the government proper, in this case, is considered part of the "civilian population". I know it is splitting hairs. I did not write the shit. Just trying to give my interpretation of what it means as a statute from my limited knowledge base.