The Jan 6 Commission

[msquared]

Cherry

I think you remember the hate for Obama wrong. They hate the man. Why else go after his birth records, smear him for things the pastor at his church said, or things he said growing up. You can say it was about policies but that would not be true for, I think, a majority of the people who wanted him gone and in many cases dead.

[rightleft22]

If you want a scientific measurement then conservatives do hate the policies of Obama with a sentiment equal to the mass of Jupiter whereas liberals' hate for Trump is as dense as a neutron star. With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.

I can't know what's in another's heart as it concerns Hate.
As you note someone can hate what policies associated with a person (what they stand for) without hating the person (though the person that is directed against might experience it as personal)
I never like the idea that One can hate the sin but not the sinner. The sinner that does not believe it a sin is not going to note any nuance

What I don't understand is how you can only apply ability to your tribe as you paint with a very large brush that those who talk about Trump methods as dangerous, divisive and more like to create the what it fears as Hate.

Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.

[alai]

Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.

If people could do that, they wouldn't be in said "tribes" in the first place, would they?

[rightleft22]

Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.

If people could do that, they wouldn't be in said "tribes" in the first place, would they?

Its the definition of Hate that being inferred that bothers me and the hypocrisy in its application that is creating the tribes.
So yes you have a point, the solution being a attempt to develop a level of self awareness and discernment necessary to end this foolish tribalism. 
But I agree We are not capable and so are destined to repeat history and create what we fear.

[alai]

Its the definition of Hate that being inferred that bothers me and the hypocrisy in its application that is creating the tribes.
So yes you have a point, the solution being a attempt to develop a level of self awareness and discernment necessary to end this foolish tribalism. 
But I agree We are not capable and so are destined to repeat history and create what we fear.

Yes, I agree that there's an extreme crudity underlying a lot of this "calling out" of supposed "hate".  Going back (on the right) at the very least to "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder", "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and so on.  Of course the Soviet Union beat them to it, on psychopathologising opponents generally, and indeed well before that.  So when I see certain posters here trotting out "Trump broke you" and "you're permanently damaged after Covid", as well as being an especially low grade of rhetoric, it's a tiresomely unoriginal one.  Also, did we get progressively crazier each time?  Or does the trope presuppose bouts of recovery each time?  I suspect they didn't really think it through -- nor ever really intend to, come to that.

[Grant]

I'm saying outright that a lot of people hate Trump. January 6 just gives them one more excuse to talk about how much they hate him. They hate Trump all day long, literally. I don't think anyone can claim these people don't hate Trump. The best spin on the depth of their hate and how much time they'll spend talking about it is they sincerely believe they have their reasons.

Who are you talking about?  Who is "they"?  NPR?  Kevin Williamson?  Rachel Maddow?  Nancy Pelosi?  Me?

I thought I had already addressed my feelings on Lord Babyhands.  I don't think it really reaches hatred level.  Here it is:

I read a bunch of talk from some quarters on hatred for Trump, particularly as being responsible for his possible/probable loss.  I personally don't hate The Great 4th Grade Communicator.  I find him distasteful.  Like biting down and taking a big mouthful of turd sandwich.  I don't believe that's hatred.  There is far less emotion involved.  I'm not sure if I honestly hate anyone.  Bashar Al-Assad and his useful idiots might come closest.  Even then, I feel more of the same emotion you would feel when presented with a rabid dog that likes raiding chicken coops.

Even going back to Nov 2016, my general feeling was one of embarrassment, like if the guy in your 2nd grade class who farts the most and eats his boogers was just elected as class President, because he promised to get McDonalds brought in for lunch and have Burger King pay for it. 


Now, that was all before Jan 6.  After Jan 6, I would have to upgrade my feelings from strong distaste to outright disgust.  We're not just talking about a turd sandwich anymore.  We're basically talking about a turd sandwich that originated from the rectum of someone who did nothing but eat babies, aborted fetuses, cockroaches, and vomit from Alex Jones.   Jan 6 did not give me an excuse to not like the Great 4th Grade Communicator.  It simply allowed it to grow.  I don't see why it shouldn't.  The former president's tiny little hands are quite dirty from that incident. 

After all, Trump is a according to them racist, sexist, and a homophobe, all much more reason to hate him than anything that happened on January 6, but apparently people brushed that off an voted for him anyway so since the people who voted for Trump consider themselves patriots so there's no better way to insult them and him than concoct this false narrative about sedition since calling them racist was becoming super ineffective.

Personally, I never really bought into the whole racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments against Lord Cheetoh, which is why I never really addressed them.  I find plenty of other reasons to be disgusted by him.  I understand some people are hung up on that, so you must think that they are making stuff up about Jan 6.  But what about me? 

This is all a continuation of throwing everything at him and the deplorables and hoping something sticks.

What exactly is being made up now?  Sedition?  Sounds rather 18th century.  Do I believe that some of the *censored* insane lies he said led to his band of nutjob followers to assault the Capitol of the United States while it was confirming his replacement?  Yes.  Don't you?  Isn't that enough? 

With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.

LOL. What?

There was a huge billboard on I 10 in Mississippi that called Obama the Anti-Christ. 

But you do have a point.  My dislike of Obama was professional.  I didn't like his policies or politics, but I never doubted his character.  Whatever crazy *censored* he was up to or distaste I had for his policies never extended to distaste or disgust for the man personally.  Trump on the other hand is a completely different type of human being.  He is a disgusting and dangerous individual with power.  If you cannot tell the difference in character between Barrack Obama and Donald Trump, or if you just don't care and all you care about is policy, then I can't help you.  Where I come from, it is okay for people to have some differing values or disagree somewhat on how to solve a problem, but there are some things you just DO NOT DO.  Topping this list is the derangement to not accept your defeat and then actively planning to circumvent the law surrounding elections with the aid of some equally deranged and sycophantic lovers of power and finally calling forth a mob of even more deranged and sycophantic individuals to "protest" another branch of government doing its duty and then stand by and apparently do nothing of consequence when these deranged followers attempt to overthrow the same branch of government. 

But yeah, it must be my hatred flowing through me.  I still don't see any blue lightning coming from my fingertips, though. 

On the other hand, whatever it was that some people felt for Obama, 8 years of this feeling is basically what drove some of them them from the policies and character of George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, to embrace the Perfect Caller. 

[alai]

LOL. What?

There was a huge billboard on I 10 in Mississippi that called Obama the Anti-Christ. 

But you do have a point.  My dislike of Obama was professional.  I didn't like his policies or politics, but I never doubted his character.  Whatever crazy *censored* he was up to or distaste I had for his policies never extended to distaste or disgust for the man personally.

I suppose to try to join the dots between your observations (which seem to be of this planet), and cherry's (which seem to be experiencing some sort of revolutionary breach of perceptual continuity), one can get there if one lets their "mostly" do almost all the work.  If I were an unhappy (but not radically disillusioned) Romney voter, I might have thought, "I have perfectly cordial reasons to dislike this presidency, so do m'colleagues Grant, cherry, etc -- we're representative of Most of the people that voted against him, the people with the nooses and hoods, etc, are a few fringe crazies."  Then just flip that around for Trump:  equate any criticism of him at all with its most unhinged expression, and suddenly one can call 51.3% of the population Fallen to the Dark Side.

I think it's maybe a little like whatever the fancy name is for the cognitive bias that underlies road-rage.  If I make some...  expedient if less than best-practice maneuver, it's for all the most practical and justifiable reasons.  If I see someone else doing so, they're a monster with the most demonic of motivations, and their family should be wiped out, even unto the seventh generation.

[msquared]

There are two types of people on the highway with me. Those idiots going faster and those dumb ass jerks going slower.

[TheDeamon]

Quoting it doesn't mean you're applying it properly.

Given that Orwell was a died-in-the-wool socialist, quoting it in the case of many of the posters here may also be dangerous to the stability of the Earth's orbit, due to the drastically increased angular momentum of his ever-greater spinning in his grave.

Although oddly, by Orwell's own words, he backed the socialists because he was certain it would be the capitalists who would ban his books.

I guess he would have done well to spend a year or two traveling in 1940's America rather than never venturing outside of either the British Empire or Europe. Of course, I guess there is McCarthy to consider, but the Americans ultimately took care of that.

[TheDeamon]

Listening to NPR gush on breathlessly about the January 6th "Insurrection", I had a very hard time believing that any of them really took the lunacy they were spouting seriously. They did seem like they were on their two minutes hate, but specifically as a bunch of Julias who endeavored to make up for with theatrics what they lacked in honest conviction.

Are you implying Hate = anyone talking about things you don't like?

I agree we need to stop talking about Jan 06. Better to look away from such things. Maybe we should take another look at Benghazi

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."

[cherrypoptart]

Yup. When the Democrats lose then the months of violent and deadly protests in the streets during a pandemic that makes it worse will, again, be breathlessly celebrated by this same media and the Democrats with whom they collude as fighting an election that was stolen by Russian collusion, voter suppression, gerrymandering, hanging chads, or whatever the talking point of the day comes up with. They won't frame it though as whataboutism so much as highlight how "mostly peaceful" the violent terrorist (by the same definition used for the January 6 riot) riots are but most importantly how they reflect a groundswell of grassroots democracy championing opposition by the people against an illegitimate Republican politicians who stole another election.

Democrats win = system is working great and questioning it is treason that undermines our entire form of government and civilization itself.

Republicans win = the election was stolen and the thieves are illegitimate rulers who must be opposed by any means necessary.

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Maxine Waters,  U.S. representative for California's 43rd congressional district since 1991, still in office today.

[Grant]

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."

That's a bold play, Cotton.  So at this point, what I'm reading, is a tu quoque accusing Democrats of hypocrisy because they WILL, IN THE FUTURE, DO THINGS JUST AS BAD OR WORSE AS JAN 6, AND NOT CARE ABOUT IT.  I mean, that's next level whatabout.  That should be a bet you can place in Vegas.  I mean, first you need a "Red Wave" to even happen. 

"This is horrible"
"But whatabout what you are going to do tomorrow?"
"Wut?"
"Exactly!"

It's a bold move Cotton, lets see how it plays out. 

Personally, I feel that the best way to prevent these predicted future democratic riots in DC is to make a clear point what the consequences of such actions are by publicly hanging those convicted for their actions on Jan 6 on the steps of the capitol building, and letting their bodies stay out until they rot.  I feel this would send a clear message for Democrats who would want to riot.  The key point here is to prevent future assaults, rather than use past ones as a political football. 

[TheDeamon]

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."

That's a bold play, Cotton.  So at this point, what I'm reading, is a tu quoque accusing Democrats of hypocrisy because they WILL, IN THE FUTURE, DO THINGS JUST AS BAD OR WORSE AS JAN 6, AND NOT CARE ABOUT IT.  I mean, that's next level whatabout.  That should be a bet you can place in Vegas.  I mean, first you need a "Red Wave" to even happen.

Not that bold, January 6th was an extreme outlier for any kind of Republican/Conservative centered event. What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

But that's part of the Overton Window game being played here. What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

But the constant media refrain about "insurrection" moves the public perception on what actually happened there. Which grants a kind of tacit permission for "whataboutism" to strike once a left-wing group decides they have reason to attempt to riot inside Capitol Hill... Which is likely to be met with a far more forceful response due to January 6th, and the media will be playing that up.

It's a bold move Cotton, lets see how it plays out.

If Republicans gain control of the House and Senate in the 2022 elections, I would be amazed if there isn't wide spread rioting in multiple cities, including Washington D.C. by the time that January has rolled around. We shall see if they try to assault Capitol Hill in the process(although it may not be in session at the time).   

Personally, I feel that the best way to prevent these predicted future democratic riots in DC is to make a clear point what the consequences of such actions are by publicly hanging those convicted for their actions on Jan 6 on the steps of the capitol building, and letting their bodies stay out until they rot.  I feel this would send a clear message for Democrats who would want to riot.  The key point here is to prevent future assaults, rather than use past ones as a political football.

What the justice system does to the January 6th rioters will make little meaningful difference to what such a prospective future group may try to do. The only real "proactive deterrence" path that might conceivably exist to the purpose you suggest doesn't exist in the US legal system. And even then it is questionable.

[Grant]

Not that bold, January 6th was an extreme outlier for any kind of Republican/Conservative centered event.

It's an extreme outlier for ANY political event in the United States, depending on how you frame it.  It was extreme outlier for a riot with people carrying Jesus signs, being armed with automatic weapons and zip ties, Confederate Flags, Trump Flags, American Flags, Buffalo Horns, being started by a POTUS, and breaking into the US Capitol. 

These differences are what DEFINES the action.  What defines something is what makes it different or sets it apart from everything else.  Some people would like you to focus on RIOT, and show that there are many more riots by people who vote for Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Dolly Parton.  But the whole idea is that it is a different kind of riot and the counter argument ignores the uniqueness of it. 

What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

Hmmm.  Yes.  Just like that.  That is how you do it. 

Yes.  I imagine that Democrats have been involved in more riots since 1968, but the whole point is that the specific location, which you seem to want to paint as insignificant, makes that particular riot unique. 

I'd also like to point out that the conservatives that have not rioted in the past 50 years were people who voted for and generally supported people like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  You probably did not see many people who voted for Romney in 2012 at the riot on Jan 6.  But you did see lots of people who voted for His High Holy Builder of Walls.  That's another thing that makes it unique and thus defines it.  The fact that for 50 years conservatives by definition generally did not riot, but suddenly people who say they are conservatives are rioting because of.......  I don't know.  It's a mystery, right? 

What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

It's true.  As a riot goes it was pretty much unorganized and poorly planned.  But that's generally what a mob is, and what separates it from an army.  Doesn't mean it isn't a riot or a mob, it just means they suck at actually achieving any aims.  It didn't seem to stop a small minority from actually trying to break into guarded spaces with guns and zip ties though, did it? 

But the constant media refrain about "insurrection" moves the public perception on what actually happened there.

Tell me again about what happened there.  Some people just accidently broke through police lines, fought cops, invaded the Capitol building while voting to confirm an election, accidently broke into congressional offices?

See, the accusation is that the Democrats are trying to make hay out of an event by playing it up.    Your political opponents should be expected to take advantage of adverse events that you are responsible for causing.  That's politics.  But do the Democrats really need to play it up?  Did any other riots attempt to stop a branch of the United States government from doing it's job?  Pretending that the location doesn't matter is kinda ridiculous.  The location was chosen for a reason.  It wasn't an accident.  "Oh we just accidentally broke in to the capitol and broke through police lines".  "Hey, we didn't break anything".  They didn't need to.  And Democrats don't need to blow the event out of proportion.

What I do see is some Republicans, not all, trying to downplay the event because they know it hurts them.  So I have to disagree that the event is being blown out of proportion.  Instead I think some people are trying to downplay what happened and why. 

If Republicans gain control of the House and Senate in the 2022 elections, I would be amazed if there isn't wide spread rioting in multiple cities, including Washington D.C. by the time that January has rolled around. We shall see if they try to assault Capitol Hill in the process(although it may not be in session at the time). 

If aliens invade earth or Christ comes again in 2022, I would be amazed too.  If the Saints win the Superbowl, I would be amazed if the people of Kansas City do not riot and burn all of Missouri down to the ground and Godzilla is crowned King of Colorado. 

What the justice system does to the January 6th rioters will make little meaningful difference to what such a prospective future group may try to do.

Another bold move, Cotton. 

The only real "proactive deterrence" path that might conceivably exist to the purpose you suggest doesn't exist in the US legal system. And even then it is questionable.

I have no idea what you are referring to.  Putting people in the stocks?  Torture? 

[msquared]

"What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside."

It was limited in scope.  It had one goal and that was to overturn the results of the election. Sounds like an coup/insurrection to me.

So what if most of the people had no idea what they were going to do once inside. As Trump likes to say, many people had an idea. They wanted to stop Congress from certifying Biden as the winner of the election. And Trump egged them on.  "Fight like hell" he said.  Of course he also said he would be with them and he did not go. Trump is famous for using people and hanging them out to dry afterwards.

[ScottF]

"What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside."

It was limited in scope.  It had one goal and that was to overturn the results of the election. Sounds like an coup/insurrection to me.

So what if most of the people had no idea what they were going to do once inside. As Trump likes to say, many people had an idea. They wanted to stop Congress from certifying Biden as the winner of the election. And Trump egged them on.  "Fight like hell" he said.  Of course he also said he would be with them and he did not go. Trump is famous for using people and hanging them out to dry afterwards.

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.

[Grant]

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.

If you mumble around a band of sycophantic nutjobs whose grip on reality is limited as it is, prone to violence, and mumble around them: "will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?", you're a moron if you didn't foresee the possible consequences of this.  Henry II had to grovel before the pope and let each bishop of England beat him with 5 rods, and all 80 monks of Canterbury strike him 3 times. 

I'm perfectly able to believe wholeheartedly that Donald Trump is a *censored*ing moron rather than inciting violence, because it fits with my previous judgements of him.  If he wanted to use the mob to overthrow the government he might have done a slightly better job, but he isn't that smart.  He's just an idiot.  But given his popularity and power, he's an extremely dangerous idiot.  Like lighting a cigarette at a gas station after shooting gasoline all over the place dangerous. 

This does not absolve his sycophantic nut job followers for assaulting the Capitol.  The High Holy 4th Grade Communicator might not be guilty of incitement to riot in a court, or sedition, or treason.  But he played an important role and was a critical cause of what happened on Jan 6 because IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF HE WASN'T A CRAZY NARCISISTIC LIAR WHO SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH SYCOPHANTIC CRAZY LIARS.  Even the majority of Republicans agreed on this on Jan 6 and 7.  The majority of Republicans in Congress admitted to this.  Even Laura Ingrahm and Sean Hannity knew it!  They just won't say it!  Because money and power are their gawds. 

So what is your choice?  Is he a traitor who attempted to knock off his own vice president and Congress?  Or is he an outrageous idiot? 

[TheDeamon]

What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

Hmmm.  Yes.  Just like that.  That is how you do it. 

Yes.  I imagine that Democrats have been involved in more riots since 1968, but the whole point is that the specific location, which you seem to want to paint as insignificant, makes that particular riot unique.

I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.

I'd also like to point out that the conservatives that have not rioted in the past 50 years were people who voted for and generally supported people like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  You probably did not see many people who voted for Romney in 2012 at the riot on Jan 6.  But you did see lots of people who voted for His High Holy Builder of Walls.  That's another thing that makes it unique and thus defines it.  The fact that for 50 years conservatives by definition generally did not riot, but suddenly people who say they are conservatives are rioting because of.......  I don't know.  It's a mystery, right?

Would be an interesting study. But I think you might be surprised on what you find. Brandon Straka was one of the participants in the January 6th riot. I think he was previously discussed in here for #walkaway (from the Democratic Party) in the 2017 time-frame. He was a Democratic voter prior to 2016, and he probably had a lot of #walkaway friends there who were "Obama Democrats" in attendance as well. (Sadly it seems he fell into an extremist echo chamber) But what happened in his case actually isn't that unique, during 2020 there were some people (including Tim Pool) who were taking note "radical right wingers" seemed to have a disproportionate amount of representation coming from people who claim to have identified as Democrats or "Liberals" in the past... In other words, the conservatives from pre-2012 didn't really move. What you saw happen was a bunch of people move from being politically left of them to being what is generally considered to be to political "right" of them. In some respects, I guess we could potentially call this a quasi "born again" effect for those who've ever had occasion to deal with the "Born Again Christians."

Decent odds you'd also find a lot of the people who were involved in that event that weren't "reformed liberals" either didn't vote (even when able) in most of the presidential election cycles since 1992. Although some of the older ones may have started voting again in 2010 with the Tea Party... But I'd tend to bet a substantial portion of that group subsequently didn't vote in at least 3 of intervening federal election cycles in between... So largely people who were outside of the political system until a wave of populism under Trump caused them to re-engage with the system in the dysfunctional way that is all too common with movements involving populist leaders(To be clear: Obama was a populist as well, just on the other side of the political spectrum).   

What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

It's true.  As a riot goes it was pretty much unorganized and poorly planned.  But that's generally what a mob is, and what separates it from an army.  Doesn't mean it isn't a riot or a mob, it just means they suck at actually achieving any aims.  It didn't seem to stop a small minority from actually trying to break into guarded spaces with guns and zip ties though, did it?

Where were the guys with guns? Where are the criminal prosecutions for that? It is a felony offense to bring a gun "Across state lines" into Washington D.C. and further, it's a felony to bring them into the capital building without proper approvals/clearances beforehand. Last I heard, most of the hundreds of people being charged were unarmed.

Tell me again about what happened there.  Some people just accidently broke through police lines, fought cops, invaded the Capitol building while voting to confirm an election, accidently broke into congressional offices?

Uh, you need to revisit some of those timelines, while you may sneer at the reporting about a specific guy. The surrounding reporting does provide some crucial information you seem to have missed.

By the time many people coming from the Trump Rally had made down the road to where the police lines used to be, the barriers had already been removed. Yes, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" but for a very large number of people, they had no idea they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be.

I guess you also missed the reporting about certain Entrances to Capital Hill having the Capital Police officers involved opening the doors and standing aside as people filed in. (Which is how you get footage of "rioters" peacefully wandering through the rotunda and never venturing beyond the roped in portions of the walkways they were on.) Yes, there were other entrances where forced entries happened, and individuals went well "above and beyond" what the rest of the crowd was up to. But the entire situation was a giant confused mess.

But do the Democrats really need to play it up?  Did any other riots attempt to stop a branch of the United States government from doing it's job?  Pretending that the location doesn't matter is kinda ridiculous.  The location was chosen for a reason.  It wasn't an accident.  "Oh we just accidentally broke in to the capitol and broke through police lines".  "Hey, we didn't break anything".  They didn't need to.  And Democrats don't need to blow the event out of proportion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/trump-flees-to-bunker-as-protests-over-george-floyd-rage-outside-white-house

Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.

[alai]

Is he a traitor who attempted to knock off his own vice president and Congress?  Or is he an outrageous idiot?

Can't he be a dessert topping and a floor wax?

I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.

I must thank you for the courtesy to the reader here by at least clearly stating the claimed equivalence here.  As opposed to some of the "turtles all the way down" Gish Gallops we might have seen.  But I'm really struggling to see the part where you actually demonstrate any actual equivalence whatsoever.  Equivalence of danger to officials?  Equivalence of purpose?  Equivalence of actual harm done?  Not seeing any of those. You were equally peeved at both?  That's kinda the exact opposite of objectivity!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/trump-flees-to-bunker-as-protests-over-george-floyd-rage-outside-white-house

Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.

Obviously there's a false premise here, as there was no "fleeing" of any kind.  It was an impromptu inspection, and there must be absolutely no false suggestion he was being some sort of chickenhawk.  He's a man of immense personal courage, as his record in 'Nam, fighting crime in Central Park, and unarmed and single-handed preventing school shootings testifies.  I insist you retract your characterisation immediately, and apologise to this self-identifiedly American forum for the use of that commie euroliberal link, above.

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.

Legally?  I doubt it.  That's not even clearer (or worse than) the ton of other crap actually in that utter nightmare of a speech.  "My client was using the word 'soldiers' metaphorically, and he spoke of making them 'pay', to be understood in a strictly political sense."  You'd have to prove that he directed them to "make them pay" imminently, and in an unlawful manner.  The US standard for such an offence is (darkly) hilariously high, as compared to any other common law country.  Clearly you can use "fight" metaphorically, but in context -- they're stealing the election, there massive fraud, they're certifying that right now, you got to show strength, you got to take your country back, you got to stop them -- it's a tad more chilling than the average such usage.  Lacking specificity as to whether Mike Pence should be assassinated, or merely intimidated, I'd have to grant.

Morally obviously, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

[Grant]

I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.

A Chevy Silverado is certainly closer to a C7 Corvette than a Fiat 500 is.  Both the Silverado and Corvette are manufactured in America and have 6.2L V8 engines, while the Fiat is manufactured somewhere in Italy and has a 1.4L inline 2.

But the Silverado isn't a Corvette. It isn't even a Camaro.  It isn't even a GT500.  It's a pickup truck. 

I feel I shouldn't have to do this, because it's quite obvious, and can only be overlooked if you are blindly overlooking it and intensely focused on making a comparison of a Silverado and a Corvette, but I'm going to do this anyways, despite knowing it's useless to do so, which may be a sign of some kind of psychological problem on my part. 

See, the Capitol riot actually broke into the Capitol.  They actually did break through the lines and actually did attack police officers and many were actually armed and came wearing body armor, gas masks, helmets, etc.  To top it all off, the BLM actions in Lafayette park were not organized or initiated or encouraged by Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, etc. 

So you should be able to see the difference there.  Why comparing the two events in some kind of whataboutism in preparation for more fantasy riots that will occur later so more whataboutism is not really valid.  In one case, the individuals broke into a seat of a branch of government, came armed to the teeth, attacked police, and were instigated by the head of another branch of government.  In the other this did not happen.  The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me. 

Would be an interesting study. But I think you might be surprised on what you find. Brandon Straka was one of the participants in the January 6th riot. I think he was previously discussed in here for #walkaway (from the Democratic Party) in the 2017 time-frame. He was a Democratic voter prior to 2016, and he probably had a lot of #walkaway friends there who were "Obama Democrats" in attendance as well.

It's true.  A whole bunch of people who loved His Tinygrabbyhands were not traditional Republicans.  Many of them didn't vote for McCain or Romney.  Too elite.  Too globalist.  Mormon.  Not "conservative" enough.  Not white enough or not nationalist enough.  The Republican party has changed a bunch since 2016.  But it's funny how these same tourists are going to call people like McCain or Romney or Jeb Bush RINOs.  They'll kick out Liz Cheney but praise be his name Lord L'Orange. 

Where were the guys with guns? Where are the criminal prosecutions for that? It is a felony offense to bring a gun "Across state lines" into Washington D.C. and further, it's a felony to bring them into the capital building without proper approvals/clearances beforehand. Last I heard, most of the hundreds of people being charged were unarmed.

You are truly blind.  I mean, you're not even trying to look.  I'm not going to enumerate the number of individuals that were charged with bringing weapons into the capitol building.  You can google "charged with bringing weapons into capitol" and see for yourself, and you could have but you don't want to see it. 

Yes, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" but for a very large number of people, they had no idea they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be.

SMH

Ladies and gentlemen, TheDeamon would have you believe that the individuals who broke through police lines, attacked the capitol police, ransacked congressional offices, paraded through the floor of the senate, and attempted to break down doors leading to chambers with legislators, had nothing to do with Donald Trump, or the rally that Donald Trump called for, or that they were entirely unconnected to the hundreds of wonderfully peaceful Trump supporters that just wandered into the Capitol, blissfully unaware they were not where they were supposed to be.

First, ladies and gentlemen, the people who broken through the barriers, and assaulted the capitol police, and broke into the Capitol building knew exactly what they were doing, and they were indelibly linked to Donald Trump.  They were his people.  They were called there by him, they were fueled by his demagoguery, and they were there to try and keep him as President, through force, by stopping the United States Congress.  That hundreds of morons later wandered through the Capitol is, as Deamon mentioned, no excuse for breaking the law, but it also has nothing to do with the actions of those who did know what they were doing or the actions of Donald Trump. 

Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.

Ladies and gentlemen, a driver of a Silverado cannot joint the Corvette Driver's Club.  A Silverado is not a Corvette.  Do not be distracted by the similarities. 

[TheDeamon]

See, the Capitol riot actually broke into the Capitol.  They actually did break through the lines and actually did attack police officers and many were actually armed and came wearing body armor, gas masks, helmets, etc.

From memory, just about as many of the guys in Lafayette Park on that particular night were comparably equipped, considering such equipment is common among the black block. Only the Secret Service and other federal agencies did a better job of maintaining the perimeter that exists around the White House. Probably helped in large part due to the matter of that core perimeter having been established for years as not being open to the public and blocked off as such. (And further fortified during that night) Which made it pretty obvious to "Joe Citizen" that there were some places they shouldn't go, or attempt to.

Meanwhile, that outer security perimeter around Capital Hill on January 6th? Normally open to the public. Also commonly sees traffic blocked off for large events.. Like a potential rally in front of Capital Hill?

That's a large part of why the prosecutions have been largely limited to the people who did carry out acts of property damage, or actually went inside Capital Hill.

But the guys who went inside are very much a minority compared to the ones who remained outside. And again, the number of people with guns were a very definite minority among the crowd presented in either group. (The ones outside, and the ones who went inside)

[TheDrake]

The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.

[TheDeamon]

The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.

So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?

[cherrypoptart]

Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Whatever happened to the liberal idea that intentions count? These people weren't trying to stop the certification of a valid election, not in their minds anyway. They were trying to prevent an election from being stolen. Tilting at windmills certainly, but that's hardly insurrection. Hardly treason. Not even anti-democracy.

Now if they have it wrong and the election wasn't stolen, in fact if every fraudulent vote that did exist went for Trump, then they are mistaken but they still aren't insurrectionists because they aren't trying to overthrow the government. They are still trying to protect the government.

It's like when a cop sees a guy with a gun standing over a dead guy and picking up another gun and then shoots him as happened to John Hurley. Is the cop a murderer? He just shot dead an innocent civilian hero? Well, that cop wasn't even charged. It was a tragic mistake, not murder. Sometimes intentions do matter.

So yeah, charge these people with rioting, with trespassing, with police brutality (brutalizing the police), with destruction of government property and even with littering or whatever the crime is when you smear feces all over the place, but insurrection? Hardly.

They didn't consider themselves to be fighting against the government and against authority but for it. They were just mistaken and due to a series of unfortunate events including confusion resulting from misinformation coming from the government itself, meaning of course Trump, they like that mistaken police officer got mixed up about who was wrong and who was right, who was guilty and who was the victim.

[TheDrake]

The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.

So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?

Because his presence there was preventing the peaceful transfer of power, and that's why he was there.

[Grant]

Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Whatever happened to the liberal idea that intentions count? These people weren't trying to stop the certification of a valid election, not in their minds anyway. They were trying to prevent an election from being stolen. Tilting at windmills certainly, but that's hardly insurrection. Hardly treason. Not even anti-democracy.

Let's say hypothetically that I believe that you are an alien, sent as part of a vast interplanetary conspiracy in league with MJ12, the Illuminati, the shareholders of Chase Manhattan, the state of Israel, the Gnomes of Zurich, and the Bush/Clinton family.  Or maybe I think you're just running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint. Let's say I go in and blow a few holes in you or somebody else, all with the intention to save the United States, the world, and kids who just want to eat pizza without being molested. 

All people who commit crimes or take will  immoral actions THINK they are doing the right thing.  This is why the greeks developed virtue ethics. 

Yes, intent does matter, in both the legal and moral spheres.  But only to a point, as illustrated above.  As stated earlier, people are expected to know better.  Nobody is being charged with treason or sedition or insurrection (not sure if that is even a crime), quite possibly because of the concept of intent. Personally I think there is enough of a case to be made, but I'm not a federal prosecutor or in the Justice Department.  But the results were the same.  As it has been pointed out several times by several Trumpists, not every follower of L'Orange was jumping the barricades and storming Congress.  You didn't see Rudy Giuliani or Jim Jordan or Steve Bannon leading the assault.  These were some extremely stupid people that were taken advantage of, but it does not absolve them of their responsibility for what they did and what they were attempting to accomplish, no matter what they thought they were doing.  The people who took advantage of them share some of the responsibility.  And I don't care how warped their minds were either.

[msquared]

But how is that possible? All of Trumps followers are people of great personal moral fortitude and personal responsibility. They are not sheeple to be lead by others. They are rugged individuals who always think for themselves  and do their own research. These people could not be mis led like this since they are such wonderful examples of conservative and Republican values.

[Grant]

So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?

How is Castro taking Havanna supposed to stop Batista from governing?   

[yossarian22c]

Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen.

Let's say hypothetically that Trump is a wanna be dictator trying to destroy American democracy. Not so hypothetical, he is doing just that. What's the appropriate response?

[TheDrake]

Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Actually, yes? When the American Colonists decided to challenge what was considered the legitimate authority of the Monarchy and Parliament, they were insurrectionists, rebels, and all the rest. The opposition to Assad in Syria were insurrectionists. By definition. When the Irish rose up against English rule, they were insurrectionists. The IRA was too. Their stated goal was to replace the existing power structure, and they took action to make that happen.

This wasn't some kind of gray area. All those poor misguided souls who wanted their dictator to stay in power had been told over and over by Republican legislatures, governors, secretaries of state, Senators, and Mike Pence that this was legitimate. Unlike in your hypothetical, where international election observers, opposition leaders, and international media would support those claims. In that hypothetical third world nation, the opposition wouldn't be allowed to file dozens of lawsuits trying to prove fraud and come up empty handed.

[Fenring]

Let's say hypothetically that I believe that you are an alien, sent as part of a vast interplanetary conspiracy in league with MJ12, the Illuminati, the shareholders of Chase Manhattan, the state of Israel, the Gnomes of Zurich, and the Bush/Clinton family.  Or maybe I think you're just running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint. Let's say I go in and blow a few holes in you or somebody else, all with the intention to save the United States, the world, and kids who just want to eat pizza without being molested.

There is a difference between a dumb/mistaken idea and an outright delusion, and the distinction matters not only morally but even legally. If you commit a crime under a bona fide delusion you may well be sentenced to receive psychiatric treatment but you won't be treated the same way as a wanton criminal.

All people who commit crimes or take will  immoral actions THINK they are doing the right thing.

I really don't think this is true. And if you think about it carefully I'm not sure you would agree with it either. Sure, the odd person breaks the law and stands by it 100% because they believe they're truly in the right and the law is wrong. How often do you really think this is the case? I would suggest that most of the time a person knows their action is wrong and is just hoping not to get caught. Examples include white collar crimes, crimes of passion, murder schemes, robbing stores; you really think these people think their actions are upright?

These were some extremely stupid people that were taken advantage of, but it does not absolve them of their responsibility for what they did and what they were attempting to accomplish, no matter what they thought they were doing.  The people who took advantage of them share some of the responsibility.  And I don't care how warped their minds were either.

cherry wasn't arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible, but that they should be held to what they were actually intending, with what came along with that, rather than being considered to have committed an action (insurrection) that (a) they didn't want to be doing, and (b) they did not in fact carry out. If you accept (a) then it seems like a reasonable proposition. Arguing that, regardless of both their intent and the results of it, they could theoretically have been insurrectionists is not a good standard to use when assessing what in fact they did. That's all. It's not that big a deal to accept this argument, as mainly it seems directed toward the rhetorical game of pretending that some goons actually tried to take over the country.

[Grant]

There is a difference between a dumb/mistaken idea and an outright delusion, and the distinction matters not only morally but even legally. If you commit a crime under a bona fide delusion you may well be sentenced to receive psychiatric treatment but you won't be treated the same way as a wanton criminal.

You're right.  There is a difference.  As you say, when you're really delusional you can plead insanity and the law is more lenient. 

Do you believe that any of these people should plead insanity?  It seems not.  In this case, the approbation is greater because of one important distinction:

THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER

Welcome to adulthood, freedom, and responsibility.  You don't break into seats of government with or without firearms, helmets, gas masks, and beat on police. 

You just don't do it.  And I bet that most of those people knew that.  They weren't doing it previously. 

cherry wasn't arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible, but that they should be held to what they were actually intending, with what came along with that, rather than being considered to have committed an action (insurrection) that (a) they didn't want to be doing, and (b) they did not in fact carry out. If you accept (a) then it seems like a reasonable proposition. Arguing that, regardless of both their intent and the results of it, they could theoretically have been insurrectionists is not a good standard to use when assessing what in fact they did. That's all. It's not that big a deal to accept this argument, as mainly it seems directed toward the rhetorical game of pretending that some goons actually tried to take over the country.

"Officer, I really thought that Hillary Clinton was running a sex ring out of this pizza joint"

"4 years in prison". 

What many of these people intended to do was to STOP CONGRESS.  Stopping Congress is in itself an act of insurrection.  Their belief that Congress was corrupted or not is irrelevant.  Their intent itself was wrong.  Their underlying beliefs were wrong. 

[alai]

Actually, yes? When the American Colonists decided to challenge what was considered the legitimate authority of the Monarchy and Parliament, they were insurrectionists, rebels, and all the rest. The opposition to Assad in Syria were insurrectionists. By definition. When the Irish rose up against English rule, they were insurrectionists. The IRA was too. Their stated goal was to replace the existing power structure, and they took action to make that happen.

Bonus localist quibble:  on the face of it you're double-counting the IRA there, but I presume the intended distinction is between the War of Independence IRA and the Provos of the Troubles (or indeed the intermediate incarnations:  Civil War, Border Campaign, and the modern splinter groups).

But on the actual point, exactly right.  At the risk of sounding a little bit Maoist, the art if either to act broadly within the existing law (give or take whatever level of civil disobedience the system will give you "rhythm" for, or that you're willing to take the consequences for), or to act expressly outside it and win.  Establish your revolutionary breach of legal continuity, apply some spackle, make good.  The constant trope on the US far right that they're entitled to start their "revolution" and to entirely get away with it is an oddly pouty form of proto(?)-fascism.

[cherrypoptart]

If an election is totally stolen though through massive provable voter fraud, it's no longer insurrection to oppose the government that stole the election and support the government that rightfully won the election.

Hypothetically again since we all seem to love those scenarios, if it was proven beyond any doubt that Biden stole the election with massive voter fraud, if the U.N. itself calls the election a fraud and Trump the rightful winner and the only legitimate President, then are y'all still saying that's insurrection to oppose Biden taking office?

Because that's where these people were coming from. That's where Trump led them. And at the time there wasn't any sure way to know if there was massive voter fraud or not. Now that we've had time to look into it and didn't find it, we have more clarity but back then we didn't, yet.

[msquared]

There was a sure way. There was all of the audits and recounts done before Jan 6 that showed no large scale fraud (or even medium scale fraud).

Remember before the election Trump was saying the only way he could loose was if it was stolen. He was priming the pump for the big lie.

[TheDrake]

It is insurrection if you use illegal means. Particularly violent ones. In your scenario, you'd have state governments refusing to validate electors or putting up alternate slates, which in this case only looney tunes attempted unilaterally. Members of Congress could legitimately call electoral votes into question. Or are you suggesting that independent observers would assert fraud, but that the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of multiple state governments, local governments, and the federal government are mostly going along with it?

There is was and forever will be a way to know if there was massive voter fraud. On Jan 6, we already knew that was nonsense. Or at least we should have after dozens of washed out court cases, audits, recounts, and investigations. We had, by that point, two full months of no proof. Not even in one state, let alone five.

[NobleHunter]

No, it's actually still insurrection. It just might not be treason (especially if it prospers) in the sense of taking up arms against your own country. Also, there would be no other government to support. The constitution is very clear about how a federal government is formed but says  nothing about what to do if Congress signs off on fraudulent elections.

[cherrypoptart]

"Stopping Congress is in itself an act of insurrection.  Their belief that Congress was corrupted or not is irrelevant.  Their intent itself was wrong."

The belief doesn't matter so much except for intent, but if Congress actually was corrupted such that members orchestrated massive voter fraud to steal an election that's a different story. Then it's no longer insurrection because the government is illegitimate. It's no longer attacking democracy but defending it.

These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.

[msquared]

But there was no evidence other than Trump. That is why is was an insurrection and Trump is responsible..

[Wayward Son]

That's all well and good, cherry, but it's a moot point.

Because a) it turned out they were wrong, and b) they are responsible for their actions.

Being a fool doesn't mean you get a pass.  Maybe leniency, depending on the judge, but no pass, especially if there were other, peaceful avenues available (and were availed).

[alai]

If an election is totally stolen though through massive provable voter fraud, it's no longer insurrection to oppose the government that stole the election and support the government that rightfully won the election.

If it happened, and if it were provable, you'd prove it.  As in, in court.  If the US system were so thoroughly corrupted that it were "losing" 15m Trump votes (or whatever the Mike Lindell number-of-the-week is), colluding in this at every stage (or else failing to detect doing to at any) from district, to county, to state, to the FEC, to the many levels of judicial oversight on all of this, then surely insurrection would be necessary?

Hypothetically again since we all seem to love those scenarios, if it was proven beyond any doubt that Biden stole the election with massive voter fraud, if the U.N. itself calls the election a fraud and Trump the rightful winner and the only legitimate President, then are y'all still saying that's insurrection to oppose Biden taking office?

"The U.N. itself" part here seems glaringly anomalous, as the US pays scant regard to what the UN says, and has carefully and consistently ensured that the UN can't actually every do anything, especially as regards the US itself.  "The security council resolves, by a vote of 14-1, that the United States presidential election--"  "Veto."

Because that's where these people were coming from. That's where Trump led them.

This sounds a little like a mutual semi-cutthroat defence.  The insurrectionists are exculpated by Trump's lies and incitement.  But Trump himself isn't in any sense liable for the lies or the incitement.  How handy for both of them!  Responsibility laundered, while you wait.

These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.

The idea that you can conduct political violence to overturn an election on the basis of a "premise that didn't pan out" is folksily bathetic.  Maybe they should be in touch with the "mass psychosis" peeps, and look into a "temporary fascist insanity" line of defence.

[rightleft22]

What is it they say... easier to ask for forgiveness then act on proof. 
Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who ended up played as useful idiot?

Such is the power the strong man has over thier acolytes, one believes without question.

[alai]

Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who is the useful idiot.

Morally, both.  Legally, responsibility doesn't always -- rarely does! -- sum to 100%.

[Grant]

These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.

"Didn't pan out"

Like they didn't get the right card on the river to make their straight, after betting the farm. 

"It didn't pan out, pa"

I bet he believed he was going to get that Queen, too.  Just didn't pan out.  Unlucky.

[NobleHunter]

From the GOP's perspective, "it was all Trump's fault" isn't much better. If the rioters are not responsible for their errors, that responsibility has to go somewhere. While I'd be more than happy to dismantle the Republican disinformation machine on that basis, it's not a winning argument for the anti-Biden brigade.

[rightleft22]

Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who is the useful idiot.

Morally, both.  Legally, responsibility doesn't always -- rarely does! -- sum to 100%.

True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label 

[alai]

True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label 

It's a good rule-of-thumb.  But in less clearcut "designated suckers" sitches, you can have both parties get off (massaged below the evidential threshold), or both go down (joint enterprise, etc).

[rightleft22]

True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label 

It's a good rule-of-thumb.  But in less clearcut "designated suckers" sitches, you can have both parties get off (massaged below the evidential threshold), or both go down (joint enterprise, etc).

Ah yes - Less ClearCut "Law and Order" useful idiot... when we pretend not to see and know what we see and know.

[TheDrake]

A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.

US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."

During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"

[alai]

Also from the same (I take it) BI article, "In court Monday, Mehta asked whether Trump's inaction could be considered "ratification" of that statement."

I suspect it would be "novel to the law" that words and actions could travel back in time and turn "political free speech" into "incitement", but it's somewhat morally uplifting he's at least getting a vicarious earbashing over it.

Which case is this, anyway?