Was the January 6 riot/insurrection defensible?

Stop embarrassing yourself. The record is indisputable.

We know that Trump sat for hours watching the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol unfold on live TV, ignoring pleas by his children and other close advisers to urge his goons to stop the violence, witnesses testified under oath to the United States House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.

​

Trump refused to act between the time he ended his inflammatory speech in which he told his goons to march on the Capitol and fight like hell and when he finally released a video telling them to go home, that he loved them after they had savaged outnumbered police defending democracy for hours.

​

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone was asked question after question in the recorded testimony about Trump's actions: did he call the secretary of defense? The attorney general? The head of Homeland Security? Cipollone answered "No" to each query.

The Commander-in-Chief was missing in action when the seat of American democracy was under attack.

"He's got to condemn this sh¡t ASAP," Trump's eldest son, Don Jr., appealed in a text message to Trump's chief of staff, Mark Meadows. "They will try to fµck his entire legacy on this if it gets worse."

Witnesses in the room were Matthew Pottinger, a deputy national security adviser under Trump, and Sarah Matthews, a deputy press secretary in his White House. Both resigned in the hours following the riot.

"If the president had wanted to make a statement and address the American people, he could have been on camera almost immediately," Matthews testified. "If he had wanted to make an address from the Oval Office, we could have assembled the White House press corps within minutes."

Asked for his assessment of the riot, Cipollone said in the testimony shown on Thursday that it could not be justified in any way. "It was wrong and it was tragic and it was a terrible day for this country."

2:10 p.m.: Trump goons begin to break through the doors and windows of the Senate​

4:17 p.m.: Trump finally posted a video on social media in which he repeated his Big Lie to his goons: "We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now ... We have to have peace. We have to have law and order...
So go home. We love you, you're very special. ... I know how you feel. But go home and go home in peace."​

Senate Passes Bill Awarding Capitol Police With Medals

Full List of Republicans Who Voted Against Medals​

 

So he delayed either in shock, misunderstanding or assuming as they hadn't listened to him in the first place they wouldn't now? The violence actually began whilst he was still speaking. And you also have to figure the GOP are a little reluctant to reward the Capitol police after they shot Ashley Babbit?

 

So is this an admission that Republicans indulge in abject partisan bollocks too?
Like those of the Trump's birther movement, or those who supported various armed militia who were recorded as being primed by Trump's instructions to the Proud Boys to "stand back and stand ready"?
Ready for what?


This whole discussion is nonsense. Over a hundred of the mob have been tried and found guilty of American law, some fined and some imprisoned and many who pleaded guilty
To credit someone who doesn't understand the term "birther" with a credible opinion about a complicated and sometimes covert historical incident with having anything useful to say is just...à running rabbit.

 

His goons had listened to him when he told them to go to the Capitol and fight like hell.

If he was so traumatized by the spectacle of what his goons were doing that he was incapable of heeding the desperate pleading of his family, aides, advisers, and media promoters, he has yet to acknowledge his incapacity.

 

Oh stop embarrassing yourself claiming others are. The record IS indisputable. He twice Tweet for them to remain peaceful and obey the police and the rioters ignored it. Did you see the MSNBC townhall with some of the people who were there? The moderator asked them directly as she was trying to get them to blame Trump if there was anything Trump could have done or said they all said NO, emphatically NO. They noted the riots started before he even stopped speaking and went on beyond his pleas to remain peaceful. The persons who went their to riot were doing it on their own not under any Trump direction. So give it up. There was NOTHING for him to do once it started, all he COULD do is watch it on TV he had no role in the security at the Capitol or on the streets. Why are you still trying to blame him for the failures of others to have proper security there? There was no act for him to do.

​

What for? By the time he got back to the White House the request from the CHP and DCMP have been made and were in process on the way to the SecArmy to be approved and NG troops put in motion. The President had no role in that how many times do you have to be told that FACT?

Commander in Chief of the military for actions in war not domestic law enforcement. And I can well imagine had he attempted to call out the military then you would have declared SEE HE WANTS A MILIATARY COUP HE IS ATTCKING THE CAPITOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't his job go read up on the Constitution and posse comitatus.

Leaving out his statement at the rally and the two tweets he sent out..............................went you have to "lie by omission" you have lost the argument.


Just as you did here leaving out WHY some Republicans voted against the WORDING in the bill

"After the vote, a number of the Republican "no" voters said they took issue with the language used in the bill, which described the rioters as "a mob of insurrectionists."

Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky said this could have an effect on the hundreds of suspects who have been charged in connection with the events of January 6.

"I think, if we call that an insurrection, it could have a bearing on their case that I don't think would be good," Massie said, via The Hill.

"If they just wanted to give the police recognition, they could have done it without trying to make it partisan, without sticking that in there."

You know that innocent until proven guilty

 

How about the credibility to know a little about history?


"After several recounts were inconclusive, Harris halted the recounting process, arguing that the laws governing recounts were unclear. The official vote totals showed the Republican candidate, Texas Governor George W. Bush, as the narrow winner of the statewide popular vote in Florida, so Harris certified the Republican slate of electors. This victory in Florida allowed Bush to obtain a narrow majority in the Electoral College and thereby prevail in the election. Her certification was upheld in the state circuit court, but subsequently overturned on appeal by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court decision was reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore (2000). In a per curiam decision, by a 7–2 vote, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, it held, by a 5–4 vote, that no alternative method for a recount could be established within the time limits set by the State of Florida. Sandra Day O'Connor's vote to stop the recount was crucial.[17] This decision allowed Harris' previous certification of Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Harris#2000_U.S._presidential_election

That circuit court was where Gore tried to get the election overturn and he appealed it to the Florida Supreme Court asking them to DECERTIFY it and allow the recounts he was NOW seeking to overturn the results.

So before you try to attack my credibility check my post count around here, you don't last long if you don't have credibility and can back your statements. Now go study up on it yourself.

 

We will never know for sure who won Florida. It was my first election in the state. It was a crazy night.

My husband lived right where the hanging chad fun went down. It’s clear that we just needed a resolution, though I’m still kind of annoyed it went to SCOTUS.

Either way, it’s a terrible analogy, since the issues are entirely different. You literally had an overwhelming number of people who said they didn’t pick Robertson. I don’t believe it was shenanigans.

 

Meaning that you are under the impression, those were the only 7 words that Trump had said, to the crowd?

Do you think it would not be possible to look at the speeches of any dictator, and pick out a single, innocent- sounding line? Putin has repeatedly told us, how he only wants what is best for others, while sending in soldiers to bomb civilians, in service of that greater good.

 

But do you know the topic of this thread, Mike? Do you, really?
Once again, you only prove-- to give the kind interpretation-- what a joke, is your "reasoning."

OK, so you think you have won a point, here, because the thread is a about the J6 protestors, and my answer to you, was about Trump. And that's as far as your mind can penetrate, eh? Well, if you were able to stretch your understanding of that event (my reply) back to the post of yours, to which I was replying, you would see that you were calling my answer a fail, due to my not finding-- as you were then defining as my goal-- here in our forum, J6 riot "Supporters." But, those are NOT J6 participants, protestors, either!!

Lil Mike said: ↑
So you think the issue is not supporting the riot but minimizing it? That's totally different than the topic of this thread. If the best you can do is find people who "want to minimize it as much as possible, want to portray it as unimportant, relative to other things," then I would say you have totally failed in finding J6 riot supporters.

I would love to see you, Mike, at least once, stick consistently to one perspective. "Riot Supporters," ON THIS FORUM, are not "the topic of this thread!" So, actually, based on what you're posting, you really don't know the thread's topic.


Predictably, now-- instead of manning up, to admit your mistake-- if the past is any indicator, you will just pretend that I am talking gibberish. So I will say of that coming response, in advance:
Sad.
Weak.
And sad, once more.

 

As everyone in the DNC has been telling the BLM/Antifa rioters to do for years? And never told them to stop rioting?

I've read the whole speech and there is NOTHING there, you just see what you want to see due to your TDS. Putin invaded Ukraine, his actions bely his words, Trump did nothing wrong and you know it. You're throwing snowballs at the sun.

 

Roger Stone has many thanks to pay off to Trump who got him out of jail.
Stone has been seen and photographed openly meeting with the head of the Proud Boys ( insignia on arm). They were discussing using violence post Jan 6 if they didn't succeed in overturning the result.
( video shown in 6th congressional hearing ).
The PB have admitted storing weapons in Virginia.
That was in public.
God knows what messages were passed in private.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...p-ally-roger-stone-jan-6-hearing/10451558002/

https://www.justsecurity.org/74579/...ders-who-may-have-planned-for-capitol-attack/

When asked about his connections with the PB and Oath Keepers, he pleaded the Fifth sometimes even before the whole question was asked.
Now what was it Trump said about those who did this ?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-invokes-fifth-amendment-after-saying-the-mob-does-that-2022-8

Trump himself has used the amendment often enough.
That video clip needs a LOT of explaining.

I can't link to it but it is available on YouTube.

Trump would never publically be seen doing anything that directly links him to seditionists.
Instead he uses grateful stooges and offer him enticing gifts. Endless pardons.
A tactic as old as tribal history.

 

*LOL*

That's not "decertifying" anything. If you continue to think so, perhaps you can point that out. ANYWHERE.

Quit making things up, especially that Trump was trying to prevent violence on 1/6.

 

He can't help himself. And he'll keep insisting that the ridiculous claims he's making are true.

He won't be able to explain why Trump sat on his fat buttocks for over three hours as the violence unfolded.

 

Weird worshipers believe their object of veneration is above the law, and rage against corroborative documented evidence in paranoid delusions of persecution.

For them, the Cry Baby Loser don't need no stinkin' evidence for the lies he feeds them.

 

Every single person who walked through the doors of the House of Representatives on Jan 6'th illegally should either go to jail, or be fined.

Every. Single. One.

 

Election denier eh?

 

This is the name of the thread and the attached poll:



So is it about finding J6 supporters? It absolutely is. I'm beginning to suspect that the reason I find so many of your posts incoherent is because you have a topic inside your head that you are going off about but you think I already know what you are thinking.

 

Yes it was Gore, after losingnin the circuit court, asking the FSC to revoke the certification, decertify, and reopen his selective recounts. The certification had to be reinstated by the SCOTUS. Now that you now that history stop with the denials.

 

A thread asking members about their feelings about those participants in the J6 riot, is about those rioters, not about member condemnation or support of them. As it is a poll, it is meant to gauge, or even roughly quantify those various attitudes, but that does not make members, the focus of the thread, which remains, the protestors themselves, about whom we are being polled.

Yes, I think you have put your finger on at least one cause for disputes between us-- in this case, at least. But it is your view, which is incorrect.

 

I think our problem is that we have differing ideas of the English language:

"A thread asking members about their feelings about those participants in the J6 riot, is about those rioters, not about member condemnation or support of them. "

The poll isn't asking about the participants in the J6 riot.



It's asking what members think; whether to condemn the rioting or not. So yes, it's asking about member condemnation or support.

 

God-dern! I said the exact same thing, as your first, bolded sentence: yes, every thread on this forum, asks about member opinion; that does not make all of them "about" member opinion. Member opinion, is not, in most cases, the SUBJECT of those threads.

Therefore, the intimation of your second bolded sentence, is utterly false-- the thread is about the J6 protestors; they are its subject: the thing that our opinions, are "on." That is different, from asking peoples' opinions, on the opinions, of the membership.

 

Weirdly enough, an opinion poll really is all about member opinions.

This is starting to get funny!

 

While I can see why you would be taking the argument, which you are taking here, the OP, I think, clearly indicates otherwise. It opens, in fact, seeming to say that there are other threads, already out there, dealing with the question of from which segments of our membership, comes the severest, and the most lenient, judgements, of the J6 crowd:

Le Chef then points to Trump (which I had brought up, in my criterion for your argument to "succeed," as you had done, after the fact, for my argument):

Finally, the OP winds up with its main objective, which I still say is not about an analyzing of the membership, but only of a polling of them (as any poll), on this particular issue, namely, the J6 rioters.

This asks for our opinion on an event. So, technically, I guess on could contend that we were both wrong, as this attack/riot/"protest" is, most properly, the subject.

Let us look at some other, current polls. One asks, "Is there such a thing as an illegal alien?" So you would contend that this poll is not about the migrants themselves, or about immigration policy but is, instead, about the opinions of members (as opposed to just a polling of members' opinions)? Or there is another poll, asking who should be on the 2024 Democratic Presidential Ticket. Once more, the individuals named in that poll, or the Democratic Party, or the 2024 Presidential contest, are not the main subjects of that poll?

 

Let's get this down to brass tacks. Is the Jan 6th attack on the Capitol defensible? No, anyone who committed criminal damage or attacked the police deserves a long sentence. Was it Trump's fault? No, he told them to protest "peacefully and patriotically" and any claims that this was somehow a code for violence to his supporters are laughable. Should Trump have appealed to them to stop sooner? Yes although it's arguable whether this would have had any effect, the violence actually beginning before he stopped talking. Was it an insurrection or attempt to usurp democracy? No, Trump refusing to accept his loss is just his vanity, he has done nothing Al Gore and Stacey Abrams hasn't done.

 

He did? Cite?