Trump appointee arrested in connection with Capitol riot

So wait, the Capitol is overrun by thousands of violent hoodlums who smear feces down the walls, steal the Speaker's podium and break into Congressperson's private offices every day? Wow, I must have missed all the excitement on my trip to DC.

 

The Republic is not threatened by the violent spasms of moronic hoodlums.

 

Nope, you've not said much of anything in this thread of your own accord. Given the amazing depths to which you argue against climate change in your own words I find it a bit odd that you seem to be jumping in on this thread and not really offering a whole lot of typing of your own.

You've quoted some dude with a blog that is tossing about his opinion using ridiculous phrases such as "maximalist narrative" and you've presented his opinion as offering a useful reminder of the facts. What are his facts? That Sicknick seems not to have died from having his head bashed in, that amazingly enough these people were somehow magically not carrying loaded ARs, and that the zip tie guy got them from the Capitol police.

And I'm guessing your boy isn't a fan of Democrats, not to mention that brilliant bit at the end where he reinvents history to make them the party of the neocons. I find your link a bit less than compelling in the overall context of Trumpism which is essentially what this thread is about.

Here is a useful reminder of a fact: Trump is the first President ever to fail to concede an election, and as such it was therefore a three month long attempt to overthrow the government of the United States.

LOCK HIM UP - 18 USC 2385

He attempted to gain control of the Pentagon by firing Esper after the election and to some degree he succeeded since it took three hours before the Pentagon responded to a riot that was clearly in progress for the world to see.

Overheated? Not hot enough I say and not yet properly focused on the seditionist-in-chief.

Guess where we lock him up - Florence ADX, for his safety.

 

I'm not the topic. And when you refer to Glenn Greenwald as "some dude" you expose quite a bit of ignorance. Greenwald is a much-awarded journalist whose politics are decidedly on the left. He was for a long time a favorite of Democrats, especially the progressives, but when he called them out just like he had called out conservatives, they began to think less well of him.

 

If you spent all summer setting America on fire you'd try to make one demonstration that got out of control look like the widespread anti-government violence you incited, perpetrated and excused for months on end...

 

Nifty. You are not the topic, but now the topic is Glenn Greenwald?

Would you care to address any of the points I made that are on topic?

Do you believe Trump violated 18 USC 2385?

Do you believe that independent elections across 50 states were stolen by Ds too incompetent to also have stolen down ballot seats?

Do you believe that after Jan 6th there isn't a need for securing the Capitol of the United States?

On topic - try it out....

 

The Phantom Menace.

Funny how Democrats have developed a sudden fondness for walls and the National Guard...

 

You identified him as "some dude." I helped you with information you did not seem to have. The point is that his view is credible.

 

Why would I care what Glenn Greenwald's opinion piece says? Silly. Like you would care if I offered Clark Griswold's opinion on the events of Jan 6th?

His view is no more credible than anyone else's - please see my edited response to your false claim that I am trying to make this about you, or Glenn....

You Sir have simply not put in the work on the keyboard to support or even to fully define what your position is. I could review your posts in this thread and find that you have offered maybe 1:10 words of your own versus the words you've posted that were written by a pundit.

 

How is it that I can clearly understand Jack's position but you won't, Grey?

 

He's not really offered his position by typing out his own words in this thread, has he? Dude, I'm pretty good at crunching numbers. Jack has offered some f'wit pundit's opinion that he claims is a leftist pundit while offering an op ed that supports nothing of the sort.

I posted the relevant facts above of the salient points that his proxy surrogate offered as proof that the Ds are overplaying the whole insurrection thing. Three points. What have you got? Your man Trump literally trying to overthrow the government of the United States? You support that?

 

As you imply, for many, they have nothing to get back to. Hating Trump gave them purpose they no longer have.

 

I've only gone back a couple pages but he did make his position clear in posts #96 and #102.

BTW, Greenwald is a Leftist.

What have I got?

Go back and read my posts - you won't have to go far because I just joined the discussion - but to make your job easier I agree that Dems and the LW MSM are completely overplaying the "insurrection" thing and I explained why I think they are in Post #105. There may be other reasons why Dems are staging this spectacle, despite the fact that the only violence that has occurred since 1/6 has been committed by the usual Leftist suspects in the usual cities, and they're not worth wasting $130 million in taxpayer money and keeping National Guard troops from the families and homes. Even Eleanor Norton Holmes is calling BS on the militarization of the Capitol:

Published 2 days ago
DC's delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton on Capitol barriers: Congress ‘afraid of its shadow’
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dc-eleanor-holmes-norton-capitol-barriers-congress-afraid-shadow

By the way, I took the time and drudgery of reading through Trump's entire speech and nowhere did he incite violence or 'literally try to overthrow the government of the United States' as you claim. Transcripts are inconvenient things...

 

If I posted Greenwald's article it is because I largely agreed with it. I don't think that's a difficult inference, and I don't think my position is hard to discern. An old friend, a champion debater in college, once advised me that "debates are won in the library." That has stood me in good stead on many occasions.
Now a little more about Greenwald:
Glenn Greenwald - Wikipedia
Glenn Edward Greenwald[1] (born March 6, 1967) is an American journalist, author, and former attorney.

After graduating from law school in 1994, Greenwald worked as a corporate lawyer, before founding his own civil rights and constitutional law firm in 1996. In the course of nearly a decade of litigation, Greenwald represented a number of controversial clients in First Amendment cases.

Greenwald began blogging on national security issues in October 2005, while he was becoming increasingly concerned with George W. Bush Administration's attacks on civil liberties in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.[2][3] He has also maintained a critical position of American foreign policy in the Middle East and around the world ever since. Greenwald started contributing to Salon in 2007, and to The Guardian in 2012.

In June 2013, while at The Guardian, he began publishing a series of reports detailing previously unknown information about American and British global surveillance programs based on classified documents provided by Edward Snowden. Along with other reporters, Greenwald won both a George Polk Award and a Pulitzer Prize for the reporting. He has also written best-selling books, including No Place to Hide. In 2014, he, Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill, launched The Intercept, for which he was co-founding editor until he resigned in October 2020. Greenwald then moved to Substack, an online newsletter-based journalism platform.[4]

 

You said treason and no one has been charged with treason and I am quite confident that if the Democrat House had been able to charge treason they would have.

 

It is not threatened by very much, Our Republic is embarrassed on the world stage and it should be vastly angered to arrest and deal with these people who would do this very harshly, but I find myself of two minds here. It is important that we show ourselves a moral and above all merciful nation, even and indeed especially in these circumstances. These people are terribly misguided but most of them are not entirely evil. Blatant stupidity is repugnant but it is not a crime. We must show ourselves to be the bigger and better judges of them than they were planning to be of us. Who knows that we might be able to salvage some use even from such as they over the years.

 

Sure, you make that statement at their trial.

 

Don't have to, none of them are being charged with insurrection. It's been two months since January 6th, and it'll be two months since Trump left the WH. There's no charge of insurrection on the former POTUS Trump either.

Thus telling us, it's not an insurrection.

 

Your petty semantics aside as to what the actual crime is doesn't change the severity of the crime. We all know the definition of the word, and those that went into the building are looking at federal charges.

Trump is facing a number of legal issues, he soon will be in a court room.

 

Meanwhile... POTUS (Potato Head) can't remember his own SecDef or the "place" he works from... if the committee who writes his material for him stumbles us into a war, you'll blame Trump for that as well. Psst... it won't matter at that point.

 

You may call if false if you wish.
There's pictures. There's videos. There's pending court cases with perps sitting in jail as you claim it to be false.

 

LOL. You attempting a lesson in thinking?

More than 315 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far. This searchable table shows them all.
...
This table includes the names, charges, and links to court documents of all the people charged so far. We're keeping it updated as more names are released.
https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

Definition of insurrection


: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

 

No one denies there was a riot, and that there will be legal consequences, but the Republic was never in danger from that group of addled fools.

 

Doesn't matter, there's a criminal code for insurrection and if you'll notice not a single one of them is charged with insurrection. And that's the whole point. If the law system can't call it an insurrection, that's because it's not one. The list proves my point.

 

The election process could have been. Had some workers not been keen enough to take the votes out with them.

But certainly not the end of the republic or USA, just a process of it.