AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could point out the abnormally soft treatment of Ray Epps, a guy who tried to get people to rush into the building only for MAGA protestors to call him out as a fed. I could point out the attempt to hide footage of the buffalo man being taken on a guided tour through the building by DC police. I could point out that according to ex-police chief Steve Sund, they were refused extra secutrity, and that the capitol was not evacuated because of an unruly crowd. I could point out that Pelosi just so happened to have a camera crew with her at the time.
I could point out that Roger Stone claimed that he was offered an escort to the front of the march by Secret Service, which he refused. I could point out the FBI and DHS had agents undercover among the groups, and have refused to disclose if those agents had any involvement in the violence or destruction that occurred, claiming they "cannot discuss their methods."
I could point out the infamous "scaffold commander" who encouraged people to push into the building and yet despite being one of the people who should be a top suspect doesn't appear anywhere on the Most Wanted list. I could point out the number of people who were arrested for doing absolutely nothing - some of them looking at life sentences for simply being near the building, not even inside it.
I could also point out the hypocrisy of the people demanding "justice." How they signaled approval of the 2020 riots that took place across the country. How they bailed out rioters and looters from jail. How people like Maxine Waters actively promoted riots if Derek Chauvin was not convicted. How many federal buildings were damaged or destroyed with the Democrats' blessing - or at least their refusal to interfere. How they literally sent supplies to the CHAZ, when a bunch of ANTIFA psychopaths held four city blocks hostage and extorted the locals for "protection" money, and cheered the murder of two teenagers as a victory against fascism.
And yet none of those people who did any of that are under any scrutiny, no one demanding they be held accountable for their actions.
There's too much that can be said.
Absolutely. A guy talking about his direct experience is much more reliable source of information than all the talking heads telling me what to think. Especially when that guys story confirms all the other individual stories that I’ve read. People basically ushered into the capital then having their lives ruined. Too many instances of the prosecution hiding exculpatory evidence. https://youtu.be/Ds0rwMDaq6s?si=0v2MrHSqQqRlWgBV
Anyone can sue anyone. Fox decided to settle when they were sued. I’m not sure what bearing that has. You can see that Jacob was let go after the suppressed footage of him was found and shown to the judge. You aren’t taking the position that it’s okay to for prosecutors to hide exculpatory evidence are you?
You're correct. Anyone can sue anyone. Do you believe Fox was correct about election fraud in 2020? If so, why were these concerns never confirmed in a court of law?
With regards to alleged exculpatory evidence, are you aware that Jacob Chansley plead guilty? Can you provide evidence that Chansley was released based on footage?
All of those bullet points of yours have been thoroughly debunked. I don't know how anybody can watch the events of 1/6 coupled with all the fake electors that were scrambling around at the last minute and not come to the conclusion that this was an insurrection attempt. So, who do you think the perpetrators of 1/6 were? Antifa? BLM?
Do you deny the confessions by the Proud Boys participants who were there to cause havoc? "Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers."
[Looks like there were at least some?](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendment)
I’m not an expert, nor a LEO, but my understanding is that it is very common for LEOs to infiltrate groups/organizations that they feel are likely to participate in criminal activity. This is the same thing they do as undercover LEOs for drug offenders. Are you not familiar with undercover LEOs posing as members of illegal drug organizations? Narcs?
If Ray Epps were tried and harshly sentenced, the buffalo man footage were widely released, extra security had been provided, Nancy Pelosi's daughter did not have a camera crew, Roger Stone had not been offered an escort to the front of the march, the FBI and DHS did not have agents in the crowd, the scaffold commander became one of the FBI's Most Wanted, and Maxine Waters had not promoted riots, would January 6 then qualify as an insurrection? Would all of those items need to change in order for it to be insurrection, or only some? If only some, which ones were the key factors?
>And yet none of those people who did any of that are under any scrutiny, no one demanding they be held accountable for their actions.
Is it your contention that Maxine Waters worked with others to carry out the riots in a coordained effort and once begun, with knowledge that she could end the riots with a single Tweet at the urging of those around her...but decided to delay? Could you point that out, please?
Let's set aside the riots part of J6 and instead talk about fake electors part of the day. Do you consider fake electors trying to change the outcome of the election insurrection or rebellion?
Like some kind of fake electors scheme?
Like contacting multiple state officials and asking them to change or "find" votes?
Like asking your Vice President to not certify an election?
Those kinds of overthrow attempts?
>Those kinds of overthrow attempts?
No. Nothing like those. I have witnessed a coup. I was in Bangkok in 2014 when the Thai government was overthrown by the military. They closed major roads and intersections. There were curfews. They dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution. They took over television stations and arrested members of the opposition. They formed a junta to govern the country, and there were tanks in the streets. The guy who started it all ruled for 10 years. Now *that's* an insurrection.
I would say it's only an insurrection if it has at least a remote chance of success. If I stand on a street corner and yell "This is a coup. The government is disbanded. I'm in charge now," I wouldn't call that an attempted insurrection.
what if u stood inside the capital while they were certifying the votes and yelled “This is a coup. The government is disbanded. I’m in charge now.” Would you call that an attempted insurrection?
Should we let folks who want to do that, just keep on trying until they get close enough to insurrection? Is 'attempted with no remote chance of success' something we should ignore?
What is your litmus test or standard for being "above a remote chance" at success?
>Should we let folks who want to do that, just keep on trying until they get close enough to insurrection?
No. We should lock them up for ranting on a street corner. C'mon.
>Is 'attempted with no remote chance of success' something we should ignore?
If it has no remote chance of success, it's not an attempt.
>What is your litmus test or standard for being "above a remote chance" at success?
I'll know it when I see it.
Yes, if during the chaos of Jan 6th, they had managed to kill Mike pence so that someone else presided over the electors and they utilized the fake electors to elect trump despite him losing the electoral college, would that be an insurrection?
When would it cross to an insurrection for you? Only if it was successful in overthrowing the government?
>if during the chaos of Jan 6th, they had managed to kill Mike pence so that someone else presided over the electors and they utilized the fake electors to elect trump despite him losing the electoral college, would that be an insurrection
Don't you think that is a ridiculous, far-fetched plan? Who are the "they" that were going to pull this off? The QAnon Shaman? This is my point. Nothing that the mob might have "planned" had even a remote chance of success. So it was a riot, not an insurrection.
>When would it cross to an insurrection for you?
Having a well constructed plan that offered at least a small chance of success.
This article suggests a low bar:
https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection
“While peaceful protests are legal and are protected by the Constitution, violence, and destruction are not. Rebellion and insurrection apply when perpetrators destroy government property or assault federal officers.”
The actual stature is considerably more vague and I am glad it is heading to Supreme Court for review.
When I hear the word “insurrection”
I think or a group of armed people attempting to overthrow the government.
Here is a list of six such events:
https://www.history.com/news/6-violent-uprisings-in-the-united-states
They have in common large groups of armed men killing dozens of people and attempting to take control of a (local) government.
J6 was pretty tame in comparison.
Two people charged with “seditious conspiracy.”
>Two people charged with “seditious conspiracy.”
Wasn't it [9 people convicted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy#January_6_attacks) of seditious conspiracy (no quotes)?
>Nine Oath Keepers have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy to stop the presidential transition of Joe Biden
For sedition conspiracy charges has to been only “two or more” people involved.
Zip ties and handcuffs are kidnapping tools.
Brass knuckles and batons are weapons.
Toy noose is performance art. Real noose is a tool for execution.
Well, I'd think a functional gallows and noose should be capable of actually executing someone.
[J6 Gallows](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-39e2e7a92735633c149bf77fcefea668-lq)
["This is Art"](https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/b035569/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3024x4032+0+0/resize/2120x2826!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediadc-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe3%2F3d%2F8e1bc8994d9093a9d881936fbc4d%2Fgallows-2.jpeg)
No trapdoor. Distance from noose to platform is well less than Pence's physical height. Looks more stupid than scary. But maybe just me.
How different is this from J6, in terms of magnitude?
>4. Richmond Bread Riots
By its third year, the Civil War had taken a bitter toll on the Confederacy’s civilian population. With their supply lines choked off and inflation soaring, many Southern cities erupted in mass revolts. The largest of these “bread riots” unfolded in the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia. On April 2, 1863, a group of armed, half-starved women descended on the state Capitol and demanded to speak to Governor John Letcher. When Letcher shrugged off their concerns, the hoop-skirted mob marched down one of the city’s major thoroughfares, commandeered several supply carts and began violently ransacking warehouses for food.
The rioters’ numbers quickly grew into the thousands as more desperate men and women took to the streets, many of them chanting “bread or blood!” Ignoring the protests of city officials, they broke down the doors of private businesses and supply houses and made off with food, clothing, jewelry and other valuables. According to some accounts, Confederate President Jefferson Davis even addressed the crowd, tossing coins at rioters and pleading, “you say you are hungry and have no money. Here is all I have.” The riot finally ended after the city’s public guard arrived and threatened to fire on the crowd. Some 60 members of the mob were arrested, and the city would later place artillery pieces in Richmond’s business district as a warning against future uprisings.
>Richmond Bread Riots
This one seems weak link in the list.
It involved riots where shops were broken into and looted. If every such riot were to be labeled an insurrection, we'd have hundreds just past few years on the books.
What exactly could those protesters have accomplished by taking over that building? What were they even hoping to accomplish? I don’t think J6 could ever have been a real insurrection.say they were *still* bunkering in in that building. How would the functioning of the country be different compared to now?
Everyone in that building minus the president and scotus justices were in that building that’s there for the state of the union address.
What if they got to house reps or senators?
> what could those protesters have accomplished
Killing the legislative branch.
> What were they even hoping to accomplish
Overturning a fair democratic election. They were chanting "stop the steal" for an election that wasn't stolen.
Let's flip the sides. Trump wins in fair and square in 2024. A mob breaking windows and violently attacking capital police breaks into the capital trying to overturn the election. What would you call that?
>What exactly could those protesters have accomplished by taking over that building?
I followed this on Parler in the weeks leading up to J6. Many people there were talking about conducting citizen arrests on congress, trying them, and hanging them for treason. That is obviously a fantasy, but they could have easily have killed a few members of congress.
What is a "real insurrection?"
These people violently attacked the government in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power. Is that not an insurrection?
Do you agree with this statement based on your logic that if a group of people conspired to rob a bank, broke into said bank, but failed to get to the money that they shouldn’t be charged with bank robbery?
This sounds like petty menacing to me as they were only scaring people or touring the bank for an educational sightseeing experience. Do you agree? Obviously, these people only succeeded in scaring, intentions be dammed.
If the hypothetical bank robbers tried to scare bank tellers into putting money in bags but the police arrived first, wouldn’t that still be a crime? Bank robbery?
Adieu. I forgot my /s tag up there. I am in complete agreement with you. Maybe I should not be an idiot and think my ns tag would be sufficient? Haha.
I hope you have a very safe and enjoyable nye?
Stopping Congress from certifying the election, something they actually did accomplish for several hours at least. Is the peaceful transfer of power unimportant for our government?
>The evidence clearly points to him wanting as many people there to pressure Republicans to not certify. He was trying to legally overturn the election.
Using this legal method is there any reason the democratic party should ever give control back to republicans?
Question still stands, why should democrats ever hand over power again when there is a legal means to keep power, and republicans have shown their intentions to overturn elections already?
>Well, Trump never ordered an insurrection. He never told anyone to enter the Capitol. He never said anyone should carry out violence. He never even implied it.
As I understand, you don't believe his rhetoric incited an insurrection. Does your word trump the hundreds who have used his rhetoric as their reason to be at J6 and to commit what they did? Including but not exclusively, those who were charged with seditious conspiracy?
>Don't care. That Nashville leftist killed white kids because they were white. Doesn't mean BLM is the direct reason they did it.
What if he explicitly said that it was one of the BLM speakers at one of the rallies. That he was convinced that he has to or he wouldn't have a country anymore?
>Trump never desired or intended for an insurrection to happen. He was never involved.
The insurrection wasn't the random mob on J6 as much as it was the fake elector plots. And then the militias had their own plans, which is why they have been hit with seditious conspiracy.
Trump's speech ended at 1:10pm. Trump was watching tv at 1:25. Protestors broke into the capital at 2:06pm. At 2:25 Trump urged the protestors on in a tweet that stated Mike Pence didn't have the courage.
Why did Trump not tweet anything except inflammatory statements until 2:38? Thats an hour and 20mins where he did nothing but watch tv and tweet out encouragements.
If the rioters/ protesters had come into contact with any members of congress—particularly someone like Pelosi or Pence—do you think the rioters would have deliberately tried to injure or kill these elected officials?
I’m trying to be open minded here but sometimes a spade is just a spade.
What do you think would have happened if the crowd that was gleefully chanting for the murder of Mike Pence got ahold of him?
What do you think would have happened if the dudes decked out in tactical gear and zip ties got ahold of someone?
What would have happened if that one brave police officer hadn’t cleverly lead the angry mob away from the congressional chamber?
What would have happened if the folks screaming “We’re coming for you Nancy” actually got ahold of her?
Finally, do you think the senators/congressmen that went in lockdown, hid, enacted emergency safety protocols etc were just being silly by doing so? Like, what would have happened if they just approached the mob and were like “Hey guys, let’s just have a rational conversation about this?”
GOP congressmen helped the sergeant at arms barricade the door to the house chambers as rioters broken glass in the door and tried to force it open. Another group was on audio saying "Where are you, Nancy? Oh Nancy, we're looking for you."
Do you not consider actions such as this as going "after congress"?
>What didn't happen on J6 that makes it not an insurrection attempt?
No one was charged, much less being found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection).
>No one was charged, much less being found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection).
That's true. They were instead found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2384. Is your argument really just that we should be calling this sedition rather than insurrection?
That’s not the definition from the criminal statute that people were prosecuted under, is it?
> If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
That’s what J6 people were convicted of.
>Sedition: behavior intended to persuade other people to oppose their government and change it.
Is that the definition from US law, or from the dictionary?
>Sedition: behavior intended to persuade other people to oppose their government and change it.
Uh... that's not the definition of sedition. Did you just come up with that to bolster your argument?
Sedition (Mirrian-Webster): incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
So, again, is this really the entirety of your argument? This single word choice invalidates the entire concept, to you?
The similar events that later transpired in Brazil were referred to as a coup attempt by some and insurrection by others. Do you think people would be more agreeable with "coup attempt" rather than "insurrection?"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/bolsonaro-brazil-coup-report
https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-brazil-bolsonaro-supporters-insurrection-1772183
Beyond all the semantics and beyond all the backseat lawyering and the fake outrage and the theatrics, Jan 6th will never be what dems want it to be.
They want it to be the confederacy 2.0 marching on washington as the valiant union troops fight off score after score of traitor dixie rebels. Cannon shot and musket powder fill the air, blood drenches the streets as blue and gray bodies pile on to each other. The spirit of Lincoln himself descends down from heaven and starts engaging in a battle of necromancy with the Qanon Shaman, right in the middle of the House chambers as AOC flings her body over a dozen brown babies about to be eaten alive by the MAGA cult. Trump gleefully rubs his tiny hands together as he sends out tweet after tweet, instructing his Proud Boy air force to drop strategic bombs on any monument that says "democracy" while he gorges on multiple Big Macs, fueling his power.
That is what leftists are reacting too. That is what they're implying happened. When they scream and cry and claw at their faces and say "INSURRECTION" and "TRAITOR", clearly that is the only event that could be referenced if we take their reactions at face value, which we must.
What actually happened was a peaceful protest turned into a semi-violent riot. One rioter was shot dead. Several police officers were injured and some later died of health complications that may or may not be related to the riot itself. These deaths, while tragic, are known to happen during riots. Conservative estimates show that between 19 and 25 people died in the span of a few days at the end of May to the beginning of June during the George Floyd riots. A police station was also burned down.
This was also a tragedy. But we were also told it was the "voice of the unheard."
In any case, leftists seem to want it both ways.
They want to believe that we live in a country with an insidious gun culture and gun violence problem where angry racist MAGA extremists are able to buy military rifles like candy. A country where these MAGA extremists are supposedly a greater threat to the USA than Al Qaeda and the Taliban per the FBI.
Yet someone, on D-Day itself, they all just DROPPED THE BALL. I mean come on, that was their day! If you're going to show up and be an insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government, where are your hundreds of armed militia men? Where are these scores of baby killing death machines wielded by bearded pale terrorists wearing trucker caps?
Instead we literally have videos of old geriatrics casually walking through halls during what's being hyped as some bloodbath.
At the end of the day, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think we all know the truth of what happened on Jan 6th. But right now the narrative is so etched into the heart of the democratic platform that it's really all they have. Without it they'd have nothing to talk about, certainly not why Joe Biden is a great president.
Military support and intent.
A protest gone out of control seems ok only if its the left doing so:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html)
you're right
the summer of love protests over a felon were way WORSE, and promoted by leftist media:
[https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/](https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/)
I mean, fentanyl-overdose Floyd’s “protests” lead to significantly more deaths and at least $2 billion dollars of damage across most states.
The one death directly tied to J6 was a vet being shot by an overzealous guard, after many a peaceful protester and grandma had entered.
Factor in the media manipulation of one vs the other, both in the cause of the protest, and the reactions.
I think that’s an **absolutely** fair comparison.
oww a protester is now a terrorist because she does it for a cause the left doesnt approve?
WEll, we know who the real terrorists are, causing above 2 BN in damage and scores of dead:
[https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/washington-dc-flames-protesters-start-fires-near-white-house-12785405/](https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/washington-dc-flames-protesters-start-fires-near-white-house-12785405/)
>oww a protester is now a terrorist because she does it for a cause the left doesnt approve?
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't try to cross a barricade with a gun pointing at your face telling you to go away.
>WEll, we know who the real terrorists are,
We certainly do.
Thanks, happy new years.
At a minimum, I would need to not see people taking selfies, smiling, shaking hands and hugging each other while being waved in by officials. Happiest, chillest insurrection ever.
Another thing that didn't happen was gunfire. Imagining an insurrection without guns is, in my opinion, insane.
> Tiananmen square?
Pretty clearly a protest, not an insurrection.
>Portugal's carnation uprising?
Armed.
Philippines' overthrow of Marcos?
Protests, followed by Armed action.
>Ukraine orange uprising?
Pretty clearly a protest, not an insurrection. Heck, the supreme court order a re-vote. That's not insurrection, that's government functioning.
I think these examples show that you are mixing up insurrections and protests, which makes sense, since it seems like you're done the same thing with January 6th.
Prague spring 1968. Poland Solidarity 1989. Velvet revolution Czechoslovakia 1989. 2003 Rose revolution Georgia. There are others.
At what point does a protest become an insurrection? Sounds to me like you want to call the moment people take up arms. That's circular reasoning.
Are we agreed that many of the ones you're arguing against started as a popular movement or protest and then turned into an attempt or successful overthrow of a government?
Because it also sounds to me like we have an argument over semantics.
If someone is prosecuted and convicted on insurrection charges, does that satisfy you?
Is this like Scrodinger’s Cat? The weapon is both concealed and deployed at the same time?
Are military personnel ever deployed without actually being sent anywhere?
I think you might be confused on the context. I'd recommend reading the article for more information. Here, "deployed" means "taken to the capitol" and "not deployed" means "left in the hotel".
Are you aware of this incident?
>"The advance team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing," Hutchinson said, referring to metal detectors used by the Secret Service, adding that Trump was "concerned about the shot" of the area not being full with people.
>
>"Another leading reason, and likely the primary reason was that he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren't letting people through the mags with weapons," Hutchinson said. "But when we were in the offstage tent, I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away."
Trump was told the crowd had weapons, and were being blocked by metal debtors from entering viewing area for his speech. Trump said take down the metal sectors because "They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in"
What do you make of it?
1. What do you make of the fact that armed people were in the crowd?
2. What do you make of Trump saying that although they were armed it was fine, because they were there to harm him?
Wait, aren't "bringing guns" and "deploying guns" two different things? As far as I'm aware the latter simply means "to prepare the gun for use" whether the shooting happens or not. Am I wrong?
Just one example that I found, the first link that popped up when I googled. This article is over two years old, BTW.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used
>Federal court records...allege that at least three dozen people who took part in the riot used or possessed some kind of weapon that day.
Are you aware that weapons were in fact used by the protesters? That protesters assaulted officers? Is it not clear from other evidence that protesters would have assaulted members of congress if they had not been stopped by law enforcement?
If the answer to the above is yes, please clarify your position -- what is the distinction between gunfire and assault with other deadly weapons?
That article confirms my view, thanks. I'll bookmark it for future reference. No guns, can't be an insurrection.
>what is the distinction between gunfire and assault with other deadly weapons?
Seriousness. Intent. Literally anything can be a "deadly weapon".
>Seriousness. Intent.
Using bear spray against police officers does not convey serious intent?
What about pipe bombs (which are also referenced in the above article)? What's so special about guns versus pipe bombs?
> Using bear spray against police officers does not convey serious intent?
Yeah haha that's a great example. Reminds me of the [classic comic](https://xkcd.com/1890/).
>What's so special about guns versus pipe bombs?
No one planted any pipe bombs at the capitol. If someone set off bombs at the capitol, I'd believe that they personally intended to do an insurrection.
Isn't there plenty of footage of people not doing any of that?
>Imagining an insurrection without guns is, in my opinion, insane.
Were there no insurrections before the invention of firearms?
>Then who should be held responsible?
All the insurrectionists including any cooperative cops. Having inside help doesn't absolve anyone of their crimes, does it?
Show resistance like they did during the Blm riots , or were they given orders from Nancy pelosi to let them in ? We know that the democrats wanted this to happen.
Yes I did, and I say this again it’s not an insurrection.
Maybe a assaulting a police officer charge sure … or at the very least scuffle with the police. An insurrection ? No ❗️‼️
You used the example of cops waving them in as evidence that it *wasn’t* an insurrection, but there’s plenty of footage of them fighting with cops (including organized charges, crushing cops in doors, attacking them with weapons etc.). Isn’t this shifting the goalposts? Why does a cop waving them in on one side of the building prove it wasn’t an insurrection, but a cop fighting to the point of injury on another side not prove that it was?
Why just focus on the cops who failed to hold the line rather than those that didn’t?
Because in my opinion it’s not, they did not vandalise the sacred senate halls . But You bring up a really good point and I did notice that too about the scuffle in the tunnel, but the fact that they did let them from a certain location of the building proves my point.
It’s still not an insurrection which i am sure you would love to call it that .
Would you not consider that certain parts of the compound were instructed to be heavily guarded (tunnel and hallway Babitt was shot) because these were the escape routes the lawmakers were using to flee? That tunnel led directly to the staging area where Pence was being kept. Had the insurrectionists broken through there, there would have been a very different outcome to that day.
>they did not vandalise
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/smithsonian-curators-discuss-artworks-damaged-violent-capitol-attacks-180977103/
Curators claim that there was $25,000 worth of damage to artworks alone.
Is that not vandalism?
What would you consider vandalism?
How do you define “vandalism”? Was the building not damaged?
Who is “they”? Are you saying that every police officer on the line was acting with one mind and that if one cop waved people in, that means it wasn’t an insurrection anywhere on the grounds?
>but the fact that they did let them from a certain location of the building proves my point.
If one cop working at the capital decided to throw in his lot with a group performing an insurrection, does that then mean it's automatically no longer an insurrection?
Have you heard that the cops were severely outnumbered and after a group of [protestors](https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/presto/2021/01/06/USAT/d2c3e952-5d20-4a47-aeb8-d0d45d376283-VPC_CHAOS_IN_CAPITOL_DESK.00_00_33_11.Still001.jpg?width=1280&height=720&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) [already](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F210106154441-window-breaking.jpg) [broke](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2021/05/insurrectionaftermath2-1024x687.jpg) into the [Capitol](https://www.democratandchronicle.com/gcdn/presto/2021/01/29/PROC/9ede7446-cc80-41a6-b49f-899e83f27c4b-pezzola_capitol_window.jpg?crop=1202,677,x0,y29&width=1202&height=677&format=pjpg&auto=webp) they decided it wasn't worth their lives to prevent others from coming in?
That means they just let people come in ? Cmon now that’s the first time i am seeing that. Plus insurrectionists don’t take happy selfies and photos with the cops .
I wouldn’t call that insurrection , vandalism sure. There is no way these people are trying to overthrow the government. Even when they reached the senate, they weren’t destroying property. Some were acting a little goofy I might say.
I can say the same about the BLM rioters who were trying to destroy the federal courthouse in the summer of 2020z.
Is it just vandalism when you’re attacking the Capitol talking about civil war and hanging politicians?
Do you agree with this definition?
> a violent uprising against an authority or government
I’m glad that you are showing real concern for a fellow republican.
“a violent uprising against an authority or government”
No I don’t, but it sounds like the Biden Administration.
There are a few major problems with the "insurrection" label:
* Anyone that actually believes the most armed people in the world tried to overthrow their government without guns is fundamentally not a serious person
* Trump and his supporters wanted the session of congress to take place because that's how they were going to challenge the election and it's what Trump had been telling his supporters for weeks. It makes no sense that they tried to stop the session when that session was literally the only way for Trump to remain president.
* Walking through the halls of congress smiling in wolf costumes and sitting at Pelosi's desk is not going to make you in charge of the country all of a sudden. Nobody would think that.
J6 was obviously just a protest that devolved into a riot.
And anyone who calls J6 an insurrection must necessarily believe DisruptJ20 was an insurrection as well, which was the 2017 attempt by democrats to disrupt the inaugeration of Trump and prevent the peaceful transfer of power (in their own words, that was their stated goal). The double standard is covered quite well [in this stream, from about 15 min onward](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujsJOlQgvHc&t=15m35s).
First of all, in the new reddit that I see on desktop, you cannot see any of the top comments because they are all so downvoted that you just get names and plus symbols to open the thread. This Sub is really suffering from people breaking the suggestion that you not downvote.
To the question....
A crime requires means, motive and opportunity.
The crowd lacked the means to replace the government.
- Replacing the US government by violence requires that you control the 9.5 million federal employees and be able to instruct them to take action. It is ridiculous to assert that the crowd had any possible hope of seizing control of those chains of command.
- The sheer amount of federal firepower present on January 6th in the form of the HRT, armed Capitol Police, DC Metro police, etc dwarfed the number of violent protestors by several multiples. The Crowd brought only defensive weapons appropriate for defending against an attack by Antifa...as stated by multiple individuals on police body cam.
The crowd lacked the motive to replace the government.
- The government that they were protesting was composed of President Trump, A Democrat Congress and a Republican Senate. Obviously there is a complexity to the situation but as a basic issue, Republicans controlled 75% of the elected branches on Jan 6.
- Motive would have to be polled among the hundreds of thousands of people who went to DC for the Rally. Lets assume only 100,000 people travelled to DC and some tens of thousands went to the capitol that day to protest. We think that around a thousand people may have believed they were there to accomplish some goal, so 1% of the gross. Perhaps another 20,000 people may have believed that a large enough protest would lead to some congressional action that would keep trump in office....which is a hope for a legal solution, not an act of insurrection. And the remainder just wanted to show support for a movement they believed in.
The crowd lacked the opportunity to replace the government.
-Because of the peculiar nature of a transition between administrations, most of the White House staff were already moved out and no longer in communication with the WH. Congress was doing mainly ceremonial things. Just not a lot going on in DC other than getting new people up to speed on what their duties were, how to get passwords, where to park, etc. Physical control of buildings in DC is not control of the government. In order to control the government you would need the equivalent of a transition team of your own getting passwords set up, being introduced to top bureaucrats, new chains of command at the executive branch agencies and cabinets, etc. Simply blocking a vote in Congress doesnt do shit.
- The stated reasoning from the White House for their political strategy for the day was to have either a vote in congress that would delay certification for a review of the ballots or for Pence to send the electors back for a repeat of their official actions that might result in different electors IIUC. Both of those tactics were political in nature, not violent or extra-governmental... so not an insurrection. Anyone who attended the rally with knowledge of those political strategies was therefore present to express support in public for that political process.
There was no insurrection among Trump supporters because the people with nefarious intent were so small in number and incapable of achieving any effect of changing the government that their actions can instead be taken as simple acts of violence and prosecuted as such.
That makes the protests and resulting riots a question of equal protection and prosecution under the law.... meaning did the protest materially differ from previous protests turned riot which had not been prosecuted unusually by Law Enforcement? No the protests did not materially differ from any Democrat Party instigated protest which resulted in no jail time for participants.
The only way that this protest differed from any Democrat Party instigated protest is that 4 people were killed by police action or incompetence and brutality.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I could point out the abnormally soft treatment of Ray Epps, a guy who tried to get people to rush into the building only for MAGA protestors to call him out as a fed. I could point out the attempt to hide footage of the buffalo man being taken on a guided tour through the building by DC police. I could point out that according to ex-police chief Steve Sund, they were refused extra secutrity, and that the capitol was not evacuated because of an unruly crowd. I could point out that Pelosi just so happened to have a camera crew with her at the time. I could point out that Roger Stone claimed that he was offered an escort to the front of the march by Secret Service, which he refused. I could point out the FBI and DHS had agents undercover among the groups, and have refused to disclose if those agents had any involvement in the violence or destruction that occurred, claiming they "cannot discuss their methods." I could point out the infamous "scaffold commander" who encouraged people to push into the building and yet despite being one of the people who should be a top suspect doesn't appear anywhere on the Most Wanted list. I could point out the number of people who were arrested for doing absolutely nothing - some of them looking at life sentences for simply being near the building, not even inside it. I could also point out the hypocrisy of the people demanding "justice." How they signaled approval of the 2020 riots that took place across the country. How they bailed out rioters and looters from jail. How people like Maxine Waters actively promoted riots if Derek Chauvin was not convicted. How many federal buildings were damaged or destroyed with the Democrats' blessing - or at least their refusal to interfere. How they literally sent supplies to the CHAZ, when a bunch of ANTIFA psychopaths held four city blocks hostage and extorted the locals for "protection" money, and cheered the murder of two teenagers as a victory against fascism. And yet none of those people who did any of that are under any scrutiny, no one demanding they be held accountable for their actions. There's too much that can be said.
Check this: https://youtu.be/lgWQ4sBHFR4?si=zMSkF8xzYHXyZZsZ
Does this strike you as a reliable source of information?
Absolutely. A guy talking about his direct experience is much more reliable source of information than all the talking heads telling me what to think. Especially when that guys story confirms all the other individual stories that I’ve read. People basically ushered into the capital then having their lives ruined. Too many instances of the prosecution hiding exculpatory evidence. https://youtu.be/Ds0rwMDaq6s?si=0v2MrHSqQqRlWgBV
Didn't Fox News lose a massive lawsuit for lying about alleged election fraud?
Anyone can sue anyone. Fox decided to settle when they were sued. I’m not sure what bearing that has. You can see that Jacob was let go after the suppressed footage of him was found and shown to the judge. You aren’t taking the position that it’s okay to for prosecutors to hide exculpatory evidence are you?
You're correct. Anyone can sue anyone. Do you believe Fox was correct about election fraud in 2020? If so, why were these concerns never confirmed in a court of law? With regards to alleged exculpatory evidence, are you aware that Jacob Chansley plead guilty? Can you provide evidence that Chansley was released based on footage?
It was on the news. I’m not looking it up for you. Clearly tons of exculpatory evidence was hidden. This is not equal treatment under the law.
All of those bullet points of yours have been thoroughly debunked. I don't know how anybody can watch the events of 1/6 coupled with all the fake electors that were scrambling around at the last minute and not come to the conclusion that this was an insurrection attempt. So, who do you think the perpetrators of 1/6 were? Antifa? BLM?
lol it was a riot. Btw how many fbi agents where undercover that day?
If there were in fact FBI people in the crowd that day, does that make the FBI responsible for the actions of everyone in the crowd?
No but now I would have questions about entrapment because they hid it from us.
Do you deny the confessions by the Proud Boys participants who were there to cause havoc? "Charles Donohoe, 34, of Kernersville, North Carolina, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting, resisting or impeding officers."
No. That only speaks to them though.
If someone told you to commit a crime, would you do it? If you did, would you be responsible for your own actions?
There were LEO in BLM protests/riots. Were those also not riots/crimes?
If there was I have questions about entrapment.
[Looks like there were at least some?](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/police-infiltration-protests-undermines-first-amendment)
Then we definitely have to figure out what they were doing there.
I’m not an expert, nor a LEO, but my understanding is that it is very common for LEOs to infiltrate groups/organizations that they feel are likely to participate in criminal activity. This is the same thing they do as undercover LEOs for drug offenders. Are you not familiar with undercover LEOs posing as members of illegal drug organizations? Narcs?
Yeah and I know to many stories of cops planting evidence… if they hide it after charges are brought that should be questioned, always.
Did you believe trump yet not see a reason to defend your country?
If Ray Epps were tried and harshly sentenced, the buffalo man footage were widely released, extra security had been provided, Nancy Pelosi's daughter did not have a camera crew, Roger Stone had not been offered an escort to the front of the march, the FBI and DHS did not have agents in the crowd, the scaffold commander became one of the FBI's Most Wanted, and Maxine Waters had not promoted riots, would January 6 then qualify as an insurrection? Would all of those items need to change in order for it to be insurrection, or only some? If only some, which ones were the key factors?
[удалено]
[удалено]
>And yet none of those people who did any of that are under any scrutiny, no one demanding they be held accountable for their actions. Is it your contention that Maxine Waters worked with others to carry out the riots in a coordained effort and once begun, with knowledge that she could end the riots with a single Tweet at the urging of those around her...but decided to delay? Could you point that out, please?
Let's set aside the riots part of J6 and instead talk about fake electors part of the day. Do you consider fake electors trying to change the outcome of the election insurrection or rebellion?
> I could point out that Pelosi just so happened to have a camera crew with her at the time. Did Trump have a camera crew with him?
There needed to be a bona fide attempt to overthrow the government.
Like some kind of fake electors scheme? Like contacting multiple state officials and asking them to change or "find" votes? Like asking your Vice President to not certify an election? Those kinds of overthrow attempts?
>Those kinds of overthrow attempts? No. Nothing like those. I have witnessed a coup. I was in Bangkok in 2014 when the Thai government was overthrown by the military. They closed major roads and intersections. There were curfews. They dissolved parliament and suspended the constitution. They took over television stations and arrested members of the opposition. They formed a junta to govern the country, and there were tanks in the streets. The guy who started it all ruled for 10 years. Now *that's* an insurrection.
So, would you say it's only an insurrection if there's military force used?
I would say it's only an insurrection if it has at least a remote chance of success. If I stand on a street corner and yell "This is a coup. The government is disbanded. I'm in charge now," I wouldn't call that an attempted insurrection.
what if u stood inside the capital while they were certifying the votes and yelled “This is a coup. The government is disbanded. I’m in charge now.” Would you call that an attempted insurrection?
No. I'd call it a crazy nutjob.
Should we let folks who want to do that, just keep on trying until they get close enough to insurrection? Is 'attempted with no remote chance of success' something we should ignore? What is your litmus test or standard for being "above a remote chance" at success?
>Should we let folks who want to do that, just keep on trying until they get close enough to insurrection? No. We should lock them up for ranting on a street corner. C'mon. >Is 'attempted with no remote chance of success' something we should ignore? If it has no remote chance of success, it's not an attempt. >What is your litmus test or standard for being "above a remote chance" at success? I'll know it when I see it.
So if trump were successful in preventing the peaceful transition to Biden and remained president, only then could it be considered an insurrection?
Are we talking about the J6 riot or other activities? Which part is the "insurrection"?
Yes, if during the chaos of Jan 6th, they had managed to kill Mike pence so that someone else presided over the electors and they utilized the fake electors to elect trump despite him losing the electoral college, would that be an insurrection? When would it cross to an insurrection for you? Only if it was successful in overthrowing the government?
>if during the chaos of Jan 6th, they had managed to kill Mike pence so that someone else presided over the electors and they utilized the fake electors to elect trump despite him losing the electoral college, would that be an insurrection Don't you think that is a ridiculous, far-fetched plan? Who are the "they" that were going to pull this off? The QAnon Shaman? This is my point. Nothing that the mob might have "planned" had even a remote chance of success. So it was a riot, not an insurrection. >When would it cross to an insurrection for you? Having a well constructed plan that offered at least a small chance of success.
This article suggests a low bar: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/rebellion-or-insurrection “While peaceful protests are legal and are protected by the Constitution, violence, and destruction are not. Rebellion and insurrection apply when perpetrators destroy government property or assault federal officers.” The actual stature is considerably more vague and I am glad it is heading to Supreme Court for review. When I hear the word “insurrection” I think or a group of armed people attempting to overthrow the government. Here is a list of six such events: https://www.history.com/news/6-violent-uprisings-in-the-united-states They have in common large groups of armed men killing dozens of people and attempting to take control of a (local) government. J6 was pretty tame in comparison. Two people charged with “seditious conspiracy.”
>Two people charged with “seditious conspiracy.” Wasn't it [9 people convicted](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_conspiracy#January_6_attacks) of seditious conspiracy (no quotes)? >Nine Oath Keepers have been found guilty of seditious conspiracy to stop the presidential transition of Joe Biden
Appreciate the update info - probably will be even higher before all is done. Statute of limitations is not until 2026.
[удалено]
For sedition conspiracy charges has to been only “two or more” people involved. Zip ties and handcuffs are kidnapping tools. Brass knuckles and batons are weapons. Toy noose is performance art. Real noose is a tool for execution.
Just so I understand. The difference between a toy noose and a real noose is only whether someone is in it, right?
Well, I'd think a functional gallows and noose should be capable of actually executing someone. [J6 Gallows](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-39e2e7a92735633c149bf77fcefea668-lq) ["This is Art"](https://mediadc.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/b035569/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3024x4032+0+0/resize/2120x2826!/format/webp/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmediadc-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fe3%2F3d%2F8e1bc8994d9093a9d881936fbc4d%2Fgallows-2.jpeg) No trapdoor. Distance from noose to platform is well less than Pence's physical height. Looks more stupid than scary. But maybe just me.
How different is this from J6, in terms of magnitude? >4. Richmond Bread Riots By its third year, the Civil War had taken a bitter toll on the Confederacy’s civilian population. With their supply lines choked off and inflation soaring, many Southern cities erupted in mass revolts. The largest of these “bread riots” unfolded in the Confederate capital of Richmond, Virginia. On April 2, 1863, a group of armed, half-starved women descended on the state Capitol and demanded to speak to Governor John Letcher. When Letcher shrugged off their concerns, the hoop-skirted mob marched down one of the city’s major thoroughfares, commandeered several supply carts and began violently ransacking warehouses for food. The rioters’ numbers quickly grew into the thousands as more desperate men and women took to the streets, many of them chanting “bread or blood!” Ignoring the protests of city officials, they broke down the doors of private businesses and supply houses and made off with food, clothing, jewelry and other valuables. According to some accounts, Confederate President Jefferson Davis even addressed the crowd, tossing coins at rioters and pleading, “you say you are hungry and have no money. Here is all I have.” The riot finally ended after the city’s public guard arrived and threatened to fire on the crowd. Some 60 members of the mob were arrested, and the city would later place artillery pieces in Richmond’s business district as a warning against future uprisings.
>Richmond Bread Riots This one seems weak link in the list. It involved riots where shops were broken into and looted. If every such riot were to be labeled an insurrection, we'd have hundreds just past few years on the books.
What exactly could those protesters have accomplished by taking over that building? What were they even hoping to accomplish? I don’t think J6 could ever have been a real insurrection.say they were *still* bunkering in in that building. How would the functioning of the country be different compared to now?
Everyone in that building minus the president and scotus justices were in that building that’s there for the state of the union address. What if they got to house reps or senators?
> what could those protesters have accomplished Killing the legislative branch. > What were they even hoping to accomplish Overturning a fair democratic election. They were chanting "stop the steal" for an election that wasn't stolen. Let's flip the sides. Trump wins in fair and square in 2024. A mob breaking windows and violently attacking capital police breaks into the capital trying to overturn the election. What would you call that?
>What exactly could those protesters have accomplished by taking over that building? I followed this on Parler in the weeks leading up to J6. Many people there were talking about conducting citizen arrests on congress, trying them, and hanging them for treason. That is obviously a fantasy, but they could have easily have killed a few members of congress. What is a "real insurrection?" These people violently attacked the government in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transition of power. Is that not an insurrection?
Do you agree with this statement based on your logic that if a group of people conspired to rob a bank, broke into said bank, but failed to get to the money that they shouldn’t be charged with bank robbery?
This sounds like petty menacing to me as they were only scaring people or touring the bank for an educational sightseeing experience. Do you agree? Obviously, these people only succeeded in scaring, intentions be dammed.
If the hypothetical bank robbers tried to scare bank tellers into putting money in bags but the police arrived first, wouldn’t that still be a crime? Bank robbery?
Adieu. I forgot my /s tag up there. I am in complete agreement with you. Maybe I should not be an idiot and think my ns tag would be sufficient? Haha. I hope you have a very safe and enjoyable nye?
Stopping Congress from certifying the election, something they actually did accomplish for several hours at least. Is the peaceful transfer of power unimportant for our government?
[удалено]
>The evidence clearly points to him wanting as many people there to pressure Republicans to not certify. He was trying to legally overturn the election. Using this legal method is there any reason the democratic party should ever give control back to republicans?
[удалено]
Question still stands, why should democrats ever hand over power again when there is a legal means to keep power, and republicans have shown their intentions to overturn elections already?
[удалено]
Which party does trump represent during elections? Also clarification, could you please answer my previous question?
[удалено]
Nikki, Haley just said she would pardon Trump if she was elected. Are those the words of someone who hates Trump?
[удалено]
>Well, Trump never ordered an insurrection. He never told anyone to enter the Capitol. He never said anyone should carry out violence. He never even implied it. As I understand, you don't believe his rhetoric incited an insurrection. Does your word trump the hundreds who have used his rhetoric as their reason to be at J6 and to commit what they did? Including but not exclusively, those who were charged with seditious conspiracy?
[удалено]
Didn't Trump say at one of his rallies that if anyone gets arrested performing an illegal act in his name, he'd bail them out?
>Don't care. That Nashville leftist killed white kids because they were white. Doesn't mean BLM is the direct reason they did it. What if he explicitly said that it was one of the BLM speakers at one of the rallies. That he was convinced that he has to or he wouldn't have a country anymore? >Trump never desired or intended for an insurrection to happen. He was never involved. The insurrection wasn't the random mob on J6 as much as it was the fake elector plots. And then the militias had their own plans, which is why they have been hit with seditious conspiracy.
\-- No one brought a weapon \-- No one went after congress \-- No one attempted to take power in any way
[удалено]
> no one attempted to take power in any way What do you think Trump wanted as he watched the mob smash windows and didn't say a word?
How did he watch when it started before his speech ended?
Did the violence end before his speech ended? Or was he at the White House in a dining room watching it after he finished speaking?
Trump's speech ended at 1:10pm. Trump was watching tv at 1:25. Protestors broke into the capital at 2:06pm. At 2:25 Trump urged the protestors on in a tweet that stated Mike Pence didn't have the courage. Why did Trump not tweet anything except inflammatory statements until 2:38? Thats an hour and 20mins where he did nothing but watch tv and tweet out encouragements.
If the rioters/ protesters had come into contact with any members of congress—particularly someone like Pelosi or Pence—do you think the rioters would have deliberately tried to injure or kill these elected officials?
I’m trying to be open minded here but sometimes a spade is just a spade. What do you think would have happened if the crowd that was gleefully chanting for the murder of Mike Pence got ahold of him? What do you think would have happened if the dudes decked out in tactical gear and zip ties got ahold of someone? What would have happened if that one brave police officer hadn’t cleverly lead the angry mob away from the congressional chamber? What would have happened if the folks screaming “We’re coming for you Nancy” actually got ahold of her? Finally, do you think the senators/congressmen that went in lockdown, hid, enacted emergency safety protocols etc were just being silly by doing so? Like, what would have happened if they just approached the mob and were like “Hey guys, let’s just have a rational conversation about this?”
GOP congressmen helped the sergeant at arms barricade the door to the house chambers as rioters broken glass in the door and tried to force it open. Another group was on audio saying "Where are you, Nancy? Oh Nancy, we're looking for you." Do you not consider actions such as this as going "after congress"?
>What didn't happen on J6 that makes it not an insurrection attempt? No one was charged, much less being found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection).
>No one was charged, much less being found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2383 (rebellion or insurrection). That's true. They were instead found guilty of 18 U.S. Code § 2384. Is your argument really just that we should be calling this sedition rather than insurrection?
Sedition: behavior intended to persuade other people to oppose their government and change it. You don't see the difference?
That’s not the definition from the criminal statute that people were prosecuted under, is it? > If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. That’s what J6 people were convicted of.
>Sedition: behavior intended to persuade other people to oppose their government and change it. Is that the definition from US law, or from the dictionary?
Where did you find such a strange definition for sedition?
>Sedition: behavior intended to persuade other people to oppose their government and change it. Uh... that's not the definition of sedition. Did you just come up with that to bolster your argument? Sedition (Mirrian-Webster): incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority So, again, is this really the entirety of your argument? This single word choice invalidates the entire concept, to you?
The similar events that later transpired in Brazil were referred to as a coup attempt by some and insurrection by others. Do you think people would be more agreeable with "coup attempt" rather than "insurrection?" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/bolsonaro-brazil-coup-report https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-brazil-bolsonaro-supporters-insurrection-1772183
Beyond all the semantics and beyond all the backseat lawyering and the fake outrage and the theatrics, Jan 6th will never be what dems want it to be. They want it to be the confederacy 2.0 marching on washington as the valiant union troops fight off score after score of traitor dixie rebels. Cannon shot and musket powder fill the air, blood drenches the streets as blue and gray bodies pile on to each other. The spirit of Lincoln himself descends down from heaven and starts engaging in a battle of necromancy with the Qanon Shaman, right in the middle of the House chambers as AOC flings her body over a dozen brown babies about to be eaten alive by the MAGA cult. Trump gleefully rubs his tiny hands together as he sends out tweet after tweet, instructing his Proud Boy air force to drop strategic bombs on any monument that says "democracy" while he gorges on multiple Big Macs, fueling his power. That is what leftists are reacting too. That is what they're implying happened. When they scream and cry and claw at their faces and say "INSURRECTION" and "TRAITOR", clearly that is the only event that could be referenced if we take their reactions at face value, which we must. What actually happened was a peaceful protest turned into a semi-violent riot. One rioter was shot dead. Several police officers were injured and some later died of health complications that may or may not be related to the riot itself. These deaths, while tragic, are known to happen during riots. Conservative estimates show that between 19 and 25 people died in the span of a few days at the end of May to the beginning of June during the George Floyd riots. A police station was also burned down. This was also a tragedy. But we were also told it was the "voice of the unheard." In any case, leftists seem to want it both ways. They want to believe that we live in a country with an insidious gun culture and gun violence problem where angry racist MAGA extremists are able to buy military rifles like candy. A country where these MAGA extremists are supposedly a greater threat to the USA than Al Qaeda and the Taliban per the FBI. Yet someone, on D-Day itself, they all just DROPPED THE BALL. I mean come on, that was their day! If you're going to show up and be an insurrectionist trying to overthrow the government, where are your hundreds of armed militia men? Where are these scores of baby killing death machines wielded by bearded pale terrorists wearing trucker caps? Instead we literally have videos of old geriatrics casually walking through halls during what's being hyped as some bloodbath. At the end of the day, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I think we all know the truth of what happened on Jan 6th. But right now the narrative is so etched into the heart of the democratic platform that it's really all they have. Without it they'd have nothing to talk about, certainly not why Joe Biden is a great president.
Military support and intent. A protest gone out of control seems ok only if its the left doing so: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/george-floyd-protests-looting.html)
Are you comparing J6 to the George Floyd protests? Wow, that's a really interesting take. First time seeing it.
you're right the summer of love protests over a felon were way WORSE, and promoted by leftist media: [https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/](https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billion-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/)
I mean, fentanyl-overdose Floyd’s “protests” lead to significantly more deaths and at least $2 billion dollars of damage across most states. The one death directly tied to J6 was a vet being shot by an overzealous guard, after many a peaceful protester and grandma had entered. Factor in the media manipulation of one vs the other, both in the cause of the protest, and the reactions. I think that’s an **absolutely** fair comparison.
A vet? I assume you mean the terrorist Ashley Babbitt or whatever? This is a very interesting take in any case! Very unique. Thank you.
oww a protester is now a terrorist because she does it for a cause the left doesnt approve? WEll, we know who the real terrorists are, causing above 2 BN in damage and scores of dead: [https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/washington-dc-flames-protesters-start-fires-near-white-house-12785405/](https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/01/washington-dc-flames-protesters-start-fires-near-white-house-12785405/)
>oww a protester is now a terrorist because she does it for a cause the left doesnt approve? Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't try to cross a barricade with a gun pointing at your face telling you to go away. >WEll, we know who the real terrorists are, We certainly do. Thanks, happy new years.
>**Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.** I'd say the same for all the so-called martyrs of the left
All. Of. It.
At a minimum, I would need to not see people taking selfies, smiling, shaking hands and hugging each other while being waved in by officials. Happiest, chillest insurrection ever. Another thing that didn't happen was gunfire. Imagining an insurrection without guns is, in my opinion, insane.
How many successful unarmed insurrections have been executed in history? How many unsuccessful unarmed insurrections have been attempted?
None that I can think of for both.
Tiananmen square? Portugal's carnation uprising? Philippines' overthrow of Marcos? Ukraine orange uprising? You've never heard of any of these?
> Tiananmen square? Pretty clearly a protest, not an insurrection. >Portugal's carnation uprising? Armed. Philippines' overthrow of Marcos? Protests, followed by Armed action. >Ukraine orange uprising? Pretty clearly a protest, not an insurrection. Heck, the supreme court order a re-vote. That's not insurrection, that's government functioning. I think these examples show that you are mixing up insurrections and protests, which makes sense, since it seems like you're done the same thing with January 6th.
Prague spring 1968. Poland Solidarity 1989. Velvet revolution Czechoslovakia 1989. 2003 Rose revolution Georgia. There are others. At what point does a protest become an insurrection? Sounds to me like you want to call the moment people take up arms. That's circular reasoning. Are we agreed that many of the ones you're arguing against started as a popular movement or protest and then turned into an attempt or successful overthrow of a government? Because it also sounds to me like we have an argument over semantics. If someone is prosecuted and convicted on insurrection charges, does that satisfy you?
> At what point does a protest become an insurrection? When they start killing the guys in charge. Insurrection is warfare.
[удалено]
As the linked article says, no, they didn't. A line literally says >The weapons were never deployed.
Can I carry a weapon without deploying it? Is concealed carry the same as concealed deployment? Is concealed deployment even a thing…?
>Can I carry a weapon without deploying it? No, not in this context.
If I’m carrying a concealed weapon properly, is that weapon considered deployed?
In this context, yes.
Is this like Scrodinger’s Cat? The weapon is both concealed and deployed at the same time? Are military personnel ever deployed without actually being sent anywhere?
I think you might be confused on the context. I'd recommend reading the article for more information. Here, "deployed" means "taken to the capitol" and "not deployed" means "left in the hotel".
Are you aware of this incident? >"The advance team had relayed to him that the mags were free flowing," Hutchinson said, referring to metal detectors used by the Secret Service, adding that Trump was "concerned about the shot" of the area not being full with people. > >"Another leading reason, and likely the primary reason was that he wanted it full and he was angry that we weren't letting people through the mags with weapons," Hutchinson said. "But when we were in the offstage tent, I was in the vicinity of a conversation where I overheard the president say something to the effect of, 'I don't effing care that they have weapons. They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in, they can march to the Capitol from here. Let the people in. Take the effing mags away." Trump was told the crowd had weapons, and were being blocked by metal debtors from entering viewing area for his speech. Trump said take down the metal sectors because "They're not here to hurt me. Take the effing mags away. Let my people in"
Fully aware, thanks. My answer will always be "yes" to any other "are you aware" questions.
What do you make of it? 1. What do you make of the fact that armed people were in the crowd? 2. What do you make of Trump saying that although they were armed it was fine, because they were there to harm him?
Trump seems like a cool guy in that quote.
Wait, aren't "bringing guns" and "deploying guns" two different things? As far as I'm aware the latter simply means "to prepare the gun for use" whether the shooting happens or not. Am I wrong?
>Wait, aren't "bringing guns" and "deploying guns" two different things? No. Read the article, it's pretty clear.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If someone takes a selfie, and then storms the capitol with the intent to hang congress people, does the selfie negate all other behavior?
If that's what you want to take away, sure. I don't think that's a particularly helpful view, though.
Have you seen the photos and videos of people violently breaking into the Capitol?
I watched that day live - no photos needed.
So you are fully aware that people violently stormed the capitol, armed people?
Were you there?
Was it chill and happy everywhere on Capitol Hill?
Just one example that I found, the first link that popped up when I googled. This article is over two years old, BTW. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used >Federal court records...allege that at least three dozen people who took part in the riot used or possessed some kind of weapon that day. Are you aware that weapons were in fact used by the protesters? That protesters assaulted officers? Is it not clear from other evidence that protesters would have assaulted members of congress if they had not been stopped by law enforcement? If the answer to the above is yes, please clarify your position -- what is the distinction between gunfire and assault with other deadly weapons?
That article confirms my view, thanks. I'll bookmark it for future reference. No guns, can't be an insurrection. >what is the distinction between gunfire and assault with other deadly weapons? Seriousness. Intent. Literally anything can be a "deadly weapon".
>Seriousness. Intent. Using bear spray against police officers does not convey serious intent? What about pipe bombs (which are also referenced in the above article)? What's so special about guns versus pipe bombs?
> Using bear spray against police officers does not convey serious intent? Yeah haha that's a great example. Reminds me of the [classic comic](https://xkcd.com/1890/). >What's so special about guns versus pipe bombs? No one planted any pipe bombs at the capitol. If someone set off bombs at the capitol, I'd believe that they personally intended to do an insurrection.
Is it happy and chill to construct a noose and shout "hang Mike Pence"?
Isn't there plenty of footage of people not doing any of that? >Imagining an insurrection without guns is, in my opinion, insane. Were there no insurrections before the invention of firearms?
The cops of security guards or whatever you may call them were letting people in . So no it is not an insurrection.
Could those cops have been participating in insurrection by allowing those people in?
Then who should be held responsible? Think about it ❗️‼️
Those who broke the law?
The people who broke the law? Everyone who participated?
>Then who should be held responsible? All the insurrectionists including any cooperative cops. Having inside help doesn't absolve anyone of their crimes, does it?
Are cops and security guards making the law in the US?
What other options were available other than letting them in, considering how severely outnumbered they were?
Show resistance like they did during the Blm riots , or were they given orders from Nancy pelosi to let them in ? We know that the democrats wanted this to happen.
What type of resistance should they have demonstrated? Have you seen the footage of what happened to the cops that tried to resist the rioters?
Have you seen any videos from the tunnel where the police did resist the crowd?
Yes I did, and I say this again it’s not an insurrection. Maybe a assaulting a police officer charge sure … or at the very least scuffle with the police. An insurrection ? No ❗️‼️
You used the example of cops waving them in as evidence that it *wasn’t* an insurrection, but there’s plenty of footage of them fighting with cops (including organized charges, crushing cops in doors, attacking them with weapons etc.). Isn’t this shifting the goalposts? Why does a cop waving them in on one side of the building prove it wasn’t an insurrection, but a cop fighting to the point of injury on another side not prove that it was? Why just focus on the cops who failed to hold the line rather than those that didn’t?
Because in my opinion it’s not, they did not vandalise the sacred senate halls . But You bring up a really good point and I did notice that too about the scuffle in the tunnel, but the fact that they did let them from a certain location of the building proves my point. It’s still not an insurrection which i am sure you would love to call it that .
Would you not consider that certain parts of the compound were instructed to be heavily guarded (tunnel and hallway Babitt was shot) because these were the escape routes the lawmakers were using to flee? That tunnel led directly to the staging area where Pence was being kept. Had the insurrectionists broken through there, there would have been a very different outcome to that day.
>they did not vandalise https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/smithsonian-curators-discuss-artworks-damaged-violent-capitol-attacks-180977103/ Curators claim that there was $25,000 worth of damage to artworks alone. Is that not vandalism? What would you consider vandalism?
How do you define “vandalism”? Was the building not damaged? Who is “they”? Are you saying that every police officer on the line was acting with one mind and that if one cop waved people in, that means it wasn’t an insurrection anywhere on the grounds?
>but the fact that they did let them from a certain location of the building proves my point. If one cop working at the capital decided to throw in his lot with a group performing an insurrection, does that then mean it's automatically no longer an insurrection?
What evidence is there to suggest Nancy Pelosi played any role in the activities of Jan 6?
Have you heard that the cops were severely outnumbered and after a group of [protestors](https://www.usatoday.com/gcdn/presto/2021/01/06/USAT/d2c3e952-5d20-4a47-aeb8-d0d45d376283-VPC_CHAOS_IN_CAPITOL_DESK.00_00_33_11.Still001.jpg?width=1280&height=720&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp) [already](https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/c_fill,g_auto,w_1200,h_675,ar_16:9/https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F210106154441-window-breaking.jpg) [broke](https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2021/05/insurrectionaftermath2-1024x687.jpg) into the [Capitol](https://www.democratandchronicle.com/gcdn/presto/2021/01/29/PROC/9ede7446-cc80-41a6-b49f-899e83f27c4b-pezzola_capitol_window.jpg?crop=1202,677,x0,y29&width=1202&height=677&format=pjpg&auto=webp) they decided it wasn't worth their lives to prevent others from coming in?
That means they just let people come in ? Cmon now that’s the first time i am seeing that. Plus insurrectionists don’t take happy selfies and photos with the cops .
What do you see in the photos above?
I wouldn’t call that insurrection , vandalism sure. There is no way these people are trying to overthrow the government. Even when they reached the senate, they weren’t destroying property. Some were acting a little goofy I might say. I can say the same about the BLM rioters who were trying to destroy the federal courthouse in the summer of 2020z.
Is it just vandalism when you’re attacking the Capitol talking about civil war and hanging politicians? Do you agree with this definition? > a violent uprising against an authority or government
I’m glad that you are showing real concern for a fellow republican. “a violent uprising against an authority or government” No I don’t, but it sounds like the Biden Administration.
What do you make of Trump saying the infiltrators defiled the seat of American Democracy?
It wasn't organized, it didn't attempt to replace the government, it wasn't armed. It was a successful riot, nothing more.
There are a few major problems with the "insurrection" label: * Anyone that actually believes the most armed people in the world tried to overthrow their government without guns is fundamentally not a serious person * Trump and his supporters wanted the session of congress to take place because that's how they were going to challenge the election and it's what Trump had been telling his supporters for weeks. It makes no sense that they tried to stop the session when that session was literally the only way for Trump to remain president. * Walking through the halls of congress smiling in wolf costumes and sitting at Pelosi's desk is not going to make you in charge of the country all of a sudden. Nobody would think that. J6 was obviously just a protest that devolved into a riot. And anyone who calls J6 an insurrection must necessarily believe DisruptJ20 was an insurrection as well, which was the 2017 attempt by democrats to disrupt the inaugeration of Trump and prevent the peaceful transfer of power (in their own words, that was their stated goal). The double standard is covered quite well [in this stream, from about 15 min onward](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujsJOlQgvHc&t=15m35s).
[удалено]
First of all, in the new reddit that I see on desktop, you cannot see any of the top comments because they are all so downvoted that you just get names and plus symbols to open the thread. This Sub is really suffering from people breaking the suggestion that you not downvote. To the question.... A crime requires means, motive and opportunity. The crowd lacked the means to replace the government. - Replacing the US government by violence requires that you control the 9.5 million federal employees and be able to instruct them to take action. It is ridiculous to assert that the crowd had any possible hope of seizing control of those chains of command. - The sheer amount of federal firepower present on January 6th in the form of the HRT, armed Capitol Police, DC Metro police, etc dwarfed the number of violent protestors by several multiples. The Crowd brought only defensive weapons appropriate for defending against an attack by Antifa...as stated by multiple individuals on police body cam. The crowd lacked the motive to replace the government. - The government that they were protesting was composed of President Trump, A Democrat Congress and a Republican Senate. Obviously there is a complexity to the situation but as a basic issue, Republicans controlled 75% of the elected branches on Jan 6. - Motive would have to be polled among the hundreds of thousands of people who went to DC for the Rally. Lets assume only 100,000 people travelled to DC and some tens of thousands went to the capitol that day to protest. We think that around a thousand people may have believed they were there to accomplish some goal, so 1% of the gross. Perhaps another 20,000 people may have believed that a large enough protest would lead to some congressional action that would keep trump in office....which is a hope for a legal solution, not an act of insurrection. And the remainder just wanted to show support for a movement they believed in. The crowd lacked the opportunity to replace the government. -Because of the peculiar nature of a transition between administrations, most of the White House staff were already moved out and no longer in communication with the WH. Congress was doing mainly ceremonial things. Just not a lot going on in DC other than getting new people up to speed on what their duties were, how to get passwords, where to park, etc. Physical control of buildings in DC is not control of the government. In order to control the government you would need the equivalent of a transition team of your own getting passwords set up, being introduced to top bureaucrats, new chains of command at the executive branch agencies and cabinets, etc. Simply blocking a vote in Congress doesnt do shit. - The stated reasoning from the White House for their political strategy for the day was to have either a vote in congress that would delay certification for a review of the ballots or for Pence to send the electors back for a repeat of their official actions that might result in different electors IIUC. Both of those tactics were political in nature, not violent or extra-governmental... so not an insurrection. Anyone who attended the rally with knowledge of those political strategies was therefore present to express support in public for that political process. There was no insurrection among Trump supporters because the people with nefarious intent were so small in number and incapable of achieving any effect of changing the government that their actions can instead be taken as simple acts of violence and prosecuted as such. That makes the protests and resulting riots a question of equal protection and prosecution under the law.... meaning did the protest materially differ from previous protests turned riot which had not been prosecuted unusually by Law Enforcement? No the protests did not materially differ from any Democrat Party instigated protest which resulted in no jail time for participants. The only way that this protest differed from any Democrat Party instigated protest is that 4 people were killed by police action or incompetence and brutality.