[deeviant]

> What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different.

Yes, let's talk about history. Let's see, was there another case study in history where you have a failed coup attempt spurred on by a egotistical leader whose shtick was to scapegoat sections of the population and play "us vs them" politics? How did that turn out?

[hajile]

If you're going to make claims as serious as attempting a coup, you'd better have evidence.

NOBODY was charged with rioting, let alone sedition or insurrection. Less than 30 in a crowd of a couple hundred thousand got charged with anything more serious than some variant of unlawful entry (and only about 100 people are wanted at all).

If such charges could be reasonably made, don't you think they would make them? The prosecutor isn't an idiot. He/She knows that no reasonable jury will convict on those charges. It would even be a great political win if they could get them to stick, but it's so far out of reach that they won't take on the loss and resulting publicity.

It's far easier for the media to make claims than to substantiate them. I'd guess that there's a serious risk of several big media companies being sued.

[dragonwriter]

> NOBODY was charged with rioting

You do realize that riot in the D.C. code is a (trivially—180 days vs. 6 months—but still) less serious offense than the minimum offense charged for anyone who entered the capitol, “Unlawful entry on public property”, right?

And that initial charges are often whatever is easiest to get to withstand a probable cause hearing based on the conditions of arrest, and “unlawful entry” is pretty easy to pin on anyone caught in, or videotaped in, the Capitol building during the event. Like, open-and-shut.

> (and only about 100 people are wanted at all).

As of two days ago, 116 had been charged (74 in US District Court, 42 in D.C. Superior Court) and more than 300 were being investigated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-releases-photos-sus...

> If such charges could be reasonably made, don’t you think they would make them?

No, I wouldn’t expect indictments or plea bargains for any but the most trivially-apparent offenses to be announced right away, because they both take time to present to a grand jury (or to negotiate with the defense to get an agreement to proceed without indictment), and because they tip the hand to others under investigation and risk destruction of evidence.

> The prosecutor isn’t an idiot.

Correct, which is why when they have an easy charge to arrest on, they don’t see the need to tip their hand on much else prematurely, and there is nothing easier than the unlawful entry charges.

[deeviant]

I'm using the same standard of evidence as those that claim the election was "stolen", "rigged", "totally rigged election I won bigger than the biggest winner of all time".

If you want to clamor for higher standards of evidence, start with them.

Also the mob's purpose was to disrupt the electoral process and to coerce Pence to subvert the will of the American people. The evidence is plastered all over the internet in the many videos posted by said insurrectionists.

Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Let's see 5 people dead(check, violent).

Attempting to destroy democracy in American by attempting to nullify the vote of the people (check, definitely an uprising against the government).

Edit: And... conspiracy charges just filed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-.... Be real, there are going to be many charges related to this event, it's a common practice to use a limited set of charges to begin the arrest and prosecution process and filling in more charges as the investigations progresses.