[yucky]

>entered the capitol with their guns

Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody entered the Capitol with guns. I'm aware that sounds like downplaying the incident, which is not my intention. I just think accuracy matters.

The guy you're referring to (who was thankfully charged), did not enter the Capitol with a gun, according to the charging document. What gave you the idea that he entered the Capitol with a gun, the charging document is pretty clear?

>the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.

The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.

Alas, this is the problem with demanding accuracy. If someone says something false about a bad person or incident, we are unable to ask for accuracy unless we are willing to be seen as defending it.

[oneoff786]

How about Guy Reffitt, who has been charged with bringing an assault rifle to Washington, and a handgun onto capitol grounds, then later, charmingly, threatening to shoot his own children if they turned him in, which they did?

[ModernMech]

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody entered the Capitol with guns.

So there were really two groups of people who showed up on Jan 6. The first large group were Trump supporters there to protest. These people are being charged with misdemeanor trespassing; and if they attacked police, they are being charged with felony assault as well.

The second, smaller group were militia who came there equipped and with a plan. Lower-level members of this group have been charged with conspiracy to disrupt Congress, a felony. Higher-level members have just been charged with seditious conspiracy, which carries a 20 year max sentence.

This later group of individuals were mostly ex-military and law enforcement. They were aware that bringing guns on Jan 6 would have resulted in a commiserate response by Capitol Police, and they would have been outmatched. However, according to yesterday's indictment, they did bring plenty of equipment (including guns) and stashed them in hotels across the Potomac river, with plans to bring them across in a boat in case the need arose. We are still learning more about this plan.

> The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.

At this point the cause and effect is pretty well established.

- The only reason anyone was even near the Capitol on Jan 6 was because Trump summoned them there.

- Trump then told the assembled mob where to go and what to do: "we’re going to the Capitol" to "stop the steal".

- Trump directed the mob to the Capitol.

- The mob arrived at the capitol and violently disrupted the ongoing proceedings.

- Trump witnessed this on live TV and instead of doing anything for 3 hours, he mused himself by rewinding the live footage of people brutally attacking police.

- When arrested, the individual comprising the mob tell police they did what they did at the behest of the Trump.

I think we're way past the point of saying this was just one big misunderstanding. The individuals who invaded the Capitol did so because they thought Trump wanted them to, and he actually did want them to, because if he didn't, he would have attempted to stop it much sooner.