Incited a riot to interrupt the certification of the election with ~500 individuals resulting in the deaths of a few individuals and hundreds of convictions. Most notable Trump did not face prosecution.
I edited my previous comment because I knew of January 6th, I was just thinking OP meant something else. However I did not follow the events or aftermath with great detail.
Considering he was prosecuted for other things, I'm guessing there was not any actual evidence to support even a prosection?
> I'm guessing there was not any actual evidence to support even a prosection?
You don't have to guess, there was.
So much so that the special counsel that was shut down when Trump won re-election took the extraordinary step of declaring publicly that he had more than enough evidence to secure conviction of Donald Trump for Jan 6th.
Sorry, there is a lot of misinformation from "both sides" - That is why I don't care much to watch the dog and pony show while I "dress myself" (to the person who wrote that, really?)
I am going to try to take this thread in good faith.
Here is an event that happened on Saturday, 7 million plus people took to the streets.
One side says this was a Hate America rally made up of marxists, hamas supporters and protestors paid by George Soros. The president shared an AI video of himself in a crown flying over the protesters he is supposed to represent dumping shit on them.
Every news outlet on the other side says it was a peaceful protest against authoritarian overreach.
Call me a biased leftist but the misinformation and divisive bullshit is severely tipped to the right side of the scale.
Lots of people, esp on HN, will say J6 was some kind of insurrection, but the BLM riots were peaceful protests. From the other perspective, what happened was a bunch of disgruntled republicans saw the riots that summer, among many other things, and rather than burn down Minneapolis, they took their grievances to the one place that actually could make a difference - the politicians in DC. Instead they were led thru the halls of the Capitol (by the police!) and the resulting footage used to frame the whole debacle as an insurrection. Certainly they were some angry protesters, but the premise that they intended to overthrow the govt by stopping the certification ceremony doesn’t even make sense, since nobody would have recognized it.
The riot wasn’t the attempt: it was the threat of violence that underscored the attempt, which was to happen in the chamber when Mike Pence chickened out (ask Chuck Grassley).
Only for once he didn’t chicken out.
Trump’s obvious, incandescent anger at Pence not doing his bidding makes it clear what that whole “protest” (along with Trump’s own plan to join it) was all about.
Any other interpretation is really a ludicrous, bad faith reframing of quite commonplace behaviour in attempted overthrows.
> Instead they were led thru the halls of the Capitol (by the police!) ... but the premise that they intended to overthrow the govt
You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo and left it there. Or any of the Jack Smith findings. There was a coordinated top-down plan to violate the Electoral Count Act, its not even hidden. Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time
> You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo
Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?
Spoiler: It doesn't. So it's actually you who hasn't read the memos. If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.
> Jack Smith findings
You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts? And another that he closed himself? In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing. You are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately he proved nothing.
Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time.
> Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?
Really cynical stuff. The Eastman memo was the blueprint on how to actually stop Biden's certification. That was the paperwork, the legal attack. January 6th was the kinetic attack.
Just because both actions were not detailed in the same piece of paper does not mean they weren't both part of a clearly coordinated action (of which the special counsel agreed).
> You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts?
Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself because he knew Trump would shut him down anyway once back in office.
Look, I get it. This is a narrative that is very important to you. You can't believe that your side are the violent ones or your president is the lawless one. So much of this is a waste of time.
Just know that this is your narrative and it has no connection to reality.
> If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.
You do realize John Eastman himself literally says he would lose 9-0 [1] when heard in the supreme court, admitting he is illegally violating the ECA with no sound legal argument. And he was literally disbarred for this behavior. [2]
How do you reconcile with this cognitive dissonance?
> In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing.
So you just admit you have never heard the Jack Smith report. Just say that next time, why lie?
> J6 was some kind of insurrection, but the BLM riots were peaceful protests
I'm not a fan of shameless whataboutisms, but this one is particularly bad. The attempted insurrection on January 6th had nothing to do with Black Lives Matter riots (Funny, you can never say those words. It's always an abbreviation).
It was a premeditated attack on the Capitol at the exact time and place the new president was being certified.
It is the most cut and dry example of an attempted coup this country has seen in decades, and it was organized and executed by the sitting, and current President.
There's no reason for you to try to remake history. Your guy got back into power and made all of his legal problems disappear.
He has not avoided prison because he was somehow not guilty. He avoided prison by overcoming the legal system.
On second thought, isn't a core tenet of the US justice system "innocent until proven guilty"? Under that tenet, along with the fact that he was never found guilty, wouldn't US values require considering him innocent? Or have US values changed since that tenet was adopted?
He had already been convicted of multiple unrelated felonies.
He was in the process of being tried in multiple cases in multiple jurisdictions regarding his attempts to compromise an American election, each time with overwhelming, nearly comical evidence against him.
Saying he's innocent until proven guilty not only ignores the reality that the cases against him, even based on what is publicly available evidence, were airtight, but also the fact that these cases only went away because he won re-election and made them go away.
Bear in mind these people are very much pro-gun and believe the 2A is there to protect against the govt. If they had intended to violently overthrow the govt, it would have been very apparent. Yet not a single bullet was fired from the protestors. As you pointed out, the only ones doing the shooting was from the police towards the pro-trump people. That lady was unarmed, and was shot while climbing thru a window. (Considering this [1] was the standard for 'peaceful protests' at the time.) Hardly qualifies as self defense, and had this been any other situation the policeman would be stripped of his badge and jailed. But of course, Biden's DOJ declined to prosecute.
Let me tell you about Belgium in 1830. It got attached to the Netherlands, and their king would not listen to the locals. Things got completely out of hand until we got huge protests. All the while, the idea at the Belgian side was things would calm down once their king would stop being so bloody minded and make some concessions. Well, the Dutch king didn't, the revolution succeeded, and we more or less accidentally liberated ourselves. France couldn't invade yet, and there was a general air of: whoops,we created a country, now what? Belgium is a country to this day, for no real reason.
You can start an armed revolt, but you have no idea what's going to happen afterwards.
Arguing that it was a poor insurrection attempt does not negate what it was. Arguing that it could have been worse doesn't change the fact that five people died. The unarmed lady was shot climbing through a window you didn't say what window it was the window dividing a violent mob from congress people sheltering in place.
And making excuses for political violence guarantees that there will be more in the future. It should never be tolerated.
There aren’t some kind of magic levers inside of the building. To perform an insurrection you need military support. Do you think all of the people involved were just so dumb that they thought they could take over by simply being inside the building? The reality candidate where they intended to delay the proceedings by protesting on site makes massively more sense. Certainly one can disagree with the method there and say it wasn’t appropriate, but there is a lot of hysteria over it and I don’t really get why people are sucked in by it.
The plan was, according to the special counsel who had researched it, to buy time for the Eastman memo's plan of sending fake electors to create a constitutional crisis, whereas then the House needs to vote on who is president.
The attack on the Capitol wasn't meant to overthrow the government itself. It was meant to stop the certification, which it did, so that the rest of the plan could take place.
Under no circumstances take my word for it all of this is freely available.
That is a strawman argument, or perhaps you misunderstand the comparison. Nowhere did I say it was a poor insurrection attempt. I said it was not an insurrection at all. They were set up and led into the capitol for the cameras, in a ploy to frame it as an insurrection. And ultimately, that's what happened.
To this claim that "5 people died" - how many were shot by the "violent insurrectionists"?
The answer: none.
1 policeman had a stroke and 4 committed suicide. You cannot blame the J6ers for the policemen's pre-existing conditions or suicidal tendencies. None of the suicides were coerced. The only person who was killed was the aforementioned pro trump woman.
