[throwawayq3423]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_memos

[pfannkuchen]

Okay, that isn’t an insurrection or an attack though. It’s some attempt at a legal loophole via targeted protest, right? Insurrectionists typically don’t rely on legal mechanisms to achieve their goals.

[pfannkuchen]

This sounds like moving the goalposts. Sorry, I don’t intend to move the goalposts.

What I mean is - yes, the document you linked seems quite plausible, I hadn’t read about that before. But, based on the reaction I see to January 6th from the public, I have trouble believing that the public reaction is driven by an understanding of the alleged plot and not from media driven hysteria. Are we saying that the media is drumming up hysteria based on the actual plot, but since the common man doesn’t actually understand such things typically that the media doing so is justified?

Like to me an authentic negative reaction to reading about the plot would be something like disappointment that the type of legal strategizing that happens in courtrooms has made its way into politics. And I think even you personally are using the language “insurrection” and “attack”, which doesn’t really line up with the alleged plot at all, does it? This is what I’m confused about.