was 1/6 an insurrection and are we in the throes of a civil war?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

Once again. Attempting to overthrow the government is not just "politics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

You are absolutely both siding this even if that isn't your intention.

The idea that you think what happened on 1/6 is now being stretched by the DOJ and prosecutors into insurrection/revolution, when, you know, it actually was based on the guilty pleas and the guilty convictions, is actually quite stunning.

The reason the BK protesters were not charged as such was because they were not trying to overthrow the government.

But sure, in your mind, they are the same.

Let me clarify: I don’t believe that J6 was an insurrection/revolution and neither does DOJ. A tiny minority of the defendants charged out of J6 faced indictments that fall into the family of “insurrection/revolution”. Indeed, even amongst the longest sentences handed out, once you get past the Proud Boys leaders, the serious sentences are for assuaging police. Once you get past the proud boys and assaulting police charges; Then, the overwhelming majority of indictments are for disorderly conduct type offenses. And yes, the BK hearing protestors meet the elements for the crimes that the vast vast majority of J6 rioters have faced. If you can’t see it, then you’re the one blinded by political bias.

You clearly have no idea how prosecution works.

You indict for the most prosecutable crimes. The prosecuting documents outline the seditious conspiracy, but the indictments are for the things that were cut and dried, no-brainer convictions.

Understand, there were several classes of people on the mall and at the Capitol.

1) the "normies" as the Oath Keepers and Proud boys called them. These are the regular people who bought into the hype of a revolution and provided cover for the paramiliary that were on site. These are the people who generally got 30 days to a few months for being in restricted areas and otherwise being disorderly at the Capitol

2) the paramilitary participants - these are the oath keeper and proud boys members who partook in the planned activities, who coordinated and communicated locations and movements

3) the field organizers - these are the ones who were sentenced this week, the Biggs.Tarrios of the plan.

The ones who have not been indicted yet, the planners on the other side, the Roger Stones, Ali's people of that ilk and the funders, like the publix Grocery Store heiress, Ginni Thomas and people of that ilk. I hope/suspect those are coming.

You clearly have no idea what is happening, here. According to the NPR database, there have been just shy of 1150 persons indicted out of the J6 riots. Fifteen (15!) have been charged with seditious conspiracy, mostly proud boys. A little over 160 additional individuals haven charged with assault.

So, a little over 1% of people charged (again, 15 people) have been actually charged with anything looking like “insurrection/revolt”, and an additional 15% have been charged with assault (but not “insurrection/revolt” type charges). Even if you want to broaden the scope to all violence charges, you still get to ~295 persons charged (including assault charges, but not sed conspiracy).

The remaining charges are overwhelmingly things like obstruction of an official proceeding, destruction of property, entering and remaining in a restricted area. This paragraph of charges could just as equally be applied to, for example, the protest of the BK SCOTUS hearings.

If DOJ is only willing to actually charge 15 people out of 1150 charged and (28,000 who were in DC protesting that day) with crimes that are in the treason/insurrection family, it simply is not reasonable to to call the event an insurrection/revolt/civil war.

Either DOJ is letting a whole lot of people off east, or this was really a riot and people have been charged as such.

[Anonymous]

Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treated the same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treatedthNothing about the prosecutoons has been political except for your continuing attemlt to gaslight what same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

Lol, the useful idiots have been charged and treated the same as rioters. For instance, theyve actually been treated better than the cop city protestors, the occupy wall street protestors and the 2016 inauguration protestors. That is, those of them that have shown remorse for being useful idiots in an attempted coup. The people that took part in the attempted coup or viciously attacked the MPD have also been treated appropriately. There has been neither the appearance nor substance of anything political in the prosecutions save for your attempt to gaslight what happened. A coup was attempted. That is no small matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1/6 was the redneck reverse of a BLM protest. And their savior Trump hasn't even tried to help any of his minions who got nto trouble.

No, it was way more serious than that. Sure some of the people there were just standard meal team six afficianados but others went much further. They were specifically trying to stop the electoral count and overthrow the election. It was straight up an attempted coup.

So we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of gun owners left their firearms at home? Is that how you’re seeing this?

What you’re seeing is uninformed and incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You’re evading the issue. Is your position that we had an insurrection/revolution where a bunch of GUN OWNERS left their FIREARMS at home?

The NPR article details pepper spray, stun guns and baseball bats which is very consistent with some of the left riots we’ve seen, particularly in the Pacific Northwest.

There were plenty who actually had guns there.
https://nypost.com/2022/12/23/capitol-riot-report-details-weapons-toted-by-28k-strong-trump-mob/

“Plenty”? Five firearms documented in the article, none at the Capitol, out of 28,000 people there that day. My guess is the guys and gals who were armed with firearms knew to stay out of the cap building because most responsible gun owners are exceedingly careful about where they take their firearms.

This has to be the first revolution in history where a bunch of gun owners left their guns at home.

You're right. This could be the first revolution in modern history where guns where left at home. It is what it is. Any other thoughts back on topic?

Most reasonable people in a nonpartisan context would say if the gun owners leave their firearms at home, it wasn’t an insurrection/revolution. It was a riot.

Be careful about the standards you set. E.g., protestors storming the senate during the confirmation hearings of a SCOTUS nominee.

bOtH sIDeS

(IOW not the same)

It’s not “both sides”. I’d be equally appalled at trespassing and interruption of government proceedings during the BK hearings being stretched into insurrection/revolution charges. I’d feel the same way about the attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland. But believe me that it wouldn’t take many changes to the indictments in the Jan 6 cases to be applied to the people trying to stop the BK confirmation hearings.

Except for that whole trying to overthrow the election part. It's kind of a big distinction.

Not if you expect equal justice under the law. You’re kinda proving the allegation that this is political.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to interrupt government proceedings to prevent an electoral count but it is okay to interrupt BK confirmation hearings.

The law doesn’t say: it is illegal to trespass and remain in the capitol building to stop and electoral count but it is legal to trespass and remain in the capital to prevent/protest BK hearings.

Again, this isn’t a defense of the J6 rioters. But your distinctions only matter if you bring politics into it.

This.

Not, not really "this", because the PP was factually incorrect about the various laws that do, and do not apply to these different circumstances.

+1 Just at its most basic level, the people at the hearings had been allowed into the Capitol and cleared by security. No one on January 6 had because the Capitol was closed to the public due to Covid.

I’d love to know which laws I’m wrong about. Prosecutorial discretion is a real thing. But political legitimacy of any government rests on the just treatment of the minority party. And that’s based on equal justice for all.

On the BK hearings, your comment is revisionist BS. There were at least 225 arrests at the BK senate confirmation hearings. I remember that very clearly. Some were arrested for blocking physical spaces and others for outbursts in the hearing room.

By elements of the crimes, the BK protestors could have been charged the same as about 75% of those charged for the J6 riots. But I think every single one paid a fine and moved on with their life. Again, prosecutorial discretion is real, but if either party truly wishes to govern in this country, then equal justice under the law has to mean something.

You would have to have read my comment to call it “revisionist BS.” It appears that you did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/11 was perpetrated by foreign Muslims. 1/6 was perpetrated by patriotic Americans. Big difference.

one is classified as terrorists; the other is classified as seditionists. They both get long jail times.

Would argue both are terrorists, one domestic and the other foreign. The domestic terrorists committed sedition.

We aren’t having a civil war because they are just going to commit terrorist acts rather than a tradition civil war.

Even folks working in the WH knew it was domestic terrorism. Wasn't it Hope Hicks who texted another aide: "We all look like we are domestic terrorists now." She called it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treated the same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

Explain to me one thing.

How were they going to overthrow the government?

Let's say for a scenario, they're in the Capital. They get everything they want.

HOW have they overthrown the government? <---- answer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treated the same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

Explain to me one thing.

How were they going to overthrow the government?

Let's say for a scenario, they're in the Capital. They get everything they want.

HOW have they overthrown the government? <---- answer it.

Do you really not know this years later? There have been a hundred threads about this. A Congressional Committee held hearings and issued a gigantic report. Multiple trials that were weeks long have been held resulting in guilty verdicts and sentences of dozens of years+ in federal prison. Multiple indictments of the former President cover this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treated the same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

Explain to me one thing.

How were they going to overthrow the government?

Let's say for a scenario, they're in the Capital. They get everything they want.

HOW have they overthrown the government? <---- answer it.

Do you really not know this years later? There have been a hundred threads about this. A Congressional Committee held hearings and issued a gigantic report. Multiple trials that were weeks long have been held resulting in guilty verdicts and sentences of dozens of years+ in federal prison. Multiple indictments of the former President cover this.

I'm asking you a very specific question. Answer it.

They're in the Capital. They get everything they want. HOW have they overthrown the government? <---- answer it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:9/11 was perpetrated by foreign Muslims. 1/6 was perpetrated by patriotic Americans. Big difference.

one is classified as terrorists; the other is classified as seditionists. They both get long jail times.

Would argue both are terrorists, one domestic and the other foreign. The domestic terrorists committed sedition.

We aren’t having a civil war because they are just going to commit terrorist acts rather than a tradition civil war.

☝️This is the answer to the OP’s question. End of thread.☝️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the people were just useful idiots. However, unfortunately for them, there were useful idiots in an attempt to overthrow the government which made them accomplices. If they show remors, cooperate and realize what they ended up being a part of they get a slap on the wrist. If they don't and think it was normal and ok to have unwittingly taken part in an attempt to overthrow the government then they get something longer. That's how a justice system is supposed to work. January 6th was an attempted coup. What happened was very serious and cannot be swept under the rug, minimized or ever worse normalized as "just politics".

Feel free to cite where people were charged with “being useful idiots” to overthrow a government. If they didn’t have the mens rea for revolt/insurrection/sedition, then they were rioters, and nothing more. And it is not unreasonable for them to be treated the same as other rioters in the country. Anything else, and this gets the appearance of being political.

Explain to me one thing.

How were they going to overthrow the government?

Let's say for a scenario, they're in the Capital. They get everything they want.

HOW have they overthrown the government? <---- answer it.

Quit your pathetic whining. People are indicted, tried and convicted in a court of law and you still cray and cry. How about don't go beat the crap out of cops with a flagpole and all the other crimes if you don't want to tangle with the justice system.