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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think someone would've needed to bring some guns in order for it to be an insurrection. Those LARPers and lookieloos weren't even that organized.

Read the thread. Tons of examples of people who brought guns. And not all but a lot of them were organized. The Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers serving sentences for seditious conspiracy could tell you they certainly were.

Tons? The number of arrests was under 10. And the number of shots fired by the rioters was zero. I won't downplay the murder of the police officer but that doesn't make an insurrection. The left likes to catastrophize Jan 6th for PT. And I say this as a Democrat.

You’re no Democrat

Whether there were guns or not, it doesn’t matter, it was an attempted coup that was within minutes of being successful. Do you understand that? Do you really “get” what that means? We almost lost this country. We were *minutes* away from not being the country we know today.

Had they seized control, that would’ve been it. It all would’ve been over.

Then would come the death camps for Jews, LGBTQIA2S+ people, and others, POC back into slavery, ect. Do you get it? All that stuff - it was all within minutes of happening. Do you really not understand this?


Guns? Who cares if they didn’t have guns. They almost seized the damn government. Are you this obtuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think someone would've needed to bring some guns in order for it to be an insurrection. Those LARPers and lookieloos weren't even that organized.

Read the thread. Tons of examples of people who brought guns. And not all but a lot of them were organized. The Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers serving sentences for seditious conspiracy could tell you they certainly were.

Tons? The number of arrests was under 10. And the number of shots fired by the rioters was zero. I won't downplay the murder of the police officer but that doesn't make an insurrection. The left likes to catastrophize Jan 6th for PT. And I say this as a Democrat.

What makes it an insurrection is the fact that it was planned, funded and organized with a goal of disrupting the orderly transition of power.

But sure, go ahead and keep justifying a coup attempt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think someone would've needed to bring some guns in order for it to be an insurrection. Those LARPers and lookieloos weren't even that organized.

Read the thread. Tons of examples of people who brought guns. And not all but a lot of them were organized. The Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers serving sentences for seditious conspiracy could tell you they certainly were.

Tons? The number of arrests was under 10. And the number of shots fired by the rioters was zero. I won't downplay the murder of the police officer but that doesn't make an insurrection. The left likes to catastrophize Jan 6th for PT. And I say this as a Democrat.

If you can grasp the enormity of what January 6th was, you’re a moron no matter what party you vote for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the election of George Bush an “insurrection?”

1) Al Gore was not trying to overturn an alection and in fact as the count proved, he actually won Florida, and would have been president had it not been for the Supreme Court's untimely and unprecedented intervention in the case.

2) Al Gore explored legal venues just like Trump

3) Like Trump, Gore lost.

4) Unlike Trump, Gore conceded.

5) Trump went on to stage a coup and still lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the election of George Bush an “insurrection?”

That didn’t happen. This is what happened. Florida state law required a machine recount because it was so close. After the recount it was even closer and a bunch of ballots did not have any vote counted by the machine because the punch card system was flawed. Gore filed for a manual count of the ballots with no vote counted to count the ballots on which people obviously voted for a candidate but the machine didn’t count it because the chad was not punched all the way out. The Florida Supreme Court said yes, let’s determine “the will of the people”, which is the point of an election. Bush appealed to the Supreme Court and they said, we don’t give a shit about the will of the people, our guy is ahead so the election is over. Gore then conceded and presided over the electoral vote certification.

So shut up with your ignorant false analogies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When we're in a civil war, you'll know.

I know my bodily autonomy has been taken away and I can be forced to bear a rapist’s child.

I know people are planning to murder me because I’m a lesbian.

I know our planet will likely be uninhabitable in a decade unless we make radical changes to every facet of our lifestyle.




So yes, I KNOW we’re in a civil war.


Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats and their surrogates spent six years attacking Trump. In fact, they were talking about impeachment six months before Trump was even elected.

Don't behave like that and expect nothing in return.

You've been attacking Joe Biden. According to your logic we are now completely justified in cheating on the election, sending fake electors, and overthrowing the government in a violent coup attempt if a Republican wins the next election.

DP

I’m completely fine with this. It’s the only thing that can save this country if the GQP steals the next election.

So yes, call me an insurrectionist if they win in ‘24. I’ll be right out there in the street and at the Capitol, fighting the fascists.

[Anonymous]

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 one died in BLM protests. No cops were murdered in BLM protests.

[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:

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.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

How in the hell are several hundred people in the Capitol going to run a coup against TWO MILLION federal employees? Hullo?

There was at least 3,000 of them, not “several hundred”.

The fact is, if they’d managed to get control of the building, they would’ve been in charge. Period.

Are you really this stupid?

[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:

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.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

How in the hell are several hundred people in the Capitol going to run a coup against TWO MILLION federal employees? Hullo?

There was at least 3,000 of them, not “several hundred”.

The fact is, if they’d managed to get control of the building, they would’ve been in charge. Period.

Are you really this stupid?

Also, there are not two million federal employees at the Capitol.

[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:

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.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

How in the hell are several hundred people in the Capitol going to run a coup against TWO MILLION federal employees? Hullo?

There was at least 3,000 of them, not “several hundred”.

The fact is, if they’d managed to get control of the building, they would’ve been in charge. Period.

Are you really this stupid?

Also, there are not two million federal employees at the Capitol.

But those two million federal employees are bound by oath to obey their orders. And if the Capitol had been seized, they’d be forced to follow the orders of the shaman guy with the horns and the racist with his feet on Pelosi’s desk. We came THAT close to losing the country.

[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:

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.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

How in the hell are several hundred people in the Capitol going to run a coup against TWO MILLION federal employees? Hullo?

There was at least 3,000 of them, not “several hundred”.

The fact is, if they’d managed to get control of the building, they would’ve been in charge. Period.

Are you really this stupid?

Also, there are not two million federal employees at the Capitol.

But those two million federal employees are bound by oath to obey their orders. And if the Capitol had been seized, they’d be forced to follow the orders of the shaman guy with the horns and the racist with his feet on Pelosi’s desk. We came THAT close to losing the country.

Federal employees are bound to uphold the Constitution and follow lawful orders. J6 was none of that. Those of us with any integrity would have resisted and would have done everything we could to oppose the coup attempt. But sadly some within Secret Service, Pentagon, FBI and others at best fell down on the job and at worst were complicit in the coup attempt, even to the point of destroying text messages after the fact.

[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:

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:

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.

No, they couldn't Facts and laws matter. The BK people were prostesting and by your own admission, were arrested. The J6 people were literally staging a coup. It wasn't "riots" it was a freaking coup attempt. Hence the laws they are being charged under are related to disrupting a consitutional action, not just "a protest"

Facts and laws do matter. And you need to read the thread.

Roughly 1150 people have been arrested and charged for J6.

15 face insurrection/revolt charges (seditious conspiracy). A little over 1%.

Approx 295 have faced violence charges but not seditious conspiracy charges (assault, resisting arrest, violence in government building). About 25%.

The balance have faced disorderly conduct type charges, categorized as obstruction of an official proceeding, trespassing or remaining in a restricted government area, etc. This is about 75% of the people charged. When I say the BK protestors are in family with this 75% group, that’s what I mean. But they were given citations, paid fines and moved on with their lives.

Again, less than 2% of J6 rioters are facing insurrection/revolt/coup charges. So, no, I don’t accept that beyond the 15 people charged with seditious conspiracy that this was a coup attempt. It was a riot for the overwhelming majority of people there and DOJ’s charges reflect that reality. Otherwise, DOJ is letting over 1100 people off easy.

Hypothetical. Let’s say you have a weird mole. Let’s say that it’s malignant melanoma. That’s way less than 2% of your body, so that’s not a big deal, right? Do you have cancer or not if you just have a really small cancer? Should we globally say “Generic Republican Traitor Supporter does not have cancer,” or should we say you do?

If we say you do not have cancer, you get to move forward with your life as normal and you will not be given treatment targeting the malignant cells, but if you do say you have cancer you can get that excised and maybe a course of chemo and some scans to make sure it’s not more than just that one tiny weird mole.

Do you see where I’m going or is this way too confusing for a maga?

I see that you don’t understand how the law works. I see that you don’t understand how to make a proper analogy. I see that you don’t understand how frame an argument. And, FWIW, I suspect that you don’t really understand cancer either.

FTR, not a maga. Just someone that finds this whole thing super weird.

DP... I don't think the PP's commentary is specifically about how the law works - but it IS a very apt analogy of what is wrong with today's GOP. It has within it a malignant melanoma that keeps on growing yet the GOP refuses to accept the diagnosis and refuses to treat it.

So this is about politics after all? I said three or four pages back that nothing short of the legitimacy of our government is at stake here if this even has the whiff of politics. Here’s a comparison for you: using the state apparatus to hammer the political opposition because it won’t deal with its problems in the way YOU want is straight out of the authoritarian handbook, in particular the Latin American variety.

I want to be exceedingly clear that I believe the overwhelming majority these prosecutions meets the letter of the law for the crimes charged. I only equivocate because I haven’t done a deep dive on every case. But man-oh-man are we playing with fire here and nobody on the side in power seems to care.

I don’t think it’s about politics, but the GOP is defending and making excuses for criminals. They’re trying to make criminals out to be victims. That is dangerous. Wanting to excuse and not prosecute people who broke the law, but have similar political beliefs, is straight up corruption.

It’s not about prosecution, it’s about equal treatment and similar sentences. One judge gave a man who set a fire that killed the father of five children only ten years, and gave a little speech about leniency in this case because it was during the George Floyd protests. Some of the j6 protesters were given much longer sentences for lesser crimes, and let’s face it, it’s because of political reasons.

Name those Jan 6th perpetrators ghat got more than 10 years. You are lying.

It's neither her nor there but cop city protestors have gotten felony murder charges. As far as I am aware not a single Jan 6th defendent has been charged with felony murser despite all of them being eligible.

I honestly think that most of you live under a rock: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/here-are-the-longest-jan-6-prison-sentences-handed-down-so-far/ar-AA1gibgi

The only person who died on Jan 6th was Ashley Babbitt

Uh, you are ignoring the various suicides not to mention the permanent injuries many of our men and women in blue suffered.

That’s not murder

You don't know how felony murder works. Ashli Babbit's death opened everyone up to it.

Try as you might, it’s not murder.

Correct. It was felony murder. A death that occurred during the commission of a crime.

You are still incorrect

I am not

To charge felony murder, the death would have to occur DURING the commission of the crime. No one died Jan 6th, save for four Trump supporters.

NP: just give up. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was Al Gore’s attempt to overturn the election of George Bush an “insurrection?”

Al Gore did not attempt to overturn an election. He exercised a legal right to get a recount through the court system and accepted the results of the lawful process.

[Anonymous]

OP, I don't know what we're in, but "civil war" is becoming more and more socialized in the media.

If I look at other places where that has happened (parts of Africa, the Balkans, Rwanda, Central America, etc.), it ends really badly for all involved. In fact, there are no winners, just degrees of loss.

I'm concerned that BOTH SIDES see no hope and no reason to do anything other than resort to violence. And yet, NO ONE is backing down; the hype just gets ratcheted up more and more.

https://twitter.com/a24/status/1734936219711394284?s=46&t=Hv1q5QHPgEPDaOz8ywkCCQ