As has been pointed out, the total number of people who have been charged with sedition, treason, insurrection, or obstruction is incredibly small. The number of people charged with things like illegal protesting and trespassing is really large.
Now, Reuters reports that the FBI casts doubt on the whole narrative that this was in "insurrection", or a "coup", or whatever.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/
Strangely enough, this isn't the first time that reality hasn't supported the narrative about the 1/6 riot. Remember all the reports that Brian Sicknick was killed by a protester with a fire extinguisher, well the medical examiner's report corrected that error, although CNN was determined to stick to the false narrative.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/brian-sicknick-death-strokes/2021/04/19/36d2d310-617e-11eb-afbe-9a11a127d146_story.html
https://www.thewrap.com/brian-sicknick-cause-of-death-cnn-media/
Today I heard some senator, I think Schumer but I'm not sure, Talking about the "political violence" of 1/6 and how evil it was. While I, and most normal people, stand opposed to "political violence" I can't help but wonder how the rest of the violence of 2020 (along with the violence in Ferguson and Baltimore among other places prior to 2020) can be described as anything other than "political violence". It was clearly the use of violence in pursuit of political goals. Just like we had groups of people standing outside court houses during trials who were threatening violence if they didn't get their preferred outcome.
Like Ted Cruz, I stand against ALL "political violence". Not just that which coincides with my political opponents agenda.
26 comments:
If this isn't clear, let me be as unambiguous as possible. I fully support the rioters from 1/6 being charged, convicted, and sentenced for any and all actual crimes committed during the brief time they were in the capitol. The same way I fully support the rioters at the "BLM riots" of 2020 and before being charged, tried, and sentenced for any and all crimes committed during the multiple days of rioting and looting that went on during the summer of 2020 (and Ferguson/Baltimore etc). If someone riots, they shoudl be punished appropriately, no if's and's, but's, or excuses.
And how about when the police opened fire with rubber bullets and tear gas at peaceful protesters? Do you support charges being filed against those police who were provoking violence, not calming it? It is legal, after all, to peacefully protest. It is not legal to fire rubber bullets at innocent people. Even if you're a cop.
If the police violated any laws then they should be prosecuted. If they violated their departments use of force guidelines, then they should be disciplined.
Excellent job of trying to change the subject.
I'm unaware of any situation where cops opened fire in any way on "peaceful" protesters without provocation, though it has been asserted Capitol Police did exactly that on Jan 6. Releasing more video would confirm whether or not that's true.
Aside from legit claims that Capitol police assaulted protesters with various items which touched off a response from those who weren't doing anything more but gathering, I'm unaware of any cases of police firing rubber bullets on "peaceful protesters" anytime in the last 70 years or more in this country. Southern Democrats routinely rousted peaceful black protesters in the 60's. When since then have we seen it except for Jan 6 of last year?
"When since then have we seen it except for Jan 6 of last year?"
Routinely during the protests last year which were 99% peaceful. Do you not follow the news?
In one case in my own Louisville Kentucky, we watched on TV on the news as a cop started shooting rubber bullets or pellets of some sort at reporter!
In another instance, some Mennonite friends of mine were there as part of a peaceful protest and they reported they and other protesters around them were being peaceful and then the police start shooting at them.
Seriously. Follow the news.
"Routinely during the protests last year which were 99% peaceful."
I thought it was 97%...
Unfortunately, the % that weren't peaceful caused billions of dollars in damage (mostly to innocent POC), millions of dollars in looting (again much of that was to small POC owned businesses), deaths, injuries, entire cities held hostage, and more. but let's just minimize all of that behind some bullshit "statistic" designed to obfuscate the reality that many of us lived for an extended period of time and the fear that still persists in certain parts of the cities that were pillaged.
But let's compared what happened on 1/6 to the summer of 2020, because a 5 hour protest with minimal, minor damage and only one death (of an unarmed protester) to days of burning buildings.
"Do you not follow the news?"
Yes, I did. I guess you missed the wanton destruction, looting, fires, and attacks on government buildings (the very definition of insurrection). Of course, I got to watch plenty on my friend's social media as they were at risk. I got to hear first hand about the Habitat houses burned and looted and the families sentenced to months in substandard housing, hell the 400+ families denied affordable housing due to the "peaceful" protests. Yes, I watched the news, and I still see the burned out shells of buildings and the vacant lots left behind by the peaceful protesters.
"In one case in my own Louisville Kentucky, we watched on TV on the news as a cop started shooting rubber bullets or pellets of some sort at reporter! In another instance, some Mennonite friends of mine were there as part of a peaceful protest and they reported they and other protesters around them were being peaceful and then the police start shooting at them. Seriously. Follow the news."
I guess that ignoring the reality that the left's protests in 2020, in 2016, in Ferguson, and Baltimore and more were all individually worse that 1/6 helps you feel superior.
FYI, I guess the 1/6 protesters were just following the example of the leftist Weathermen/SDS who were the first (in recent history) to attack the capitol. Hell their bombs even went off.
The problem that you have is that you are trying to make it sound like one incident (1/6) where very little actually happened, is massively worse than the leftist riots (1971, 2016 DC, summer of 2020, CHAZ/CHOP, Ferguson, etc) that have been mentioned. It's like you think that if you just repeat the lie long enough and loud enough, it'll make all of the leftist violence magically disappear.
I'll say this once more. While I do not support the excesses of the 1/6 protest in any way, I do admire the fact that the protesters went to right place. The summer of 2020 protesters chose to victimize those who weren't actually oppressing them. They left City Hall alone. They didn't go after the mayor or the city council, they didn't go after police HQ, or the police union office. No, they primarily victimized and terrorized people who looked much like the rioters. Immigrants who owned small businesses, African Americans who needed affordable housing, cops on the street (who don;t have any power or control of policy), were the folks who bore the brunt of the 2020 riots (at least here). Even when they did try to stick it to the man (Target, Wallgreen's, Cub Foods, CVS, US Bank, and the like, all they really did was screw over the same poor POC/immigrant communities they'd already terrorized. Y'all should be damn proud of the carnage that leftist riots have left behind.
Craig... "I guess that ignoring the reality that the left's protests in 2020, in 2016, in Ferguson, and Baltimore and more were all individually worse that 1/6 helps you feel superior."
The protests of last summer were about a legitimate topic... Justice for an historically oppressed group. Holding police accountable. These are legitimate concerns that all reasonable people have. Left and right.
And a large percentage of them 97, 99% whatever, were peaceful.
For the tiny percentage that weren't peaceful, a large part of the chaos was provoked by violent police actions.. Yet another portion of the violent actions were provoked by right wing troublemakers.
What percentage was caused by people who actually were protesting injustice and oppression? We don't know. You do not know. Do you understand that? You. Do not know. You can't lay that at the feet of pro Justice protesters.
How many actual BLM or Justice protesters were arrested for causing violence or damage? 100? Ten? One??
You have no evidence that any significant portion of that tiny percentage were caused by actual Justice protesters.
And that was for a just cause.
On the other hand, the attacks on the capital, the attempts to undermine a free election and our free Republic, that was based not upon any actual Justice concerns but a stupidly false lie spread by a stupidly dangerous president and believed by stupidly gullible right wingers.
Do you understand the difference?
You're comparing apples and vomit.
Craig... "The summer of 2020 protesters chose to victimize those who weren't actually oppressing them."
Once again, this is a damn lie. The protesters of 2020 were peacefully protesting. Some people - we're not sure who - used that opportunity to commit acts of violence. But by-and-large, we don't know who they were. YOU don't know who they were.
How many BLM people were arrested for acts of violence? Give me a number. Is it 100? Were there 100 BLM Supporters or allies who were convicted of acts of unprovoked violence? Not even 100? Out of the millions of people who went to protest for Justice, are you saying that not even 100 were allied with BLM?
Quit making false charges you can't support. Quit assigning blame to a millions of peaceful protesters when you don't have any evidence that they are guilty of anything.
It's the same kind of thing that white racist did back in the fifties and sixties... trying to condemn peaceful protesters by associating them with small acts of violence while at the same time ignoring the violence inherent in the system.
This is quite the litany of excuses for the leftist riots that have occurred in the past 10 years.
"For the tiny percentage that weren't peaceful, a large part of the chaos was provoked by violent police actions.. Yet another portion of the violent actions were provoked by right wing troublemakers."
Another claim with absolutely zero proof, therefore not worth dealing with.
"What percentage was caused by people who actually were protesting injustice and oppression? We don't know. You do not know. Do you understand that? You. Do not know. You can't lay that at the feet of pro Justice protesters."
You're right, we don't know for sure. Of course, you lie by suggesting that all of the responsibility be laid on the "pro justice protesters". I'm simply pointing out that there is a history of riots that can all be described as being about left wing issues. Clearly the DC riots after the 2016 election were 1. leftists, 2. Not protesting any of your excuses.
"How many actual BLM or Justice protesters were arrested for causing violence or damage? 100? Ten? One??"
1. Since I doubt the data exists I suspect we'll never know.
2. Since such a small % of the rioters were arrested, I doubt we'll ever know with any accuracy.
3. I love you moving the goal posts. I've not mentioned BLM once in this thread, I've been quite clear that I'm talking about the long history of leftist riots including at least two that were expressly political. But, you keep obfuscating, it's what you do.
To be clear-
Leftist: Summer of 2020, 1971 capitol bombing, 2016 trying to overturn/protest an election, the siege of the 2nd precinct, attacks on police with deadly weapons, Ferguson, Baltimore, CHAZ/CHOP, as a partial lust. Not to mention the multiple threats of new violent riots if certain political/legal decisions aren't agreed with by the mob.
Rightist: 1/6
Not exactly a balanced scorecard.
"The protests of last summer were about a legitimate topic... Justice for an historically oppressed group. Holding police accountable."
Are you really suggesting that burning, looting, arson, etc are appropriate or should be excused because the excuse is "justice"?
How does burning down the businesses of innocent POC and immigrants, or a post office, or the grocery/drug stores in neighborhoods filled with low income, POC, and immigrants help "protest the police"?
What's interesting about your excuse, is that (In the Floyd case) "Justice" was achieved through the process. I guess that it's OK to loot, burn, riot, and destroy, because "justice" isn't instantaneous.
If y'all had waited and allowed the legal process to take it's course, instead of rioting, and if Chauvin had been acquitted, then there might be justification for rioting. But y'all were to impatient to let the legal system work, y'all wanted to skip the whole trial nonsense and go straight to jail.
Your version of "justice" doesn't seem particularly "just". It's also interesting that y'all weren't particularly interested in this sort of instant justice when a black MPD officer shot an innocent white woman. It's strange that this hatred of "police misconduct" comes out differently when it's a white woman who gets killed.
No. Even if Chauvin was acquitted...and I believe he should not have been charged as he was, and that according the rules of engagement at the time, that is certainly true...there would be no justification for rioting. None. Protests, maybe. Rioting? Never.
There was no rioting that was justified on the lame and false claim of racist police brutality. The data doesn't back that claim in the least, but the race-hustlers of BLM don't care about facts. They care about destruction. Dan's a liar and he's lying again here.
Dan also lies about what compelled the rioting of 1/6. Election fraud is a legit topic, and there was plenty of reason to support the notion that the 2020 election was stolen from the rightful winner. Dan wants to say that's a "damnable lie". It is not, as from the moment Trump cast his hat into the ring in 2015, Dan's kind were doing all they could to block him from winning, overturn his win, and oust him for the entirety of his four years on any lame-assed, weak-sauce reason they could conjure. The means they employed to accomplish this goal are way too numerous to go into here, but to pretend questioning that election was an illegitimate reason to be pissed off just shows how morally bankrupt and corrupt Dan is. The true "Big Lie" is that that stolen election is a "Big Lie".
Art,
The point I'm making is that IF the 2020 protests were truly about justice for George Floyd, then to riot/protest before Chauvin and the rest were tried and acquitted, was premature at best. Had Chauvin been acquitted, then I could see how riots/protests for justice might have been justified. The problem is that the justice system worked (even if I don't agree with the verdict, I'd still argue that the system worked/is working) and the mobs weren't going to wait for anything like due process, they wanted what they perceived as justice and they wanted it immediately. IMO the protests and riots were threats. They were saying "If we don't get the results we want, then it'll get worse than this". Which seems at least as corrosive to our republic than the minor protest on 1/6.
"How many BLM people were arrested for acts of violence? Give me a number. Is it 100? Were there 100 BLM Supporters or allies who were convicted of acts of unprovoked violence? Not even 100? Out of the millions of people who went to protest for Justice, are you saying that not even 100 were allied with BLM?"
Evan after I go to the trouble of pointing out the bullshit inherent in this line of obfuscation, you come back any try it again. What a load of crap. I've not talked about BLM in this thread, and have not attributed anything specific to BLM in this thread. I've pointed out that the political left has a history of political violence that goes back to at least 1971, with absolutely no comparable record on the political right.
The fact that you keep trying to rationalize/excuse/ignore the history of political violence from the left just undermines what little credibility you might have had.
It's strange that when Trump complains about an election being illegitimate it's a "damnable big lie", but when AOC, Bernie, and Hillary complain about the 2016 elections being "illegitimate" it's no big deal. Of course Bernie has an incredibly valid point when he complains about the DFL primary process in 2016.
Craig... "t's strange that when Trump complains about an election being illegitimate it's a "damnable big lie", but when AOC, Bernie, and Hillary complain about the 2016 elections being "illegitimate""
Please provide the quote. ALL I can find along those lines are people noting the facts:
1. Trump did not win the popular vote
2. Russia did intervene to try to help Trump
They aren't saying the results were false. They aren't undermining the election process. They're pointing to real concerns many people have about the electoral college continuing to put the presidential losers of an election in office (they/we are not saying it isn't legal currently, just that it's a bad idea) and that Trump asked for and received support from Russia in this election process and that undermines his legitimacy.
Those claims are fact-based. It's not false to note that 2 out of 3 of the last GOP presidents factually lost the popular vote and only won due to our electoral college system. It's not false to say that Russia worked to try to defeat Clinton and help elect Trump.
That, as opposed to Trump's claim that the "election was rigged" and "stolen" from him due to "rigged election" and "falsely counted votes" are lies. They're stupid lies that the facts don't support and they're dangerous lies because NOW, a large majority of the GOP (some portion of which are prepared or inclined to engage in violence) don't trust the election process and believe these stupidly false claims.
Will you say that Trump's stupidly false claims ARE stupidly false? That he CLEARLY lost the election fair and square? Will you denounce those who defend the false claim "stolen election" big lie?
Get on the right side of history. These are important times to take a stand.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/6/28/19127475/jimmy-carter-trump-illegitimate-president
https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-trump-illegitimate-president
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/donald-trump-illegitimate-president-rebecca-solnit
https://nypost.com/2020/12/04/democrats-reaping-the-whirlwind-of-their-2016-election-resistance/
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1113/Why-a-third-of-Clinton-supporters-say-Trump-s-victory-is-illegitimate
Just a few examples of the "illegitimate election of 2016".
1. Who cares, the US is not a democracy and the "popular vote" has never determined the winner of presidential elections.
2. If Russia did effect the election, then that would seem to be the responsibility of the president in office while the alleged interference was happening, wouldn't it?
"Trump's stupidly false claims ARE stupidly false? That he CLEARLY lost the election fair and square?"
As usual, no I will not simply regurgitate your hunches as if they are objectively True. Your demand that I do so is, as always, irrational and appears to be an attempt to bully people into agreeing with you.
I would say that Trumps claims appear to be false, yet in the absence of investigations and audits, we'll never really know with 100% certainty. I will also say that the fact that Biden is currently in office, answers your second "question".
Craig... "who cares...?"
A majority of the United States.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/27/majority-of-americans-continue-to-favor-moving-away-from-electoral-college/%3famp=1
That's not nothing.
Craig... "I would say that Trumps claims appear to be false, yet in the absence of investigations and audit..."
And taking positions like this is why you are a Trump defender. You're not acknowledging the great degree of danger and corruption in his actions.
There's nothing false about the 2020 election having been stolen. There's only the dismissal of inconvenient facts by liars like Dan, who isn't mature enough to consider any of it because of his deranged hatred of Trump. Dan thinks it's only about how many dead people voted.
It has been proven that the whole Russian thing was a BIG FAT LIE, and yet Trabue obviously can't accept that truth.
"And taking positions like this is why you are a Trump defender. You're not acknowledging the great degree of danger and corruption in his actions."
What a strange definition of "defender". My initial (during the campaign) response to Trump was that he was corrupt, less than honest, and amoral. I've never varied from that.
I like how you read into something that which isn't there and offer your "interpretation" as if it's the Truth.
"A majority of the United States."
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the folks in the opinion poll Dan offers as the Truth, are all on the left who don't really care about or understand why the EC is important (or understand the role of the states in the process), they just want to impose their politics on others. It's simply a power grab, and one more step toward the end of our representative republic.
Craig,
It's perfectly righteous and acceptable to defend even the most vile...like Dan, for example...against false charges. It can be done like this: "I'm not at all a fan of Trymp, but your deranged and irrational hatred, Dan, is unreasonable and lacking in factual support." What's more, it's true. In my case, the question is, do I support and defend Trump the man or Trump the president. Clearly I've been supporting Trump the president because his work as president has been so worthy of support.
The Biden problem is clearly the reason why one cannot pretend to be doing the right thing by rejecting a candidate solely on his personal life. All that matters is what a given candidate will mean to the state of the nation should he/she win. To say that Hillary would have destroyed America as badly as Biden is might be going too far, but she never would have improved life like Trump has. She was basically Obama 2.0 and things would've deteriorated accordingly. How could it not? Thus, Trump was the right choice even as an unknown who at that time had only his good promises. 2020 should've been a slam dunk because of his many beneficial successes. But morons and political evildoers, without legit reason, continued to pretend he was doing harm, which was and is a lie they still can't support with facts. Dan is still incapable of providing on that score despite constant claims of "corruption, lies and misdeeds".
So it's perfectly OK...just and righteous...to defend Trump against this sort of crap, and one should. I would defend someone as vile as Dan against charges of baby rape if all we had were accusations without evidence. All I could say is that he's down with killing them in the womb, which is bad enough.
Art,
I'm not suggesting that pointing out the lies about Trump is problematic at all. Where I draw the line is him thinking that he can continue his political career.
Why shouldn't he think that? He did a good, if not great job (certainly I regard it as great), and a job far better than anyone before him going back at least three presidents. Biden's not even worthy of being in the discussion of good presidents. Four more years of a guy who you think is too old who was beneficially effective. The nation is f'd right now. Totally f'd, thanks to TDS. It was totally rockin' when Trump was in the White House. Had he support from his own party....
Post a Comment