One more time, then we’ll move on

If #45 agrees to do the same.

If you need targets, you could do worse than pick Kamala Harris. On the anniversary of that thing some people did, Laughing Girl compared January 6 to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. MAGA hats were quick to cry “hyperbole” (or an Anglo-Saxon equivalent).

December 7, 1941 and 9/11 were attacks on America, with great loss of life, by foreign adversaries. January 6 was an attack on America’s Constitution, with minimal loss of life, by domestic terrorists. No argument: it was a protest that went too far. (Sadly, many disagree.) But where did that protest go when it went too far and what did it become?

biblical-incitement-to-riot-1

Posted BEFORE January 6, 2021 on social media

We call it an “insurrection.” Respected legal analysts like Jonathan Turley disagree. True, no one has been convicted of insurrection, yet. But neither were Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. (They were pardoned in the general amnesty of 1868 before their trials ended.)

Apply this test: what was the purpose of the incursion into the Capitol that day? Merely to drink Nancy Pelosi’s cabernet sauvignon? After defeating Capitol police and following Ashli Babbit into the Speaker’s lobby, what might they have done with Pelosi in their clutches?  Or Mike Pence, who refused to overturn the election as instructed by the President who wound them up and sent them hither. No mystery. The insurrectionists were very clear. They shouted their goals as they breached the Capitol and bludgeoned police:

“Hang Mike Pence!”
“Stop the Steal.”
“Where’s Nancy Pelosi?”

“Every law makers who breaks their own stupid f-bombing laws should be dragged out of office and hung.”
“Shoot the politicians!”
“Where’s the traitors?”

“Bring them out!”
“Mike Pence is a f-bombing traitor.” (Source here.)

Blaming the fire department for the arsonist?

Others are blaming Nancy Pelosi for not beefing up security, for not calling out the National Guard. Probably should have but if she had, the same people would be crying “Police State!” As they did following the siege of the Capitol. (We do agree with The Dispatch: condemning January 6 does not require eliminating the legislative filibuster.  Democrats ARE politicizing the anniversary — with the help of Republican denialists.)

At Turley’s site, you see Blaska engage other commentators. One accuses the Squire of suffering from Trump-o-phobia. That’s right! Blame the victim for the disease. We like the True Patriot named “Anonymous” who, at January 7, 2022 at 10:18 AM, warns:

2023 HELL is coming and revenge is coming with him.

Blaska’s Bottom LineWhy Hell is waiting a full year, Anonymous does not say, because Pelosi will be gone by then. Maybe waiting out the Omicron variant.

What are YOU waiting for?

About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2020, election challenges, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to One more time, then we’ll move on

  1. pANTIFArts says:

    It figures, I just posted a comment to yesterday’s column that would MUCH more apropos here today. This “insurrection” is a straw horse that is not worth beating! When protests cross the line they must be stopped decisively, and simply recognized for what they are.

    Like

  2. Gotta watch out for the multiple “Anonymous” commenters, they’re both conservative and progressive trolls and they ALL should be ignored. There are lots and lots of trolls in Turley’s threads, engage with them at your own peril.

    Like

  3. wipam says:

    I believe the words that were spoken by the protesters were hyperbolic.
    Just like I might say to a friend “I’m going to kill you!”
    When truly everyone knows that you don’t REALLY mean to kill someone.
    I find it hard to believe that the same people that walked between the velvet ropes once they got in the Capitol would have actually done harm to your dear Nancy.
    Personally, the crew at The Dispatch and The Bulwark have gone off the deep end.
    I mean Jonah Goldberg is now a commentator on MSNBC because he thinks Fox has gone too far.
    Really? Maybe he’ll take over for that voice of reason, Joy Reid, when she loses her show!
    The only place Jonah regularly appeared anymore was on Special Report with Bret Baier. Now if he thinks Bret has gone over the edge the man has REALLY lost his marbles.
    Though I guess he’ll be in good company at MSNBC with Charlie Sykes, Nicolle Wallace, Steve Schmidt, Joe Scarborough, and whatever crazies from The Lincoln Project they have on.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      You believe the words were hyperbolic? How about smashing windows and battering Capitol Police? Hyperbolic? Because some people walked b/w the velvet ropes does not mean every one of them did so or that those who did did not move beyond velvet ropes. Are you really trying to portray January 6 as an AARP bus tour?

      BTW: Jonah Goldberg did NOT think Bret Baier went over the edge. He specified Tucker Carlson. Credibility, Wipam?

      Like

      • wipam says:

        I only mentioned words. YOU are the one who expanded to other things which I never mentioned. And because I never mentioned them you ASSUMED I don’t have a problem with the other actions I never mentioned. Does it READ like I portrayed 1/6 as an AARP bus tour? If it does I believe your reading comprehension is poor. You are making things up that were never said/written because anytime someone contradicts YOUR opinion you ascribe something nefarious to those that disagree with you.
        And since I have ignored Jonah for the last few years I actually never knew he mentioned Tucker. And because I don’t pay attention to Jonah’s words anymore I lack credibility? So Jonah mentions guy on Fox and he leaves to go to a network where there are a whole bunch of crazy hosts and even crazier guests? Makes no sense whatsoever! His message will NEVER get through to anyone credible by being on MSNBC. He’ll be a guy the Democrats use until he’s not useable anymore.
        And I’m supposed to believe this guy is smart?

        Like

        • wipam says:

          Oh, I forgot to mention that when the protestors said they were going to shoot Nancy in the head exactly which people were those? No one has been found to have carried a gun into the Capitol. How do you shout someone with a flag pole?

          Like

        • patrickmoloughlin says:

          You attempt to define and pigeon hole Jonah Goldberg, while simultaneously confessing your gross ignorance on his writing and positions for the past several years. And he has been quite open about his reasons for leaving Fox, so there is no reason for you to mischaracterize his logic with your erroneous speculations about what “makes sense” to you. He wrote extensively about his reasons for leaving FOX and they were all valid in my opinion. You don’t have to believe he’s a smart guy, but some of us don’t judge pundits or politicians, solely by their fealty to Donald Trump or Fox News.

          Funny how Trump sycophants are always more offended and outraged by the hand full of conservatives that have always opposed Trump, than they are with AOC and the Squad. Liz Cheney is excommunicated because she refused to bow to the Donald. Time to move on from Trump. The Republican party cannot win by making itself smaller, but purer.

          Like

        • wipam says:

          To patrickmoloughlin: so……if I read Goldberg for 15 years prior to ignoring him for the last 2-3 I can have no opinion on him now? And since I haven’t paid attention to him for the last 2-3 years I would I know his reasons for leaving Fox? I am not omnipotent. And because YOU believe he has valid reasons for leaving Fox and I think he is stupid for leaving Fox-YOU are right and I am wrong? I can have my own opinion and I truly don’t need validation from YOU for that opinion.
          Also, just because someone (me) has an opinion on 1/6 that doesn’t match your does NOT mean I am a a Trump sycophant. It does not also mean I do think that the Squad are great people.
          You can believe 2 things at once about the Republican Party. Just like I can believe 2 things about vaccine mandates. Specifically that vaccines can give you protection but I do think you should NOT be forced to take one. Republican Party in the past was good, Republican Party still is too passive, Republican Party needs to learn to fight. Trump fought. Not always effectively. New generation needs to continue to fight fire with fire. You can move on from Trump the person but need to retain that fighting spirit. Goldberg is an old school Republican which got us beaten down consistently. Things need to change IMO. It’s ok if you think differently.

          Like

        • patrickmoloughlin says:

          To wipam – Didn’t say you couldn’t have an opinion, just that it was an uninformed one.

          It is my opinion that January 6th did immeasurable damage to the Republican party and irreparable damage to Donald Trump. The Republican party will never recover as long as people (like you) try to poo poo the events of that day, and spin it as if it was something other than an attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power. Trying to lessen the severity or importance of it is not working. You are convincing NOBODY that it was “no big deal.” And the longer it goes on, the more we are tied to Trump and his insane campaign to seek revenge against the Republicans who abandoned, or turned on him. It’s all he cares about. But you can believe differently.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. David wrote, “True, no one has been convicted of insurrection, yet.”

    That’s true but it’s only a little piece of the overall story. The fact is that no one has even been charged with insurrection or anything close to that; and furthermore, Donald Trump has also not been charged with incitement in regards to the riot or insurrection (which ever people choose to call it), the of incitement charges against Donald Trump are also pure propaganda. Donald Trump is truly a narcissist a$$hole (that’s an understatement of course) but we still have a constitution and the protections therein still reign supreme regardless of propaganda rhetoric and all those protections include the likes of Donald Trump and those ignorant fools that engaged in riot on January 6th.

    The entire narrative from top to bottom surrounding the January 6th riot is pure political propaganda and I refuse to swallow any of it; why, because I recognize it as exactly the same kind of BS that the political left engaged in from November 2016 until today and probably will engage in for the next four years. They’re liars and their propaganda is full of lies and false innuendo.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. One eye says:

    Ok one more time in the great tradition of butter/parkay and tastes great/less filling.

    Not an insurrection.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. georgessson says:

    Yep, let’s move on. An election looms in the distance, and draws closer each day.

    Like

  7. Madtownguy says:

    David Blaska said…

    We call it an “insurrection.” Respected legal analysts like Jonathan Turley disagree. True, no one has been convicted of insurrection, yet. But neither were Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. (They were pardoned in the general amnesty of 1868 before their trials ended.)

    Dear Squire, the acts of Davis and Lee are not even close to the same category as those of the protesters. Not at all. No cannonades at forts. No battles with our armed forces. And the assaults on police, inexcusable as they were, resulted in no deaths. The only death that is directly attributed to the event is that of Ashli Babbitt.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      I’ll say it again: An insurrection need not succeed to qualify as such and it’s a matter of degree. On the scale, Fort Sumter was a 10, January 6 maybe a one.

      The Whiskey Rebellion is called an insurrection — President Washington led troops against them — but none of the insurrectionists died.

      Another thought exercise: had insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt not been shot dead how many members of Congress would have been harmed? Why would anyone bust through doors and windows, fight Capitol Police in hand to hand combat, shout death to Mike Pence — if they weren’t serious. That there was only one death is no credit to Donald Trump, who sat and watched it on TV like any couch potato rooting for his team.

      Because the insurrection was largely foiled by heroic law enforcement does not mean that it wasn’t an insurrection.

        Bottom Line:

      I’ve asked this question and still get no answer: What was the purpose of the assault / incursion / riot / insurrection? It was not to drink Nancy Pelosi’s cabernet sauvignon!

      The purpose was clearly stated by the insurrectionists themselves: To Stop the Steal! To prevent the peaceful transfer of power as ordained by the Constitution of the United States. They used force to do so, or attempt to do so.

      How is that not an insurrection?

      Like

      • One eye says:

        Cut the BS …. I’ve answered your question, as have others. If this idiot mob really wanted to insurrect they would have have shown up with more than “their dicks in their hands” as Sonny Corleone might say.

        Now will you finally answer my question?

        Was CHAZ a secession?

        Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Was Chaz a secession? They thought so. And authorities ceded ground to them. No Lincolns or Grants in Seattle, apparently. No one to fight back against their idiocy. Now, how does that help your point that January 6 was no insurrection?

          Like

  8. Madtownforsure says:

    The WWII veterans I remember would definitely march on Washington to hang Harris high to make such a stupid statement that she surprisingly did not cackle. Her mouth and what came out if it will go down in infamy. She disgraced all veterans of all wars by her idiotic statement.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      Thanks for confirming my point.

      Like

    • A Voice in the Wilderness says:

      Madtown: You and the 01/06/21 Trump mob share the desire to see a sitting American Vice-president hanged.

      Like

      • Madtownforsure says:

        You can bet your ass my step father who was a WWII hero surely would. Seeing in one day he lost his best two friends one behind him and in front by Japanese snipers.

        Like

        • A Voice in the Wilderness says:

          Madtownforsure: Many have suffered the loss of loved ones in WWII but to use that as an excuse to advocate for the killing of an American Vice-president is truly senseless. Your stepfather is not here to speak for himself, so these murderous keyboard inclinations are all on you.

          Like

  9. Michael Leger says:

    Maybe we can discuss genuine threats to democracy?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/january-6-cheney/2022/01/06/72665baa-6f1e-11ec-974b-d1c6de8b26b0_story.html

    Dick Cheney visiting DC on Jan. 6, feted by Democrats. He represents people who have the means, intelligence, motive and opportunity to continue to dismantle what is left of our democracy. That the Democrats embrace him only puts an explanation point on it.

    Like

    • David Blaska says:

      The big-government socialists who broke into the WI State Capitol in 2011 and occupied it for over three months chanted “This is what democracy looks like.” Now Michael Leger says January 6 is what democracy looks like. Doesn’t look that different from June 2020 when BLM and antifa pulled down the statues and set fire to the Madison city county bldg. (No one died in that one, either.) Or Chaz (or CHOP). Or setting fire to the Reichstag. How many atrocities have been committed in the name of the people! People like you, Leger.

      Like

      • Michael Leger says:

        Dave, we’re not on the same page here.

        On 1/6/22, Cheney visited DC. He was feted by the Democrats. That he was feted by the Democrats is indicative of one of the greatest threats to our democracy. The Dark Lord (Cheney) is a representative of what our government looks like today: totalitarianism on the march. That the Democrats have openly joined forces with totalitarian efforts is my point.

        As to 1/6/21, I think Jonathan Turley has it exactly correct – a protest that turned into a riot. Nothing more, nothing less.

        The link that One eye posted above to Matt Taibbi’s excellent article (I thought it was behind a paywall or I would have pointed to it in my initial post) does a great job of summing up the current shituation. I know you get pointed to a lot of links, but this one is exceptional reading.

        Like

        • One eye says:

          FYI, Taibbi thought his article was important so he opened it up to everyone.

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Dick Cheney didn’t try to overturn an election. He is, after all, an ex-vice president. Gave way to a Democrat regime. Totalitarians like Trump did attempt to overturn the election; first through lawful channels, then by force. Why do you think the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an unprecedented statement disavowing any connivance with a coup d’etat?

          Like

        • Michael Leger says:

          I’ll have one more go here:
          David Blaska says:
          January 9, 2022 at 1:14 pm
          Dick Cheney didn’t try to overturn an election. Totalitarian s like Trump do.

          Hopefully yours is just a knee-jerk response.

          Dick Cheney and the people he represents, are not stupid enough to use the front door and announce their intentions. They will and are destroying democracy from underneath and behind. That the Democrats are united with the not-Trump Republicans is the issue, imo of course.

          Trump totalitarian? You are blinded by Trump. Trump doesn’t have the attention span to begin to implement any kind of totalitarianism. The people behind Cheney do.

          You really should read that article.

          Like

        • David Blaska wrote, “Dick Cheney didn’t try to overturn an election.”

          Neither did President Trump; what Trump did do was to challenge the election results which he has every legal right to do right up to the point of Congress validating the electoral college votes, once that is done the election process is over and challenges become utterly pointless. Publicly addressing his grievances to the court of public opinion as Trump did to a crowd of his supporters on January 6, 2021 is his Constitutionally protected right whether we like it or not. People not liking these facts doesn’t make them any less factual.

          David Blaska wrote, “Totalitarians like Trump do.”

          Actually Trump doesn’t fall into the category of a totalitarian, in fact it would be really easy to pigeonhole him as an anti-totalitarian and anti-authoritarian because he was actively fighting the anti-American totalitarians and authoritarians that were attacking him for four years straight. Personally I think Donald Trump falls into a category of a dirt bag extreme narcissist, I never wanted him as President and I still don’t.

          Totalitarian: relating to a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

          Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

          Narcissist: a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themself.

          All national politicians are narcissists; however, I perceive Donald Trump’s extreme narcissism as being so bad that if he were offered the position of dictator he would gladly accept the offer and that is not someone I would want as the President of the United States.

          Anyone that actually rioted and illegally entered the Capitol building on January 6, 2021 should be prosecuted for their actions to the full extent of the law.

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Trump was entirely justified in exhausting every legal challenge. When those failed, obligated to abide by rule of law. Not egging on the mob on the day Electoral College votes counted. Not demanding that the Vice President unilaterally overturn the election like a tin pot dictator. Yes, the First Amendment protects free speech. The President of the United States is not some street-corner prophet fulminating the end of the world while standing on an orange crate. He is the chief executive officer sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the ‘Constitution of the United States.” This, he clearly did not do.

          Like

        • David Blaska wrote “Trump was entirely justified in exhausting every legal challenge.”

          I knew we would agreed on this point.

          David Blaska wrote “When those failed, obligated to abide by rule of law.”

          To my knowledge none of President Trump’s actions on January 6th violated any laws, if he had they should bring charges in a court of law. President Biden was “legally” elected (see my note below about bastardization of state election laws) and legally inaugurated and President Trump left office, so in that regard, President Trump did abide by the rule of law even though he disagreed with the outcome of the election and was a complete a**hole about the whole thing.

          David Blaska wrote “Not egging on the mob on the day Electoral College votes counted.”

          Constitutionally protected free speech is still constitutionally protected and legal even when we disagree with the content of the speech.

          David Blaska wrote “Not demanding that the Vice President unilaterally overturn the election like a tin pot dictator.”

          I’m not sure that “demanding” is the correct word; but even then, President Trump publicly voicing his opinion that the Vice President can send the electoral college votes back to the states for verification and asking him to do so is constitutionally protected free speech. It’s not legally relevant to free speech that what’s said is factually correct or supported by the court of public opinion. Personally I think the Vice President sending the votes back to the states would have bastardized federal election law and I think he was right not to do so. There was way too much bastardization of state election laws with mail-in and absentee ballots in the November 2020 election, including in Wisconsin; the bastardization of election laws was and is unethical and just plain wrong!

          Bastardization: verb change (something) in such a way as to lower its quality or value, typically by adding new elements.

          David Blaska wrote “Yes, the First Amendment protects free speech.”

          I knew we agreed on free speech.

          David Blaska wrote“The President of the United States is not some street-corner prophet fulminating the end of the world while standing on an orange crate. He is the chief executive officer sworn to “preserve, protect, and defend the ‘Constitution of the United States.””

          On this point we most certainly agree.

          David Blaska wrote“This, he clearly did not do.”

          Remembering that President Trump is constitutionally protected by the same constitution as you and I; specifically, how did President Trump not “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States”?

          In the end:
          Many if not all of the arguments that I’ve seen and heard about President Trump’s actions on January 6, 2020 come down to one thing, pure consequentialism. The political left and anti-Trumpers want the public to unquestioningly swallow the anti-Trump propaganda that consequentialism is how we should judge President Trump’s actions on January 6th. Consequentialism is the doctrine that the morality [in this case legality] of an action is to be judged solely by its [perceived] consequences; this is not how the constitution or the law works.

          The political left has shown us since mid year 2016 that they are snake oil salesmen selling their anti-Trump propaganda to the masses and they’re damn good salesmen. When related to Donald Trump, anything that comes from the mouths of the political left and their lapdog media propaganda machine bust be questioned and people must apply multiple levels of critical thinking to cut through the BS otherwise one becomes a parrot of false propaganda and that is a slippery slope.

          Like

        • David Blaska says:

          Just in brief: I did not allege Trump violated any criminal law in his January 6 speech. He was, however, rightly impeached and should have been convicted. He failed to uphold the Constitution and, instead, urged the mob to subvert it. As for anti-Trump propaganda, the man never learned to quit feeding the beast.

          Like

        • David wrote, “As for anti-Trump propaganda, the man never learned to quit feeding the beast.”

          I completely agree.

          David wrote, “I did not allege Trump violated any criminal law in his January 6 speech. He was, however, rightly impeached and should have been convicted. He failed to uphold the Constitution and, instead, urged the mob to subvert it.”

          It’s clear that we are not going to agree on this but I’ll offer these as my final arguments.

          I challenge you to find anything in President Trump’s January 6th speech, or any speech prior to that, where he urged the mob to subvert the Constitution; please quote his actual words. Trump is a real a**hole and I really don’t want him as the President of the United States but to my knowledge he simply never did that. Protesting is not subversion and encouraging others to protest is not anti-Constitutional.

          I don’t want to beat a dead horse; however, saying that Trump was “rightly impeached and should have been convicted” directly implies that he violated some high crime or misdemeanor but no one has been able to show me any statute that he violated.

          The foremost constitutional scholar in the United States of America and a life long Democrat disagrees with the impeachment of President Trump. He was not “rightly impeached and should have been convicted” because there was not an impeachable offense committed by President Trump on January 6th; therefore, it was unconstitutional to impeach the President and the Senate putting an x-President (a private citizen) on trial is also not constitutional.

          The following videos are worth the time to watch and understand Dershowitz’s Constitutional arguments.

          @ 17:21 in the following video timeline “What President Trump did was not a crime, was not an impeachable offense, and was not the legal causes of what went on illegally in the capitol.” Alan Dershowitz

          @0:52 in the following video timeline “Can an x-President be tried in the Senate on articles of impeachment that were issued and voted on by the House of Representatives while he was still serving as President? The answer to that question is clearly NO. Under the text of the Constitution, under the policy of the Constitution, and under the intent of the framers.” @1:28 in the following video timeline “[President Trump] has never been charged with impeachable offenses, yeah they broke a record they twice impeached the same President, but the record they really broke is they twice impeached the same President both times on non-impeachable grounds under the Constitution.”” Alan Dershowitz

          The following is the speech delivered by Alan Dershowitz on the floor of the United States Senate in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. It’s my opinion that the historically accurate and prophetic words that Dershowitz spoke on the floor of the United States Senate in regards to this impeachment trail will be referred to throughout history from this point in time on. His words based on solid historical research are extraordinary and this speech is history in the making! As far as I know, there is nothing regarding the Constitutional powers of Impeachment that has ever been covered so thoroughly.

          I think every man, woman, and child in the United States should watch and fully understand this one hour and seven minute speech. I think it should be required material for all civics classes offered at both the High School and College level.
          https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/LlwqbEmnBRmAMrC2Tg1OmtEAXlaUuDjdCOulxaBX63hYBS_aA-uMwWr17pqc4Sf4xQKkcghG1NVYwVW0KKREr4vvAuU?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=0.81

          I’ve said what I came here to say so I’ll graciously bow out now, you can have the last word.

          Like

  10. One eye says:

    Sorry can`t seem to reply up above….

    Was CHAZ a secession?
    DB replied “They thought so”

    Does that make it true? You think so for 1/6…the morons thought it was an insurrection so it was.
    Do you think the same for the 24 days of CHAZ?

    DB do YOU think it was a secession? Geez it’s a simple question asked 4 times now.

    Like

    • One eye says:

      One last thought and I’ll let this go.

      I think DB will label 1/6 an insurrection but not CHAZ a secession due to the nature of the people involved.

      1/6ers were arguably normal people with jobs … responsible, etc

      CHAZ people were losers, criminals, addicts, homeless.

      CHAZ people couldn’t help themselves. 1/6 people should have known better.

      Liked by 1 person

  11. Here’s an interesting turn that was posted by CNN today.

    “The Justice Department has charged 11 defendants with seditious conspiracy related to the Capitol attack on January 6, 2021, including the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes.”

    “The new indictment, handed down by a grand jury on Wednesday and made public Thursday, alleges that Rhodes and his co-conspirators engaged in a conspiracy to ‘oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force, by preventing, hindering, or delaying by force execution of laws governing the transfer of power.’ ”

    ” ‘All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything,’ Rhodes allegedly wrote. ‘So the patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough,’ he allegedly said on Signal at 1:38 p.m. that day, shortly after the siege had begun.”

    Oath Keepers leader and 10 others charged with ‘seditious conspiracy’ related to US Capitol attack

    This is interesting in a couple of ways:
    First, if this is true and these people are convicted of this then this was planned well before President Trump’s speech which will basically exonerate President Trump as being the one who incited riot or insurrection (whatever people choose to call it). It’s not logical to claim that President Trump himself actually incited riotous actions from an otherwise “peaceful” crowd when there were already people within that crowd that had planned to riot etc. Now if they can make a direct connection between the Oath Keepers planning of the riot and President Trump then Donald Trump could be in some serious legal trouble.

    Second, if this is actually true and these people are convicted of this then it’s not so unreasonable to use the word insurrection.

    We already know how this is going to play out in the court of public opinion since many people have already chosen their hill to die on, but I think it’ll be really interesting to see how this plays out in an actual court of law where innuendo and propaganda is brushed aside and actual facts and the actual law rules supreme.

    I’m not going to jump on a pro or con bandwagon, I’m going to wait for the facts to be presented in a court of law.

    Like

  12. Michael Leger says:

    Why would someone suspect our government of aiding and abetting the protest turned riot on 1/6? Here’s Ted Cruz’s short questioning of the FBI Director:

    Like

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s