Mothra said:
Porteroso said:
Mothra said:
Porteroso said:
Mothra said:
Porteroso said:
Mothra said:
Porteroso said:
Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?
It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.
Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?
It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.
I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.
Apparently not.
If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.
It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.
In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.
You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?
And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.
If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?
The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.
If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.
Words have meaning. This was an attempt to unseat a legitimate government. It can rightfully be called an insurrection, as it meets the standard set by the dictionary.
You might think it wasn't a particularly violent insurrection, even though you admit there was violence.... Or that it wasn't organized enough, even though right wing hate groups definitely planned on storming the Capitol..... But your opinion is just that. It's not sufficient to overthrow the dictionary.
You're pretty obviously contesting the dictionary because you feel adhering to it would hurt conservatives. You actually said that. That's what I mean by lack of honesty.
Honest people don't save reason for when it's convenient. They don't filter their facts through what makes their side look like it's winning.