He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.

---

I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.

---

Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.

You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!

He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

Here you go again.

1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem

This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."

He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.

Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!

---

We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.

I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.

---

I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.

So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?

---

Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?

Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS

---

Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.

---

Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote count

---

Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.

---

The Capitol was attacked. The Electoral Vote count was disrupted

---

The Electoral Vote has been disrupted every time for at least the past two occasions. Democrats were obstructing the vote count in 2016 by using groundless objections. But by all you means, you folks continue to stare deeply at the political Rorschach test that is the J6 Committee.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.

---

Here's the barrier that smacks your statement in the forehead: show us a successful insurrection that occurred without at minimum the acquiescence of the military.

Related problems:

-if he knew the military would not have supported him, how could he not have assumed they would oppose him?
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, why did he try to insert them into the equation?

Your thinking on this is sub-sophomoric.

---

He didn't try to insert the military into the equation. I thought you knew that when you said "he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it." So I don't know what you're talking about there. Trump apparently believed he could retain power through a combination of fraud, bullying, and clever manipulation of procedure by a team of lawyers who turned out to be far from clever. If he had succeeded, there would have been no opposition from the military and no reason for Trump to involve them. Many of the insurrectionists at the Capitol did believe the military would get involved, and they discussed it on social media in the weeks leading up to the event, but that was only speculation on their part.

My thinking has to do with what Trump and his supporters believed and what they were attempting to do. Your thinking is fixated on what would have been a smart plan for insurrection, but that isn't really the point. No one is arguing that they had a smart plan.

---

My sister was convinced for a good long while that election fraud would be proven and the military would step in to replace Biden. Is she an insurrectionist, too? Is her belief evidence that Trump was an insurrectionist?

What a handful of muddle-headed protesters were thinking is not terribly germane to the core of your case that Trump attempted an insurrection. Either HE did or didn't. The best you got is that he attempted to ramp up pressure in hopes that something would happen to tip things his way. That's an impossible case to prove, not insurrection even if you did, and there is the added burden of negative evidence to refute elements of insurrection.

Don't be like my sister, Sam. Don't live in a make-believe world you need to exist to justify the way you need to feel. No insurrectionist who has at his command the mightiest military in the world overturns Constitutional order without having that military on his side. No insurrectionist with such power would act without KNOWING how they would respond or not.

You are making an ass of yourself here.
You are hardly alone in that, but an ass nonetheless.
On the other hand, polling is clear that you are digging an ever deeper hole on something the American people have already determined is not a serious problem, so we should encourage you to continue But along the way, you are destroying the very institutions you purport to be protecting from one Donald John Trump.

---

The core of my case has always been that Trump's supporters attempted an insurrection. If the evidence developed by the committee shows that Trump was involved, of course I'm interested in seeing it. Their process is flawed, something for which Republicans are at least partly to blame, but that doesn't mean the evidence can be ignored.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.

---

Here's the barrier that smacks your statement in the forehead: show us a successful insurrection that occurred without at minimum the acquiescence of the military.

Related problems:

-if he knew the military would not have supported him, how could he not have assumed they would oppose him?
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, why did he try to insert them into the equation?

Your thinking on this is sub-sophomoric.

---

He didn't try to insert the military into the equation. I thought you knew that when you said "he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it." So I don't know what you're talking about there. Trump apparently believed he could retain power through a combination of fraud, bullying, and clever manipulation of procedure by a team of lawyers who turned out to be far from clever. If he had succeeded, there would have been no opposition from the military and no reason for Trump to involve them. Many of the insurrectionists at the Capitol did believe the military would get involved, and they discussed it on social media in the weeks leading up to the event, but that was only speculation on their part.

My thinking has to do with what Trump and his supporters believed and what they were attempting to do. Your thinking is fixated on what would have been a smart plan for insurrection, but that isn't really the point. No one is arguing that they had a smart plan.

---

My sister was convinced for a good long while that election fraud would be proven and the military would step in to replace Biden. Is she an insurrectionist, too? Is her belief evidence that Trump was an insurrectionist?

What a handful of muddle-headed protesters were thinking is not terribly germane to the core of your case that Trump attempted an insurrection. Either HE did or didn't. The best you got is that he attempted to ramp up pressure in hopes that something would happen to tip things his way. That's an impossible case to prove, not insurrection even if you did, and there is the added burden of negative evidence to refute elements of insurrection.

Don't be like my sister, Sam. Don't live in a make-believe world you need to exist to justify the way you need to feel. No insurrectionist who has at his command the mightiest military in the world overturns Constitutional order without having that military on his side. No insurrectionist with such power would act without KNOWING how they would respond or not.

You are making an ass of yourself here.
You are hardly alone in that, but an ass nonetheless.
On the other hand, polling is clear that you are digging an ever deeper hole on something the American people have already determined is not a serious problem, so we should encourage you to continue But along the way, you are destroying the very institutions you purport to be protecting from one Donald John Trump.

---

The core of my case has always been that Trump's supporters attempted an insurrection. If the evidence developed by the committee shows that Trump was involved, of course I'm interested in seeing it. Their process is flawed, something for which Republicans are at least partly to blame, but that doesn't mean the evidence can be ignored.

---

You're in the motte now. But you only have a few buckets to hide behind. There is evidence that people entered illegally, damaged/stole property, and posed a violent threat to bodily harm to members of Congress. There is even circumstantial evidence that they were so convinced fraud had affected the outcome of the election that they intended to protest for members of Congressmen into changing their votes on Electoral Vote challenges, and/or to protest for VPOTUS to send the EV back to the states for adjudication. But here's your problem: even if we allow that protest is an intimidation tactic (and I would argue it usually is and definitely was in the J6 scenario), your case still fails the basic definition of insurrection.

All you (and other Democrats ) are doing is simply begging the question by defining the whole mess of J6 as an insurrection. That allows you to have legal challenges in all 50 states against the candidacy of one Donald J. Trump, who would be rendered legally ineligible to hold office again were he to have led or participated in an insurrection.

You are trying to turn J6 into a Reichstag Fire. Be very careful how you proceed from here. You're already on the wrong side of history.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.
Here's the barrier that smacks your statement in the forehead: show us a successful insurrection that occurred without at minimum the acquiescence of the military.

Related problems:

-if he knew the military would not have supported him, how could he not have assumed they would oppose him?
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, why did he try to insert them into the equation?

Your thinking on this is sub-sophomoric.

---

He didn't try to insert the military into the equation. I thought you knew that when you said "he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it." So I don't know what you're talking about there. Trump apparently believed he could retain power through a combination of fraud, bullying, and clever manipulation of procedure by a team of lawyers who turned out to be far from clever. If he had succeeded, there would have been no opposition from the military and no reason for Trump to involve them. Many of the insurrectionists at the Capitol did believe the military would get involved, and they discussed it on social media in the weeks leading up to the event, but that was only speculation on their part.

My thinking has to do with what Trump and his supporters believed and what they were attempting to do. Your thinking is fixated on what would have been a smart plan for insurrection, but that isn't really the point. No one is arguing that they had a smart plan.

---

My sister was convinced for a good long while that election fraud would be proven and the military would step in to replace Biden. Is she an insurrectionist, too? Is her belief evidence that Trump was an insurrectionist?

What a handful of muddle-headed protesters were thinking is not terribly germane to the core of your case that Trump attempted an insurrection. Either HE did or didn't. The best you got is that he attempted to ramp up pressure in hopes that something would happen to tip things his way. That's an impossible case to prove, not insurrection even if you did, and there is the added burden of negative evidence to refute elements of insurrection.

Don't be like my sister, Sam. Don't live in a make-believe world you need to exist to justify the way you need to feel. No insurrectionist who has at his command the mightiest military in the world overturns Constitutional order without having that military on his side. No insurrectionist with such power would act without KNOWING how they would respond or not.

You are making an ass of yourself here.
You are hardly alone in that, but an ass nonetheless.
On the other hand, polling is clear that you are digging an ever deeper hole on something the American people have already determined is not a serious problem, so we should encourage you to continue But along the way, you are destroying the very institutions you purport to be protecting from one Donald John Trump.

---

The core of my case has always been that Trump's supporters attempted an insurrection. If the evidence developed by the committee shows that Trump was involved, of course I'm interested in seeing it. Their process is flawed, something for which Republicans are at least partly to blame, but that doesn't mean the evidence can be ignored.

---

You're in the motte now. But you only have a few buckets to hide behind. There is evidence that people entered illegally, damaged/stole property, and posed a violent threat to bodily harm to members of Congress. There is even circumstantial evidence that they were so convinced fraud had affected the outcome of the election that they intended to protest for members of Congressmen into changing their votes on Electoral Vote challenges, and/or to protest for VPOTUS to send the EV back to the states for adjudication. But here's your problem: even if we allow that protest is an intimidation tactic (and I would argue it usually is and definitely was in the J6 scenario), your case still fails the basic definition of insurrection.

All you (and other Democrats ) are doing is simply begging the question by defining the whole mess of J6 as an insurrection. That allows you to have legal challenges in all 50 states against the candidacy of one Donald J. Trump, who would be rendered legally ineligible to hold office again were he to have led or participated in an insurrection.

You are trying to turn J6 into a Reichstag Fire. Be very careful how you proceed from here. You're already on the wrong side of history.

---

I've been consistent in my definitions. You and others would like to change the definitions every time you're confronted with evidence. First an insurrection requires planning. When you find out there was planning, you say it requires weapons. If there were weapons, it requires guns. If there were guns, there weren't enough guns. Then there has to be a successful overthrow of the government, or at least a good chance of success. And so on and so on. You're the one who assumes a conclusion and shifts your arguments accordingly. I've also been consistent in saying we don't know how much intent there was on Trump's part and will need to see all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. There's no motte to be found (except the one where you're hiding with your "masks don't stop the spread" defense).

Insurrection and sedition are hard to prosecute, and rightly so. But the fact that we even have to talk about legal challenges to Trump's candidacy is perhaps the best evidence of the GOP's corruption. His moral responsibility and unfitness for office are so obvious that even party leaders have been forced to acknowledge it, either publicly (McConnell) or privately (McCarthy). That's what puts you on the wrong side of history, regardless of what happens to Trump. Your dishonor will remain.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.
Here's the barrier that smacks your statement in the forehead: show us a successful insurrection that occurred without at minimum the acquiescence of the military.

Related problems:

-if he knew the military would not have supported him, how could he not have assumed they would oppose him?
-if he knew the military would not have supported him, why did he try to insert them into the equation?

Your thinking on this is sub-sophomoric.

---

He didn't try to insert the military into the equation. I thought you knew that when you said "he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it." So I don't know what you're talking about there. Trump apparently believed he could retain power through a combination of fraud, bullying, and clever manipulation of procedure by a team of lawyers who turned out to be far from clever. If he had succeeded, there would have been no opposition from the military and no reason for Trump to involve them. Many of the insurrectionists at the Capitol did believe the military would get involved, and they discussed it on social media in the weeks leading up to the event, but that was only speculation on their part.

My thinking has to do with what Trump and his supporters believed and what they were attempting to do. Your thinking is fixated on what would have been a smart plan for insurrection, but that isn't really the point. No one is arguing that they had a smart plan.

---

My sister was convinced for a good long while that election fraud would be proven and the military would step in to replace Biden. Is she an insurrectionist, too? Is her belief evidence that Trump was an insurrectionist?

What a handful of muddle-headed protesters were thinking is not terribly germane to the core of your case that Trump attempted an insurrection. Either HE did or didn't. The best you got is that he attempted to ramp up pressure in hopes that something would happen to tip things his way. That's an impossible case to prove, not insurrection even if you did, and there is the added burden of negative evidence to refute elements of insurrection.

Don't be like my sister, Sam. Don't live in a make-believe world you need to exist to justify the way you need to feel. No insurrectionist who has at his command the mightiest military in the world overturns Constitutional order without having that military on his side. No insurrectionist with such power would act without KNOWING how they would respond or not.

You are making an ass of yourself here.
You are hardly alone in that, but an ass nonetheless.
On the other hand, polling is clear that you are digging an ever deeper hole on something the American people have already determined is not a serious problem, so we should encourage you to continue But along the way, you are destroying the very institutions you purport to be protecting from one Donald John Trump.

---

The core of my case has always been that Trump's supporters attempted an insurrection. If the evidence developed by the committee shows that Trump was involved, of course I'm interested in seeing it. Their process is flawed, something for which Republicans are at least partly to blame, but that doesn't mean the evidence can be ignored.

---

You're in the motte now. But you only have a few buckets to hide behind. There is evidence that people entered illegally, damaged/stole property, and posed a violent threat to bodily harm to members of Congress. There is even circumstantial evidence that they were so convinced fraud had affected the outcome of the election that they intended to protest for members of Congressmen into changing their votes on Electoral Vote challenges, and/or to protest for VPOTUS to send the EV back to the states for adjudication. But here's your problem: even if we allow that protest is an intimidation tactic (and I would argue it usually is and definitely was in the J6 scenario), your case still fails the basic definition of insurrection.

All you (and other Democrats ) are doing is simply begging the question by defining the whole mess of J6 as an insurrection. That allows you to have legal challenges in all 50 states against the candidacy of one Donald J. Trump, who would be rendered legally ineligible to hold office again were he to have led or participated in an insurrection.

You are trying to turn J6 into a Reichstag Fire. Be very careful how you proceed from here. You're already on the wrong side of history.

---

I've been consistent in my definitions. You and others would like to change the definitions every time you're confronted with evidence. First an insurrection requires planning. When you find out there was planning, you say it requires weapons. If there were weapons, it requires guns. If there were guns, there weren't enough guns. Then there has to be a successful overthrow of the government, or at least a good chance of success. And so on and so on. You're the one who assumes a conclusion and shifts your arguments accordingly. I've also been consistent in saying we don't know how much intent there was on Trump's part and will need to see all the evidence before reaching a conclusion. There's no motte to be found (except the one where you're hiding with your "masks don't stop the spread" defense).

Insurrection and sedition are hard to prosecute, and rightly so. But the fact that we even have to talk about legal challenges to Trump's candidacy is perhaps the best evidence of the GOP's corruption. His moral responsibility and unfitness for office are so obvious that even party leaders have been forced to acknowledge it, either publicly (McConnell) or privately (McCarthy). That's what puts you on the wrong side of history, regardless of what happens to Trump. Your dishonor will remain.

---

Again you beg questions at every step of your argument.

1) Who wrote the plan for the insurrection? Where are those plans? What was the timeline, etc....?
2) Without an actual insurrection, "weapons" are not an element to any crime other than riot-related issues.
3) Weapons found in the same municipality as a riot does not morph a riot into an insurrection.
4) and on and on and on.

The dishonor is in pushing a Reichstag Fire hoax, which is exactly what you are doing.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?

---

Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.

---

I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.

---

Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.

---

He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.

---

and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.

---

That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.

---

Pence really thought the SS agent was gonna hurt him?

---

Yes
Pence wasn't sure

---

Pence didn't want to give the insurrectionist a victory is what I heard, and he was ensuring he could be there to certify due to the rioters. This had nothing to with Trump threatening him or plotting with the Secret Service.

---

The insurrectionists might have won if the SS agents spirited Pence away and would not return him to the Capitol.

The point is Pence did not know what Trump was doing but knew he was "disappointed" and thought it was okay if Pence was punished by the rioters.

---

Disappointed ok, I agree. Ok with rioters harming Pence? No way.

You guys are taking every sardonic comment and saying "see"!!! Trump speaks in hyperbole, exaggeration and sardonic comments. He has done it forever. Yet, you guys run around see he wanted to hang Pence because he said maybe they have the right idea!

He is a dick, granted. I agree. Insurrection, overthrow election by force? No way.

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

Here you go again.

1st sentence, fact. No problem.
2nd sentence, speculation and implying that something that was not said or instructed
3rd sentence, fact. No problem
4th sentence, fact No problem

This is what he actually said, right from Fact Check -

"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard," Trump said in his speech. "Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for [the] integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

"If they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight," Trump said. "You primary them. We're going to let you know who they are."

He also said he and the crowd would "walk down to the Capitol" to "cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women."

"We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you'll never take back our country with weakness," he said. "You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

That is what actually happened. No where in there is ANY reference to violence.

Once again, you are making jumps from him wanting to go to Congress, demonstrate and cheer on the Republicans to do the right thing. To being a knowing and plotting leader of a violent rebellion to not only overturn the election by force but hang Mike Pence????? That is one heck of a jump from the factual statements you have! The only threat is to Primary the hell out of them, not very violent!

---

We have an eye witness to Trump being told some in the crowd were armed. Nobody in press or under oath disputes this.

I understand your interpretation of these events. It is plausible but unconvincing to me.

---

I thought the story was that the used mag machines and idendified and confiscated weapons. Trump wanted to know if the could turn the mag machine off for his rally because he didn't fear them hurting him. The answer was "no" we can't turn it off. So, being told they were armed and that the mag machine was on and they were confiscating does not change anything, right? Once again, you are taking what Trump said or asked and making that the crime.

So what was Trumps correct play? We have mag machines that we won't turn off, we are confiscating the weapons we find, but some are armed, what to do? I guess shut it down everyone muse leave the demonstration? How about more Police, where were they if they knew some were armed?

---

Yes, it changes things in light of later statements.
Because the police identified weapons among the demonstrators his subsequent remarks to the crowd can be misinterpreted by ardent followers who believed what Trump said (stop the steal, disappointed in Pence because he wouldn't do the right thing, let's march on the Capitol, I'll go with you). Trump knows some are armed and encourages them to march on the Capitol. What did he think they were going to do with the weapons?
Weapons weren't confiscated because armed crowd members didn't go through the mags. Why wouldn't they go through the mags?

Correct play is to yield power in a dignified manner as has been done for 240 years. Quit lying to the simple minded that actually believe his BS

---

Good point. Better to just pluck the "W"s off all the White House key boards in a dignified manner as opposed to undignified.

---

Yeah, I suppose that's like attacking the Capitol to disrupt the Electoral Vote count

---

Which didn't happen. My example actually occurred.

---

The Capitol was attacked. The Electoral Vote count was disrupted

---

The Electoral Vote has been disrupted every time for at least the past two occasions. Democrats were obstructing the vote count in 2016 by using groundless objections. But by all you means, you folks continue to stare deeply at the political Rorschach test that is the J6 Committee.

---

Who attacked the Capitol?

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

what do 95% of gun owners have them for?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Trump said he was disappointed in Pence to the rally

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

So, you tell someone you are disappointed in your kid and that is a signal to your neighbors to hang them???? You guys are really reaching to create something not there.

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"
Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

what do 95% of gun owners have them for?

---

Violating open or concealed carry laws?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Do you have a link for the 250 agents, in the crowd I assume.

How many FBI informants were inciting the rioters?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Do you have a link for the 250 agents, in the crowd I assume.

How many FBI informants were inciting the rioters?

---

based on their actions in Michigan and they're attempt in Virginia, call it a solid hypothesis.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Do you have a link for the 250 agents, in the crowd I assume.

How many FBI informants were inciting the rioters?

---

based on their actions in Michigan and they're attempt in Virginia, call it a solid hypothesis.

---

What happened in Va and Michigan?

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Do you have a link for the 250 agents, in the crowd I assume.

How many FBI informants were inciting the rioters?

---

based on their actions in Michigan and they're attempt in Virginia, call it a solid hypothesis.

---

What happened in Va and Michigan?

---

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Has the committee uncovered what the 250 federal agents present that day were doing and how many FBI informants were inciting the crowd?

---

Do you have a link for the 250 agents, in the crowd I assume.

How many FBI informants were inciting the rioters?

---

based on their actions in Michigan and they're attempt in Virginia, call it a solid hypothesis.

---

What happened in Va and Michigan?

---

---

Charlottesville? Flint lead poisoning?

---

"January 6th was good actually." - @PressSec, iterating @POTUS's official stance on protests https://t.co/kvC2X3zQEa

— Eric Spencer (@JustEric) July 8, 2022

More on @ConstitutionCtr "Restoring Guardrails of Democracy" reports, including video of panel w/team leaders @ConLawWarrior @whignewtons & @Nedfoley and my take on recent post by @Nedfoley. https://t.co/hC0nPpWGHO

— Ilya Somin (@IlyaSomin) July 8, 2022

Osodece said:

---

"I'm disappointed in Pence, he didn't do the right thing"

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Trump knows rioters are armed
"Let's walk to the Capitol, I'll go with you"
Trump orders the SS agents to take him to the Capitol

---

"lets walk to the capitol.." sounds terrifying, at least it wasnt hot outside

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

whiterock said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th said:

---

If they are armed, as their leader well knows

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Walking outside in Texas, more than 75% chance you are standing near a person who is armed. It is legal in Texas, not so in DC

Just because People carry weapons doesnt mean they are going to shoot you. I agree

Maybe they were worried about their personal safety because they had seen the clashes with Antifa. Maybe, but it is illegal in DC
There were plenty of those that broke out in DC during that 2 day period of the 5th and 6th If you say so

---

---

This post shows that, deep down, you know you've lost the argument and are hanging on to an insignificant detail.

Here's the facts:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/armed-insurrection-what-weapons-capitol-rioters-carry

10 months after J6, FBI still had not found any evidence that firearms were used in the J6 riot. Sure, time might have uncovered another gun or three in the general vicinity of the riot. Yet here you are, making the case that Trump was told someone was arrested with a gun and still wanted to go to the Capitol, thereby providing the conclusive turn in the case which makes him leader of an insurrectionist. The list of "weapons" noted at link is carried at almost any riot, so if we are to accept the premise of your argument, ANY riot is an insurrection.

If you are going to push the Reichstag Fire nonsense, you could do a much better job than you are doing here.

---

Deep down, I'm believing contemporaneous police observations. Armed demonstrators are a significant finding.

---

deep down I am believing that riots typically have armed demonstrators..

How many guns were fired at the capital that day? We all know the answer.. we all know the results.

Maybe, just maybe, those guns were not for what you think they were but what they are actually for..

---

The rioters were actually armed. Some had guns

What were the guns actually for?

---

part in bold is serving a lie. And you know it.

There is nothing remarkable about a protestor holding something that could be used as a weapon. A fist can be used as a weapon, fer crissakes. How many have been charged with crimes involving weapons? How many have been charge with carrying a firearm into the capitol?

If we are to follow your logic, then any protest is an insurrection. Any riot is an insurrection. Any gathering where someone holds a fraternity paddle is an insurrection.

You are being very, very silly.

---