The first “protestor” pled to seditious conspiracy just yesterday.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/downl...
Likely many other people will be pulled into this if you read the above indictment.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/downl...
Likely many other people will be pulled into this if you read the above indictment.
Please don't try and with a straight face claim it would be trespassing. I'd have called it insurrection.
Anyway, while I do disdain the use of violence for political ends, I do think the events have been exaggerated and misrepresented by the corporate press for political purposes.
How is that not an attempt to end democracy. An insurrection.
The ringleaders seemed to be well aware that the objective was to invalidate the election and keep trump president. How is that not an insurrection?
I just don't see it as a realistic threat to our system of government.
It's pretty wild to see the mass denial of hyperbole... Like folks, do you have any idea what would happen if people really wanted to overthrow the government? You'd be kidnapped before you know what happened.
All that really needs to happen is to create enough disruption for Trump and his allies to find a way to set aside the vote and let the house pick based on number of delegations.
The brooks brothers riot basically did something similar. Created enough disruption to stop a recount.
Killing members of congress doesn't really change the fact that Pence was responsible for counting the votes, and the process would likely have resumed as quickly as possible.
This explanation is just so hand-wavy and doesn't really to capture what would likely happen in the case that a bunch of random Trump voters killed members of congress.
Now matter which way you slice it, any attempt by Trump or Pence to overturning official election results (even if they were fraudulent) was made impossible by the breach of the capitol.
Martial law was not declared after Jan 6th and the legal handover of power had already successfully occurred.
My feeling is that everyone actually agrees it was an insurrection, and the arguing is pro-forma.
You also seem to miss the point that violence by the pro-Trump protestors had no hope of actually capturing control of the government. Interfering with its operations for a time, sure. But not actual control. That's just not how any of this works.
The only hope the pro-Trump faction had (and a slim hope at that) was to peacefully pressure Mike Pence into refusing to count the ballots from contested states.
Your feelings aside, many people do genuinely disagree with you.
Which would potentially or eventually lead to the team they supported (Team Trump) capturing control of the government.
If Pence refusing to count those ballots wouldn't potentially lead to them capturing control of the government, why would they do it?
Again, there's no way that the protestors themselves would be able to take control. And if anything the breaching of the capitol building rather prevented Pence from throwing out votes.
The electoral count act is now out the window entirely and Trump has a bunch of the GOP claiming the election is fraudulent based on no evidence but that doesn't matter. Eventually after Trump has it all set up the house reconvenes and picks Trump as president because GOP has the most delegations and the vote was "fraudulent".
You see, all that really needed to happen is for them to create enough disruption for Trump and his allies to find a way to set aside the vote and let the house pick based on number of delegations. The brooks brothers riot basically did something similar. Created enough disruption to stop a recount.
That's not 'entirely different' from 'a bunch of yokels playing king-of-the-hill with the capitol building,' that's the intended result of 'a bunch of yokels playing king-of-the-hill with the capitol building.'
I really don't understand the point you're making here.