Posted on 04/21/2024 6:31:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Biden and others claim that President Trump incited the Capitol Riot, falsely described as an “insurrection,” on January 6, 2021. This belief explains Colorado’s failed attempt to remove Trump’s name from the ballot because he is an “insurrectionist,” as well as a national YouGov poll that found that 54% of Americans approved of the Colorado action. It is now used as a justification for Biden to refuse to debate Trump. This claim remains a serious problem — not only for Trump, but for obtaining an accurate history of what happened on January 6.
A rational evaluation of Trump’s words and actions, and other factors, demonstrates that this claim is nonsense.
If Trump wanted a riot, why would he repeatedly request National Guard troops for January 6? On January 3, 2021, President Trump asked Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley to assign National Guard troops to counter violence on January 6. Miller responded, “We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.”
Troops could be legally provided only if requested by law enforcement. The Capitol Police declined the Defense Department’s offer of troops.
The Secret Service, the Marshals Service, Park Police, and the Department of Homeland Security informed Defense “that they did not anticipate needing DoD assistance on January 6th.”
The District of Columbia requested 340 troops, primarily for crowd control at Metro stations and intersections.
On January 5, Trump asked Secretary Miller for 10000 troops “to do what’s required to protect the American people.”
Thus, by January 5, President Trump had not only twice requested national guard troops, but had been assured that the Department of Defense had “a plan and we’ve got it covered.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If anybody bothered to read Trump’s speech on that day, one will discover that all Trump wanted was for VP Mike Pence to delay the electoral vote count while the legislatures in battleground states reconsidered the certification of Biden electors. It appears that this delay would be announced at the joint session of Congress to consider the electoral vote.
In the alternative, Trump’s congressional allies planned to challenge, under the authority of the Electoral Count Act of 1887, the electors from those battleground states affected by election law violations. This would involve two hours of concurrent debate in House and Senate chambers for each challenge. This is why Trump called for protesters to “cheer on” and give “pride and boldness” to Republican legislators at the Capitol.
Both plans required order at the Capitol, not a riot.
Looking at the videos, it’s obvious that it was a “police riot” instigated by the ill-trained and undisciplined Capitol police firing tear gas and flash-bangs randomly into the crowd - and they were the only ones who killed anyone that day.
I watched Trumps speech that day - I knew he didn’t. The left is just evil.
of course it is nonsense.
J6 was FAR less violent that any BLM protest. And almost some J6 protestors were indeed exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, the only shot fired was from the police on an unarmed female protestor that died.
If the J6 protestors had actually sought an insurrection, the government would have been overthrown. Nothing could have stopped them.
BTTT
Pence had a lot of support across the party base but he pissed it away. I suspect he was promised positions and privileges from the uniparty.
The Marxist left wanted the riots.
Pelosi is guilty.
I. You are 100% correct. The cui bono test puts the riots all on Pelosi, none on Trump. A “riot strategy”, and a “legal challenge strategy” are mutually exclusive concepts.
Those pushing the notion that Trump intended BOTH disorder AND challenges to the electors, are fundamentally dishonest, and need to be challenged/forced to explain themselves.
II. Nancy Pelosi projected onto Trump her own Machiavellian ways. Pelosi distrusted the National Guard as “politically unreliable” (i.e., less than 100% Democrat-controlled). Trump’s offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen for crowd control likely fed her suspicions that Trump planned to use them either A) to PREVENT disorder, thwarting her plan to declare a State of Emergency; or B) as the backbone of a coup. A simpler explanation is that Pelosi rejected the NG out of spite (”I’m not helping that SOB stage his deplorable rally.”)
Anyway, thanks for posting on a fundamental issue that too few people understand.
Pelosi also arranged to have a film crew on hand for that day.
Of course this was all nonsense. This nothing more than a political witch-hunt by the Democrats to keep Trump from the Presidency. I might add that I believe that there are also some Republicans who support this witch-hunt.
If the Republicans in DC were not mostly in the party of collusion, our representatives would have been proclaiming these basic facts of what was intended to happen in the House and Senate on January 6. Instead, they stay quiet and let the left label Trump an insurrectionist.
I read that there were multiple pairs of representatives, each fully prepared to speak about the states where they wanted the votes to be reconsidered. After one of the least violent endings to a massive riot ever, Pelosi canceled all of those speeches.
If a half million American citizens went to DC with the intention to insurrect, Joe Biden would NOT have taken office.
Back in the 3rd grade, I was accused by some snotty girl (for no apparent reason to me) of putting gum in her hair. It was nonsense, but I was punished for it.
These people with their “INSURRECTION!!!” claims are that snotty little girl - all grown up and playing games to get what they want - because they CAN..
In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.
The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.
President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't meet the federal definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of insurrection?
-PJ
Unfortunately true. DC Republicans viewing Trump as a threat to their gang interests, and have never been disappointed for the Dems to discredit him.
Repubs have squandered the chance to investigate what Pelosi was doing. Her “State of Emergency” strategy did not just pop out in response to events — she had staff lawyers and Lawfare types developing her legal strategy and action plan. The “pipe bombs” are a giveaway that she had a plan in the kitty in case the riot plan fizzled. The film crew shows pre-planning too. There had to be communications, meetings, notes, etc., between the plotters. Those COULD have been subpoenaed and the participants questioned under oath. R insiders obviously don’t want the truth to leak out.
See
“The Big Lie”.
Thank you for that concise summary. This is precisely why they have been repeating “violent insurrection” ever since, and why video of Trump’s speech on J6 has been completely ignored and buried by the propagandists in the MSM.
Yet it still goes on
They're all about "feelings".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.