The hearings broadcast

[89th]

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

[Horace]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

I would go with riot. "Insurrection" implies a plan in the heads of real people, connected to any plausible reality, where the government would be taken over.

[89th]

Yeah that makes sense to me too.

[Jolly]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

Flat ass wrong.

Insurrection - an organized and usually violent act of revolt or rebellion against an established government or governing authority of a nation-state or other political entity by a group of its citizens or subjects; also, any act of engaging in such a revolt.

1. You call that riot organized?
2. In the most heavily armed country on the planet, NOBODY had a gun. Not in the riot.
3. The rioters were not rioting against the principles of the government, they were rioting for what they perceived as illegal acts perpetrated by elements of the government and not adhering to free and fair elections, as specified in the Constitution.

[89th]

Yeah I think protect turned riot is more accurate, for sure. Insurrection? Not really, although one has to wonder what the handful of folks actually would’ve done if they had reached Pence or Nancy that day. I’d imagine most would’ve just gotten into a shouting match. Either way, storming the Capitol to stop our constitutional election process sure borders in the gray area between riot and insurrection. Semantics, anyway.

[Jolly]

I'll give you riot. It certainly was. Insurrection? No.

And I've said it many times, as have a lot of other people...I think there was much more organization in the BLM and Antifa riots, than there was at the Jan 6 riot. Twenty million people took part in the BLM riots, which caused $2-$3 billion dollars worth of damage vs. maybe 120,000 at Trump's rally and probably less than 1200 people at the Capitol, with those at the Capitol causing about $1.5 million dollars worth of damage. There were 30 people killed at the various BLM riots vs. 1 death (Babbitt) at the Jan 6 riot.

So ask yourself a few questions...

1. Why didn't the BLM and Antifa riots receive the same level of media attention as January 6?
2. Why has there been so many resources devoted to investigating a single riot at the Capitol vs. resources investigating the people who torched Federal courthouses and other government buildings?
3. Why have their been more arrests per capita for the Jan 6th rioters vs. those of BLM or Antifa?
4. Why have Jan6 rioters been held without bail for lengthy periods?
5. Why have Jan 6 rioters received much harsher sentences than BLM or Antifa rioters?
6. And this is the big one: In America, is there equal justice under the law?

[LuFins Dad]

For good or ill, I’ll remind you that most of the people there were under the incorrect (IMO) assumption that Pence could LEGALLY not certify the results. From their POV, they weren’t trying to illegally disrupt the electoral process.

Now they were wrong, and ignorance of the law is no defense, but it does hurt the whole “premeditated” part.

That being said, I do believe that there were some VERY bad actors involved that did promote and push the throng for their own reasons.

I still want to know why Nancy refused the National Guard offers the eeek before.

[Aqua Letifer]

@LuFins-Dad said in The hearings broadcast:

From their POV, they weren’t trying to illegally disrupt the electoral process.

I was with you until you said this. You make it sound like they were taking a group stroll, looked up after awhile and noticed they happened to be standing in Pelosi's office. Like, instead of the Mall. Because they made a wrong turn.

For what it's worth, my position is that:

1. These people are fucking cretins for what they did
2. No, it wasn't premeditated for a whole lot of 'em
3. These "hearings" are a joke for the reasons already mentioned

[Jolly]

Something I'd like to know...Who were the FBI informants and did they participate in helping create the riot?

[89th]

Link to video

Worth watching at least the first half if not the full. Seems quite candid and I'd share his frustration with the implications.

BTW here is the video (at the 2 min mark) they are referring to. Pretty dumb to try and connect these dots.

Link to video

[Jolly]

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

Something I'd like to know...Who were the FBI informants and did they participate in helping create the riot?

Again, watch for this one. I don't think you're going to see it.

There are some legitimate questions out there regarding FBI agents and/or their informants, and their role in possibly egging on the demonstrators, not to mention their actions during the riot itself.

[Horace]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

Link to video

Worth watching at least the first half if not the full. Seems quite candid and I'd share his frustration with the implications.

BTW here is the video (at the 2 min mark) they are referring to. Pretty dumb to try and connect these dots.

Link to video

They told us we would devolve into kangaroo courts if Trump was elected, and they were right.

[Catseye3]

@Aqua-Letifer said in The hearings broadcast:

For what it's worth, my position is that:

These people are fucking cretins for what they did
No, it wasn't premeditated for a whole lot of 'em
These "hearings" are a joke for the reasons already mentioned.

4. The Trump encouragement didn't start the week before or because of the "stolen" election; what most seem to be missing (or ignoring) is that it began in the very beginning, even while he was campaigning. It may even have been unconscious on his part. But the seeds for Jan 6 (or as it is now sexily being dubbed, J6, eyeroll) were planted and watered in the wayback -- as one barstooler after another nodded his head and firmed his jaw at Trump's every utterance.

[Larry]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Horace said in The hearings broadcast:

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Jolly said in The hearings broadcast:

And he also told them to go home.
But you're not going to see that.

Besides, you've already made up your mind, so let's not confuse you with facts.

I would hope the hearings (or historical record of events that day) included when Trump eventually posted a video message telling the protestors to go home.

I guess you'll never believe me that I am objective regarding this event. Political parties don't have an impact on my opinion of what happened.

Just looked at a timeline:

• 1:10pm - Trump tells protestors to fight like hell
• 1:45pm - Protestors break through Capitol police line
• 2:24pm - Trump tweets about Pence not having the courage to do what was needed
• 2:24pm - Pence evacuated as the building is flooded with protestors and rioters
• 3:13pm - Trump tweets asking folks to remain peaceful
• 4:17pm - Trump releases video asking folks to go home, and repeats that the election was stolen, the government is taking away their votes, and that he loves the protestors

Trump riled up a mob by convincing them the election was stolen, based on weak or non-existent evidence, the mob broke the law and trespassed into the Capitol, and Trump tsk tsked them upon hearing they broke the law, and told them to go home and stop breaking the law. Historically, this will be considered an insurrection, and we all have to decide where we come down on that framing. Whether we want to side with those pushing that framing, knowing full well the political intentions of that messaging - to shame, in the future, anybody siding politically with the right. You can feel objective all you want, but you might want to consider whose hand you're playing into while you bask in the objectivity.

Objectively, your first half is pretty accurate. Whether I personally see this as <dramatic music> an insurrection </dramatic music>, based on the evidence I would say overall it wasn't.

It was, in order: A) a protest of thousands on the Mall (per the President's instructions), and of that B) most people protesting moved to protest at the Capitol (per the President's instructions), and of that C) about 10-20% ignored the President's instructions to protest peacefully and followed the President's instructions to fight literally and participated in an insurrection who fought their way inside the Capitol where D) only a few dozen had seemingly violent intentions to confront [or worse] those trying to execute their Constitutional electoral duty.

That being said, I have zero problem if the history books overall classify the events as an insurrection. No President should ever do what Trump did again after a landslide loss. If it were me, I would classify it as a protest over false claims of election fraud, of which there was a minority element that participated in a failed insurrection inspired by false claims.

Are you aware that not a single one of the "protesters" was at the Trump rally? Not a one.

[89th]

@Larry LOL ok

[Jolly]

@89th said in The hearings broadcast:

@Larry LOL ok

I don't know about not one, but there were a very large contingent at the Capitol that were not at the rally.

Now, ask yourself, why?

[taiwan_girl]

I have watched some of the information hearings, and the thing that stands out to me is that based on responses to the hearings, there is still a significant portion of the population who has a "slavish devotion" to President Trump.

The number of high ranking people in his administration who have come out and said that President Trump is/was basically incompetent is quite high. If it were one person saying that, hmmm. some "skepticism". But, the sheer number of people unrelated to each other saying the same thing makes me think that there must be some truth to what they are saying. "Where there's smoke.........."

Mike Pence - Vice President
Bill Sepien - 2020 campaign manager
Betsy Devos - Sec of Education
John Bolton - National Security Advisor
James Mattis - Secretary of War
John Kelly - Chief of Staff
Richard Spencer - Secretary of Navy
Gary Cohn - Economics Council
Tom Bossert - Homeland Security Advisor
Stephanie Grisham - press secretary
HR McMaster - National Security Advisor
Rex Tilleson - Minister of Foreign Affairs
Deborah Birx - Trump COVID Response Leader

Am I missing anyone?

Now, I certainly don't agree with a lot of the philosophies of the people listed above, but there are quite a few smart people in that group, and all of them worked very closely with President Trump. So, while I may not always agree with their philosophy, I respect their analysis in this case.

The cult of personality that President Trump has developed baffles me (and scares me a little bit). The US can do so much better than him.

[Jolly]

Gas prices, low inflation, tax cuts, low interest rates, booming economy, rebuilt military, rise in real wages, constitutional judges, securing the borders.

If that's incompetent, for God's sake, let's do it again.

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in The hearings broadcast:

I have watched some of the information hearings, and the thing that stands out to me is that based on responses to the hearings, there is still a significant portion of the population who has a "slavish devotion" to President Trump.

The number of high ranking people in his administration who have come out and said that President Trump is/was basically incompetent is quite high. If it were one person saying that, hmmm. some "skepticism". But, the sheer number of people unrelated to each other saying the same thing makes me think that there must be some truth to what they are saying. "Where there's smoke.........."

Mike Pence - Vice President
Bill Sepien - 2020 campaign manager
Betsy Devos - Sec of Education
John Bolton - National Security Advisor
James Mattis - Secretary of War
John Kelly - Chief of Staff
Richard Spencer - Secretary of Navy
Gary Cohn - Economics Council
Tom Bossert - Homeland Security Advisor
Stephanie Grisham - press secretary
HR McMaster - National Security Advisor
Rex Tilleson - Minister of Foreign Affairs
Deborah Birx - Trump COVID Response Leader

Am I missing anyone?

Now, I certainly don't agree with a lot of the philosophies of the people listed above, but there are quite a few smart people in that group, and all of them worked very closely with President Trump. So, while I may not always agree with their philosophy, I respect their analysis in this case.

The cult of personality that President Trump has developed baffles me (and scares me a little bit). The US can do so much better than him.

You like to talk about this notion of millions of people being slavishly devoted to Donald Trump, but the much more powerful and meaningful cultural force was always the blind hatred of the man from the mainstream left.

[Mik]

I might take that list a little more seriously if they got the titles anywhere near correct. There hasn’t been a secretary of war for at least 50 years and we’ve never had ministers of anything.

Now take all the people who wrote books off that list.