January 27, 2021

Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?

That's the question I'd like to see polled. 

I think that the "yes" answer needs to be quite high — at least above 50% — for the impeachment trial to make sense.

But the question has 2 words in it that I think most people could not define accurately. Maybe the pollsters could insert a definition. Something like this:

1. An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Do you believe what happened at the Capitol on January 6th was an insurrection? 

2. "To incite" is to "encourage or stir up." Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?

Do you think there would be big "yes" answer on question 2?

244 comments:

1 – 200 of 244   Newer›   Newest»
Lucid-Ideas said...

Lol. Does that count?

Iman said...

1. No
2. No

rehajm said...

The insurrection happened when they stole it.

Laslo Spatula said...

"Do you think there would be big "yes" answer on question 2?"

It depends on who is counting the votes?

I am Laslo.

wild chicken said...

No, but he was reckless, and doesn't seem to respect to rule of law.

But I think the plain meaning of his words doesn't rise to the level of incitement.

The mil guys who planned the insurrectionay details were self starters imo.

stevew said...

The riot at the Capitol was no insurrection, as defined, and President Trump did not incite it.

Leland said...

No for me.

What I predict is
1) No, if this was an insurrection, then I don’t want to see another sit-in protest happen without severe repercussions.
2) No, but a higher number of yes based on circumstantial evidence and not direct evidence.

Trump was the leader of the government. It is difficult to have insurrection against yourself. However, there are plenty of examples of Pelosi trying to usurp executive authority during this time, including attempting to pressure the VP to form a coup against the President, which is insurrection.

John henry said...

Yeah, lol is the correct answer. or PERHAPS ROTFLMAO

but to play along, no to both.

John Henry

wendybar said...

No. But I do believe Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, and Kamala have. And yet...Crickets.

gilbar said...

serious question for all y'all law types....
how does trying to incite an insurrection differ from Sedition?

because you can be Found Guilty of Sedition, and run for President; While in Prison

If a "traitor to his country", found Guilty of Sedition, and serving 10 years in Prison,
While Disfranchised, FOR LIFE; can run for President WHILE in PRISON
WHY? can't a former President?

James K said...

Who cares about what masses of dishonest and/or ignorant, propagandized people feel? I'll bet a majority still "believe" that George Floyd was murdered. But criminal charges should be based on facts, even if impeachment is really just political.

Bob Boyd said...

Not sure the dictionary definition is what we are going by. Words mean whatever Progs say they mean.
Were the BLM riots an insurrection? Were they incited? What about the Antifa riots in Portland?

John henry said...

Yeah, lol is the correct answer. or PERHAPS ROTFLMAO

but to play along, no to both.

John Henry

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

No and further I don’t believe that the ANYONE in DC really believes he incited insurrection either. One must ignore the literal and legal meaning of many words even to entertain this question. Life happens in context. We all lived through 2020 and the persistent death destruction rioting looting occupying gun- and laser-wielding organized mobs wreaking havoc and NO NATIONAL GUARD, and NO police shooting protesters. Nothing the loudest voices are saying about 1/6/2021 makes ANY SENSE in context of the last year.

If HIS WORDS are incitement then what to make of all the flame-throwing rhetoric of 2020? Hmmm? Can we stop grading Trump on a special sliding scale and be honest?

John henry said...

Gilbar,

Is "sedition" illegal?

Could you please cite the appropriate section of the usc?

I've looked and can't find it. As I've menti here at leetwice this year.

John Henry

wild chicken said...

I missed the intent part. You'd need someone in the position to know what he was thinking because I can't tell.

Steve Bannon and his crew notwithstanding. I don't know that Trump still listened to him. But even he just did the typical legalistic plotting that nonlawyers go in for, with no consideration to the political fallout.

gilbar said...

Last night, at 8:41, Left Bank of the Charles said that (paraphrasing :)
a) President Trump suggested that the Senate REFUSE to count the electoral votes
b) this was was intolerable and IMPEACHABLE!
c) IF Trump ever won election again... The Senate should REFUSE to count the electoral votes

You HAVE TO Admire the beauty and symmetry of it !

dreams said...

No, and the liberal Democrats don't believe it either. They were just opportunistic in exploiting it for their political advantage, they're totally corrupt. And I have total contempt for corrupt liberal Democrats.

Tommy Duncan said...

It would be useful to add the exact words Trump used and the timing of his speech. I've read that he riots were already in progress when he spoke.

Wince said...

You really do have to run the last 60 years of US history through that same two-step logical algorithm.

Otherwise, you've simply devised an algorithm of attainder.

Francisco D said...

Isn't the point of Free Speech to stir people up?

It is not Trump's fault if some stirred up people broke the law. Did he actually tell them to do that? Of course not.

This kerfluffle reminds me of the NYT going after Sara Palin for her "targeting" congressional districts about the time of the Gabby Giffords shooting. Apparently only the Left is allowed free use of language.

Lets impeach Maxine Waters for her specific calls to assault Trump administrations members in public.

mockturtle said...

Of course not, on either count. And the Democrats know this but, to overuse the Reichstag fire metaphor, they know how to create a crisis that demands harsh measures.

gilbar said...

John henry asked...
Is "sedition" illegal?


it WAS at the time the Eugene Debs was convicted on it. It was repealed in 1920

Krumhorn said...

Based on what we know, the answer to both questions is YES. It’s just like knowing that the election wasn’t STOLEN and that THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED and SYSTEMIC RACISM.

I’ll do well at the re-edukation kamp.

- Krumhorn

-

M Jordan said...

We are living in Idiocracy. To even ask these questions is to admit it. Anyone who thinks Trump incited an insurrection is nuts.

But but but electrolytes.

Rusty said...

No.
I'm responsible for what I say. You're responsible for your response.
This has been a public service announcement.

Gusty Winds said...

Absolutely NOT! This is ridiculous.
We all know our current ruler Biden was installed by a massive voter fraud effort in WI, MI, PA, GA, NV, and AZ. THAT’s the insurrection. THAT's the coup, and it is against the American Public.

The evidence was even willfully ignored here on this blog by our host. Too hot to handle, but still too real to just ignore.

Really? A guy dressed up as Fred Flintstone in his water buffalo costume is supposed to be the leader of the Jac 6th insurrection? He waltzed on the Senate floor with a photographer following him. Give me a break.

If there was any STIRRING UP it was two months of ignoring all evidence presented to State Legislatures and willfully ignored by our corrupt courts, media, and Big Tech.

Xmas said...

I'm just sad that we are historically blind and treat what happened on 1/6 as the first time the Capitol was "breached" since 1814.

There was a literal terror attack in the House in 1954 by Puerto Rican separatists.

Gusty Winds said...

Blogger M Jordan said...

We are living in Idiocracy. To even ask these questions is to admit it. Anyone who thinks Trump incited an insurrection is nuts.

You NAILED it!

Bob Boyd said...

People gifted with the ability to read minds should be relied upon to guide the nation through this perilous time.

Fritz said...

No No

But I do think it was stupid for him to have that rally in that place on that day at that time.

Matt Sablan said...

I wonder how much the yes/no will actually be polling the yes/no on the *question* or if the question will serve as a proxy question instead.

tim in vermont said...

The belief that Trump intended to incite an insurrection in any way, despite his explicit words to the contrary and his history as a politician is the payoff the Dems are getting for four years of relentless attacks by the Democrat propaganda firehose.

It is repeated constantly that Trump is a non stop liar, but when pressed, nobody can every tell you what his lies are, and if they do come up with something, it is generally an inconsequential misstatement where intent to actually deceive is actually far from clear.

This is why the press can’t really ding him with his supporters. We get it, you hate Trump, but where’s the beef? Of course it’s all catnip to fools like readering who don’t really need evidence.

Amadeus 48 said...

**WARNING. Joe Biden has been inaugurated and is POTUS.**

As with most poll questions, an honest answer is complicated.

What was Trump trying to accomplish? What did he think would happen?

Clearly, he was trying to demonstrate that was a lot of "marching in the streets" opposition to Congress's certification of electoral votes from states where the courts and administrative officials had determined vote counts contrary to the laws adopted by the state legislatures--arguably (and it is a good argument) in violation of the US Constitution.

He used standard political rhetoric of the "keep fighting-stay strong" genre, and suggested that his supporters march "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol, where Congress was debating the objections to various states' electoral votes.

Is this criminal incitement? No. Was this wise? No, it was not wise, because there was a high risk that the crowd (full of he knew not whom) would turn into a mob, which it did.

I have never seen a calculation of how many people there were at the Capitol. It is hard to tell from the pictures. How big was the mob?

The right solution was for the police to clear the mob (as they did at the Kavanaugh hearings), the Congress to go forward with its business (which it did), and for Trump to leave office on January 20 (which he did).

The inadequacies of this impeachment are reflected in the hurried, thoughtless, and vindictive proceeding in the House. Pelosi is a bigger danger to the Republic than Trump because she is promoting division rather than smoothing things over.

tim in vermont said...

"But I do think it was stupid for him to have that rally in that place on that day at that time.”

Why? He had every right, and his supporters had every right to demonstrate there. There is a right to peaceable assembly in the United States of America, or there used to be. This whole thing is just one more attack on the First Amendment, which the left hates more than even 2A.

tim maguire said...

Do you think there would be big "yes" answer on question 2?

It might clear 50% among Democrats, plus Mitt Romney. Among thoughtful people who care about whether their opinion makes sense and reflects reality, it wouldn't reach double digits.

iowan2 said...

rehajm said...
The insurrection happened when they stole it.


You didn't listen when the Teacher was giving us direction. /sarc/

Insurrection requires the element of violence.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Blindness affects the recent past as well, since multiple Republican congresscritters have been assaulted even in hallowed DC even as they left the White House. Several were attacked in the hallowed halls of the senate during the kavanaugh kerfuffle. No Democrats got the vapors over THAT violation of our norms. Steve Scalise was shot by a Bernie Bro. Other Bernie staff bros said cities would burn in 2020 if Bernie was screwed out of the nomination again (who won D caucus in Iowa again?) and then it happened just like he said. Sounds like incitement. None of us is going to forget how we got to 1/6/2021 you memory hole motherfuckers!

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Many people answer such questions without regard to their actual meanings. They dislike Trump, so they say "Yes, yes, he did bad thing A. And bad thing B! And C, and D!Have you got any others? I'll say yes to those, too." Others believe they need to be loyal to Trump no matter what, and so say "No, he never did anything like that. That's crazy."

I like the ones who use ALL CAPS and intentional misspellings as name-calling the best. Those really help us get to the heart of understanding.

rehajm said...

If you create an incentive for the left's behavior you'll get more of it...

John henry said...

If you want to see what insurrection looks like, see the Puerto Rico election of 1980

At @11pm the count between hernandez-colon and Romero-barcelo was very close. A few thousand votes. Both candidates for governor one a former gov the other incumbent.

Hernandez colon got a mob of supporters together outside the stadium was making the final vote count. After working them into a frenzy screaming "a Las trincheras con la lucha" (take the fight to the trenches) he mount the hood of a concrete truck and started moving to the stadium door claiming they would break them down to do a proper count.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed. But it was close.

Now that's how you do an insurrection

John Henry

Mr Wibble said...

What happened wasn't an insurrection, and Donald Trump didn't intend to incite it.

DanTheMan said...

I suspect if you added question #3 "Should Donald Trump be put in front of firing squad without a trial?" you'd get roughly the same percentages as questions #1 and #2.

tim maguire said...

wild chicken said...No, but he was reckless, and doesn't seem to respect to rule of law.

Can you cite an instance of Trump ignoring the law? Any court decisions he rejected? Any policy preferences he went ahead with despite a holding that they were not legal?

hawkeyedjb said...

Insurrection? Probably not. Riot? Maybe. It couldn't have been a Peaceful Protest since nothing was burned down.

Rick said...

I think a better question is whether the people calling it an insurrection believe it was an insurrection. The evidence suggests not.

Fritz said...

tim in vermont said...
"But I do think it was stupid for him to have that rally in that place on that day at that time.”

Why? He had every right, and his supporters had every right to demonstrate there. There is a right to peaceable assembly in the United States of America, or there used to be. This whole thing is just one more attack on the First Amendment, which the left hates more than even 2A.


Having the right is not the same thing as smart. In any crowd of what, 200,000 people, there are a couple thousand that are stupid and or insane.

RobertL said...

No and No!

As someone who has "occupied" a Federal facility (Naval ROTC building) in the past, and participated in large-scale demonstrations (Washington, 1969 and Kent State school shut-downs), it is difficult to watch all of this bad theatre.

Mr Wibble said...

I'd say that the impeachment stuff goes all the way back t 2016 and the Russia Hoax. I fully believe that the goal was to use the Russia lies to charge Trump with treason once he lost the election. They would make an example out of him. Now that he's out of office, they fully intend to continue with that plan.

AMDG said...

1. Yes, some people went into the Capitol to stop5(3 government. I also believe that some people went in on a lark with not plan for anything. That video of the people walking between the velvet ropes gets me every time.

2. No - Donald Trump plans nothing. His impulsiveness prevents him from thinking more than 5 minutes ahead. I am sure the thought never occurred to him that things could go south.

Gusty Winds said...

A poll like this just shows how much trouble we are really in.

NOBODY wants to talk about the fact that a million people showed up in DC on Jan 6, 2020 KNOWING their voting franchise had just been stolen right out in the open. IT IS THE #1 MOST DANGEROUS EVENT OF 2020/2021.

There is plenty of video showing the capitol police escorting the "insurrectionists" in. Now we are supposed to take this posthumous impeachment seriously.

Lord have mercy. Christ have mercy.

Matt Sablan said...

I am hesitant to call it an "insurrection" as well, as they peacefully ceded the area back and never attempted to enforce or change the government or policy beyond getting people to vote differently (in a stupid, unproductive way.) If *that* riot was insurrection, the 2017 Insurection Riots? Also insurrection. The White House riots and DC riots? Insurrection. The Kavanaugh breach? Insurrection.

Do I want nearly every DC protest considered insurrection? No. So, I have to say that this wasn't insurrection.

Do I think Trump incited the mob? Not to violence; the mob didn't listen to him when he said to stop either. That mob was going to do something stupid because there were a whole lot of people with differing goals, some of whom were there (probably from both sides) who were there to DO something stupid. But, Trump did not say, "go and get me Nancy Pelosi."

Matt Sablan said...

You know what would be funny though? On those Websites looking to identify the insurrectionists... start posting pictures of rioters from the 2017 Inauguration or the Kavanaugh protesters.

tim in vermont said...

If we are going to call it an insurrection, then I think that there needs to be a lot more investigation than it is possible to have done for example, in the House’s vote to impeach him, since they did the vote in the fog of events and while the nation was beset by a fusillade of anti Trump propaganda and little interest was shown in the facts being dispassionately examined.

Both impeachments were rammed through with deliberate partisan efforts by the Democrats to avoid facts coming to light.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

We can get to Trump’s impeachment right after we deal with Democrats treason regarding the Russian collusion hoax.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

I suspect if you added question #3 "Should Donald Trump be put in front of firing squad without a trial?" you'd get roughly the same percentages as questions #1 and #2.

Yes and they are shameless about their hatred and proud of their ignorance. Where was Nancy’s private army of 2500 troops when that handful of people milled about the Capitol? She’d been predicting Trump would have to be dragged out by force for years! And she was “surprised” by the “riot”? She must be a delight to play cards with!

Bob Boyd said...

The narrative direction:

https://sethabramson.substack.com/p/january-5-meeting-at-trump-international

Will Cate said...

Nah, I think at best it'd be a 50/50 split on question 2

Dave Begley said...

Oh, Ann. Today the precise meaning of words is not part of today's vibe. And you can forget about the Rule of Law and our founding ideas like Free Speech. None of these things serve today's Democrat party. It is all about money and power for them. That's why I HATE today's Dem party.

Calypso Facto said...

Short answer, no and no.

But for those who would disagree, I think there's one more important question, which is, if you believe and insurrection happened, and if you also think Trump intended to incite, were his words the PROXIMATE CAUSE of the event? It's well-published that the timeline is all wrong, and no one arrested at the Capitol could have been in the crowd that actually heard Trump's words at the rally. So until I hear one of the arrestees say "Trump made me do it!" I will continue to think that NONE of the 3 components of the charge of incitement have been met.

Browndog said...

"Incitement" is the new leftist boogie man designed to ensnare anyone that does not repeat leftists narratives with a full throat.

I subscribe to this line of thinking:

Jesse Kelly

Imagine being on the Right and using the word “incitement” and not realizing what a completely owned Leftist tool you are.

My word. Break away from The System.

tim in vermont said...

The only people who had any chance to gain by what happened at the Capitol were the Democrats and their lefty allies. There was no path to power for any Trump supporters among the rioters. There was a clear path to gain for Democrats, same one the Nazis followed in the Reichstag Fire. And if you think that that historical analogy is being overused, perhaps you haven’t read too much about it.

Even now Adam Schiff has put together a new “anti-terrorism” law that is little more than a new set of tools for the Democrats in the deep state to use against the political enemies of the Democrats, not our country. They are using this unfortunate event as a justification to create a political caste system in the US and to used the surveillance power of the United States against Republicans.

Harsh Pencil said...

1. No
2. No

But I nevertheless believe Trump committed an impeachable (and convictable) offense, and Congress had every right to quickly impeach and convict him to remove him from office. (Now it is moot and this whole thing is unconstitutional.)

The offense was to attempt use a mob to intimidate another branch's Constitutional duty: here the limited one of Congress to certify the electoral college votes from the states. In particular, his delay in calling in forces or telling the mob to back off once it had started was serious enough, in my view, to warrant impeachment and removal.

But I'm an outlier. The Constitution set up an ability for Congress to use impeachment and removal as a check on the power of the executive. I would it to be more jealous of its powers and more quick to use this tool. It should have been used agains Obama too.

But now we have a Congress that is not jealous of its powers at all, with loyalty only going, if that, to party. So if the President's party controls either the House or 1/3 of the Senate, the President is more or less untouchable.

Bad situation.

I Callahan said...

No, but he was reckless, and doesn't seem to respect to rule of law.

In what way? To those of us who are sentient beings, all Trump was trying to do was make sure Congress heard loud and clear what his voters felt. Nothing more.

But I think the plain meaning of his words doesn't rise to the level of incitement. The mil guys who planned the insurrectionay details were self starters imo

What "insurrectionary" details? A bunch of yahoos stormed the capital, danced around, took pictures, sat in desks and carried off lecterns. In no logical shape or form was this an insurrection in any way whatsoever. No matter how many media voices say otherwise.

You have to get over your "ick" factor when it comes to Trump. That's all that's driving your thinking here - pure, unmitigated emotion.

Tom said...

1) Yes. It was violent. Was it an uprising? I guess that needs its own definition, but the violence makes it seem like an uprising. Was it against an authority or government? Yes. What was it against if not an authority (the Congress) or government (Congress is a branch of the U.S. Government)? It was an attack on the seat of government while the government was doing its official business and was intended to thwart the process of certifying the legitimate outcome of the (non-stolen) election and to keep the person who lost the election in power. It ticks the boxes for an insurrection. If they had achieved their objective of keeping Trump in power, that would have been an overthrow of the legitimate government, and we would probably now be in a hot civil war.
2) Probably not. His election theft lies were reckless and irresponsible, and his rhetoric for months was incendiary, and it had its intended effect, as shown by the many posters in this comment section that seem to fervently believe the landslide lie. But I don't think he specifically intended the Capitol attack. He bears responsibility, as does the person who unintentionally starts a forest fire when irresponsibly playing with matches. But the criminal standard for incitement requires conscious intent, which I don't think can be proven in this case.

That's why I think the House bungled the Article of Impeachment. It should not have focused on "Incitement of Insurrection." Dereliction of duty is easier to prove. Same with failure to uphold his oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by trying to steal the election and illegitimately hold onto power.

rhhardin said...

The relevant question is would you like to see the trial for it. I would. It's going be great congress comedy, or a continuation of a favorite Trump narrative, depending on which side you're on. It's ratings gold either way.

What could CNN possibly pretend is true? Tune in to find out.

Matt Sablan said...

Man. There are people who are actually going to be tried for sedition for the riot. I'm going to find that a big fence to hop, when people who showed up to interrupt congress previously haven't been tried for it, and the people who attacked the White house gates after talking about dragging Trump from his bunker weren't.

Like, I sort of assumed sedition was kind of a dead letter law, especially when *a government civil servant who lied to the president about troop deployments so that they could make their own policy* was lauded and not cuffed in irons.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Susan Rosenberg says "Hell No, at least not the way I did it". Send $$ to BLM Central.

Leland said...

For those thinking Trump was careless and dangerous, I disagree, but I agree with this:

He used standard political rhetoric of the "keep fighting-stay strong" genre, and suggested that his supporters march "peacefully and patriotically" to the Capitol, where Congress was debating the objections to various states' electoral votes.

Is this criminal incitement? No. Was this wise? No, it was not wise, because there was a high risk that the crowd (full of he knew not whom) would turn into a mob, which it did.


Trump’s comments were ordinary rhetoric. His actions were seen all summer long. ESPN was actually inciting others to protest earlier that morning because of the decision to not charge officers in Kenosha the day prior. I think Trump was clever. You can convict him, and lower the bar that ordinary rhetoric is insurrection. If you do that, then the behavior seen last summer better stop.

This hand wringing about Trump’s action is just like the outrage of Sarah Palin’s survey mark. They claimed she incited violence too, yet the shooter hardly knew who she was. And nobody cared about the Bernie Bro shooter. I have no problems with Trump’s words or timing. He is fighting closer to the way they fight, but he wasn’t promising more of it unless things change, as Democrats did during the summer.

Ray - SoCal said...

So do a poll!

After the vote yesterday by Rand Paul impeachment is dead.

I found the Gabby Gifford comment on censorship much more relevant and terrifying.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Bill Ayers says "sheeeeeiiiiit".

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

We are supposed to view this the same way we accept that every Democrat publicly predicted trump would steal this election, that the machines could not be trusted, that Trump would not accept the count, that he made the post office lose d ballots, that Trump would declare martial law. But none of that happened and now we do NOT accept ANY questioning of election results. Just like that. They did everything they said he would including imposing martial law on dc.

And now Stacey Abrams can lecture us all on how WE need to accept the election results without any back talk. Sounds fair!

roesch/voltaire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rhhardin said...

A lot of people don't realize that Kafka was a humorist. A religious humorist, Thomas Mann said.

BUMBLE BEE said...

I'm re-reading 1984, as I did 50+ years ago. It has come to fruition.

rhhardin said...

Sedition sounds like a desk job to me.

Matt Sablan said...

"Dereliction of duty is easier to prove."

-- Come on. If Trump's election loss coping was dereliction of duty, we could purge half of Congress and most of the Biden and Obama administrations for believing the Russian Collusion Hoax.

Do people ever think of actually trying to APPLY the rules they want to apply to Trump *to the rest of the world in a fair and equitable manner,* or is it *any rule to get Trump?* Or is it that they'd happily chop down the forest of laws to get the devil Trump, not realizing what will protect them when, all the laws destroyed, said devil turns on them.

Chris of Rights said...

1. No. And it's weakening the definition of the word past all useful meaning to answer "yes" to this question.
2. Emphatically no.

Jersey Fled said...

The BLM/Antifa riots in Portland and Seattle met your definition of an insurrection more clearly than what happened in DC. And leaders of those organizations incited those clearly and directly.

Yet they were characterized as mostly peaceful demonstrations.

And just for funzies add in that facts that 1)Trump is no longer in office, and 2) there is no possibility that the Senate will find him guilty anyway.

iowan2 said...

Not being cute, or snarky, but, defining incitement is very relative. Right? If I put my hair in corn rows, I may incite an African American, POC to violence because of cultural appropriation.

If the answer is YES to incitement. Is it proper to compare the words of President Trump, to
Rep,Maxine Waters, VP Harris, Speaker of the House, Pelosi. All of these, plus more persons in positions of power, justified and encouraged on going violence this summer and still up to today, rioters are allowed to run wild in cities, with the approval of person that are responsible to the safety of their communities.

How are we to determine when the same words are used by different people?

Also, past actions to inform us of future results.

Conservative have a long history of peaceful protests. To just keep things current, and not get lost in the weed of events 100+ years ago, The Tea Party had lots of peaceful Rallies. They were notable in being family affairs, with children participating, and the grounds being cleaner when they left than when the arrived.
President Trump attracted over 1 million people to his campaign rallies and there was never an out beak of violence...even when Obama hired thugs organized by Robert Creamer were sent in to agitate violence.
I don't see President Trumps language as being any different than it has been for the last 5 1/2years.

Did President Trump incite violence? NO

rhhardin said...

Religion, back in Thomas Mann's day, was the source of weird rules. Today it's the left.

Matt Sablan said...

"Bill Ayers says "sheeeeeiiiiit"."

-- Just remember, Bill Ayers stating "I should have planted more bombs" is just plain ol' freedom of speech that we have to let him say without any social or political punishment.

Trump's speech though is clear incitement despite telling people to not be violent.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Rand Paul answered that question. Mental defectives missed his point, though.

tim in vermont said...

He made a statement calling for calm immediately on Twitter, and Twitter suppressed it, did not allow it to be retweeted.

tim in vermont said...

R/V is one tiny sprurtle in the torrent of lies that the left has used against Trump.

Lucid-Ideas said...

@roesch/voltaire

"Yes, just listen to the rioters own words, “we were sent by Trump,”

By that logic Kamala Harris is guilty of inciting a riot for "I want more protests" and the 2 kids quoting her in Portland a week after she said it. Incidentally, I robbed a liquor yesterday because you told me. True story.

mockturtle said...

It will be interesting to see how they handle a real insurrection.

I Callahan said...

Having the right is not the same thing as smart. In any crowd of what, 200,000 people, there are a couple thousand that are stupid and or insane

So in the interest of safety, crowd size should be limited as an exception to the first amendment. Is that really your argument?

GDI said...

Intent is the safeword D's use when they are caught red-handed committing a crime.

tim in vermont said...

Remember when Harris was soliciting for bail money for rioters who destroyed small businesses and torched black neighborhoods?

This is a caste system Democrats are trying to build. That is not to justify the goings on in the Capitol that day, but Democrats were cheering on violence all summer, and yes, some dense people are going to get the wrong idea from Democrats and think that riots are the way that things get done now.

Harris should be in the docks right next to Trump for her words encouraging riots.

tim in vermont said...

All 200 rioters who were arrested during Trump’s inauguration were released without charges, BTW. There has been a lot of “dereliction of duty” over the past four years, mostly coming from local politicians and elected prosecutors.

Doug said...

1. Hell no
2. Fuck no

D.D. Driver said...

(1) Yes.

(2) No. He did not "intend" it but he was recklessly indifferent. The "stolen election" lie is analogous to lying to your neighbor that his wife is sleeping with her boss. If people believe the lie there is an unacceptable possibility of violence and even death. By the same token, what do you think will happen if you convince enough Americans their country is run by puppets installed by foreign governments in a stolen election? This why honorable and decent men would never lie like that. In fact, honorable and decent men would be damn sure they had their facts 100% straight before they start spreading these rumors.

MountainMan said...

(1) No
(2) No

I note that earlier this week SCOTUS dismissed two lawsuits against Trump which claimed he violated the Emoluments Clause by maintaining ownership of his hotels The Court said that since he was no longer President the issue was moot.

The same logic should apply to this impeachment trial. Apparently Roberts must have taken that into consideration in refusing to participate.

Annie C. said...

Oh for crying out loud, it was not a riot in the Capitol, it was just a fluffy huff!

Francisco D said...

roesch/voltaire said...would agree that Trump encouraged the crowd into a lunching mood.

Yes. I suspect they were hungry and being a generous guy Trump promised them all a McDonald's lunch.

IMPEACH!

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

No Trump did not incite an insurrection.

I'm not happy with what happened at the capitol and I am suspicious of who was really yelling at people to walk thru the doors ... it looked really easy to simply walk on in.

something was amiss.

Howard said...

When anything good happens, the Cultist heaps credit on the genius on their Master. When their Master fucks up, it's always someone else's fault.

He a genius planning a dozen moves ahead in three dimensional chess while at the same time a naive trusting fop who is constantly failed by his subordinates.

Matt Sablan said...

"By the same token, what do you think will happen if you convince enough Americans their country is run by puppets installed by foreign governments in a stolen election?"

-- I mean, we learned from 2016-2020 that lying about people hacking the elections was actually really good for your electoral chances, and that lying about said Russians hacking the elections was a moral, noble cause, and that investigating it, even after you knew it wasn't true, was a Noble, Sacred Duty.

So... I guess what you get is the ability to elect your guy president in 2020? Is that the lesson? Because, that's the lesson America learned from 2016-2020. Lying about stealing elections is totes fine, so long as only one side does it.

I Callahan said...

Why don't you just answer the fucking questions, Howard?

Browndog said...

"Yes, just listen to the rioters own words, “we were sent by Trump,”

Imagine being a lefty wanting to cause trouble. You find yourself facing federal charges, and your defense is "don't blame me, blame the guy everyone hates for my actions".

This is why incitement is utter bullshit. You're either responsible for you own actions, or you're a communist that believes many must be punished for the sins of one.

iowan2 said...

This seem relative
National news is now reporting a Police officer has been shot in the back in NYC. With all the politicians condemning all police as racist, this shooting is a result of incitement to violence against police.

The shooter has been arrested numerous times in NYC and NJ, returned to the streets under new bail rules. They had a picture of a gun, looked like a 50 year old 38 special, with the grip held together with half a roll of electrical tape.

Do words matter? What about actions? Who is doing the inciting?

tim in vermont said...

"The "stolen election” lie”

How do you know it’s a lie when we have never looked at the evidence? There are hundreds of sworn affidavits that claim that there were none of the “robust protections” that Twitter and Facebook claimed were in place to ensure that voting by mail was safe and secure.

This is the first election where there was such massive mail in voting and at the same time signature validation was greatly relaxed and yet we are not allowed to examine the ballot covers.

Face it, you are only taking it on faith that this election wasn’t rigged and there is a lot of. evidence that it was. If the Democrats were so sure that the election wasn’t rigged, they would be laying out the evidence for all to see rather than making every attempt to prevent that from happening.

You know how Obama got elected to his first political office? By examining signature after signature. Al Gore was allowed to examing the mail in ballots. Al Gore got his day in court. We had clear equal protection violations. The PA Supreme Court even found that their constitution had been violated in the election, but said that they couldn’t overturn the vote.

Democrats will enver allow this election to be examined.

J. D. Canals said...

No & NO

Howard said...

Why do you care I Callahan?

Temujin said...

Ask James Hodgkinson. Or, ask Bernie Sanders. Let's get his opinion on this.

BidenFamilyTaxPayerFundedCrackPipe said...

Anyone else think it's odd that all those people who walked into the capitol - only a small handful were arrested.

Why? and who!? we get a blot here and there of a "who" but mostly it's silence.

tim in vermont said...

"Why don't you just answer the fucking questions, Howard?”

That’s cute, you are imagining that Howard means a word he says.

Jersey Fled said...

Again, if you want to apply loose definitions of the words insurrection and incitement to the DC riots, then apply those same definitions to BLM/Antifa, which were characterized as mostly peaceful protests, and are still being embraced by the Left.

iowan2 said...

I guess for Howard, our host is going to have to draw out the question with pictograms using crayons. He is incapable of grasping the questions.

Browndog said...

Just to be clear, we're talking 4 broken windows, and 3 cases of stolen property.

On a scale of 1-10, that's a .02 of what happened in DC Jan. 2017.

Leland said...

I sort of agree with Harsh Pencil, because I think government corruption goes unchecked thus inciting more corruption, I rather government officials faced more peril. But I wouldn’t be so cavalier with impeachment. I don’t see what Trump did as impeachable (either time), but he may have been more careful with a rally and his words if previous officials had been held in check for their words. Alas, it is a bit pollyannish, if such punishment was more common, it would be abused the other way.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Trump encouraged the crowd into a lunching mood.

Finally the ironically named R-V says something I can agree with! Most of us in fact went to eat after that speech.

Howard said...

This is all pointless. The Senate won't convict. Personally I hope for a criminal trial in DC with a diverse DC jury.

iowan2 said...

Why do you care I Callahan?

I don't care about a lot of what our hosts posts. But I dont wander by and throw a flaming bag of dog poo down.

tim in vermont said...

I would really like this concept of dereliction of duty to be explored further. Let’s look at everybody who ignored violence against government property, like those people throwing explosives into a Federal courthouse. Not only were those actions all but ignored by local and state governments, they were condoned, and any suggestion that Federal troops be brought in to restore order were condemned as the ravings of a fascist wannabee dictator.

And there was Kamal Harris pleading for bail money for the rioters.

Howard said...

I am a visual learner, Iowan. Thanks for acknowledging that.

Humperdink said...

Don’t you need a mountain of weapons to execute an insurrection? I saw none, excepting the one used to execute Air Force veteran.

tim in vermont said...

"diverse DC jury.”

By diverse you mean made of of 100% partisan Democrats, I am sure.

Jersey Fled said...

And Democrats will cower behind National Guardsmen until March.

Howard said...

The sad thing Tim is your comments are always 100% sincere. Also they are too long and hysterical to actually read. I miss the Covid-19 Tim.

tim in vermont said...

"I am a visual learner, Iowan.”

It’s code for slow on the uptake, BTW, when people make excuses for their "learning style."

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

If the dishonest idiot tries to rewrite that as “lynch” please note an actual attempted lynching on video must be submitted along with said allegation. I forget how many Democrats were actually assaulted compared to the seven serious and many lesser injuries tobelectex Republicans including attempted murder by rifle of the whole softball team? Is it greater than zero even?

Breezy said...

1) No, not if other similar events weren't insurrection. We need to stop moving goalposts depending on who's in the crosshairs. This is a major, and hopefully fatal, defect of identity politics.

2) No, he's the law and order President. He would never intend to incite any violence. He wants a show of force to tamp down violence, as he often stated all of last year.

tim in vermont said...

"Also they are too long and hysterical”

You mean that you won’t read anything you disagree with because it hurts your brain. Any sense of them being “hysterical” comes from your own reaction, not my comments. They are fact based and I will happily back up anything you call bullshit on.

Ice Nine said...

>>"Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?"<<

Donald Trump didn't incite a damn thing other than a "peaceful" march to the Capitol, so the question is moot.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Biden the usurper.

Howard said...

Wow. Tim can read between the lines. I actually was hoping for a more Confederate interpretation of "diverse" from your more easily triggered rebels.

iowan2 said...

This is all pointless. The Senate won't convict. Personally I hope for a criminal trial in DC with a diverse DC jury.

I'm really not stalking you, but the stupidity is just to astounding.

Nadler and Schiff, and Swallwell had an opportunity to lay out the required legal elements to make the case for Criminal incitement of insurrection. Why wouldn't they do that?
Because as the Dems are insanely smart about all things legal, they knew they would be laughed down as fools, since NONE of the elements exist to win such a case, and in fact, in front of an actual Judge, would not survive an initial hearing.
If a corrupt judge would allow it to make trial, requesting a bench trial would be easy. Even a corrupt judge is smart not to expose his corruption by ignoring all the black letter law he would have to ignore to declare President Trump guilty,.

Howard said...

Tim: if that makes you feel better.

Sebastian said...

"1. An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Do you believe what happened at the Capitol on January 6th was an insurrection?"

It wasn't an "uprising," and it wasn't against "the government." Insofar as the mob incursion of the Capitol had a purpose at all, it was to stop and review the count of electoral votes.

"2. "To incite" is to "encourage or stir up." Do you believe that Donald Trump intended to incite an insurrection?"

He did not in fact stir up such a thing, and he did not intend to--and why would he? Have people go into the Capital, stop the vote count somehow--and then what?

Howard said...

Tim doesn't understand that visualizing is the male way. All these fancy empty words you vomit up are just a celebration of your feminized brain.

independent said...

Isn't the purpose of a trial to present evidence and persuade the jury. It makes no sense to poll the jury pretrial and based on that decide whether or not to have a trial.

I'm Not Sure said...

"If the Democrats were so sure that the election wasn’t rigged, they would be laying out the evidence for all to see rather than making every attempt to prevent that from happening."

This is an excellent example of the "Ignore what they say and focus on what they do" phenomenon.

Gusty Winds said...

roesch/voltaire said.. And I think Pence, who just missed getting handcuffed by a 100 feet and a few seconds

What a bunch of lying bullshit.

Howard said...

You people actually think this political showboating is moored to reality law and fairness? Superciliousness isn't a good look outside your Althouse Hothouse Flower safe space.

D.D. Driver said...

How do you know it’s a lie when we have never looked at the evidence?

No court has looked at the "evidence" because when push come to shove, Trump's legal team voluntarily dismisses cases rather than subject the evidence to any scrutiny.

That's how I know it is a lie. And that should be a clue for everyone. (It won't be.)

Bob Boyd said...

China Pushes Anal Coronavirus Tests

https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/china-pushes-anal-coronavirus-tests/

So I have to wear a mask and undershorts?
Now I feel incited.

Bobb said...

Howard said...
This is all pointless. The Senate won't convict. Personally I hope for a criminal trial in DC with a diverse DC jury.


I do not know why you would want to be personally tried as a criminal in DC. But if you think you should be tried criminally, I will not disagree.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

So the FBI was able to take down a 6-person plot against Governor Whitmer of Michigan, but they couldn't do the same thing for the "insurrection" plotters? That they didn't tell Nancy Pelosi about the coming riots. That Nancy Pelosi didn't tell the Capitol Police to prepare and to call in reinforcements?

Nancy Pelosi knew the invasion of the Capitol grounds was coming and did nothing to stop it. In fact, she made it possible for it to occur. She's using the "insurrection" to tar Donald Trump and Republicans. She needs to be removed from office.

Meade said...

Yes, yes, a thousand times YES. There. Now may I just finish my waffle?

Gusty Winds said...

It’s not that the Democrat and GOPe leadership is newly corrupt. We’ve known that. But now people like Voltaire, Howard and other lost liberals promote and defend it. They are in your neighborhoods. And they run your public schools. These are the people that will turn you in when it becomes a new virtue to “protect our democracy” and “defend the rule of law”.

narciso said...

Meanwhile the camarilla supported the rampant destruction of property for nine months

Tom said...

tim in vermont: I would really like this concept of dereliction of duty to be explored further. Let’s look at everybody who ignored violence against government property, like those people throwing explosives into a Federal courthouse. Not only were those actions all but ignored by local and state governments, they were condoned, and any suggestion that Federal troops be brought in to restore order were condemned as the ravings of a fascist wannabee dictator.

There was a lot of dereliction of duty this summer. There should have been a lot of recall elections or other state-level proceedings to remove the government officials who either actively aided and abetted the rioters or who failed to act to protect citizens and their property. The problem is that these public officials are leftists in charge of leftist jurisdictions, so nobody is holding them to account.

Trump was derelict in his duty to forcefully put down the Capitol riot. He's watching TV, knowing that the Capitol was being breached, and his response is to tweet that Pence is a coward? The only responsible thing would have been to immediately get more law enforcement involved to protect Congress and the Capitol. But he instead he egged the crowd on in the moment of decision. That's dereliction of duty.

Tom said...

Did he want to support the protest moving to the capitol? Yes

Incite an insurrection? Well, I don’t know what he was feeling in his heart but his words suggest he wanted a peaceful protest.

I suspect he wanted more than that but I can’t convict someone on my hunch.

It’s also obvious many of the protesters were simply let into the capitol.

I’d also like to know the difference between these protests and the Wisconsin teachers protests or the riots over the summer that burned our cities?

Michael K said...

Schumer accused Trump of inciting an "erection" and there might be something to that. For evidence we would have to have someone check Schumer's trousers and probably R/V's and Howard's too.

Personally, I think the Capitol thing was an Antifa operation with a cadre who led some Trump supporters with more enthusiasm than sense. It resulted in little property damage and the execution of Ashli Babbitt by an unidentified man who may have been the Brazilian immigrant who had posted his Trump hate on social media. Now that Democrats are in charge we may never know the true story.

Scott said...

No and No. Insurrection -- doesn't meet the definition. Incitement -- the timeline shows he was still speaking when the breach occurred.

I'd think that Pelosi's call to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- interfering in the military chain of command which runs pres to SecDef to Combatant Commands and the Services -- would be more seditious and insurrectionist. Even though the CJCS isn't directly in the chain of command, the office has grown in authority and expectations and he's the senior military advisor to the President, and the JS transmits plans and orders to the combatant commands. In this case it would be Northern Command which covers the US.

Meade said...

Bob Boyd said...
China Pushes Anal Coronavirus Tests
-------------------------------------

Now THIS is what we need to be focused on, folks.

Like a laser.

Michael K said...

"Tom" is another troll with a profile that is circular. They keep popping up lately.

Tina Trent said...

Why is it Howard always seems to be grabbing his nethers when he fantasizes about “diversity”?

ICZN: earth-shoe-wearing male who calls himself a feminist to get chicks, while really disliking chicks.

Bob Boyd said...

Now THIS is what we need to be focused on, folks.

Like a laser.



Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

narciso said...

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/solarwinds-targeted-by-massive-cyberattack-hires-kamala-harriss-husbands-former-ccp-linked-law-firm-as-lobbyists/

Ken B said...

1. Not for most of them. Maybe for a few of them, such as handcuff guy.
2 No. I think he, like many, was irresponsible in his speechifying. I expect Presidents to be a bit more aware of the effect their urging might have. But he was actually asking for a peaceful protest. Ann's post on this point was very strong.

Meade said...

When I do notes of sarcasm, they’re more like love notes.

Tom said...

"Tom" is another troll with a profile that is circular. They keep popping up lately.

I don't know what circular profile means. I'm a (very) long-time mostly lurker. I will say that there are at least two Toms on this thread. I'm the one that honestly thinks that the Capitol riot was an insurrection, that Trump was derelict in his duty, and that Trump legitimately lost the election. If saying that is trolling, I suppose I'm guilty as charged. The Tom that commented right after my dereliction of duty comment in response to tim in vermont is not me. I suppose it was a mistake to use a common 3-letter name if I wanted to avoid confusion.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Howard said:

You people actually think this political showboating is moored to reality law and fairness? Superciliousness isn't a good look outside your Althouse Hothouse Flower safe space.

Democrats have been unmoored to reality since DJT came down the escalator. The FBI conducted a sham investigation of Hillary Clinton's violations of the national security laws. HRC created the Russia hoax to deflect from that investigation. Rachel Murrow spent three years inciting her views into believing DJT and Putin were buddies while at the same time DJT was skewering Putin with sanctions and low oil prices. Once that investigation ended, they ginned-up the Ukraine impeachment for Trump asking the Ukrainians to investigate Hunter Biden's corruption.

Democrats - always unmoored to reality. Always preaching "unity" while inciting barbarism against their foes.

JK Brown said...

No intent to incite
No insurrection

The accidental insurrection. But then those few who came prepared to break things don't seem to have been listening to President Trump's speech. So, one would suspect that speech prior to January 6th would have to be cited as the incitement. And then we'd wonder why our national security apparatus and FBI were unable to detect the plans of people who openly expressed themselves on social media. Why House and Senate security officials who answered to Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell refused to let the Capitol police chief to augment his officers with additional forces up to the National Guard.

Then of the 100,000+ people on the Mall that day, only 1% or less even made an incursion into the Capitol. Many of those were quite respectful of the facility with a very small subset who participated in the vandalism. A smaller subset engaged in violence, as sadly happens with crowds. As for the deaths. One intentional killing by police that does not appear to meet self-defense, one police officer dying as a result of injuries likely received without direct intent of serious bodily harm, and three people to medical emergencies likely brought on due to the stress of the situation.

As Scott Adams had opined earlier, decisions by Chief Justice Roberts and others were likely to be influenced by their expectation of violence if they decided against Biden. At the time, he opined that Trump supporters don't riot so even if the merits favored Trump the decisions would slant to avoid riots across the country. After January 6th, those calculations got a lot more complex. After Trump supporters accidentally put the fear of the American People in official Washington.

Ken B said...

Harsh Pencil
But I nevertheless believe Trump committed an impeachable (and convictable) offense, and Congress had every right to quickly impeach and convict him to remove him from office. (Now it is moot and this whole thing is unconstitutional.)

The offense was to attempt use a mob to intimidate another branch's Constitutional duty: here the limited one of Congress to certify the electoral college votes from the states. In particular, his delay in calling in forces or telling the mob to back off once it had started was serious enough, in my view, to warrant impeachment and removal.
—————————

I think there might have been an impeachable act in the attempt to intimidate Pence and the congress. It’s a tough call either way I think. Was the rally to be peaceful but threatening? Or peaceful but respectful? However, that’s not what he was charged with.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If you live in Wisconsin, you’re accustomed to Capitols being breached. In fact, it’s celebrated by the media as long as it’s done by their preferred team.

SteveSc said...

1) No
2) No

AZ Bob said...

I think that the "yes" answer needs to be quite high — at least above 50% — for the impeachment trial to make sense.

This is an example of what people call the living Consitution.

tim in vermont said...

"All these fancy empty words you vomit up are just a celebration of your feminized brain.”

I guess that is how you would view something you can’t understand, revert to your troglodyte macho. I stopped arguing about COVID for the same reason I stopped taking you seriously Howard. The gulf is just too wide, and the psychological defenses that, for example, the anti mask people have put up to prevent their hearing reason are insurmountable. They simply don’t have the training in math and science to know that they are falling into the most basic kinds of intellectual pitfalls that it took the West millennia to overcome. If I say that, I am "arguing from authority.” They much prefer to feel like they are right than to explore the facts of the matter.

You have similar defenses. Everybody has their dopamine lollipop Howard, and you aren’t going to risk losing access to yours by inadvertently stumbling on some fact that might make you question anything. Better to avert your eyes before you read a fact that endangers your sense of superiority.

I have a different “learning style.” If I am wrong, I want to know it.

Francisco D said...

Howard said...Personally I hope for a criminal trial in DC with a diverse DC jury.

Our internet Marine has a unity plan. LOL.

Two problems:

1. What is the charge in a criminal trial?

2. How do you find a diverse jury in DC?

Breezy said...

If using a mob to intimidate another branch's Constitutional duty, wouldn't that include the case where the mob (media, dems, bigTech) sought to remove Trump, and his Constitutional duty to govern as the Executive, by way of Russian collusion hoax?

Just want to be clear on the goalposts....

narciso said...

When cities were blazing and monuments were being toppled this crew said it would be fine.

iowan2 said...

Trump was derelict in his duty to forcefully put down the Capitol riot.

Your talking about this summer right? President Trump wanted to shut down the insurrection this summer. It was refused by the DC Mayor, and Pelosi. His advisors told him he was forbidden by the constitution to use the military.

Sad, I Know

DC in NM said...

No and No. He was very clear in his speeches.

MeatPopscicle1234 said...

No, and no.

Jim Grey said...

1. Yes.
2. He *did* incite it, but I have no idea whether he intended to.

mockturtle said...

If the Capitol breach was considered 'insurrection', I recommend some reading of history to learn what real insurrection looks like. Just sayin'.

pacwest said...

They don't make insurrections like they used to. I remember the good old days when Lorreta Lynch called for blood in the streets. From what I saw on Jan 6 it looked like the summer of love. I'm not sure, is there any relationship between an insurrection and a coup?

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

How often have we seen a left-wing demonstration of a few hundred people who declare "This is democracy in action!"? A rally in front of the White House and the Capitol is just a super-sized demonstration. And yes, Congress critters should be afraid of the people. We are the masters and they are our servants, not the other way around. An occasional demonstration is required so they don't forget that reality. That goes especially for the Congress critters who would attempt to shutdown our free speech and gun rights.

rcocean said...

1) How does the President of the USA incite insurrection against a Government he's the head of?
2) How does various anonymous people entering the Capital Hill Building constitute an attempt to "overthrow the goverment"?
3) How does wanting the Congress to investigate vote fraud constitute "Overthrowing the Government"?
4) what did Trump actually say - give me the exact words IN CONTEXT - which indicates he wanted people to "Overthrow the Government"?

Seriously, do words mean anything anymore? OR is it just making shit up about people we don't like?

Howard said...

Mike of Snoqualmie: the woke me too girls and the soy boy bullies have gotten into your head big-time. Battered wife syndrome isn't a good look.

rcocean said...

A mob attacked the white house this summer and forced Trump and his family to go to the basement for their safety. Was that an insurrection? Yes or No.

Susan Rosenberg tried to plant 500 lbs of TNT in the Senate to kill Republican Senators. Why wasn't she charged with insurrection? People defended the Baseball field assassian, who shot five R congressman. why weren't they charged with insurrection?

Antifa has been attacking Federal buildings for over 6 months in Portland. why isn't that "Insurrection"?

rcocean said...

I love how Althouse poses the question. Do you "Believe" as in "Do you believe in God ?" or "Do you believe prayer works?" Or alternatively, "How do you FEEL about it?"

I'm sure plenty of Trump haters FEEL, with lots of FEELING, that Trump did something bad and should be punished. After all, he hurt their FEELINGS.

You cant even look to R Senators to behave like men, and put aside their FEELINGS, and vote the constitution and the facts. Looks at girly men like Romney and Sasse all upset at Trump and jealous of his success. Pathetic.

Sam L. said...

No, but the Dems would.

wholelottasplainin' said...

How, exactly, would Trump have benefited from an "insurrection"?

Is there any sign whatsoever that he foresaw remaining in the Presidency as a result?

That somehow unarmed MAGA supporters would be an effective counter to the entire military apparatus, armed to the teeth?

Or that the military would immediately come over to his side, and do--what?---kill or imprison the rest of the central government?

Nope, Nope and Nope.

It's complete bullshit---and the bogus rational for stationing troops in DC, to remind us proles who's in charge.

roesch/voltaire said...

Yes, just listen to the rioters own words, “we were sent by Trump,” and ask yourself why he said follow me to the capitol, before he ran back to the WH to watch the insurrection, okay call it a riot of folks beating police with flag poles, on TV for three hours before making any statements.And I think Pence, who just missed getting handcuffed by a 100 feet and a few seconds( view the videos please), would agree that Trump encouraged the crowd that ended up calling for Pence to be lynched. According to reports they haven't talk since that attempt, I wonder why?

wholelottasplainin' said...


Ken B blathered:

I think there might have been an impeachable act in the attempt to intimidate Pence and the congress.
****************************

Since when is an an "attempt to intimidate" a criminal act, or a High Crime or Misdemeanor"?

Did Obama commit an impeachable offense when he said "they bring a knife, we bring a gun"?

Bloody nonsense

wholelottasplainin' said...

Fritz said
Having the right is not the same thing as smart. In any crowd of what, 200,000 people, there are a couple thousand that are stupid and or insane.
***********************

Oh really? then why didn't the Tea Party demonstrations lead to rioting and violence?

Browndog said...

All this has nothing to do with what happened on Jan. 6

All this, and I mean all of it, is the exercise of the new government doctrine that states anyone of note (for now) that claims the recent election was stolen, fraudulent, or anything besides on the up and up is an enemy of the State, and will be punished.

This doctrine is not temporary, and not limited to this last election.

mockturtle said...

Rcocean, perhaps you're looking for logic in all the wrong places. You know, like in the song.

dwshelf said...

For those who truly hate Trump, it sure looks that way.

They are blinded of their knowledge of what an insurrection is.

John henry said...

Both hernandez-colon and Romero-Barcelona swapped the governorship back and forth a couple times. There was some real personal animosities going back several generations.

John Henry

Gospace said...

1. No
2. No

Almost all the videos I've seen purporting to show a riot in progress and insurrectionists in the capitol show people walking calmly between the velvet ropes. Was there violence? Some, but not much. And seems to this day no one is really sure who committed it. Although the MSM and Democrats, but I repeat myself, claim Trump supporters. Seems to me there's evidence some, if not most, was left wing antifa piggybacking into the confusion.

Temujin said...

Meade said: ""China Pushes Anal Coronavirus Tests"
Now THIS is what we need to be focused on, folks.
Like a laser."


Of course the easy reply is that China has already fucked the entire world in the ass. We're all just waiting for them to tell us they love us. All we get is Joe Biden telling us that. We demand more.

Daddy Binx said...

I vote:
1) No
2) No

But my deceased father-in-law from Chicago votes:
1) Yes
2) Yes

AZ Bob said...

What is the definition of an insurrection? Is it 20 to 40 people wandering around inside the Capitol building taking selfies? Is it putting your feet up on the desk of Nancy Pelosi? Is it a guy with a Viking helmet posing for pictures?

Was it an insurrection when Congress returned early the next morning to complete the tabulation of the electors?

Consider the worst physical damage that happened. We are told that five people were killed during this insurrection. The worst example of the violence was the police shooting an unarmed woman. Whose fault was that? There was a heart attack and a stroke. Lastly, we should have sympathy for the policeman who was hit over the head with a fire extinguisher and later died. But the media condemned him after it was learned he was a Trump supporter.

Now compare the above to the riots that happened throughout Democrat run cities last year. At least the so called insurrectionists didn't burn down the Capitol. In fact, not one fire was set.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

rcocean said...

Susan Rosenberg tried to plant 500 lbs of TNT in the Senate to kill Republican Senators. Why wasn't she charged with insurrection? People defended the Baseball field assassian, who shot five R congressman. why weren't they charged with insurrection?

Fun fact for your collection: None of the ranchers (Ammon Bundy and crew) who were involved in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge armed stand off was charged with insurrection.

John henry said...

Still waiting for gilbar or anywhere else to show me the section of the us code making "sedition" a crime.

Nobody can be charged with sedition unless it's a "crime".

John Henry

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Nancy Pelosi never lets a crisis go to waste. She's always there to pounce on the smallest disturbance in the force, such as the continued streamlining of the Postal Service. After she got down, we were all going to die and not be able to vote because we'd be dead and the Postal Service couldn't pick up the ballots from our dead hands. Then she takes the unauthorized and Capitol Police encouraged Capitol strollers and manufactures a "we're all going to die!" crisis. AOC is now suffering PTSD. There was no incitement, Antifa/BLM/QAnon planned this event. There was almost no damage; then same cannot be said for the Minneapolis riots - 700 businesses burned out. The so called rioters were having a party in the Capitol building, not burn-it-all-down temper tantrum.

gilbar said...

John henry said...

Still waiting for gilbar or anywhere else to show me the section of the us code making "sedition" a crime.


i TOLD YOU, it WAS a crime, in 1919....
The Sedition Act of 1918 (Pub.L. 65–150, 40 Stat. 553, enacted May 16, 1918)

Turns OUT, it's STILL a (different crime)

Seditious conspiracy is a conspiracy to commit sedition. It is a federal crime in the United States per 18 U.S.C. § 2384:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


they used it, as recently as 2010

here's one, that might strike home (casa?)
In 1980, Puerto Rican Nationalist Carmen Valentín Pérez and nine other women and men were charged with seditious conspiracy for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States in Puerto Rico, and were each given sentences of up to 90 years in prison.[6]

please let me know, when you check and see i'm right... Then i'll say "It's Nothing!"

gilbar said...

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

jim said...

Yes.

I believe that in Donald Trump's squirmy little brain he thought that sending a bunch of yahoos off to the capital would benefit Donald Trump. Probably even he did not believe that it would result in remaining in office, but who knows.

He's after continuing the mass psychosis to maintain his following and cash flow. In the end that's all it's about.

You call it insurgency, I call it a business plan.

Readering said...

It would have been nice if AA and Republicans had put a tenth of this energy into telling Trump and his minions that their evidence-lacking challenges to the election results in the midst of a pandemic were a waste of time.

Humperdink said...

@Readering. Has any court reviewed the mountain of evidence yet?

Amadeus 48 said...

Big thoughts,jim. Big thoughts.

But I don't think being president has been good for his business, yet. Shutdowns killed the hotel/resort business, as well as international travel. I haven't paid much attention to his showbiz business, but The Apprentice is kaput.

Trump will probably be one of the few--the VERY few--politicians who saw his net worth hurt by his government service.

mockturtle said...

From PBS: Frontline: Trump's American Carnage.

TDS has somehow managed to escalate even further now that Trump is out of office. And we should assume that those who supported his Presidency are now considered domestic terrorists who don't deserve to live.

Mark said...

They very question is frivolous.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 244   Newer› Newest»