Ok, I assume you "know" this based on tweets and comments on parler. But what did they do? Bust some windows and force their way in.
"The demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people,"
Ok, but what did they do? Flash lasers into cops eyes. Shoot fireworks and throw molotov cocktails at federal buildings. You claim "white supremacists" instigated this, but what proof do you have? All I hear is rumor.
So let's pause for a second. We have Trump supports forcing their way into the capitol building. And we have Antifa firebombing federal buildings. But in your eyes the first are "MAGA insurrectionists" and the second is "demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people". Yet the second group is far more violent. Why?
And nice dodge with the "The capitol police, DC police, and national guard (under the direction of the DoD) deserve a ton of criticism". You mention nothing about "diffusing the energy". Should they have done that? Were the Trump protestors deserving of "de-escalation"? It appears not.
If you judged each side the same way I'd have no problem (and I'm not saying each side is equal). Both sides are rioting and that's wrong (even if you said Trump supporters were more violent). Or if you said "both side are protesting and some are getting out of hand" (even if you said the Trump supporters were worse). I'd have no problem.
But you're not. You're giving Antifa/BLM every benefit of the doubt ("protestors") and assuming the worst about the Capital Rioters ("insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists"). For two groups whose activities are not that far apart, your judgement has them miles apart.
Nobody firebombed the building. People shot consumer fireworks against a wall. The physical risk to either the building or the people inside was minimal.
"Antifa" had nothing to do with it. It is not clear that "Antifa" even exists, except as a weird right-wing fetish bogeyman (weird name to choose for it, implying their own support for fascism). "Antifa" has been found responsible for exactly 0 deaths across the USA; so a couple hours of MAGA militancy in one place has done vastly more damage than the entire history of "Antifa".
> I assume you "know" this based on tweets and comments on parler.
They were chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" at top volume. Once they got inside they were shouting "Where's Nancy?" among other things, and going door to door throughout the building looking for congresspeople. They literally built a gallows outside. A bunch of legislators' offices had the panic buttons removed (not clear yet by who). There were a bunch of ex-military goons carrying flexible handcuffs who broke into the chambers of Congress. etc.
Here is an FBI agent's affidavit which says that an informant who spoke with the MAGAs after the event says that they had planned to kill Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, or any other Congresspeople they could find, and are planning to try again on Jan 20: https://www.justice.gov/opa/page/file/1355186/download
> Were the Trump protestors deserving of "de-escalation"? It appears not.
Yes, in my opinion police should always be non-violent with non-violent protestors, and should avoid forcing direct confrontations.
A complete lack of force was in fact what the MAGAs got from the police. Police backing up, standing down, avoiding any use of physical violence except when the mob was literally hitting them, and largely letting the mob do what it wanted, including racking up hundreds of serious federal felonies with 20-year prison terms. The lady who was shot was literally climbing through a broken window into the House chamber while police with drawn guns shouted at her to stay back (I think some congresspeople were still in the chamber at that point?).
Thankfully all of the members of Congress were successfully removed to safe locations in the nick of time. If that one police officer hadn't tricked the crowd into following him the wrong direction, things might have gone much worse. Tragically a bunch of police officers and insurrectionists suffered serious injuries along the way, and even several deaths.
Eventually once the crowd realized its primary goal was thwarted and there was nothing to accomplish by sticking around, they went home.
The problem in this case was that the police did not have the numbers to block entry to the Capitol, and did not get any backup for hours, despite weeks of serious threats, the presence of dozens of people on the FBI's watchlist visiting town for the event, etc. This was a severe planning/mobilization failure, in my opinion substantially caused by Trump being on the side of the insurrectionists. A full investigation will hopefully uncover exactly what happened.
One of the biggest differences between Portland and the Capitol insurrection is that in Portland violent cops forced confrontations, whereas in DC violent MAGAs forced confrontations.
> If you judged each side the same way I'd have no problem
This is a completely disingenuous statement.
And no deaths? What about the unarmed Trump supporter who was shot dead?[2]
And again you do the same thing. Trump supporters post some threat and it’s real and the police should swoop down and stop them.
The left posts threats and they are dismissed as “bad energy”, “they didn’t really mean it”.
[1]https://ktvz.com/news/crime-courts/2020/07/24/fires-set-insi...
[2]https://www.npr.org/2020/09/04/909515885/protester-suspected...
To be frank, any statement by Bill Barr must be treated with skepticism. He has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to exaggerate, omit context, and just make things up in his public statements.
I don't know what happened with that Reinoehl guy. He sounded mentally unstable to me, and should not have had access to guns. But from what I have read he was a random independent dude who showed up to protests, not part of an organized group.
He claimed he shot the white supremacist in defense of his friend who was being held at knifepoint. Instead of investigating and charging him with a crime in a court of law, police went and assassinated him. We might never find out exactly what happened.
And surprise, surprise the initial reports about “kidnap and kill squads” during the Capitol riots turned out to be false.
No doubt the mainstream media will print retractions...right?
”The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.””
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-capitol-arrests...
There is little doubt that some of the MAGAs intended to harm or kill civilians in the Capitol building, including the Vice President. They repeatedly said so on tape, shouted it to the public, bragged about it to each-other, etc.
Whether some groups of them constituted "kill squads" per se (whatever that means precisely) has not yet been proven out.
> you see nothing wrong with setting fires at a federal courthouses
Nobody said that. Literally every comment you make moves the goalposts and makes unfounded accusations, and you seem fundamentally incapable of admitting repeated misstatements.
I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire".
To be honest this conversation is going nowhere. I recommend you find some other interlocutor if you want to keep going.
But that's EXACTLY what they did. Turned out to be a massive exaggeration with no evidence to actually back it up. Didn't stop it from being covered broadly in the media and the "correction" getting no press at all.
I just said that "starting a fire inside the fence" is categorically different from your previous characterization that they "set the building on fire".
But why did you say that? And it's disingenuous when the article I linked to showed a burned out door to the building.
And I know exactly why you quibble over "inside the fence/outside the fence" because you're trying to split hairs in an effort to downplay what it is - arson committed against federal buildings.
Again, proving my point you're treating the antifa/BLM side with kid gloves, but believing (without question) every single rumor and innuendo about the Capital Riots and ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
This is a gross mischaracterization, like almost everything else you have written.
> But at a hearing for Chansley later in the day in Phoenix, another prosecutor, Todd Allison, struck the line from the memo.
> Allison said the statement may very well end up being appropriate at Chansley’s trial, but said prosecutors didn’t want to mislead the court and don’t have to rely on the stricken statement to argue that he should remain in jail. Ultimately, a judge on Friday ordered Chansley to be jailed until his trial.
* * *
> quibble [...] split hairs
There is a dramatic difference between "lit the building on fire" vs. "started a fire in the vicinity of the building". Using the former language to describe the latter is grossly misleading.
I don't really know the details here (maybe they did in fact light the building on fire?). I am just comparing the language you used vs. the language used in the source you linked, which do not agree.
If people get charged and tried for arson or attempted arson in Portland in open court, that seems entirely reasonable to me. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will present their evidence, and a judge and/or jury will decide the merits based on the evidence and the text of the relevant statutes.
> every single rumor and innuendo
When a huge crowd is chanting "Hang Mike Pence! Hang Mike Pence!" near the gallows they just constructed that is not a "rumor".
> ready to slap labels on them like "seditionists" or "domestic terrorist" and use phrases like "kill squads".
I didn't use any of those labels above. However, I am happy to agree with you that what many of the MAGA insurrectionists did almost certainly meets the legal definitions of both
"seditious conspiracy" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
and "terrorism" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/6/101#18
* * *
I'm out. Have fun with yourself.
For one thing, the MAGA insurrectionists' stated goal was to kill members of Congress and the Vice President, and overthrow the government. Their ranks included a bunch of highly trained ex-military and law enforcement people who were apparently prepared and equipped to carry out that plan.
The demonstrators in Portland had the goal of telling cops to stop murdering people, and then later also wanted federal authorities to leave their city alone. Instead of letting them tire themselves out shouting in the street and then go home, the cops shot rubber bullets and tear gas, violently rushed at them, and beat people up night after night.
Note again that a bunch of the most violent incidents in Portland were directly perpetrated or instigated by white supremacists.
Seeing how poorly their statements matched the situation, it seems likely that federal authorities directing officers in Portland (and perhaps the local cops as well) wanted to provoke an unending stream of violent clashes for the benefit of TV cameras.
> Why not blame the DC cops for not “diffusing the energy”?
The capitol police, DC police, and national guard (under the direction of the DoD) deserve a ton of criticism. Their leadership screwed up about as badly as can be imagined, and the result was a complete shitshow. A lot more people could have easily been killed or grievously injured. Hopefully a full investigation will get to the bottom of it.
If DC protestors had just wanted to march around outside the barricades shouting and waving signs, that would have been just fine (and that's all many of them did; those folks are unlikely to face charges). They could have stayed all day and night shouting themselves hoarse if they wanted. There would have been no need for police to use force in such a situation.