Please don't post unsubstantive comments. I'm not saying you're wrong, but leads to tedious, dumbed down threads, and usually flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I disagree with the characterization of this user's comment as unsubstantive.

It's a divisive topic and the comment is adding almost zero information plus a bunch of snark. That's not what we want here. (This has nothing to do with who one agrees or disagrees with on the topic.)

"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Same

Fair enough.

> The global war on terror was a complete and total success. I look forward to solving it domestically as well.

Given historical evidence, there's a chance it will actually be successful, as it was done in the past.

After the Oklahoma City bombing the FBI went after the far-right militia movement, and clamped down on it.

* https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/since-oklahoma-cit...

* https://www.vox.com/2016/1/5/10712084/oregon-militia-history...

* https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-militias-timeline-idU...

Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia?

How about we just clamp down on anyone doing bad things (including day-care bomber McVeigh), rather than going after people for their political beliefs. You sound like you're advocating for domestic terrorism yourself if you want people with guns to go after those of your chosen political target merely exercising 1A and 2A rights.

> Is there something illegal about being far-right or being in a militia?

If they are participating in domestic terrorism, which is defined as (18 USC § 2331(5))

> activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.

* https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

I'm not aware of (m)any active (far-)left militias in recent years, though in the past there were some, e.g.:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

Every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

Most military age males are in a militia.

>Every state has laws

Ignoring the fact that not all states have laws that specifically ban militias in general (just certain use of them), why on earth would DoJ (federal gov) be enforcing state law? What FEDERAL law bans organizations of men, already part of militia by US Code, from fraternizing together?

You're totally taking that section of USC out of context. It specifies only the criteria for membership in an organized or unorganized militia. What either is allowed to do is determined by state constitutions and laws. As already noted, every state has significant restrictions on those actions. For example, here's some information on those laws in my own state of Massachusetts.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...

Some choice quotes:

===

Massachusetts Constitution: The Massachusetts Constitution forbids private military units from operating outside state authority, providing that “the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass. Const. pt. I, art. XVII.

Massachusetts Statutes – Prohibition on private military units: Massachusetts law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state. ... Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 33 §§ 1, 130–31.

===

Phrases like "exact subordination" and "permission of the state" are not just window dressing. They're legally binding. You might consider yourself a member of such a militia, but to operate as such - notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.

As the above document also mentions, every state has similar restrictions. They might differ in details, but the message is the same: without state or federal command, your "sovereign militia" can do no more than cosplay (and sometimes not even that) without getting into legal trouble.

It's not just telling you the criteria for membership, it's telling you who's in it. Again, most military age male citizens of US are in a militia, whether you like it or not.

>You might consider yourself a member of such a militia

You can consider yourself in or out the militia or not. That doesn't make it fact, from a legal perspective. For government's purposes though I would use government's law, which tells us able-bodied military age males, generally, are in a militia.

> notably to perform any military or law enforcement function - you must be under state or federal command.

Um, the thread we're both replying to was about 'every state has laws making it illegal to be a member of a private armed militia.' You're arguing about something entirely different here, that is about state laws (not under purview of DoJ) that limit uses of militia.

> It's not just telling you the criteria for membership, it's telling you who's in it

Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.

> You're arguing about something entirely different here

No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.

>Pedantic comment of the day, and on HN that's quite a contest. There's no functional difference between those two things.

Yes there is. If the criteria for membership in a club is that you have to be an able bodied male, that doesn't mean every able bodied male is a member of the club. It means an able bodied male could potentially choose to join the club. The US Code says they're in the club whether they want to or not.

>No, I'm arguing the same point you were originally, until you were conclusively proven wrong and moved the goalposts.

My point was never that a militia could perform same actions as military or law enforcement, YOU were the one who moved the goalposts. You didn't prove jack shit wrong.

> This report identifies, for each of the 50 states, the constitutional and statutory provisions relevant to paramilitary and private militia activity. Importantly, each state has at least one constitutional or statutory provision that applies to the type of paramilitary and private militia activity that may arise at future rallies similar to the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

> ICAP has categorized the relevant state laws into four groups: (1) constitutional provisions requiring the subordination of the military to civilian authorities; (2) statutes restricting unauthorized private militia activity; (3) anti-paramilitary-activity criminal laws; and (4) prohibitions on the false assumption of the uniform or duties of a peace officer or member of the military. The report describes these categories in more detail below and notes which states have statutes or constitutional provisions falling into each category. Following that summary is a chart listing each state’s relevant provisions, and finally each constitutional or statutory provision in full, organized by state. The chart also includes annotations of relevant case law.

* https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...

Interesting read, thanks. It thoroughly discredits lokar's claim.

The paper you say just say the law prohibits militias "from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. Some, including California, also prohibit paramilitary activity during or in furtherance of a civil disorder."

Then it goes on to cite the California misdemeanor for doing so, in state law.

Why would DoJ (feds) be investigating misdemeanor state law in California?

I did not mean to imply they should. Rather to refute the common view that self organized private militias are allowed or even somehow encouraged and have some kind of official status.

The source provided by throw0101a shows that 21 states allow organization of private military unit without any authorization of state government at all. The 'common view' that they are 'allowed' seems to be rooted in reality.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites...

To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that often have barely functioning or extremely corrupt governments.

> To be fair, the "global war on terror" is trying to tackle a problem that can easily move itself and spread to countries that

To be fair, the "global war on terror" is not even pretending to trying to tackle a problem it largely created

Wonder how the Biden admin will feel if he isn’t re-elected and the next administration inherits the domestic terrorism unit.

It’s a self sustaining bureaucracy that is disconnected from any particular administration. Administrations will, of course, set a particular tone.

The DoJ is in federal executive branch. President is top of chain-of-command of executive branch. In fact, the constitution itself [0] states the [federal] executive power is vested in the president. Disconnect is probably not an accurate word to describe the relationship between DoJ and President.

[0] https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/arti...

True but the president can’t fire the whole department and hire a new one. They have enough trouble when the want to fire the USAG if the other party doesn’t want to see change.

You don't need the presidency for that. You just need to be the majority party in congress because the majority party controls the committees and agenda. Congressional midterm elections are this year.

The legislative branch (congress) isn't supposed to be law enforcement. Law enforcement is squarely executive, as is presidency.

Right, but the presidential branch doesn't do investigations, or congressional hearings, or have the subpoena power that the congressional branch does (like we're seeing in the Jan 6th committee). They have a lot of investigatory power. They can release documents and emails. They can swear in testimony. They can hold you in contempt.

So there is no presidential branch. There is an executive branch. There also isn't a congressional branch. There is a legislative branch.

The executive branch conducts investigations, issues subpoenas and certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt if you don't respond to a subpoena others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court. After all the FBI, DEA, ATF, CBP among many more law enforcement agencies are part of the executive branch.

Pedantic arguments aside, congress does all of that too.

> The executive branch conducts investigations,

>> Essentially, the Court held that the Constitution's text implies a power to investigate given its power to legislate.

> issues subpoenas

>> the U.S. Supreme Court clarified Congress's power to issue subpoenas in a 1917 case (Marshall v. Gordon), stating that "in virtue of the grant of legislative authority there [was] a power implied to deal with contempt."

> certain agencies can directly hold you in contempt

>> The authority of Congress to cite an individual with criminal contempt is found in Title 2, Section 192 of the U.S. Code.

> others can ask a court to find you in contempt of court

>> Either chamber of Congress may start the process in a committee (such as the House Judiciary Committee) and may rely on the legislative counsel's office like the Office of Senate Legal Counsel for help drafting a contempt resolution. Once the resolution is drafted and voted out of committee, it then goes to the full House or Senate (depending on where it originates) for a simple majority vote.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-...

Yes, Congress does issue subpoenas and conduct investigations as stated in your original post and I didn't disagree with you on this point, but you also claimed that the "presidential branch" doesn't do these things. The main point of my reply is that the executive branch does do those things also.

What are you implying with this comment?

That this is essentially a low-key Stasi that can and will be used to improperly go after political dissidents under the guise of "domestic terrorism."

The entire campaign/programming around "protecting our democracy" was the precursor psychological operation so the population goes along with single party rule.

NBC News was running this last year (more priming): https://ww3.bongino.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/dhsadviso.... It's all clever wordplay designed to manipulate the public into thinking people who disagree politically are terrorists (absent any actual proof that they have intent/motive/etc to commit acts of terror). It's the same logic that's held people from January 6th in solitary confinement without charges of insurrection (despite the media parroting/programming that it was an insurrection).

You're implying that democrats are doing all this PsyOps preparing to rule the country indefinitely? From where I sit, democrats are lame ducks who are set to get swept in 22 and 24.

No. The whole Democrat vs Republican thing is itself a psyop to drive the country apart (divide and conquer). It's about normalization of single-party rule in general. The end goal being willful acceptance of global governance. The public face of that, typically, is someone who is a democrat but there are plenty of republicans (neocons) in on it, too.

This new unit is just a way to flush out the straggler dissidents who will get in the way.

I don't believe that. It would take too much work to have a coverup like that, especially as total nitwits are elected to congress constantly. To address that, you'd have to say that no, people are divided into two camps with an infinite chasm between them: the ones in the know, and the total idiots. The far more plausible and minimal explanation is that it's a complex power balance that can tip unpredictably.

You're overthinking it. You can have a few in the know coordinating the direction while the eager idiots follow. It's happened time and time again throughout history.

Have fun, Alice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQNitCNycKQ&list=WL&index=1

According to that lady, the Mexican drug war is an American psyop, and US Marines are the ones running the drug flow into the US.

The CIA was running cocaine in Nicaragua [1]. It's not that far fetched.

https://archive.is/uFSlR

Administrations change and you better be ok with future executives inheriting powers that you create.

One person’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, especially domestically. Nelson Mandela is a fine example of one of the greatest humans in history who was defined by the South African government as a domestic terrorist during apartheid.

I think he is implying it may be used on political enemies or just generally for discretionary prosecution that disproportionately targets those who fall out of favor with the powerful.

Huh?

>though we did almost have an internal coup.

no, we didn't. there's no plausible way the people there would have seized power.

The coup is not about the people with trump flags seizing power. It's about trump and congresspeople inside the building trying to reject the vote certification by using the anger of the people outside as justification. And yes, there's a plausible way GOP could have seized power. It's hard to see beyond the total national chaos that rejecting the certification would have caused, but the chaos would have absolutely been an asset to the coup attempt.

>It's about trump and congresspeople inside the building trying to reject the vote certification by using the anger of the people outside as justification. And yes, there's a plausible way GOP could have seized power.

According to that logic, does any sort of protest outside the capitol = "coup attempt"? After all, you don't need to actually need people breaking in to cite "anger of the people outside".

> does any sort of protest outside the capitol = "coup attempt"?

The rally was organized under the headline "Stop the Steal." It was very explicitly the intent to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Right, but the parent post was talking about "using the anger of the people outside as justification". You could make the same argument about refusing to pass a bill, using "the anger of the people outside as justification".

> According to that logic, does any sort of protest outside the capitol = "coup attempt"?

No, because other types of protests outside the Capitol (i.e. over abortion, environmental issues, civil rights, war), and their related tactics within Congress are not aimed at stopping the constitutional process of certifying a lawful election.

That's is quite literally what differentiates a coup from the others: A coup uses force and threat to unlawfully take control of the government.

Normal protests outside the Capitol are about influencing the legislative process, which is a completely different function of Congress. But even then, it would be unlawful to influence the legislative process by threat or use of force.

So it's only a coup if it's "aimed at stopping the constitutional process of formalizing a lawful election"? Why is the "constitutional process of" passing bills not protected?

responding to your edits:

>That's is quite literally what differentiates a coup from the others: A coup uses force and threat to unlawfully take control of the government.

But using force to prevent the legislature from functioning when they're not certifying elections is fine?

>Normal protests outside the Capitol are about influencing the legislative process, which is a completely different function of Congress. But even then, it would be unlawful to influence the legislative process by threat or use of force.

I'm specifically talking about protests that involve denying access to the legislature, not just a bunch of people protesting in the free speech zone.

> So it's only a coup if it's "aimed at stopping the constitutional process of formalizing a lawful election"?

Correct. A coup is by definition an illegal attempt to take control of government. In a democracy, attempting to prevent a lawful election from being certified is a type of coup.

> Why is the "constitutional process of" passing bills not protected?

It is protected. If an insurrection invaded the Capitol to influence the legislative process, that would be illegal. Anyone involved in organizing or carrying that out would be charged with crimes.

> If an insurrection invaded the Capitol to influence the legislative process

You're losing track of the thread. A few comments up we were discussing whether violent action was needed at all, because the parent poster was talking about "trying to reject the vote certification by using the anger of the people", which could plausibly be achieved without any violent action (eg. a bunch of angry protesters).

> Anyone involved in organizing or carrying that out would be charged with crimes.

but not "insurrection", apparently?

> You're losing track of the thread. A few comments up we were discussing whether violent action was needed at all

Coups enacted by politicians are facilitated by the breakdown of law and order and loss of security around the processes of power in government, the most delicate of those being lawful transitions of power. Violence assists by removing security and law and order.

> which could plausibly be achieved without any violent action (eg. a bunch of angry protesters).

A bunch of angry protesters shouting in the demonstration area have no leverage beyond drawing media attention to their cause.

People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.

> but not "insurrection", apparently?

I didn't say which crimes. Prosecutorial strategy is a real thing and the bread and butter of the Dept of Justice. It makes far more sense to roll up low-level offenders with lesser offenses to build cases against higher level conspirators. This is, for example, how organized crime has been successfully prosecuted.

>the most delicate of those being lawful transitions of power [...]

>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.

So the insurrection-ness of a protest/riot increases during "lawful transitions of power"? Suppose this premise was true, does that mean something like this[1] is also an insurrection (or "almost [...] a coup"), because it happened during a "lawful transitions of power" for a supreme court justice?

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanau...

>A bunch of angry protesters shouting in the demonstration area have no leverage beyond drawing media attention to their cause.

Sounds like you're agreeing with me. ie. you can't cite "anger of the people outside" as a potential reason for "reject the vote certification".

>People physically invading the halls of Congress and threatening lawmakers are doing something fundamentally more powerful, and also illegal.

Not disputing it's illegal, just that it's not an "insurrection".

>I didn't say which crimes. It makes far more sense to roll up low-level offenders with lesser offenses to build cases against higher level conspirators.

What are you saying here, that the lack of prosecution for insurrection is totally consistent with an "insurrection" taking place, because they'll eventually work their way up to the real conspirators and charge them with insurrection? Well, it's been a year now, and nothing resembling an insurrection charge has surfaced.

> Suppose this premise was true, does that mean something like this[1] is also an insurrection (or "almost [...] a coup"), because it happened during a "lawful transitions of power" for a supreme court justice?

No. For one, that protest was during the nomination debate, not the actual swearing in by the Chief Justice, so not a transition of power. It was also not a violent mob.

It absolutely a differentiator that the Jan 6 scenario was a violent mob forcing their way into the Capitol to overturn an election. No amount of semantic judo or whataboutism will make the utter brutality of that mob equivalent to a nonviolent protest.

Finally, the Supreme Court nomination protesters were arrested for when they tried to block lawmakers from getting to their offices. They are no different in their manner of protest than nonviolent pro-life/anti-abortion protesters who have obstructed members of Congress at the Capitol, and neither are like the Jan 6 perpetrators.

If you watch the most violent parts of all of those protests, it's hard to understand how smashing a police officer's face in a door and beating another with a fire extinguisher can be considered equivalent to holding open an elevator and shouting "shame" at a Senator.

> A few comments up we were discussing whether violent action was needed at all

A very cogent question. The answer is no. Originally the plan was for Mike Pence to unilaterally decertify various states. This version of the coup would have required no violence.

But Pence refused to decertify the election, because he recognized he did not have the power to do so. He communicated this intention to Trump the morning of Jan 6. At this point, violence was the last resort to delay the certification on Jan 6.

> there's no plausible way the people there would have seized power.

The sitting President was the one who attempted the coup. He didn't need to seize power -- he already held power. The objective of the insurrection on Jan 6 was to prevent the transfer of power, which they absolutely almost did.

The point was had they been more successful (kill a few congressman, take some hostage) trump could have successfully declared martial law and stayed in power.

Maybe not have seized power but they certainly could have killed a number of elected officials including Pelosi and Pense. That might have had a stifling effect on future elected officials who otherwise would not have listened to the President’s wishes.

It’s about making ground, inch by inch.

It's irrelevant as to whether they could have seized power or not. What matters is the attempt to do so.

So a random moron who tweets "I want to start a coup", and brings a baseball bat to the white house tried to start a coup?

If it's irrelevant as to their chances of success, it certainly seems like that's a coup.

Can you make a distinction between a terrorist and a crazy person committing suicide by detonating an explosive vest?

Why is is it not relevant? Surely there's a difference between a bunch of people LARPing as terrorists[1], and a bunch of ex-spec ops soldiers that actually have a plan?

[1] https://twitter.com/thegrugq/status/1314237833276612609

The fact that they got as far as they did is only going to embolden them to do it again.

It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever.

Also why would you even bother doing it that way? You could use far fewer people who are coordinated and go after the politicians at their homes where there is much less security.

Plenty of videos of people in the crowd caught saying that they were seeking the chamber and congressional members to stop the certification. Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.

>> It was a protest turned aggressive, it was in no way an insurrection, no evidence has been presented that was the intent of the group what so ever.

>[...] Admitting you’re trying to stop the process is an act of resistance against the government.

So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection? Is picketing outside of government offices (ie. the kind where you block people/cars from entering/leaving a building) an "insurrection"? Or does it only apply to capitols? Suppose you got a bunch of picketers to surround your state capitol, and representatives couldn't enter, would that be an insurrection?

There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted.

So, yes, you can picket government buildings all you want, but the moment you start killing security and seeking to kill representatives, you've insurrected or are a party to an insurrection.

> Insurrection - a violent uprising against an authority or government.

>There's a pretty clear dividing line in the fact that violence was involved or attempted.

BLM protests can get pretty violent. Are they insurrections?

No, they are riots, because they are missing the second half of the insurrection requirement.

> a violent uprising against an authority or government.

2 elements needed to be insurrection, Violence, and against authority or government.

BLM riots are violent, but not targeted at the government.

The Jan 6 insurrection was both violent and against the government. They disrupted government operations to try and change the results of an election. Can you find a definition of insurrection that wouldn't include the Jan 6 riots?

Can you name a BLM riot which was targeted at the government?

What about this one? "Portland protest declared a riot Sunday as federal building is breached" https://nypost.com/2020/07/26/portland-protest-declared-a-ri...

In fact, wouldn't all of the BLM movements accurately be described as targeted at the government because they were explicitly aimed at enacting change in government institutions like the police?

In another post you say that "until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved." But how do you classify the CHAZ in Seattle, where force was used to overthrow city and state governments and establish an "autonomous" zone where guns and violence were the only recognized power by the occupiers?

> So you're saying resisting the government = insurrection?

It’s literally the definition: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/insurrection

Regardless of what the dictionary.com definition is, something tells me that most people wouldn't label a bunch of BLM activists that refuse to disperse as "insurrectionists".

Refusing to disperse isn't a violent attack on the government. At best, when BLM protests do become violent, they are riots. Until a BLM protest attempts to use force to overthrow a city, state, or federal government, it's a riot at best when violence is involved.

I've not seen anyone having a problem calling BLM riots riots when they happen. I've seen a lot of people struggle to call Jan 6 a riot or insurrection.

Because the entire point of it was to pressure Congress into forcing the election of Trump by interfering with the counting of electoral votes which had already taken place. After exhausting all their legel remedies, the last thing they thought they could do was scare Congress and Pence.

This isn't some new information.

> It was a protest turned aggressive

We call that a riot.

They only got that far because they were deemed (correctly) to be not a real threat and allowed in. The police could have mowed them down but they (rightly) decided it was better to just let it go and be embarrassed than to slaughter rioters in front of the capitol. Same goes for BLM rioters. I'd rather be in a country that allows a bit of chaos rather than using the full, deadly force of the state.

The insurrectionists at the Capitol killed and injured Capitol police officers. If Mike Pence had been complicit with their wishes not to certify the election, we'd be living in a dictatorship. It was a very serious and pivotal moment for the country.

The insurrectionists at the Capitol assaulted several police officers but didn't kill any.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-government-and-politics-...

If Mike Pence had been complicit, they wouldn't have needed the rioters. I agree that "it" was serious, but the "it" was Trump's attempt to not certify the results of the election, not so much the protest/demonstration/riot/incursion into the Capitol.

Mike Pence did what he was supposed to, under severe pressure to do otherwise. The country (especially the left) owes him a huge debt of gratitude.

Yes it was a riot. No evidence any cops were killed

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. There's no scenario where a bunch of cops with pistols would have opened fire on a crowd that large. They would have been instantly overwhelmed.

1. Cops in the US have a lot more than pistols. Assault rifles, flash bangs, tear gas, not quite tanks, f'ing helicopter gunships.

2. Live fire was way more than these guys bargained for. If they heard gunshots, even just pistol fire, and saw bodies dropping they would have scattered.

I think if it were a real coup, they would have brought weapons.

it was a dry run. if you look at the column of ex army rangers proceeding single file up the steps, you see a very well trained militia. they didn't bring guns because the invasion of the capitol was a propaganda / psychological operation. to show marginal and sympathetic right wingers that this was all real, and happening, and to elicit a response from the government.

guns would have upped the ante on the core organizers and resulted in their decimation at the hands of local federal forces. This was just the beginning. from the angry anti government comments in this thread, their effort looks to be succeeding.

These people worship trump. If they thought what they did could work why would they show their hand in purposefully ineffectual manner? Any evidence it was planned just as a way to demonstrate what they are capable of. I’ve seen zero reporting on your theory.

I can find records of a single ex ranger, but not a whole column. Can you help me find that documentation?

I believe they are referencing this: https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Jason%2...

Page 12.

A key point that many people seem to miss. A band of unhinged, bloodthirsty right wingers, staged a preempted coup, targeting politicians, and did not bring the guns that they're famous for amassing? Clearly this was not what it's being made out to be. Never let a crisis go to waste I suppose...

But did enter the Capitol building with hand held weapons, body armor, zip ties to subdue people, and were heard talking about locating members of Congress. Enough with the disingenuousness.

But no guns. Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns? Moreover, the "handheld weapons" consisted largely of sticks and flagpoles, with some bearspray...you know, things you'd bring to a riot? And zipties were found on one or two participants.

The only disingenuousness here is the attempt to manufacture an insurrection out of a riot.

> Why would they plan a violent insurrection/coup without guns?

To minimize the chances they got shot at by police (only 1 person was). They wanted to overturn the election, not die.

But just in case they needed it, this group had an armed backup force waiting at a hotel in VA:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/quick-reac...

Several of the insurrectionists did have guns. The protest began peacefully, and turned violent following Trump's speech, where he urged the crowd to "fight like hell". These people aren't normal like you and I. They are extremely impressionable and subject to radicalization. Listen to the Channel 5 interview with the QAnon Shaman on YouTube. Does that strike you as someone that is capable of functioning in civil society?

The zip ties were dropped by cops accidentally. They weren’t brought in. Please don’t comment if you are ignorant of the facts.

You mean how they got as far as prison?

> there's no plausible way the people there would have seized power.

Sure, there is. Make Pence incapable of presiding, convince (this may not be necessary if the person is already a sympathizer), by inducements or threats, the person acting as President of the Senate to act in the manner Trump and various political allies had encouraged Pence to and which Pence had refused and simply decline to present certain state electoral votes, denying an immediate majority and either requesting friendly state legislatures to send alternate ballots, or preceding to vote by states in each house in the absence of a majority.

The “they couldn't have seized power” argument only works when you consider the people physically inside the Capitol as a separate force completely unrelated to the people that set out the goals in writing, the people that—publicly and unambiguously—told the people to go to the Capitol to get Congress to follow the goals set out in writing, and the people in State legislatures and in Congress who had publicly backed the goals set out in writing.

Which is a bizarre level of willful blindness.