When saying "any other show of power other than that they managed to break through a few weakly-secured doors" you downplay the fact they the rioters interrupted a session of Congress and succeeded in their purpose of delaying the certification of election results.
You did it repeatedly in this thread - that's not cool. Please don't do it again.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935954.
Amazing stability of our government that.
> Political theater by Democrats trying to make Jan 6th "The Day That Democracy Nearly Died" or something.
I agree there's been a lot of political theater around Jan. 6th, but if democracy does in fact die in the US, those events will have been an important milestone. Basically, the point where the breakdown of the respect for the institutions of democracy became in-your-face obvious. It also set some precedents/put options in people's minds that will be hugely destabilizing.
That said, I'm really disappointed that Democrats are basically making only small tactical responses (e.g. party-line voting rights legislation, some justice dept. unit to combat "extremism") to a strategic problem, which is that a large fraction of the population is losing/has lost respect for the system. The Democrats really need to get their act together and, being the less-degraded party, do their duty and make whatever sacrifices are necessary to fix that [1].
[1] As in when some asshole trashes some common area, you have the duty to spend your time and effort clean up after them. You don't have control over their behavior, but you have control over your own, and it's wrong to leave the common area trashed even though it's not "fair" you're the one sacrificing your time to clean it up.
If the rioters had succeeded in murdering every single person in the capital building, there would have been a protocol in place with the leader already determined. The only way this would have been successful is if the rioters killed every single elected official and secretary in the building, followed by having the support of the Army. They were absolutely nowhere near that.
There is no federal procedure or "chain of command" for replacing individual Representatives and Senators -- that goes back to the states they represent, with either elections or appointments.
If they didn't do a good enough job at it, it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The rioters wouldn't have ended democracy, but if they caused enough commotion to prevent certification there was a significant risk Trump would have taken advantage of the situation.
What happened on Jan 6 was that the transition of power was, for a number of hours, prevented through violent means. Thank God two things happened on Jan 6: (1) Mike Pence refused to leave the Capitol and (2) Mitch McConnell refused to entertain the 10 objections that they wanted (which would have delayed proceedings for at least 20 hours). If either of those two things happened, we'd be in a political situation uncovered by the Constitution and law. That's when things get bad, because either side is just making things up at that point. It becomes a battle of wills and political power; whoever has the most power to reify their will, wins.
The plan on Jan 6 was to delay certification as long as possible, because there was a pressure campaign ongoing in which states were being pressured to "decertify" their votes, and Pence was being pressured to consider alternate slates of electors for Trump.
I think everyone needs to start getting clear on the facts here:
(1) Jan 6 was about stopping Biden from being certified as President Elect by any means, because that's a write only operation. There's no undoing that. Once he is certified by the House, Senate, and VP, the deal is done. Not even the Supreme Court can overturn that: separation of powers and all.
(2) The legal way to do that was spelled out in the Eastman Memo [1]: It argued Pence could just unilaterally refuse to consider slates of electors and cause a contested election, which favored the Republicans electorally. But Pence would not go along with this plan.
(3) Pence was aware of fraudulent certificates of the vote that had been submitted by various states, which purported to be legitimate votes for Trump. Pence could not go along with accepting those without a pretextual reason given by the states themselves. This was the last piece of the plan which was, supposedly according to Trump's lawyer, coming together at the last minute while the Capitol attack was ongoing.
Think of it this way: On Jan 6 the situation was that every state had certified their votes, Trump lost 62/63 court cases and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the AG had said he found no fraud. There was no pretext for Pence to accept the alternative electors.
However, that could have changed very quickly had the pressure campaign continued. If Pence had left the Capitol on Jan 6, then the joint session would not have reconvened for several days while the Capitol was secured (actually the Capitol was correctly deemed insecure by Secret Service the day of Jan 6, so there's as open question as to why Pence was there in the first place). At this time, there was a pressure campaign going on to get one or more states to "Decertify" their certificate of the vote. Had one or more states done so, it would be very easy to see how this would have ended up at a contested election where Republicans would have all the votes needed to install Trump as President.
It's also completely irreversible. It turns out, the easiest way to prevent a president from being inaugurated on Jan 20 is to prevent them from becoming president elect on Jan 6. There's a real question as to who would ever have the Constitutional authority to undo that, because all the objections are assumed to have been settled through the process on Jan 6. After that it's a done deal. I would say Jan 20 is the more purely symbolic event of the two dates, because by then the authority of the new executive is more firmly established.
And we can't brush past the fact that there was a delay, no matter how brief. The few hour delay could have easily been multiple days if Pence had left the Capitol, and it could have changed the political calculus in terms of states deciding to decertify their elections. Multiple days could have easily turned into multiple weeks as the Justice system moves at a snail's pace, and then suddenly it's Jan 20 without a decision on the election.
If that were to have happened, the House would have voted and with a majority of delegations Republicans would have chosen Trump.
> If they had control of more institutions, it would likely have been more successful.
Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? The political left does control most of the institutions, including most mainstream press outlets, virtually all academic institutions, and all notable tech companies. The one thing I can take away from January 6th that is about the security of our elections doesn’t relate to the security of physical buildings. One political side was able to compel all these institutions to take up their political cause, and have engaged in state-motivated censorship of political adversaries. Hiding behind the legality of whether a private organization can censor is not really meaningful. Democracy begins a lot earlier than when we line up to vote. That to me is a much more direct threat to the stability of our country than anything else.
The overwhelming majority are being charged with class A and B misdemeanors (I assume by "simple trespass" you probably mean class C), but that's not the only charge that many of them have.
About half of those arrested so far have felony charges as well.
It may be more difficult for another country, like England, to get that kind of support from the executive branch of the US government.
this is not something that happened
> Which was itself unconstitutional and extremely concerning
Right, because this would be stupid if it were real. If the speaker of the house wanted the national guard they would make a request through the chain of command. But it's not something that happened.
> The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi.
No, it doesn't.
No he didn't. (Unless by “troops” you mean the mob that he sent to the Capitol, but that really doesn't help your case.)
> only to have Pelosi etal insert themselves into the chain of command and directly contact military leaders to block it.
That also didn't happen. (The only documented contact I am aware of between anyone in congressional leadership and anyone in the military chain of command during the event that I am aware of is between the President of the Senate—the Vice President of the United States—and the Acting Secretary of Defense, and that was requesting assistance, not giving orders, as is appropriate for someone not in the military chain of command, but no one in any position to know has even claimed anyone outside of the legal chain of command inserted themselves in the way you suggest.)
> The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi.
No, it doesn't. Each house has its own Sergeant-At-Arms that answers to the leader of the house, and the Capitol Police answers to a Board consisting of both Sergeants-At-Arms and the Architect of the Capitol.
I think there was a failure in security that day, but it's still a big question as to exactly what that was. This is part of the scope of the Jan 6 Committee, and we should get some answers here this year.
You did it repeatedly in this thread (over a dozen comments!) - that's not cool. Please don't do it again.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29935954.
behind which were hundreds of members of US government, who were at that very moment performing the most critical function of government: peaceful transition of power, to prevent the chaos of civil war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_transition_of_power
> England ... breaking unexpectedly into the capital building?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Honour_and_the_%22...
When people assert that democracy was in danger, they don't mean that it was in danger solely from the rioters. In general (and I'm sure there are exceptions to this), they mean it was in danger because of the Trump administration.
So no, this assertion does not imply that "taking control of the US is as easy as just sending a regiment over by boat."
Actually Jan 6 was a surgical strike, aimed at a critical ceremony: the transfer of power. It was exactly as big as it needed to be, to infiltrate and hold the Capitol for as long as possible.
Ask yourself: how does democracy die? When an army invades? When bombs are dropped? No, democracy dies when illegal acts are used to subvert the Constitution. That's exactly what happened on Jan 6. The winner of the election is transmuted into President Elect on Jan 6 through the ceremony that was disrupted by the sitting President. That's one step into an extraconstitutional wilderness, and I'm not sure how far you can go into that void without losing everything. I think that's a place where the slope is very, very slippery due to the power dynamics involved. Due to the brave acts of individuals at the Capitol that day, we took two steps back into the Constitutional order.
> I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
And indeed, the overwhelming majority of the ~10000 people in that march never set foot on the Capitol grounds.
As for doubting election results, I feel like there are two things to consider here. One is why we think it is so easy to trust the American election system but cast so much doubt on those of other countries - I feel like that’s just blind faith, particularly when basic security measures like strong voter identification are not in place. The other is that the grounds for doubting election results were laid by the Democrats more so than the Republicans. Remember, Democrats formally objected to certifying results in 2000, 2004, and 2016 (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/opinion/democrat-republic...). Look at the claims Hillary and the Democrats made about Russia interfering in the 2016 elections - polls showed that even in 2018, 2/3rds of Democratic voters believed that Russia literally tampered with vote counts (https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/20...). Where’s the outrage around all of these situations?
Meanwhile, after a year of sustained rioting and manipulation of politics via violence (BLM riots in 2020), the left crying foul seems incredibly disingenuous. All Sides wrote at length about media bias in covering the Capitol riot (https://www.allsides.com/blog/capitol-hill-breach-riot-cover...). Let’s not forget that it was only very recently that hundreds of rioters were arrested for disrupting SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45754771). This wasn’t the first time either, and there are many similar examples previously (example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/more-100-arrested-...). Why is it that an escalation of such tactics is only a problem when one political side does it?
That is true, which is why most people are not being charged with seditious conspiracy. But that doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy. You're correct that he intoned some notions of peace, but I think you have to admit the totality of his message was pretty mixed. It's quite dire at times.
But it's been a year since Jan 6, so we have a lot more to go on to figure out what Trump actually wanted.
We know the morning of Jan 6, Mike Pence had told Trump that he was not going to decertify the election. That was his decision. Meaning, when Trump is at the ellipse wondering aloud "Mike Pence, I hope you’re going to stand up for the good of our constitution and for the good of our country. And if you’re not, I’m going to be very disappointed in you.", Trump already knows what Pence is going to do.
Not long after, chants of "Hang Mike Pence" are heard in the halls of the breached Capitol, and this is televised across all networks. We know from people who were with him at this time, Trump was watching TV and rewinding it, wondering aloud "Look at all of the people fighting for me", while brushing off calls from his son, daughter, lawmakers, and other officials to send out something to quell the mob. He sends this message instead:
“Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”
> Remember, Democrats formally objected to certifying results in 2000, 2004, and 2016
Notably, the 2000 objections were not meritless, yet were overruled by the loser of that contest. That I think should send a resounding message and example as to how electoral losses should be handled.
And anyway, the problem wasn't that there were objections on Jan 6. Objections are Constitutional and built into the process. They happen and there is a method to resolve them.
The problem was how the process was being used on Jan 6. Inside of the Capitol, the plan was to delay the proceeding as long as possible. Trump's lawyers wanted phony objections to 10 states, which would have been a 20+ hour delay. During this time, Trump's lawyer and probably the Chief of Staff were working overtime trying to get at least one state to decertify their results. This would have put renewed pressure on Pence to decertify the election and kick it to the House.
The crucial point here though is that the alleged fraud was a fiction at this point. Trump had already lost all his legal battles, all states had certified the results, the AG had said there was no evidence of fraud, the US Attorney in Georgia said he couldn't see any fraud... there was no basis for any of these objections whatsoever by Jan 6, let alone in 10 states!
> Look at the claims Hillary and the Democrats made about Russia interfering in the 2016 elections - polls showed that even in 2018, 2/3rds of Democratic voters believed that Russia literally tampered with vote counts
The problem here is that Trump's genesis was always suspect, and that suspicion has been proven legitimate, which guaranteed it would never be fully dealt with. The Republican-appointed special counsel found Russians did in fact interfere with the election, and the Republican Senate concurs and characterizes the events as follows:
It is our conclusion, based on the facts detailed in the Committee's Report, that the Russian intelligence services' assault on the integrity of the 2016 U.S. electoral process[,] and Trump and his associates' participation in and enabling of this Russian activity, represents one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats to American national security in the modem era.
[1] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-sele...
I think it is probable she would have been killed. That doesn’t mean they control the us government. But it’s non trivial.
"Fairly close" to me would likely involve more of the rioters being shot. The fact that so few were shot indicates that the state was largely keeping their gloves on, which they would not if there was any risk of a senator actually being killed.
Supposing they instead entered the room, it is probable to me that they would have been immediately shot. I doubt the rioters could have taken the room but who knows. In any case
* I think the rioters would have killed some democratic leaders if given the opportunity
* I think more gunshots would have occurred if the rioters went a different direction by chance
* I think this is way, way too far already in terms of what is remotely ok.
Why shouldn't any of them been shot?
Both were confirmations to the highest level of office in their respective branch of government and both were staged by political opponents protesting and admittedly attempting to block an "unjust" transfer of power.
If "peaceful protest" vs "riotous coup" can hinge on the fact that your ideological allies could only have been there to "righteously have their voices heard" but ideological opponents must be there as "murderous usurpers", then your sympathetic reasoning might be better described as paranoid delusional projections.
Let's remember that it was Eric Holder and Bill Clinton who pardoned a woman who literally bombed the capital building.
Another one of those groups broke into the capitol building, stole things, destroyed things, fought with guards, smeared poop on the walls, audibly shouting about looking for specific senators. and at least one person has been found guilty of carrying a gun. Multiple people found to have discussed killing the senators.
Your final reference (I'm assuming to the weathermen) is a much more apt comparison than the other protest you're discussing.
If that happened, I think the most likely outcome is that there'd be more Ashli Babbits
Protecting the president. The secret service does not protect senators
> and who got the lawmakers out of there before the rioters came.
Capitol Hill police I believe.
> Maybe Democracy would have been closer to dying
I’m pretty sure I explicitly said that wasn’t on the table.
My point was that the rioters got very close. That is, one door away, then lured to other areas by a clever guard. I think it is fully plausible that they would have assassinated democratic political leaders if given the chance. Not ALL of the rioters, but certainly some.
Unless they managed to get the Army, or the Nuclear Codes, or something greater than just controlling a building, they would have needed to kill the President, the Vice President, and every single House and Senate member (including those not in the building) and then get control of the Army or Popular Support or something massive to have a shot. I don't think they were anywhere close with that.
Personally I think a mob massacre of political leaders is bad on its own. Ymmv.
Nice to see 1984's birth in action. As someone who escaped a socialist autocracy, this is chilling to US descending into the same thing.
What leads you to call that probable?
I don't think it's impossible, after all it's only been a few years since that Bernie supporter shot at all those Republican congressmen, and Scalise almost did die. But that guy was actually armed and went with that purpose, these goofs appear to have been unarmed protesters who turned into a mob.
I know you don't need a gun to kill someone, I just find your assessment that it was probable she would be killed a stretch.
Because people with guns who said they wanted to kill her entered the capitol with their guns and started looking for her.
E.g., from one charging document: "Thinking about heading over to Pelosi CUNT’s speech and putting a bullet in her noggin on Live TV [purple devil emoji]."
Charges: Possession of Unregistered Firearms, Possession of Unregistered Ammunition, Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.
So... he had a gun, said he wanted to kill pelosi, and then broke into a federal building and started looking for her.
He was probably just trolling and this is all a big over-reaction, right? /s
> unarmed
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
> that Bernie supporter...
the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody entered the Capitol with guns. I'm aware that sounds like downplaying the incident, which is not my intention. I just think accuracy matters.
The guy you're referring to (who was thankfully charged), did not enter the Capitol with a gun, according to the charging document. What gave you the idea that he entered the Capitol with a gun, the charging document is pretty clear?
>the main different here is that I don't recall there being a systemic effort to defend him and explain that it's really no big deal.
The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.
Alas, this is the problem with demanding accuracy. If someone says something false about a bad person or incident, we are unable to ask for accuracy unless we are willing to be seen as defending it.
So there were really two groups of people who showed up on Jan 6. The first large group were Trump supporters there to protest. These people are being charged with misdemeanor trespassing; and if they attacked police, they are being charged with felony assault as well.
The second, smaller group were militia who came there equipped and with a plan. Lower-level members of this group have been charged with conspiracy to disrupt Congress, a felony. Higher-level members have just been charged with seditious conspiracy, which carries a 20 year max sentence.
This later group of individuals were mostly ex-military and law enforcement. They were aware that bringing guns on Jan 6 would have resulted in a commiserate response by Capitol Police, and they would have been outmatched. However, according to yesterday's indictment, they did bring plenty of equipment (including guns) and stashed them in hotels across the Potomac river, with plans to bring them across in a boat in case the need arose. We are still learning more about this plan.
> The effort was just to blame Trump's rhetoric for that guys actions. Which, Trump's rhetoric was less than helpful to say the least, but that was a poor excuse for trying to murder a bunch of congresspeople.
At this point the cause and effect is pretty well established.
- The only reason anyone was even near the Capitol on Jan 6 was because Trump summoned them there.
- Trump then told the assembled mob where to go and what to do: "we’re going to the Capitol" to "stop the steal".
- Trump directed the mob to the Capitol.
- The mob arrived at the capitol and violently disrupted the ongoing proceedings.
- Trump witnessed this on live TV and instead of doing anything for 3 hours, he mused himself by rewinding the live footage of people brutally attacking police.
- When arrested, the individual comprising the mob tell police they did what they did at the behest of the Trump.
I think we're way past the point of saying this was just one big misunderstanding. The individuals who invaded the Capitol did so because they thought Trump wanted them to, and he actually did want them to, because if he didn't, he would have attempted to stop it much sooner.
[0]https://www.ourquadcities.com/news/national-news/capitol-mob...
It was a disgusting action taken by the mob, but the nation heals more if the press acts _honestly_. Media bias (especially on that story) only divides and embitters people.
Was it great? Absolutely not - but it wasn't anything remotely close to, say, even the most minor altercations between America and Britain.
Do you think the senate would still have certified the election? Or would Trump still be president?
I think the fear is that the mob was almost able to make it so that Trump’s lie about a stolen election would have overridden the democratic process.
If such an event happened, it would have been fair to say that event “killed democracy”