The attack on the Capitol wasn't meant to overthrow the government itself. It was meant to stop the certification, which it did, so that the rest of the plan could take place.
Under no circumstances take my word for it all of this is freely available.
What I mean is - yes, the document you linked seems quite plausible, I hadn’t read about that before. But, based on the reaction I see to January 6th from the public, I have trouble believing that the public reaction is driven by an understanding of the alleged plot and not from media driven hysteria. Are we saying that the media is drumming up hysteria based on the actual plot, but since the common man doesn’t actually understand such things typically that the media doing so is justified?
Like to me an authentic negative reaction to reading about the plot would be something like disappointment that the type of legal strategizing that happens in courtrooms has made its way into politics. And I think even you personally are using the language “insurrection” and “attack”, which doesn’t really line up with the alleged plot at all, does it? This is what I’m confused about.
To this claim that "5 people died" - how many were shot by the "violent insurrectionists"?
The answer: none.
1 policeman had a stroke and 4 committed suicide. You cannot blame the J6ers for the policemen's pre-existing conditions or suicidal tendencies. None of the suicides were coerced. The only person who was killed was the aforementioned pro trump woman.
You do know they were convicted in court?
Literally. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHN4smAcjR4
> You do know they were convicted in court?
You do know they were subsequently pardoned?
"The police were giving them a tour." I'm sorry, what did you expect them to do? Go home? Not try to keep an eye on what was happening?
> You do know they were subsequently pardoned?
Accepting a pardon is a formal admission of guilt. You literally cannot pardon an innocent person. That's the whole point.
And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.
Wrong. Pleading guilty is an admission of guilt. Being convicted is not the same as admitting guilt. That is why there are things called appeals. Pardons can be a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice. And that's exactly what happened there. A partisan conviction by the regime they were protesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon
>And again, justifying or excusing political violence guarantees that more will come, which is why I'm particularly angered by what you're doing.
Strawman after strawman with you. Nowhere at all am I justifying political violence, because what happened was a mostly peaceful protest. I'm particularly angered by YOUR rhetoric, and it is amusing there isn't a shred of self awareness with that statement. If you haven't noticed, YOUR narrative has led to multiple high profile assassination attempts by leftists convinced Trump is a fascist or something. It hasn't merely guaranteed political violence, it has already happened. Multiple times.
You either pardon a person declared guilty by a judge and jury or a person who pled guilty themselves.
> Pardons can be a tool to overcome miscarriage of justice. And that's exactly what happened there.
I don't like this game and I'm not going to play it. Political violence spirals, and anyone who seeks to excuse it because it's their side, and their side can't be the violent ones, is childish at best and malevolent at worst.
> Nowhere at all am I justifying political violence
no you're just saying there was a bunch of grandmas and they were let in by the police and yes people die but it wasn't their fault and the guy organized the whole thing couldn't have possibly foreseen it becoming violent and then when it did he was in the white house so it's not like he could have pulled out his phone at any time and tweeted for them to go home to stop the whole thing.
I get that you need this to make sense in your head, but just understand not a single person is convinced by your babbling.
Exactly. So if you plead not guilty but later got convicted as guilty, then subsequently accepted the pardon, it is NOT the same as admitting guilt.
> Political violence spirals, and anyone who seeks to excuse it because it's their side, and their side can't be the violent ones, is childish at best and malevolent at worst.
You sought to pin political violence from 'your side' onto the opposition. Just like Kimmel did recently. Is that closer to childish, or malevolent?
> I get that you need this to make sense in your head, but just understand not a single person is convinced by your babbling.
More proof you are being cynical. Not a single person? 77 million people would like to have a word with you.
Who gives a shit? You're trying to say that because they were pardoned, they didn't do anything wrong. They were convicted of crimes in a court of law.
> You sought to pin political violence from 'your side' onto the opposition.
I don't even know what you're attempting to reference here. Your repeated attempts to excuse real political violence on January 6th is disgusting and dangerous.
So you can carry on trying to change the subject and confuse the matter. It won't accomplish anything.
> 77 million people would like to have a word with you.
Yes as i said in the beginning of this conversation Americans made a grave mistake returning a man to power who has no intention of ever leaving peacefully. as you pointed out January 6th could have been a lot worse, I pray the Republic survives whatever attempt is coming in 2028.
Although I'm sure you're preparing all of your excuses for why whatever happens won't be that bad.
And making excuses for political violence guarantees that there will be more in the future. It should never be tolerated.