Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

it was right outside the Capitol. It was in a lot of the videos from that day.

You can also see in the videos the rioters using all sorts of weapons like clubs, poles, in addition to tasers and bear mace. And yes you can kill someone using a club.

 

If Trump had gotten his way the outcome could have been far more deadly. He wanted a crowd, and got pissed off about the metal detectors. Remember when he said that the onlookers “don’t want to come in right now. They have weapons that they don’t want confiscated by the Secret Service.”

When he arrived at the Ellipse that morning, President Trump angrily said: “I don’t [****ing] care that they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. They can march to the Capitol from here.”
That in itself shows a man who didn't care who got killed, because he knew he wasn't the target.

If Trump had his way the insurrectionists would have been loaded with ammo and weapons when they stormed. I have no doubt about that.

 

how far, exactly, from the capitol building?

 

here, I'll do the work for you.

As you can see in this photo, the "gallows" was west of the capitol, and some distance away:



how far? google suggests it's about 3/4 of a mile:

maybe shorter as the crow flies, but you can't walk directly there, so call it a 15-20 minute walk. probably slower if you're part of a mob.

so, is it your contention that the "insurrectionists" intended to drag mike pence and Nancy Pelosi from the capitol building, past security, out the steps and 3/4 of a mile away to a gallows that's halfway to the Washington monument?

 

Why does it matter since they could have used the guns they brought?

You are talking about something irrelevant to the fact that they threatened to murder the Vice President of the United States and had the means to do so.

 

Is it your contention they didn’t mean any harm to the members of Congress?

3/4 of a mile isn’t that far. Also not claiming the
Rioters thought things through very well

 

it's my contention they did not intend to hang anyone.

yours?

 

This is the defense now? Lol

 

Just a bunch of every day peaceful Americans touring the grounds.

 

Your contention contrasts sworn statements by the rioters.
https://myfox8.com/news/washington-...oters-wanted-to-kill-vp-pence-speaker-pelosi/

They illegally brought guns onto the grounds which you questioned earlier in this thread.

It is fascinating. You have a contention which goes against evidence and statements made by the rioters who were there.

You are by no means alone in believing things contrary to the evidence and statements made by the people who were there committing the crimes.

Just like many haven't looked at the statements, documents, and testimony made by those planning to illegally change the election and have a coup.

Rather than doing even a minimal of serious investigation, you'll just make your contention depending on how it feels and seems to you and maybe over things you've heard.

 

Great question.

I think that this was their intention. Some of the White Nationalists communicated this among themselves the day before the insurrection. Job One was to hang Mike Pence. I do not know if they would have picked the first available spot to do the hanging or if they planned to drag Pence 3/4 of a mile.

Was this a well thought out plan? The plan organizers can ponder this for the next 30 years while they are in prison.

 

I'm a committed subjectivist.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...f-donald-trump-and-other-legal-urban-legends/

The disqualification of Donald Trump and other legal urban legends
by Jonathan Turley, Opinion Contributor
08/19/23 10:30 AM ET

The popularity of urban legends is a testament to the will to believe. The desire of people to keep Elvis alive or prove that a Sasquatch could exist furtively in our backyards shows the resilience of fables.

Constitutional urban legends often have an even more immediate appeal and tend to arise out of the desperation of divided times. One of the most popular today is that former President Donald Trump can be barred from office, even if he is not convicted in any of the four indictments he faces, under a long-dormant clause of the 14th Amendment.

This 14th Amendment theory is something that good liberals will read to their children at night. It goes something like this: Donald Trump can never be president again, because the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took federal oaths from assuming office if they engaged in insurrection or rebellion. With that, and a kiss on the forehead, a progressive's child can sleep peacefully through the night.

But don't look under the bed. For as scary as it might sound to some, Trump can indeed take office if he is elected...even if he is convicted. Indeed, he can serve as president even in the unlikely scenario that he is sentenced to jail.

Democrats have long pushed this theory about the 14th Amendment as a way of disqualifying not only Trump but also dozens of Republican members of Congress. From some, it is the ultimate Hail Mary pass if four indictments, roughly 100 criminal charges and more than a dozen opposing candidates fail to get the job done.

I have strongly rejected this interpretation for years, so it is too late to pretend that I view this as a plausible argument. However, some serious and smart people take an equally strong position in support of the theory. Indeed, conservative scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen have argued for the interpretation and insist in a recent law review article that "the case is not even close. All who are committed to the Constitution should take note and say so.”

But some of us like to believe that we are committed to the Constitution and, for that same reason, we say no.

Despite my respect for these academics, I simply fail to see how the text, history or purpose of the 14th Amendment even remotely favors this view. Despite the extensive research of Baude and Paulsen, their analysis ends where it began: Was January 6 an insurrection or rebellion?

I have previously addressed the constitutional basis for this claim. It is, in my view, wildly out of sync with the purpose of the amendment, which followed an actual rebellion, the Civil War.

Democrats have previously sought to block certification of Republican presidents and Democratic lawyers have challenged elections, including on totally unsupported claims of machines flipping the results. If we are to suddenly convert the 14th Amendment into a running barrier to those who seek to challenge election results, then we have to establish a bright line to distinguish such cases.

The 14th Amendment bars those who took the oath and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same." It then adds that that disqualification can extend to those who have "given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." According to these experts, Jan. 6 was an "insurrection" and Trump gave "aid and comfort" to those who engaged in it by spreading election fraud claims and not immediately denouncing the violence.

But even the view that it was an "insurrection" is by no means a consensus. Polls have shown that most of the public view Jan. 6 for what it was: a protest that became a riot. One year after the riot, CBS News mostly downplayed and ignored the result of its own poll showing that 76 percent viewed it for what it was, as a "protest gone too far." The view that it was an actual "insurrection" was far less settled, with almost half rejecting the claim, a division breaking along partisan lines.

The theory that this was a rebellion or insurrection has always been highly contested. On Jan. 6, I was contributing to the coverage and denounced Trump's speech while he was still giving it. But as the protest increased in size, some of us noted that we had never seen such a comparatively light level of security precautions, given the weeks of coverage anticipating the protest. We then watched as thinly deployed police barriers were overrun and a riot ensued. It was appalling, and most of us denounced it as it was unfolding.

Trump waited to speak, despite criticism from many of us. We now know that many aides called for him to call upon his supporters to pull back, but he waited for a couple hours.

Sulking in the Oval Office does not make Trump a seditionist. Indeed, despite formal articles of the second impeachment and years of experts insisting that Trump was guilty of incitement and insurrection, Special Counsel Jack Smith notably did not charge him with any such crime.

The reason is obvious. The evidence and constitutional standards would not have supported a charge of incitement or insurrection.

Yet these experts still believe that Trump can be barred from office without any such charge even being brought, let alone a conviction.

Putting aside the lack of evidence, there is a lack of logic to these claims. A relatively small number of individuals have been charged with seditious conspiracy, a widely misrepresented charge that can amount to as little as preventing the execution of any law.

If Trump supported a rebellion or insurrection, what was the plan? Not only did Smith not charge him with any such crime, but there was little evidence that even the most radical defendants charged were planning to overthrow the nation's government or were part of a broader conspiracy. There were no troops standing by, no plan for a post-democratic takeover by Trump or his alleged minions. At worst, according to witnesses against Trump, there was a despondent and defiant president who may have gotten satisfaction from the chaos in Congress.

That leaves us with the argument that any effort to stop a constitutional process is akin to an insurrection or rebellion under the 14th Amendment. If that were the standard, any protests — including the anti-Trump protests and the certification challenges to electoral votes in 2016 — could also be cited as disqualifying. If that were the case, figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md) could be summarily purged from office for having sought to overturn an election.

We would be left on a slippery slope, as partisan judges and members would seek to block opposing candidates from ballots, all supposedly in the name of protecting democracy.

There is a simpler and more obvious explanation for what occurred on Jan. 6, 2021: A political protest became a political riot, and a constitutional theory became constitutional legend.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
​

​

 

No, you are a committed partisan.

You will create a permission structure to excuse anything from any member of your tribe, while failing to extend the same courtesy to the other side.

You use alot of words but you really only ever trully say one thing: "Party over Country"

 

which is my tribe?

 

They said they wanted to hang Mike Pence. They were fighting with Capitol LEO and deliberately breaching the Capitol. I don’t think they were there to have a calm reasoned discussion with Pence or members of a Congress.

What do you think their intention was?

 

Very well said.

Good luck getting an answer from the fellow that isn't devoid of meaning.

 

The problem with Turley’s and other arguments is that they are equating legal efforts to not certify an election with illegal. A member of Congress has the right to object to certification as we saw in previous elections. The difference between what happened Jan. 6, 2021 and Jan 6, 2017 is that there was an illegal action also taking place (the breaching of the Capitol) and also a scheme to have fake electors. Peter Navarro and others publicly state the scheme which Trump was well aware of, approved and did such things as pressure Pence to unilaterally reject legitimate electors and with state GOP to put forward false electors. That is where what happened moved from a legal contest to an illegal attempt to thwart the Constitutional exercise.

 

So if someone says they are going to kill your wife and family, you should say, hey, you don't intend that so f off?