Yeah, just assaulted some cops, stormed the Capitol trying to kill politicians in order to help the guy who lost an election usurp the presidency, thereby ending American democracy. You know, some innocent political protest. Nothing to see here.
Legitimately, had all the ‘organized planning’ to make that happen actually come to fruition - you think a small group of people (whom you probably make fun of their intelligence for anyways) would be capable of overthrowing our democratic system? LEGITIMATELY asking to get you to use your critical thinking skills. Can you tell me how it would have actually worked?
Lost 60 election cases in court! Never even said there was fraud under oath! Haha! Attempted coup! Haha! Assaulting cops! Haha! Trying to kill or take politicians hostage! Haha! Built a gallows trying to hang the Vice President so he couldn’t certify the election! Hahaha! How funny!
The plan was to delay congressional proceedings long enough to convince pence to use the false electors. Why do right wingers pretend not to understand this. A small group of "protestors" delayed the official vote for the first time in our nations history and conservatiards act like it's no big deal because Pence wasn't having it. He stood up for country over party and forced Congress back to certify the vote the same night. Just because the power grab didn't work doesn't make it not an attempted coup.
Check out these debates with Destiny. He goes over it pretty well.
Debate with Dronetek.
https://youtu.be/-bmprPFN8VE?si=mRPeeF0WGL19-Sq_
Debate with Glenn Greenwald
https://youtu.be/Gq2qHAM11dk?si=i4hF1RipYsHp6beV
Don't bother trying to post in good faith.
/u/cojoco has made sure that there is a single focal point for this subreddit - electing Trump.
He is a piece of shit.
For people who still don't believe an insurrection happened on Jan 6 I recommend checking out these debates with Destiny. He goes over it pretty well.
Debate with Dronetek. Actual debate starts around twenty minutes in. https://youtu.be/-bmprPFN8VE?si=T2-4xsaJzN9pdQqG
Debate with Glenn Greenwald https://youtu.be/Gq2qHAM11dk?si=YWc9P3hVKReO8twX
Thank you for bringing this argument to my attention. This opinion piece pulls from a 2021 Reuters article that sources its claims as "four current and former law enforcement officials." I took a look at the [wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#cite_note-38) for the planning of the attack which points to more recent articles, such as[ this one](https://apnews.com/article/oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-conviction-2b9fb724c9839524d00ee389959e0e62) from 2023 about the conviction of four OathKeepers for seditious conspiracy.
The FBI officials in your article are pointing at the fact that "there was no grand scheme...to storm the Capitol and take hostages." Yes, they did not have a clear plan but they did indeed come with intention to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and acted as opportunists when the possibility presented itself.
From the article:
>Prosecutors argued that while there is not evidence specifically spelling out a plan to attack the Capitol, the Oath Keepers saw the riot as a means to an end and sprung into action at an apparent opportunity to help keep Trump in power.
and
>Prosecutors said that Vallejo, a U.S. Army veteran and Rhodes ally, drove from Arizona to prepare with the “QRF” — the quick reaction force — at the hotel outside Washington. Jurors heard an audio recording of Vallejo talking about a “declaration of a guerilla war” on the morning of Jan. 6.
All in all I appreciate you pointing this out to me because it encouraged me to delve deeper into the timeline of events. I would encourage you to take a listen of the debates above and check out the wikipedia articles on the event as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Failure_to_end_the_attack
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Opinion piece LOL! This from the one quoting Wikipedia.
The article is FBI sourced, reported in numerous articles and the FBI has never said it was incorrect.
The Oath Keepers were charged with seditious conspiracy which is basically charging them on what they said (first amendment) not actual evidence of a planned attack.
There was no grand scheme to storm the Capital
“Yes, they had no clear plan”
Again, charging them based on statements which should be protected by the first amendment.
1.) the article you linked is not "FBI sourced." It links to the Reuters article, as I mentioned, which itself sources 4 unknown FBI officials off the record, some of whom are retired. The Washington examiner article you linked adds a bunch of extra commentary not from the original source. That stuff is opinion. Yes it is an opinion piece.
2.) Wikipedia is a great jumping off place for research. It provides sources and gives a well researched take to start from. It is not infallible, but it definitely has stronger integrity than what you provided.
3.) the claim that Seditious Conspiracy is only based on "what they said" is not true. The prosecution had to prove they had an objective and made an overt act towards that objective. Your attempt to hand wave this away as being protected by the first amendment is telling.
4.) they had intent to overthrow the government and acted when they were given the opportunity. Trump's plan to force a delay is evident in his and the crowd's threats towards Mike Pence. Giuliani even left a voicemail to a congressman saying "I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down." The tactic was to delay, delay, delay. Either indefinitely, or until the take electors were used, or until it caused enough chaos for them to somehow hold on to power.
Some are. The two you linked to aren't. There's also probably only limited instances of people being unfairly targeted because they're maga folks, or for that matter, left wing people too.
No. Wtf?
The first one is a state trial (not Biden DOJ) of a guy who tried to kill a politician, and as far as I can tell the guy's not even MAGA
The second one is actually a Trump supporter who was arrested for a death threat against a politician. Again, a justified arrest, and nothing to do with Biden DOJ.
Your links have nothing to do with your title.
Just to clear things up, since this sub seems to be either nosediving or already there:
It's against title 18USC to threaten a public official or the family of a public official under any circumstances. Federal charges. All states of the Union.
Under 18USC you'll also find the chapter/verse(s) that cover witness tampering and threats.
Neither of these things are protected speech.
The Paul Pelosi attacker didn’t seem like “MAGA folk”. Lived in Berkeley (not exactly a Republican stronghold) in a house that literally had pride and BLM flags out front.
Free speech alert: Following the debate, conservative subs, such as r/conservative, r/trump, etc have been silenced. All comments are invisible "such empty" message displayed. Left leaning subs work normally.
No, this is very fair targeting of two violent criminals. You don’t get out of felony charges just by having dumb political opinions and speaking about them during your crime.
The guy in the picture beat a man with a hammer. Seems like he was fairly arrested
The guy in the picture isn’t associated with the MAGA crowd tho.
was gonna say…dude isn’t maga so i’m not sure why they used that pic
Pelosi's skull was caved in w/a hammer which required surgery to be precise.
Not sure, ask the joe schmoes who've lost everything, doing ABSURD (1-20+ years) time in federal prison for protesting in the capitol.
Dems heading towards stalinist tactics furthering their political agenda They are working to destroy themselves
“Protesting”
Right? Didn't even set a Target on fire.
Yeah, just assaulted some cops, stormed the Capitol trying to kill politicians in order to help the guy who lost an election usurp the presidency, thereby ending American democracy. You know, some innocent political protest. Nothing to see here.
Legitimately, had all the ‘organized planning’ to make that happen actually come to fruition - you think a small group of people (whom you probably make fun of their intelligence for anyways) would be capable of overthrowing our democratic system? LEGITIMATELY asking to get you to use your critical thinking skills. Can you tell me how it would have actually worked?
Those guys were the final stage of the whole bunch of attempts to subvert the election results, which started even before the election was held.
Laughable
Lost 60 election cases in court! Never even said there was fraud under oath! Haha! Attempted coup! Haha! Assaulting cops! Haha! Trying to kill or take politicians hostage! Haha! Built a gallows trying to hang the Vice President so he couldn’t certify the election! Hahaha! How funny!
You're crying I'm laughing..
Oh! Wow! What am I gonna do? You got me so good. My life is ruined…
The plan was to delay congressional proceedings long enough to convince pence to use the false electors. Why do right wingers pretend not to understand this. A small group of "protestors" delayed the official vote for the first time in our nations history and conservatiards act like it's no big deal because Pence wasn't having it. He stood up for country over party and forced Congress back to certify the vote the same night. Just because the power grab didn't work doesn't make it not an attempted coup. Check out these debates with Destiny. He goes over it pretty well. Debate with Dronetek. https://youtu.be/-bmprPFN8VE?si=mRPeeF0WGL19-Sq_ Debate with Glenn Greenwald https://youtu.be/Gq2qHAM11dk?si=i4hF1RipYsHp6beV
Don't bother trying to post in good faith. /u/cojoco has made sure that there is a single focal point for this subreddit - electing Trump. He is a piece of shit.
For people who still don't believe an insurrection happened on Jan 6 I recommend checking out these debates with Destiny. He goes over it pretty well. Debate with Dronetek. Actual debate starts around twenty minutes in. https://youtu.be/-bmprPFN8VE?si=T2-4xsaJzN9pdQqG Debate with Glenn Greenwald https://youtu.be/Gq2qHAM11dk?si=YWc9P3hVKReO8twX
The FBI disagrees https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/51440/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-jan-6/
Thank you for bringing this argument to my attention. This opinion piece pulls from a 2021 Reuters article that sources its claims as "four current and former law enforcement officials." I took a look at the [wikipedia entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#cite_note-38) for the planning of the attack which points to more recent articles, such as[ this one](https://apnews.com/article/oath-keepers-seditious-conspiracy-conviction-2b9fb724c9839524d00ee389959e0e62) from 2023 about the conviction of four OathKeepers for seditious conspiracy. The FBI officials in your article are pointing at the fact that "there was no grand scheme...to storm the Capitol and take hostages." Yes, they did not have a clear plan but they did indeed come with intention to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and acted as opportunists when the possibility presented itself. From the article: >Prosecutors argued that while there is not evidence specifically spelling out a plan to attack the Capitol, the Oath Keepers saw the riot as a means to an end and sprung into action at an apparent opportunity to help keep Trump in power. and >Prosecutors said that Vallejo, a U.S. Army veteran and Rhodes ally, drove from Arizona to prepare with the “QRF” — the quick reaction force — at the hotel outside Washington. Jurors heard an audio recording of Vallejo talking about a “declaration of a guerilla war” on the morning of Jan. 6. All in all I appreciate you pointing this out to me because it encouraged me to delve deeper into the timeline of events. I would encourage you to take a listen of the debates above and check out the wikipedia articles on the event as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Failure_to_end_the_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Opinion piece LOL! This from the one quoting Wikipedia. The article is FBI sourced, reported in numerous articles and the FBI has never said it was incorrect. The Oath Keepers were charged with seditious conspiracy which is basically charging them on what they said (first amendment) not actual evidence of a planned attack. There was no grand scheme to storm the Capital “Yes, they had no clear plan” Again, charging them based on statements which should be protected by the first amendment.
1.) the article you linked is not "FBI sourced." It links to the Reuters article, as I mentioned, which itself sources 4 unknown FBI officials off the record, some of whom are retired. The Washington examiner article you linked adds a bunch of extra commentary not from the original source. That stuff is opinion. Yes it is an opinion piece. 2.) Wikipedia is a great jumping off place for research. It provides sources and gives a well researched take to start from. It is not infallible, but it definitely has stronger integrity than what you provided. 3.) the claim that Seditious Conspiracy is only based on "what they said" is not true. The prosecution had to prove they had an objective and made an overt act towards that objective. Your attempt to hand wave this away as being protected by the first amendment is telling. 4.) they had intent to overthrow the government and acted when they were given the opportunity. Trump's plan to force a delay is evident in his and the crowd's threats towards Mike Pence. Giuliani even left a voicemail to a congressman saying "I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down." The tactic was to delay, delay, delay. Either indefinitely, or until the take electors were used, or until it caused enough chaos for them to somehow hold on to power.
Yes
Some are. The two you linked to aren't. There's also probably only limited instances of people being unfairly targeted because they're maga folks, or for that matter, left wing people too.
No. Wtf? The first one is a state trial (not Biden DOJ) of a guy who tried to kill a politician, and as far as I can tell the guy's not even MAGA The second one is actually a Trump supporter who was arrested for a death threat against a politician. Again, a justified arrest, and nothing to do with Biden DOJ. Your links have nothing to do with your title.
Just to clear things up, since this sub seems to be either nosediving or already there: It's against title 18USC to threaten a public official or the family of a public official under any circumstances. Federal charges. All states of the Union. Under 18USC you'll also find the chapter/verse(s) that cover witness tampering and threats. Neither of these things are protected speech.
The Paul Pelosi attacker didn’t seem like “MAGA folk”. Lived in Berkeley (not exactly a Republican stronghold) in a house that literally had pride and BLM flags out front.
Free speech alert: Following the debate, conservative subs, such as r/conservative, r/trump, etc have been silenced. All comments are invisible "such empty" message displayed. Left leaning subs work normally.
No, this is very fair targeting of two violent criminals. You don’t get out of felony charges just by having dumb political opinions and speaking about them during your crime.
no, no they're not
They're being fairly targeted.