It also illustrates what a real insurrection attempt looks like. [1] He declared martial law, suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting (and directed the military to enforce such), ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds, issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication, ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut, and much more.
Just to be clear, ordering a violent mob thousands strong to march on the capitol and "fight like hell" to interfere with the peaceful transition of power is also what a real insurrection attempt looks like.
As does attempting to manipulate election officials to change the vote outcome. If not for one person rejecting this coercion the coup would have been successful.
Have you read or watched/listened to his entire speech?
I genuinely do not believe any reasonable human being can look at just the speech in context - much less his statements surrounding it in the months leading up - and argue that he didn't get exactly what he wanted in good faith.
Yeah! Like if we all just agree to pretend the one statement in isolation was the entire event he looks pretty reasonable!
Why do people keep pointing out that months of lying about electoral fraud may have encouraged people to take some extreme actions? SMH, that's not what he said on the day! Well, at least not on that day within the few second window of what I'd like you to consider!
Legally, yes. But everything was well-documented and publicized. As sentient creatures we can use our own eyes, ears, and judgement to come to our own conclusions in advance or lieu of a formal court ruling.
I suggest you re-read the Constitution. The First Amendment protects people from any negative repercussions whatsoever resulting from their free exercise of certain kinds of speech.
According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a plan by Trump to overturn the election.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
The “within 36 hours” is dishonest sleight of hand to avoid the fact that only one person died that day — Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran that was shot by police.
If we want to include additional details, perhaps add the ones that explain why she was shot (Violently breaking into an area being secured by capitol police that directly lead to the congresscritters) and not irrelevant ones like her status as a veteran.
In one case, we have a person in their home town, caught up in a situation that was not of her own making.
Babbitt directly put herself in the situation of traveling to the capital, breaking in to it, ignoring direct and lawful orders from police officers, moving towards people that the police had every reason to believe were likely targets of violence, after once again physically breaking in to an area.
They're not really comparable situations, IMO. But I don't like people dying when it is avoidable.
One was killed on the street, as she was leaving a protest, the other was killed while trying to break into a secure area of the capital during an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power after an election.
I think your admission says a lot more about you than it does about either of the two women.
I included it because I think it's a counter-balance to how framing and selective information disclosure has been used to shape perception; in many accountings, you either see "five deaths within 36 hours", or just "one death", but neither mentioning the only death that day was a civilian veteran that was among the rioters.
I assume that's because, in this context, a rioter dying is less shocking than a police officer, politician, or other civilian, and "veteran" is more likely to humanize or engender empathy. I'd guess that's also why you objected so strongly to its inclusion, and sought to reframe the perceptive field.
It is a transparent attempt to specifically engender empathy while also leaving out the relevant details about what she did to get shot.
If you were including the full details, I would say nothing. When you leave out the single most important pieces of context and instead talk of her veteran status, it is obvious what your intent is.
It was an insurrection, and he should have been barred from rerunning by the 14th amendment, but come on with adding deaths to the event that were not the one dumbass chick.
It's even sillier after looking into it. Of the 4 people listed that died the same date as the insurrection attempt, 1 was shot (already mentioned), 1 died of overdosing on meth, and the other two both were over 50 and had heart attacks. Not to say being exceptionally out-of-shape or meth-addled has zero demographic connection to the riot, but...
It's really odd that the speaker of the house and the mayor of DC declined the president at the times request to deploy 10k to 20k national guard troops there. Also weird that there were 250 or so plain clothes FBI officers inside the capitol at the time as well. Along with Capitol Police have been filmed opening gates and doors for people to go through and in. Its almost like a lot of what has been written about what happened on that day isnt what happened.
Enough members of the National Assembly managed to bypass the military blockade, get into the building, and vote to reject martial law. (Some had to climb over the fence to get in.)
Some of the orders weren't carried out, others were carried out loosely so armed forces were occupying their Congress but they didn't actually stop members from being in the building and voting down the martial law. If we're doing the Trump comparison, an obvious difference is that Trump already knew the military wouldn't intervene to take sides on who got certified as the winner (they'd actually taken the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to that effect) and had reason to believe some of his supporters would give it a go...
I’m not suggesting things are as bad as a full on insurrection. But it’s not a great leap of imagination to compare the two either.
> He declared martial law
Trump has sent federal troops into states that voted against him.
He’s also frequently talked about “the enemy from within” to describe American citizens.
And then there’s ICE…
> suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting
Trump has shut down the government twice already.
The press just like to blame Democrats despite the fact that it’s the Republicans who are refusing to negotiate.
> ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds,
To be fair, Trump hasn’t gone that far (yet). But he has fired lots of people from government roles that should have been non-partisan and filled them with his own loyal supporters. Even when those people are clearly not qualified to be doing their new found appointments.
He’s also freed lots of criminals because they either supported him, or paid him.
> issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication
Trump has been removing press from the White House and replacing them with publications that support him.
> ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut
Trump hasn’t done that either. But he has sent the FCC to shutdown shows he dislikes. And sued the others into compliance.
The overreach of executive powers is very concerning, but those are more long term attempts to influence the public and policy makers through shady tactics.
The insurrection everyone is referring to is definitely Jan 6th, which it is laughable to compare to an actual insurrection attempt. A few thousand unarmed people waving signs and wearing costumes break into government buildings and take selfies? What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
I think the thing that puts J6 in the "definitely an insurrection attempt" category is the fact that it happened while Congress was exercising its duty to formalize the electoral college vote. We don't have to reach for statistics about how many were armed or wearing costumes (a fact that seems immaterial in any case); the question is sufficiently answered by what they were attempting to stop.
Wearing costumes establishes costumes and illustrates the joviality of at least a portion of the attendees of the event. It would be odd to say that it is immaterial that you went to a concert or a restaurant or any place really, and lots of people were dressed as Vikings, or as SWAT, etc.
Congresspeople either intimidated or emboldened into rejecting some or all of the state electors to annul the actual electoral result and declare Trump the 46th president. We know this was the outcome Donald Trump's wanted because he said so several times.
I assume the individuals that brought zip ties had more specific plans for the elected officials they didn't approve of.
It wasn't a well-planned insurrection but neither was Yong Suk Yeol's
It was explicitly an attempt to influence Pence or congress to not certify the election results, attempting to allow Trump to use his fake electors to change the results in his favor.
It was a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election. What are you not understanding about this?
So if someone emailed Pence and said they would stab him if he certified the election would that be an insurrection? They are attempting to influence him to change the result of the election.
Surely the level of organization and possibility of success need to be taken into consideration? Otherwise every moron with a social media account or a sign could be guilty of insurrection.
Multiple protestors had weapons and the militias had weapons parked just across the border. There also would have been no reason to pardon anyone if no crimes were being committed. But you already know this
Killing legislators or physically threatening them into overturning the results. But siccing the mob was just a last-ditch move.
The main plan was sending fake electors with fraudulent certifications and counting on Pence to derail the formal vote count and accept the false slate through a fog of procedural confusion. The fact that Pence refused to go along with the plan and Trump resorted to physically threatening him and Congress doesn't change the fact that their plan was an illegal and fraudulent interference with the verification of the election based on knowingly false claims.
According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a plan by Trump to overturn the election.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
The Civil War wasn't really a coup because the South wasn't trying to take over Washington D.C. or run the Federal government. A coup is usually a quick, behind the scenes power grab by a small group of people trying to unseat a leader. What happened in the 1860s was the exact opposite: it was a massive, public breakup where entire states voted to leave.
One thing worth pointing out is that by the time Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3, 2024, he was already one of the most unpopular presidents in South Korean history. After that his ratings declined even further. This makes for a much smoother enforcement of the law to make him accountable for his actions.
There is a difference between corruption and treason. I am against the death penalty but in this case the man should have been shot. Just like the Netherlands and Norway did away with their traitors after WW2. A line has to be drawn somewhere.
It also illustrates what a real insurrection attempt looks like. [1] He declared martial law, suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting (and directed the military to enforce such), ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds, issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication, ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut, and much more.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_Korean_martial_law_...
Just to be clear, ordering a violent mob thousands strong to march on the capitol and "fight like hell" to interfere with the peaceful transition of power is also what a real insurrection attempt looks like.
As does attempting to manipulate election officials to change the vote outcome. If not for one person rejecting this coercion the coup would have been successful.
Even if he had done that, which he didn’t, that’s not what an insurrection looks like. He also told them to go home.
Have you read or watched/listened to his entire speech?
I genuinely do not believe any reasonable human being can look at just the speech in context - much less his statements surrounding it in the months leading up - and argue that he didn't get exactly what he wanted in good faith.
Yeah! Like if we all just agree to pretend the one statement in isolation was the entire event he looks pretty reasonable!
Why do people keep pointing out that months of lying about electoral fraud may have encouraged people to take some extreme actions? SMH, that's not what he said on the day! Well, at least not on that day within the few second window of what I'd like you to consider!
Innocent until proven guilty.
Legally, yes. But everything was well-documented and publicized. As sentient creatures we can use our own eyes, ears, and judgement to come to our own conclusions in advance or lieu of a formal court ruling.
I suggest you re-read the Constitution. The First Amendment protects people from any negative repercussions whatsoever resulting from their free exercise of certain kinds of speech.
This is such an absolutely wild and demonstrably incorrect interpretation, I can only assume it's satire
I forgot that satire was dead.
Poe’s Law. Personally I thought that might be what you were doing, but I wasn’t sure.
Or, alternatively, you're just bad at it.
First off, the majority of them were found guilty in court - https://web.archive.org/web/20240108135705/https://www.justi...
Also, for the rest of them that accepted a pardon, that also necessities an admission of guilt - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/236/79/#89-90
So yes, they were guilty of insurrection even if they escaped punishment.
According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a plan by Trump to overturn the election.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
The “within 36 hours” is dishonest sleight of hand to avoid the fact that only one person died that day — Ashli Babbitt, an Air Force veteran that was shot by police.
If we want to include additional details, perhaps add the ones that explain why she was shot (Violently breaking into an area being secured by capitol police that directly lead to the congresscritters) and not irrelevant ones like her status as a veteran.
After Renee Good was killed, I re-evaluated my opinion on Ashli Babbitt's killing and I have more sympathy for her now.
I have some sympathy, but not nearly as much.
In one case, we have a person in their home town, caught up in a situation that was not of her own making.
Babbitt directly put herself in the situation of traveling to the capital, breaking in to it, ignoring direct and lawful orders from police officers, moving towards people that the police had every reason to believe were likely targets of violence, after once again physically breaking in to an area.
They're not really comparable situations, IMO. But I don't like people dying when it is avoidable.
Because you also want to break into the Capitol?
One was killed on the street, as she was leaving a protest, the other was killed while trying to break into a secure area of the capital during an attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power after an election.
I think your admission says a lot more about you than it does about either of the two women.
I included it because I think it's a counter-balance to how framing and selective information disclosure has been used to shape perception; in many accountings, you either see "five deaths within 36 hours", or just "one death", but neither mentioning the only death that day was a civilian veteran that was among the rioters.
I assume that's because, in this context, a rioter dying is less shocking than a police officer, politician, or other civilian, and "veteran" is more likely to humanize or engender empathy. I'd guess that's also why you objected so strongly to its inclusion, and sought to reframe the perceptive field.
It is a transparent attempt to specifically engender empathy while also leaving out the relevant details about what she did to get shot.
If you were including the full details, I would say nothing. When you leave out the single most important pieces of context and instead talk of her veteran status, it is obvious what your intent is.
It was an insurrection, and he should have been barred from rerunning by the 14th amendment, but come on with adding deaths to the event that were not the one dumbass chick.
It's even sillier after looking into it. Of the 4 people listed that died the same date as the insurrection attempt, 1 was shot (already mentioned), 1 died of overdosing on meth, and the other two both were over 50 and had heart attacks. Not to say being exceptionally out-of-shape or meth-addled has zero demographic connection to the riot, but...
It's really odd that the speaker of the house and the mayor of DC declined the president at the times request to deploy 10k to 20k national guard troops there. Also weird that there were 250 or so plain clothes FBI officers inside the capitol at the time as well. Along with Capitol Police have been filmed opening gates and doors for people to go through and in. Its almost like a lot of what has been written about what happened on that day isnt what happened.
We all watched it happen live, dude.
don't worry, I suspect there will be a 2nd attempt on Jan 6th 2029
I doubt it. Reichstag fire by Q2 2028.
More like Nov 2026
How did they stop him?
Enough members of the National Assembly managed to bypass the military blockade, get into the building, and vote to reject martial law. (Some had to climb over the fence to get in.)
Here's a news article from that time: https://m.koreaherald.com/article/10012328
Some of the orders weren't carried out, others were carried out loosely so armed forces were occupying their Congress but they didn't actually stop members from being in the building and voting down the martial law. If we're doing the Trump comparison, an obvious difference is that Trump already knew the military wouldn't intervene to take sides on who got certified as the winner (they'd actually taken the unprecedented step of issuing a statement to that effect) and had reason to believe some of his supporters would give it a go...
I’m not suggesting things are as bad as a full on insurrection. But it’s not a great leap of imagination to compare the two either.
> He declared martial law
Trump has sent federal troops into states that voted against him.
He’s also frequently talked about “the enemy from within” to describe American citizens.
And then there’s ICE…
> suspended and prevented their Congress equivalent from meeting
Trump has shut down the government twice already.
The press just like to blame Democrats despite the fact that it’s the Republicans who are refusing to negotiate.
> ordered the immediate arrest of numerous high level politicians with a goal of arresting hundreds,
To be fair, Trump hasn’t gone that far (yet). But he has fired lots of people from government roles that should have been non-partisan and filled them with his own loyal supporters. Even when those people are clearly not qualified to be doing their new found appointments.
He’s also freed lots of criminals because they either supported him, or paid him.
> issued a declaration that all media and publications had to be approved before publication
Trump has been removing press from the White House and replacing them with publications that support him.
> ordered the power+water for a news broadcaster be cut
Trump hasn’t done that either. But he has sent the FCC to shutdown shows he dislikes. And sued the others into compliance.
The overreach of executive powers is very concerning, but those are more long term attempts to influence the public and policy makers through shady tactics.
The insurrection everyone is referring to is definitely Jan 6th, which it is laughable to compare to an actual insurrection attempt. A few thousand unarmed people waving signs and wearing costumes break into government buildings and take selfies? What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
I think the thing that puts J6 in the "definitely an insurrection attempt" category is the fact that it happened while Congress was exercising its duty to formalize the electoral college vote. We don't have to reach for statistics about how many were armed or wearing costumes (a fact that seems immaterial in any case); the question is sufficiently answered by what they were attempting to stop.
Wearing costumes establishes costumes and illustrates the joviality of at least a portion of the attendees of the event. It would be odd to say that it is immaterial that you went to a concert or a restaurant or any place really, and lots of people were dressed as Vikings, or as SWAT, etc.
It was a happy guillotine. The French are also off the hook because they were so damn happy to be guillotining people.
It's immaterial insofar as the US Capitol is not, in fact, a concert or restaurant.
(And similarly, it should be clear that an insurrection's nature doesn't depend on whether the crowd is jovial or not.)
I’ll reiterate the earlier poster’s question:
> What would the next steps be that would end in them overthrowing elected leaders?
Congresspeople either intimidated or emboldened into rejecting some or all of the state electors to annul the actual electoral result and declare Trump the 46th president. We know this was the outcome Donald Trump's wanted because he said so several times.
I assume the individuals that brought zip ties had more specific plans for the elected officials they didn't approve of.
It wasn't a well-planned insurrection but neither was Yong Suk Yeol's
It was explicitly an attempt to influence Pence or congress to not certify the election results, attempting to allow Trump to use his fake electors to change the results in his favor.
It was a naked attempt to change the outcome of the election. What are you not understanding about this?
So if someone emailed Pence and said they would stab him if he certified the election would that be an insurrection? They are attempting to influence him to change the result of the election.
Surely the level of organization and possibility of success need to be taken into consideration? Otherwise every moron with a social media account or a sign could be guilty of insurrection.
A single bot did not email him. They went 1000 strong in person, were armed, and people died.
Multiple protestors had weapons and the militias had weapons parked just across the border. There also would have been no reason to pardon anyone if no crimes were being committed. But you already know this
Nobody said no crimes had been committed. It’s just simply laughable to call it an insurrection.
Killing legislators or physically threatening them into overturning the results. But siccing the mob was just a last-ditch move.
The main plan was sending fake electors with fraudulent certifications and counting on Pence to derail the formal vote count and accept the false slate through a fog of procedural confusion. The fact that Pence refused to go along with the plan and Trump resorted to physically threatening him and Congress doesn't change the fact that their plan was an illegal and fraudulent interference with the verification of the election based on knowingly false claims.
According to the bipartisan House select committee that investigated the incident, the attack was the culmination of a plan by Trump to overturn the election.
Within 36 hours, five people died: including a police officer who died of a stroke a day after being assaulted by rioters and collapsing at the Capitol.
Many people were injured, including 174 police officers. Four officers who responded to the attack died by suicide within seven months. Damage caused by attackers exceeded $2.7 million. It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...
> It is the only attempted coup d'état directed towards the Federal government in the history of the United States.
The Civil War in the early 1860s doesn't count because they just wanted to secede?
The Civil War wasn't really a coup because the South wasn't trying to take over Washington D.C. or run the Federal government. A coup is usually a quick, behind the scenes power grab by a small group of people trying to unseat a leader. What happened in the 1860s was the exact opposite: it was a massive, public breakup where entire states voted to leave.
the post war assassination of Lincoln was, in a tiny sense, a delusion of coup, perhaps.
A failed and poorly executed insurrection attempt is still an insurrection attempt.
People go to prison for attempted murder every day.
That's all clearly on par with a few tweets
A few tweets! Lololololololololololololololol
One thing worth pointing out is that by the time Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on December 3, 2024, he was already one of the most unpopular presidents in South Korean history. After that his ratings declined even further. This makes for a much smoother enforcement of the law to make him accountable for his actions.
I would also say that this is the correct way to handle a former president that was elected as the result of a rigged election.
He'll eventually get pardoned like presideng Park and the Samsung crown prince, Lee Jae-yong. But he'll probably do 10 or 15 years anyway.
He's 65, so that might be long enough to be for life (based on life expectancy).
There is a difference between corruption and treason. I am against the death penalty but in this case the man should have been shot. Just like the Netherlands and Norway did away with their traitors after WW2. A line has to be drawn somewhere.