I Guess it's Time to Discuss January 6th

[Chuck Naill]

It was the day I got the first Moderan vaccine dose. I got back to the office and heard about the events still unfolding. The I heard and read the Presidents speech before. I was pleased Republicans Romney and Cheney took a stand against Trump's actions.

Where were you and what are your thoughts? Did you stay tuned or were you disinterested? Do you think it really occured?

[Bold2013]

Didn’t hear about it till after the fact (working and sheltered from daily news).

Not a great look. Reminded me of the summer of 2020.

Also made me think of the “back door to war” theory I had long forgotten.

[Chuck Naill]

Didn’t hear about it till after the fact (working and sheltered from daily news).

Not a great look. Reminded me of the summer of 2020.

Also made me think of the “back door to war” theory I had long forgotten.

Are you saying Trump and/or his followers were trying to "provoke" a civil war ?

[Chuck Naill]

This is an interesting read of how the January 6th event may be remembered compared to other historical events.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/o...smid=url-share

[Bold2013]

I think people knew what was going to happen and chose not to stop it hoping to capitalize (pun intended)

[Chuck Naill]

I think people knew what was going to happen and chose not to stop it hoping to capitalize (pun intended)

After reading the Trump speech transcript, what occured was not surprising. We now know, thank you journalists, that Fox News was saying things were going too far. I can imagine them saying, "oh shit, we were just joking"!!!

[Bold2013]

I think the left “ignored” the writing on the wall

[Chuck Naill]

I think the left “ignored” the writing on the wall

It is not their fault.

[Bold2013]

I think the left “ignored” the writing on the wall

It is not their fault.

Reminds me of old FDR and Pearl Harbor

[Chuck Naill]

I think the left “ignored” the writing on the wall

It is not their fault.

Reminds me of old FDR and Pearl Harbor

I would like to respond more to your posts, but I do not want to take the time to try and figure out your point. Sorry, bro.

[kazoolaw]

And if you're in the mood to read something with an opposing view:
https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/06/v...urrectionists/

[Chuck Naill]

And if you're in the mood to read something with an opposing view:
https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/06/v...urrectionists/

The source is a strong right slanted source. We should focus, regardless of whether we agree or not, on who stormed the building where lives and lasting harm were inflicted.

[kazoolaw]

The source is a strong right slanted source.

An antidote to the NYT.

[Chuck Naill]

The source is a strong right slanted source.

An antidote to the NYT.

Nope. Try again. If you were to name one information source that you choose not to be political or biased, what would it be?

[dneal]

The source is a strong right slanted source.

An antidote to the NYT.

Nope. Try again. If you were to name one information source that you choose not to be political or biased, what would it be?

Certainly not the NYT.

The "source" is irrelevant, when the writer has an established career. Anyone remotely familiar with Victor Davis Hanson already knows his credentials and his political views. Dismissing the piece simply because of the link, demonstrates your own ignorance of VDH and inability to consider a view you suspect is not aligned with your own, which is why you consistently demonstrate your inability to argue merits of an issue, and why your posts consist of little but regurgitation of your woke echo-chamber.

Here's the same article via MSN. Does the content now have more or less credibility?

How about the article via Jewish World Review? Now if you disagree, you're clearly an anti-semite.

[welch]

And if you're in the mood to read something with an opposing view:
https://dailycaller.com/2022/01/06/v...urrectionists/

Kaz, I read the article. It is an opinion piece, a windy collection of rhetorical flourishes. (Since the guy is said to be a classicist, he begs any reader to go back to Plato to read the many dialogs in which Socrates demolishes various teachers of rhetoric and their pupils) The author squeals as if someone stepped on his toe. Was the "stop the steal" attack on the Capitol an "insurrection"? From the evidence, it seems more like a last-ditch attempt to stop the US Congress from counting the Electoral Votes that were to make Joe Biden President, rather than Donald Trump. It was an attempt to stop the normal operation under the US Constitution by which Americans change Presidents. The mob attempted to overthrow the Constitution. That makes it treason. (And, yes, I was a history major long, long ago, and I know that few people except for spies have been convicted of treason.)

By all evidence, Trump violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He was assisted by officials he appointed into his White House staff, and by lawyers who volunteered to help him.

Glenn Kessler lines up what we have learned over the last year:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...t-we-now-know/

The Post allows five or ten free reads per month, and, since this is only the 6th, the article is not blocked behind a paywall.

“The insurrection took place on November 3, Election Day. January 6 was the Protest!”

— Former president Donald Trump, in a statement, Oct. 21

“The events of January 6, 2021, marked the most significant assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812.”

— Judge Patricia Millett, U.S. Court of Appeals, in an opinion issued Dec. 9

These quotes signify the vast gulf of understanding about the events of Jan. 6, 2021.

From the perspective of the former president, the attack on the Capitol was the result of an election that he falsely says was stolen. Trump claims the attackers were mere protesters, falsely maligned by the media and his opponents.

The reality, backed by law enforcement officials and the judiciary, is that Jan. 6 was the culmination of a sustained effort by a sitting president to overturn the election results. “That attack, that siege was criminal behavior, plain and simple,” said FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who was appointed by Trump. “And it’s behavior that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism.”

One year later, here’s a reader’s guide to what is now known about the assault, though investigations and prosecutions are not complete.

[kazoolaw]

Was the "stop the steal" attack on the Capitol an "insurrection"? From the evidence, it seems more like a last-ditch attempt to stop the US Congress from counting the Electoral Votes that were to make Joe Biden President, rather than Donald Trump. It was an attempt to stop the normal operation under the US Constitution by which Americans change Presidents. The mob attempted to overthrow the Constitution. That makes it treason. (And, yes, I was a history major long, long ago, and I know that few people except for spies have been convicted of treason.)

Sorry not to get back sooner.

No, Trump was not guilty of insurrection: he was acquitted of that claim in his second impeachment trial.

Who said this: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court." Yup, that pesky Constitution. No "levying war."

We don't get to make up our own definitions as we go along. That's a good thing for both sides.

[Bold2013]

“Back door to war theory”. FDR’s strategic positioning in the pacific to provoke Japan to attack and use it as a rally cry to get people to support him going into WW2.

[Chuck Naill]

“Back door to war theory”. FDR’s strategic positioning in the pacific to provoke Japan to attack and use it as a rally cry to get people to support him going into WW2.

Yeah, I looked it up. I remember some think the Treaty of Versailles caused WW2.

[dneal]

Yes, he is a known conservative commentator. Paul Krugman is a known liberal commentator. I still read his stuff though.

That's why I'm more knowledgeable and objective than you. I already know what you're going to say, because I read it in the CNN/NYT/WashPost/Atlantic/etc... headlines. You just repeat the narrative. No thought, just echoing. It's predictable, and boring. I bother with responding because I actually believe you're capable of reason, even though I rarely see evidence of it.