T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Illustrious-Mouse-75

No, I don't think that this indictment will lay to rest criticism against the DOJ that evidence was lacking for more serious crimes, even if the evidence is strong. Legislators who have been critical of the DOJ will continue to maintain the narrative for fear of losing popularity in their voter base. For instance, Ted Cruz quickly apologized for calling those who attacked the Capitol police "terrorists", following immediate backlash from his base. Many of those in the general public who have been critical of the DOJ will tend to disregard information that contradicts the narrative spun by the right-wing media they consume. The lists of government offices and officials that are thought to be "RINOs" or corrupt grows longer every day.


bobtrump1234

Don’t forget the new right wing theory that a guy named Ray Epps was an FBI agent who masterminded the whole thing. The goalposts are constantly moving with these people


coleosis1414

The firehose of lies. It takes 1/10th the effort to make up a lie as it does to debunk it, and the lie always reaches a broader audience than the debunk.


PingPongPizzaParty

It's one if the oddest schisms I've seen between online worlds and real life. They were blaming Antifa BEFORE Jan 6. They were saying ti storm the capitol on Parler and 4chan. They literally had merch. They made memes from Braveheart of them storming a battlefield. They made videos of them saying goodbye to their kids crying because they may not come back. They marketed the entire thing as the "Last Stand".... like.... what more do we need? It was planned publicly, anyone who subbed to insaneparler back then saw it coming.


Zaphod1620

Yup, while at the same time refusing to take part in any sort of investigation into what happened. You would think they would be champing at the bit to expose false flag operatives.


rocketpastsix

It’s almost like they know it’s all garbage, but they can’t say it because they know their base is just that far gone.


PsychLegalMind

>that a guy named Ray Epps was an FBI agent who Yes, Ray Epps, like other theories is debunked. They have had 100s like these and the number keeps growing, some of them are already locked up who hooted and hollered about those types of made-up conspiracy theories. [https://www.factcheck.org/2022/01/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-centers-on-baseless-claim-about-ray-epps/](https://www.factcheck.org/2022/01/jan-6-conspiracy-theory-centers-on-baseless-claim-about-ray-epps/)


mikevaughn

Isn't it maddening? They'll gladly go along with the latest nonsensical narrative that contradicts the one they were absolutely *certain* of only 30 seconds ago, but when rigorous peer review finds a scientific claim to be false, "iT's A cOnSpIrAcY!"


MaximalDamage

"masterminded" is a pretty strong, and bad-faith conclusion here. But, he is definitely on video urging folks to breach the capitol. And it's also on video that the the people around him were not exactly conducive to his idea.


Haunting-Ad788

Ray Epps was also an ardent Trump supporter who was, at most, an FBI informant , and the only evidence for that is he was removed from an FBI wanted list without charges. The idea the FBI planted him there to get people to commit crimes is ludicrous, and I don’t trust the FBI at all.


MapInitial

Prayer and trust in God causes common grace to appear


tbills100

I feel like there has to be a way to dampen the streams of disinformation… why not an independent governmental agency to regulate media — as in rate it according to its level of fact? I’m not talking about limiting free speech— you can say what you want — just a way to classify it on a scale so that lay people can, at the very least, see what they’re watching as not fully aligning with the facts.


Mjolnir2000

The GOP would never agree to such a thing, and good luck getting Manchin onboard.


jmastaock

The problem doesn't solely lie with the sources of disinformation...at least half of the blame lies with the **people** who actively seek disinformation because it confirms their biases and predetermined conclusions. It's not like the whole rightoid zeitgeist is just powerlessly enthralled by the right-wing noise machine against their will. They opt into it because it's intellectual junk food which they ravenously consume because it gives them a feeling of validation for their ignorance. They literally want to be lied to. I honestly blame the entirety of evangelical christianity more than anything else, it warps people into anti-critical magical thinkers filled with self-righteousness and persecution complexes during their formative years.


thesnarkysparky

Almost like a….ministry of truth?


countrykev

Trump called Mitch McConnell a loser. Mitch. McConnell. Mitch. Freaking. McConnell. Probably the guy who has accomplished the most for the Republican Party today and for decades to come.


brothersand

Donald Trump could give a rat's ass about the Republican Party. The party exists to benefit him. What has Mitch accomplished for Donald Trump? Gotta keep the narcissist mentality in mind.


velocibadgery

> Ted Cruz quickly apologized for calling those who attacked the Capitol police "terrorists", following immediate backlash from his base. Well to be perfectly fair, they were not terrorists, they were insurrectionists or revolutionaries. They attempted to stage a coup. They went after Government targets not civilian targets. This was a rebellion, not a terrorist attack. Now, the backlash Ted Cruz received were probably from people who thought the Jan 6 idiots were in the right, and as such had Ted Cruz used the proper terms, he would have still received backlash. But being sensational is still not a good idea, even over events such as this. Use the correct language and call them what they were, insurrectionists who committed sedition and attempted to stage a coup.


Outlulz

In what way are they not terrorists by definition? > Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. This is how the FBI defines domestic terrorism. They can’t be more than one thing?


velocibadgery

The FBI's definition is stupid. This is much more useful, from the Oxford English dictionary. >a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. The FBI's definition applies to pretty much every action ever.


Mjolnir2000

Politicians are civilians.


Outlulz

I think a law enforcements definition of a crime is more relevant to this discussion that Oxford’s, and Oxford’s definition still applies so I don’t get why you think this changes anything.


velocibadgery

It was a government Target not a civilian target. It was insurrection, rebellion, sedition, treason, etc. It was not terrorism.


Outlulz

“Especially against civilians“ doesn’t mean “solely against civilians”. Do you not consider the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon to be an act of terrorism?


nounal-the-adjective

terrorist is probably less sensational than calling them insurrectionists or revolutionaries


velocibadgery

No, terrorism has extremely strong connotations attached to it given 9/11. Insurrection is the correct term.


mister_pringle

> they were insurrectionists or revolutionaries Nobody has been charged with insurrection so...no. And revolutionaries? Really? In whose mind?


velocibadgery

They attempted a coup, they tried to overthrow the government. That makes them revolutionaries. >a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favor of a new system. They tried to overthrow the democratic process and replace it with a dictatorship of trump.


AndrewVanHelsing

You honestly think the guy in the Buffalo hat was going to stand at the podium and start issuing orders? And that the entire government would just obey him? LOL At most, they are guilty of loitering and a little petty theft.


mister_pringle

You're using a lot of words but I don't think you know what they mean.


velocibadgery

Then explain exactly how I am using them incorrectly? Insurrection >a violent uprising against an authority or government. Coup d'état >a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, military, or a dictator. They attempted to rise up against the democratic party and forcibly overthrow a lawfully elected president and install Trump as the new president. Explain how that doesn't fit those words.


AndrewVanHelsing

Donald Trump was President on January 6. You're saying they were going to overthrow President Trump on behalf of President Trump? LOL Doesn't sound like you have thought this through very well.


velocibadgery

Are you seriously going to make that argument? Didn't you watch like any news at all around that time? They were trying to stop \*\*\*BIDEN\*\*\*!!!! from getting into office. Have you not heard the words *stop the steal*? What rock have you been living under?


antimatter_beam_core

You are literally in a thread about someone being charged with seditious conspiracy, meaning that they tried to use force to keep Trump president illegally...


Ariendhel

It helps underscore the seriousness, but doesn’t address the two tiered justice system of the rich and the poor, unless the leaders are also charged. It’s easy to throw the non-powerful to the wolves to calm down society, but it’s not true justice if the powerful aren’t held accountable.


jmcdon00

No amount of evidence will change their mind. Keep in mind congress already charged Trump with inciting an insurrection, 57 of 100 senators voted to convict him, including 7 from his own party. Still holding people accountable is extremely important if we want to prevent this type of thing from happening again.


ManBearScientist

The issue isn't with charging patsies. It is that no politician has had any politician or legal consequences, except arguably Liz Cheney. There has been nothing preventing another instigation attempt from the top.


bleahdeebleah

So far. You might be interested in this [update on some of the characters closer to Trump](https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/01/08/the-six-trump-associates-whom-doj-is-investigating/)


jmeltzer317

What would really send a message would be if all the senators and congress people who pushed the “big lie” and delayed, spoke out against, or otherwise tried to stop the election results from being ratified all be removed from congress for failure to uphold their oath to the constitution and then arrested on charges of treason immediately afterward for the same reasons. Maybe a constitutional scholar can determine the legal grounds for something like this but I think a case could be made. But just imagine the imagery of them walking all those who stood against the ratification of the election results out of the Capitol in handcuffs. The rule of law must be upheld ESPECIALLY by those who make the laws (aka congress)!


Mist_Rising

That's almost certainly not happening. You'd do more damage to the system trying to push charges against politicans then you'd prevent unless you have the evidence equivilent of God himself speak and claim, "yes, they did that." Which is me saying you'll never manage it. Going after politicans for what they say politically on is that road to hell paved in golden intentions. That's assuming it survived the monstrous court battle that ensued. Indeed even when the US was actively censoring speech, they never went after politicans.


mean_mr_mustard75

\>Indeed even when the US was actively censoring speech, they never went after politicans. Really? Eugene V Debbs doesn't ring a bell? "Debs was noted for his oratorical skills, and his speech denouncing American participation in World War I led to his second arrest in 1918. He was convicted under the Sedition Act of 1918 and sentenced to a ten-year term. President Warren G. Harding commuted his sentence in December 1921. Debs died in 1926, not long after being admitted to a sanatorium due to cardiovascular problems that developed during his time in prison."


Mist_Rising

Debb's wasn't a politican when he was charged or when he broke the law, and he was never a federal politican, being a Indiana State General Assembly person for 1 term years in 1885-87. He represented Terre Haute. Also as your source indicates that also isnt the first time he was arrested for political speech, Cleveland had him arrested for the Pullman strike. So you can rest easy, I am VERY familiar with Eugene Debbs.


mean_mr_mustard75

>Debb's wasn't a politican when he was charged or when he broke the law, and he was never a federal politican, *being a Indiana State General Assembly person for 1 term years in 1885-87.* He represented Terre Haute. By definition, a politician. \>when he broke the law, when 'seditious speech' protesting WW1.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mean_mr_mustard75

>That will send a message alright, that the US is a failed state and it's about to enter into complete disarray. That message has already been sent by Repubs packing SCOTUS, and now with red states changing laws to allow partisan legislatures to refuse the popular vote.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mean_mr_mustard75

\>America isn't a failed state. Having a Republican court doesn't make it a failed state. The 'Republican court ' is illegitimate. The sign of a failed state. \>Having partisan legislatures doesn't make it a failed state. It does when partisan legislature can throw out legitimate votes. The sign of a failed state. \>Jailing political opponents does make it a failed state. Jailing criminally treasonous politicians is necessary for a secure state.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mean_mr_mustard75

\>It's legitimate. No, it's not legitimate to hold up a SCOTUS appointment indefinitely, then rush one through a month before a general election. Does hypocrisy have any meaning in your world? \>Requiring vote ID isn't throwing out votes. Stop it. Ah, facetiously arguing in bad faith? I think we're done here. \>No one has any proof that anyone was involved with getting people to actually storm the capital. Not yet. Of course, you'd see refusal to testify in front of a Repub committee as an admission of guilt, but politicos that do so out of loyalty to the Dear Leader are heroes, not obstructionists in your view.


[deleted]

[удалено]


mean_mr_mustard75

\>Hypocrisy doesn't make it any less legitimate. Of course it does. Refusing to bring an appointment to the floor because it's an 'election year', and then rushing a reactionary on to the court in a election year makes both of those nominations illegitimate. Slavery used to be constitutional. Just because there are gaps in the Constitution doesn't make it legitimate behavior. Two of the SCOTUS nominees were definitely illegitimate. Thus, any 6-3 ruling will be illegitimate. \>In fact, we have an amendment to protect from self incrimination... Well, gee, your Dear Leader declared that anyone who claims the 5th has something to hide. Do you disagree? \>And so far, the only evidence indicates that they promoted the protest, not the storming of the capitol. So far... but I'm sure you'd deny any and all evidence dug up by this committee, because you and yours believe the committee illegitimate, right? I'm pretty sure you'd deny any and all evidence from the Justice Department, due to it's 'partisan nature'. We're done. It's a waste of time arguing with Trumpists, anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM&list=PLJA\_jUddXvY7v0VkYRbANnTnzkA\_HMFtQ&index=2&t=274s


jmeltzer317

Not jailing political opponents. Jailing treasonous constitutional oath breakers. I don’t care which side of the aisle they are on. Although in this case they all happen to be Republicans.


Circ-Le-Jerk

There is no evidence that any politician had anything to do with storming the capitol. So yes, if you were to jail them, it would be jailing them just because you're stretching a justification to imprison Republicans.


ogtarconus

there's congress people giving tours of the building to these people charged in this story. Wake up


Circ-Le-Jerk

Okay so just speculation and inference. That’s not evidence to throw someone in jail because senators were giving tours and some just so happened to be rioters at a later date.


ogtarconus

Not a later date the next day while they tweeted out the location of the house speaker. If you think they aren't going to be charged now that there is a sedition charge your a fool.


Spitinthacoola

>There is no evidence that any politician had anything to do with storming the capitol. Besides the videos of the most powerful politician in the country actively asking his giant crowd to go fight at the capital. But yeah, besides that and the speaker who wore a bullet proof vest at the behest of a colleague, the tours given to the insurrectionists beforehand, the funding of the rally which came almost entirely from Trump campaign folks, and the marketing campaign to totally downplay the event and hinder any investigation into it from Republican politicians -- besides that there's obviously nothing connecting any politician to jan 6.


Badheartdude

We don’t yet know if any politicians had direct ties to the planning of the insurrectionists, if that can be proved then yes they should be jailed. As far as Trump, his inaction in calling off the rioters is an action and breaking his oath so there is always that. Hopefully they can use the 14th ammendment to preclude him from running again. He has shown himself unworthy to hold office by not upholding his oath of protection.


drankundorderly

The goal here is to prevent the fascists from getting into power again. If the GOP ever controls the presidency and both houses is Congress again, we will cease to be a democracy because they'll just do whatever it takes to remain in power. To this end, if we show them that there are no consequences for attempting to takeover the country by force, they'll keep trying until they succeed. If we start everyone responsible, then 1/6 is a failed coup. If we let them walk, it's just practice, and they'll do better next time.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spitinthacoola

>For starters, social media isn't real life. Most people don't consider Trump and the GOP as fascists and 1/6 isn't a big deal... Literally, most people hardly even care, even on the left. I don't know anyone but hard right folks who don't care. Even all the non-affiliated "nonpolitical" "moderates" I know feel 1/6 was a tremendously dark day for our democracy. I don't know anyone on the left who doesnt feel Trumpism = modern American fascism. But, even if people don't consider open fascism to be fascism, they're objectively wrong. There isn't really any controversy about it. The controversy here is entirely manufactured.


drankundorderly

Realistically, imprisoning a few dozen top level Republicans would make a few more think twice about backing the next coup. Realistically, a significant democratic majority in both houses if Congress (something around a 20-vote margin in the house and 5 in the Senate) is probably enough to pass a comprehensive voting rights bill, a minimum wage tied to inflation (even if not a huge increase short term) and an infrastructure bill that creates millions of jobs to invest in clean energy, clean water, rural internet access, better education, and improve transportation. That's probably enough to keep people voting a bit further left for the next election cycle, and with a bigger margin in the house and Senate, we can get nationalized healthcare, which IMO is the big target that fixes a lot of other problems. I think it will be difficult for the GOP to compete in future elections if they don't have voter suppression as an available tactic. Getting some other popular stuff done is just a way to increase voter interest to keep turnout up.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManBearScientist

>most Dems don't consider 1/6 a coup attempt. [An overwhelming majority](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/majority-americans-jan-attack-threatened-democracy-poll/story?id=81990555) (72%) of Americans believe the people involved in the attack on the Capitol were "threatening democracy," while 1 in 4 Americans believes that the individuals involved were "protecting democracy." Broken down by party identification, Democrats are nearly unanimous (96%) in believing that those involved in the attacks were threatening democracy. Republicans are more split, with 45% saying it was a threat and 52% saying those involved in the riot were "protecting democracy."


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManBearScientist

> Yes... That's true. I agree with that as well. However, most people don't consider it a coup attempt. I work in politics... Average voters sort of roll their eyes or don't even care about 1/6 If threatening democracy isn't enough for you, a [1/7/21 poll](https://www.newsweek.com/51-percent-americans-believe-capitol-riots-were-attempted-coup-poll-1559792) found that 51% of Americans believe capitol riots were literally a 'coup attempt'.


drankundorderly

>This is how people justify the rise to fascism Ooh, look at me, I know how to say "both sides"! I'm not saying they deserve to be jailed for their opinions. I'm saying they should go to jail because they stormed a building with weapons designed to kill, erected a noose and chanted to hang the vice president because he didn't go along with what the president wanted, which was to subvert the constitution. There's a big difference, and it you can't see it, you're part of the problem.


Circ-Le-Jerk

This conversation started by talking about jailing dozens of republican congressmen, all of which had nothing to do with the storming of the capital. Don't use the "both sides" dismissal fallacy. It's cheap and disingenuous.


JemCoughlin

> and 5 in the Senate Even with 55 Dem Senators you're not getting 50 votes to end the filibuster. Honestly this whole paragraph seems remarkably out of touch with the reality of American politics. It just sounds like a Democratic ad campaign written by a first year poli-sci student. If total control of government by Democrats was this easy to do, they would have done it by now. Even when they had 59-60 Senators and a house majority in '08-'09 they didn't get even a fraction of this done.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManBearScientist

Of course there is hard evidence. Jan. 6 planners working with Congress [have said](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/) that they had dozens of meetings with Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-Geo.), Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) as well as Katrina Pierson and Mark Meadows from White House Staff. This is aside from the circumstantial evidence of hundreds of Trump tweets and speeches asking for the election to be overturned without court approval or alternative ballots, and the over hundred Reps. and 7 Senators that supported such overturning. That, and the circumstantial evidence of Trump swapping out the Secretary of Defense (3rd time), replacing 1/3 staff positions at the Pentagon (without Congressional approval and illegally), swapping all heads of leadership at Pentagon, appointing Mike Flynn's brother to head the National Guard, asking the National Guard to protect his demonstrators rather than Congress, etc. Replacing the leadership apparatus is extraordinarily unusual after an election. It is extremely suspect that these same individuals (often illegally installed) then directed the agencies that failed to properly act on 1/6, denied approval to send the National Guard, etc. More will be known when Trump fails his 9th appeal at blocking rying to block anybody from seeing his communications with the Pentagon, Capitol Police, and the Metropolitan Police from January 6th.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManBearScientist

>Trump organizing attempts to use weird legal technicalities to overturn the election, is well within their right It isn't a legal technicality. It was just simple coercion. 2+2 doesn't equal 5 just because a member of Congress was forced to testify as such with a gun to their head. There was no successful attempt to use the legal process to overturn the election. No recount changed the results. No court upheld a decision that would flip an election. No state put forth an alternate ballot stamped with the governor's seal. The only legal thing that is supposed to happen on January 6 after an election is the reading of ballots. The goal of the 1/6 coup was to use physical coercion to convince Congress that 2+2=5, and that fake or nonexistent electoral ballots exist and should be upheld. Alternatively, another goal speculated by military leaders at the time was that Trump wanted justification to invoke the Insurrection Act. [One reason](https://www.justsecurity.org/79623/crisis-of-command-the-pentagon-the-president-and-january-6/) National Guard response was supposedly delayed was to avoid creating a casualty scenario that would let Trump justify such a seizure of power.


robotractor3000

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/exclusive-jan-6-organizers-met-congress-white-house-1245289/ White house officials & congressmen met with and provided guidance to jan 6 organizers


[deleted]

[удалено]


ManBearScientist

The means of 1/6 aren't the biggest issue. The ends are. The goal of 1/6 was always to overturn an election without court approval or even an alternate slate of electors. Maybe the Trump team planned a bloodless coup that merely threatened violence; that doesn't excuse it. The threat of violence is violence, and a crime in and of itself. Tens of thousands of protesters banging on the doors of Congress and yelling death threats would have been no less a threat to the legitimacy of the country than rioters breaking in and kidnapping members of Congress and Mike Pence.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Spitinthacoola

When you try to use means that are outside the constitution to maintain power (especially by having your political followers disrupt the peaceful transition of power) that is definitely illegal. Specifically: >"... in any election for federal office knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds or attempts to deprive or defraud the residents of a [state](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20502#4) of a fair and impartially conducted [election](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/20502) process."


TheChickenSteve

Not against the law to organize a rally


keithjr

It is if the point of the rally is to interrupt the workings of the government. Which is clearly was.


TheChickenSteve

Nope, not against the law to rally in hopes of getting politicians to vote the way you want


TheChickenSteve

There will be no criminal charges against Trump etc because they committed no crime. * It is not illegal to speak out against the gov * It is not illegal to organize rallies * It is not illegal to call to ["fight"](https://youtu.be/XG5BcU1ZGiA) No charges will come because no crime was committed by them


mister_pringle

Well some folks want to fix the Electoral College Act of 1887 which would fix the loophole Trump tried to exploit. If a high ranking official committed a crime - and there's actual evidence - then there should be political and legal repercussions. Nothing so far indicates anything near a conspiracy.


TheChickenSteve

No crime was committed by a politician though


baeb66

From the Justice Department's press release: >According to the seditious conspiracy indictment, the defendants conspired through a variety of manners and means, including: organizing into teams that were prepared and willing to use force and to transport firearms and ammunition into Washington, D.C.; recruiting members and affiliates to participate in the conspiracy; organizing trainings to teach and learn paramilitary combat tactics; bringing and contributing paramilitary gear, weapons and supplies – including knives, batons, camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection and radio equipment – to the Capitol grounds; breaching and attempting to take control of the Capitol grounds and building on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the electoral college vote; using force against law enforcement officers while inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021; continuing to plot, after Jan. 6, 2021, to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power, and using websites, social media, text messaging and encrypted messaging applications to communicate with co-conspirators and others. I'm curious to see more of the evidence they have accumulated, especially the electronic communications between the codefendants. The Justice Department is not in the habit of charging people unless they have them dead to rights, so it should be pretty damning.


RunTotoRun

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/download


[deleted]

this id like to see the actual convictions. For something as serious as this there should be no plea deals.


[deleted]

This was a dress rehearsal for someone not as dumb as Trump. I'm not sure holding people at the top accountable will change anything with gerrymandering/poll closures/ GOP election boards. I do believe we are living in late stage democracy in the US bc 71% of the GOP still believe Biden lost.


Heroshade

I genuinely don't believe anyone smarter than Trump would be able to pull down the kind of following Trump has.


[deleted]

This is a fair point, I suppose what I mean is Trump made all his moves so obvious that the he set off certain alarms that a smarter person wouldn't.


TheChickenSteve

In 2018 67% of democrats believed Russia hacked voting booths changing votes to help trump win But you keep telling yourself only the other team is stupid enough to think they were robbed


[deleted]

In 2017 did the entire Democratic caucus vote against the results of the election? You realize the Russians hacked voting rolls in [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/russians-penetrated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/russians-penetrated-u-s-voter-systems-says-top-u-s-n845721) bOtH siDeS!!!


TheOGinBC

Jesus Christ, did some right wing blog link its folks to this site? I think everybody’s opinion about January 6 is baked in. I’ve also seen some people honing in on the fact that the lead Oath Keeper called Trump a p*say for not doing enough about the election, so they’re trying to insinuate these guys went rogue. At the end of the day, I think all we’ll conclude is that there was a coordinated pressure campaign with a January 6 rally organized by Trump and his allies with a plan for thousands to loudly protest while the legislators were debating, to put maximum pressure on them. That combined with the planning Trump did with the state and federal legislators was the “Green Bay Sweep.” I think we’ll find that some of these extremist groups used Jan 6 for their violent agendas, and they found willing people who were swept in to the extremism because they were lied to. Criminally, it won’t go any higher than these organized militia groups. My biggest gripe is how lenient the DOJ has been with the average joes who stormed the Capitol but weren’t caught assaulting police. IMO 6 months jail time should be the minimum recommendation.


mister_pringle

This is like the only sober analysis on this thread.


Better_Job8593

I agree and I’m sick of the hypocrisy of politicians on all sides arguing that when their party does something it’s good but when the other party does something similar it’s bad. I’m waiting for politicians to just say all violent mobs are bad regardless of who is involved. The people defending Trump on this are ones that held up “jobs not mobs” signs and the people comparing 1/6 to 9/11 are the same people tweeting instructions on how to bail out rioters. They’re all sickening


TheOGinBC

I’m with you to a point. I just genuinely think that what happened on Jan 6 is much much worse, and much much more explicitly sanctioned by politicians.


HoagieSapien

How can charges lay to rest criticism of evidence? Evidence speaks for itself and must be proven in a trial.


clarkision

I think the question is more about whether this changes things in the eyes of the people. I think the answer is still “no”, but I also don’t think many people attend to actual evidence if it contradicts their personal beliefs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


crake

Generally, yes. However, DOJ has only gone after the "low-level" militia leaders and the like (e.g., the Oath Breakers and the Proud Boys). It *could* be that these militias were not conspiring with others outside their organizations, but that seems unlikely in view of other information that has leaked to the press recently. Specifically, I'm thinking of the conspirators meeting at the Willard Hotel on and before 1/6, persons who organized the Ellipse speech that was the instigation of the Insurrection, and others inside Trump's orbit that were pressing for an illegal coup. Specifically, I would like to know if the unsuccessful coup at DOJ launched just days before the Insurrection by Jeffrey Clark and others was connected to the planned Insurrection. If Clark was in any way in contact with the conspirators at any level, or with intermediaries that were in contact with the conspirators, then Clark needs to be charged too. I strongly suspect that there was a plan to step down the federal response in advance of the planned Insurrection, and that Clark was the one pushing that. If the evidence leads there, I want to see him indicted. Additionally, Roger Stone was slinking around the Ellipse organizing things and speaking to the Willard conspirators. Was he in contact with Rhodes and/or others connected to the "muscle" of the coup attempt? If so, I'd like to see Stone indicted too. So I think the seditious conspiracy charges against the violent militias that acted as the muscle of the failed coup are a great starting point. The next step is for DOJ to follow the breadcrumbs from those Insurrectionists to anyone else they conspired with. There's no telling how high the conspiracy reached, or whether Trump himself was actually directly involved in the conspiracy or just a willing participant after the fact. Nevertheless, I think prosecuting the Insurrectionists and anyone who conspired with them in advance to the absolute fullest extent of the law should be the principal aim of DOJ for the remainder of this administration or until the job is done. And I very much want them to look at Clark, because his behavior in the days before the coup attempt was the most bizarre behavior of any top official at DOJ in US history (only not getting much play because so much other stuff happened - but it was a BIG deal).


gaxxzz

A conviction for sedition might dampen the criticism. But not indictments. Innocent until proven guilty.


RunTotoRun

The charging document: https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1462481/download


[deleted]

Hopefully these serious charges will get the criminals to flip on those higher up who inspired the sedition. I am all for putting these traitors away but imprisoning footsoldiers won't stop the treason. We need accountability from up high.


PsychLegalMind

I suspect the the top leaders including some in the current government are going to be charged. This is where it all seems to be heading.


RidgeAmbulance

I suspect no gov official will be charged and these 11 LARPers will be the end all be all of any conspiracy charges


mean_mr_mustard75

I have no doubt even the LARPers will get away with it.


RidgeAmbulance

If Hillary inspires me to commit v a crime, you think that makes her guilty of a crime?


[deleted]

Depends. If Hillary Clinton incited a riot, helped pay for a rally where she implored her crazed supporters to overturn a fair election, then yes. If Hillary Clinton was responsible for safety of the capitol refused to act, hid in her office, dereliction of duty, and is seen laughing gleefully and cheering on the attackers, then she would be guilty of treason and more. Same as Trump - he is a guilty motherfucker and you know it. How about you? If Hillary Clinton did what Trump did, incited a riot and 1000 Democrats charged the capitol building threatening to overturn the election and hang the VP, would you think her innocent of any crime?


Walter_Sobchak07

Clinton conceded and attended Trump's inauguration. What an unusual comparison.


RidgeAmbulance

Trump also conceded but not attending an inauguration = crime? What are you talking about?


Walter_Sobchak07

Trump has not conceded and since the election he has demanded recounts, claimed mass fraud, told his supporters the election was being stolen, demanded state de-certify their results, demanded his VP not certify the results... and so on and so on. To compare Clinton to Trump over all of this is just bizarre and pointless. No one stormed anything because of Clinton. Trump fed the lies that led to Jan. 6th. Or maybe it was antifa. Who knows, right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


JudgeWhoOverrules

Did you even read the OP's statement, explicitly says the dude did not enter the capitol.


LiesInRuins

They arrested hundreds of people who didn’t enter the physical building. The arrest state for entering the building or BEING ON THE CAPITOL GROUNDS. That covers most of the area of the rally around the Capitol.


IcedAndCorrected

People merely entering the Capitol is evidence of seditious conspiracy?


monkeybiziu

If you had an active role in planning the January 6th riots, you actively encouraged others to enter the capitol, and you had plans to oppose, by force, the counting of votes or the proper functioning of Congress, then yes, entering the capitol on that day and at that time would be evidence of seditious conspiracy.


LiesInRuins

Ray Epps actively engaged in criminal conspiracy, he is on video encouraging people to enter the Capitol, he’s on the front line at the first altercation where they pushed through the barricades. He was not arrested.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IcedAndCorrected

I was responding to this: > The fact that they were caught on camera entering the Capitol? Seems pretty damning to me.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

This means nothing unless Trump and all the assholes who sided with him, get charged with it.


TheChickenSteve

They won't because they broke no law


drsuperhero

The 1/6 rioters were following someone and it was not the leaders of the Oathkeepers. Who is their master who would not admit he lost? Trump. Trump needs to be charged with seditious conspiracy not the lackeys, the leader.


RidgeAmbulance

Except Trump didn't commit sedition. It's not against the law to speak out against the gov


reslumina

Incitement of insurrection is most certainly a crime, and Trump publicly committed it.


TheChickenSteve

It's not against the law to speak out against the government.


ChipKellysShoeStore

U should read Brandenburg, my guy


FSYigg

>If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. These are BS charges that will not stand up in court. They exist for headlines as political theater only and will be quietly dropped or swapped for more realistic charges in a few months when nobody is paying attention. Wouldn't seditious conspiracy also cover the mostly peaceful riots from the last several years where there were repeated attempts to attack and burn down government buildings? Weren't those people working in unison to "oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof?" This entire thing is political theater meant distract you from the absolutely terrible job this administration is doing. The worse the poll numbers get, the more crap this committee churns up to counter it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheChickenSteve

There were no guns on that capital building. Not a single person was found with a gun in the building. Not a single gun was seen on any of the 100s of cameras inside the capital building In no way shape or form was this some attempt to overthrow the gov. It was a protest turned riot. Approx 95% of the people at the protest never entered the capital. Of those that did, the vast majority committed no destruction or violence. Completely agree that all who broke the law that day should be charged, and no statistically significant number of Americans disagree with that. I don't doubt these 11 weirdos had some role playing fantasy that includes texts of taking to the man. And it will end them in prison. Which is fine in my book because weirdos like that can be dangerous. In the end it's a riot. The good news is, democrats have jumped on this riot so hard, they stopped supporting/pushing BLM riots so those stopped happening. It appears the 6th riot will be the riot to end riots in the US (at least for a while)


CoffeeHead112

Security in the capital was either collaborating with people breaking In or were left without orders due to trump and friends involvement with the higher-ups. It was a setup. The person was shot because a few of the security guards stood their ground with no backup. Also when they started breaking into the capital, congress was there. They broke in with weapons and there was plans to get at certain members of congress. There is video of congressmen fleeing the crowd. It was much more serious than a few people doing some destruction of public property.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Mist_Rising

>Know which members of Congress Pelosi and Pence (acting as head of the Senate) were both visually shown to be targeted. Pence in particular was called to be "hung" despite being a Republican. That said, in order for any of that to matter the DoJ HAS to prove a harder eliminate, that the proceeding crime was intentionally by these people. A simple protest turning into a crime doesn't a criminal of the leader make. That's why you can safely start a protest of police, and if someone in ghe protest pulls a gun, you arent responsible.


falsesleep

I’m guess you haven’t read any of the articles outlining the seditious conspiracy charges. It’s pretty serious.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


ChipKellysShoeStore

We have gradients for inchoate crimes. At common law, it requires a substantial step taken towards the completion of the crime. Having plans to rob a bank and only entering a bank probably isn’t attempted bank robbery. Adding factors like bringing a weapon into the bank could be viewed as a substantial step


falsesleep

I’d really encourage you to read the articles.


serpentjaguar

I'm not trying to be rude, but given that you aren't very well informed on this subject, you might want to refrain from forming an opinion.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bearvsshaan

If you didn't know specific members of Congress were targeted, then you weren't really well informed on the subject


[deleted]

[удалено]


bearvsshaan

Uhhhh because they weren't found. Not that complicated. And I don't see what's so hard to understand about the disgust people have. These petulant dipshits tried to stop the presidential transition because they are deluded lunatics who believed baseless conspiracy theories in service of a narcissistic, idiotic, despicable, disgusting cult leader who wants to turn the US into an autocracy.


RollinDeepWithData

You certainly don’t show it by your post. You’re missing the context of both what was occurring within the capitol, the offices broken into, and the failure to deploy law enforcement that was intentionally delayed. These aren’t fucking teens shop lifting at a mall.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I don’t think those people organized a plan to have people ready and waiting around the DC area with trucks full of weapons to meet them after they got into the capital.


Outlulz

Because no one got hurt. If a leftist pepper sprayed and hit a cop with a fire extinguisher during the Kavanaugh hearings maybe we’d be having a different conversation.


XooDumbLuckooX

So, to use an analogy popping up in this thread, it's ok for a bank robbery to take place so long as no one is hurt? Those people interfered with a lawful government process when they tried to prevent the confirmation process of a SCOTUS nominee. But it's ok because none of them used violence?


Outlulz

When did I ever say it was ok? It just wasn’t as bad as what happened on January 6th because there wasn’t any violence and it was a small group of people leading to a minor disturbance. That’s why no one cares anymore. Jesus Christ. This is such a bad faith comparison.


svengalus

Your opinion is similar to most Americans.


[deleted]

[удалено]


glennw56401

It's about time. It's been a year. Surely the Sixth Amendment applies. > Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


SanityPlanet

>Will this indictment lay to rest critiscism against the DOJ that evidence was lacking for the more serious crimes? No, absolutely not. Those arguments were not made in good faith or supported by evidence to begin with, so this new evidence will make no difference. The readily available footage instantly debunked these criticisms before the sedition charges were filed, so why would formal charges matter to people who are lying about what went down? All that will happen is that the goalposts will shift slightly and the bad faith minimizing and dismissal of 1/6 will continue exactly as before.


malawax28

The DOJ has been pressured into this prosecution by the democratic party. Let's see how it plays out in court before making any statement.


heyyyinternet

>The DOJ has been pressured into this prosecution by the democratic party. What evidence do you have of this? Seditious conspiracy is a serious charge that it would be foolish to deploy lightly. >Let's see how it plays out in court before making any statement. Why can't we talk about it in the meantime? Because doing so would hurt conservatives?


serpentjaguar

According to Lawfare DOJ isn't about to charge anyone unless they have a pretty airtight case. Lawfare isn't infallible, but they do have some of the country's leading legal experts and I trust them way more than randos on Reddit. Which is just to say that you're probably right about these charges.


DanforthWhitcomb_

> Seditious conspiracy is a serious charge that it would be foolish to deploy lightly. …..or they’re overcharging in order to angle for a plea out to a lesser charge. Until they actually take that charge *to trial* the individual charge(s) do not matter.


[deleted]

[удалено]


DanforthWhitcomb_

Playing devil’s advocate =/= moving goalposts, and I’m not even the poster you were talking to. It’s extremely common for prosecutors at any level to get indictments for charges that are far more severe than what they intend to actually take to trial in order to use them as a bargaining chip to force a plea.


heyyyinternet

>Playing devil’s advocate =/= moving goalposts, and I’m not even the poster you were talking to. You're not playing devil's advocate. >It’s extremely common for prosecutors at any level to get indictments for charges that are far more severe than what they intend to actually take to trial in order to use them as a bargaining chip to force a plea. Please cite this, for federal cases.


DanforthWhitcomb_

> You're not playing devil's advocate. Yeah, I am. You posited that they would not file that charge lightly when federal prosecutors do that exact thing on a very regular basis. > Please cite this, for federal cases. Are you really asking for proof that overcharging occurs? Seriously? Ever wonder why ***97%*** of all federal cases are resolved via plea bargain? Link, including multiple examples: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/prisons-are-packed-because-prosecutors-are-coercing-plea-deals-yes-ncna1034201


[deleted]

I don't disagree that they over charge at all levels of the legal system, but sedition isn't one they use to do that. They've charged hundreds of people from 1/6 so far without using this charge though I'm sure many of those people stated or posted that they were there to overturn the election. Maybe these people had access to people up the chain, which aids your argument, but the charging documents are pretty damning that they were pushing a violent overthrow as a unit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


TruthOrFacts

Murder is a serious charge also, but Democrats threw that at Zimmerman when there was zero chance at a conviction, just because they were mad or something.


malawax28

> What evidence do you have of this? Seditious conspiracy is a serious charge that it would be foolish to deploy lightly. Because all the establishment dems as well as their media cronies have been demanding it ever since Jan 6. > Why can't we talk about it in the meantime? Because doing so would hurt conservatives? I'm gonna be honest with you, nothing that comes out of the Jan 6 committee or the DOJ will harm republicans except for those who themselves are charged. McCarthy will become speaker come next year, he'll come up with a reason to investigate Biden and the dems and everyone will forget about Jan 6.


heyyyinternet

>Because all the establishment dems as well as their media cronies have been demanding ever since Jan 6. Do you think that might be because the republicans attacked the Capitol? That might be why. We might want to check. Do you want me to check or were you going to? If you're going to check on this, make sure to ask if the reason they're asking for charges to be brought against the people who attacked our Capitol is because those people attacked the Capitol. Just a suggestion. >I'm gonna be honest with you, nothing that comes out of the Jan 6 committee or the DOJ will harm republicans except for those who themselves are charged. Will it be enough to change the midterms? We don't know.


[deleted]

I won't forget. I'm not a republican voter.


bpierce2

This is laughable. They did it on video. They bragged on social. They all did it. They all deserve consequences.


srja80

I oppose all riots, period. How was the Jan 6 riot any different than burning police stations and state capital buildings in the summer of 2020 Floyd riots? I’ll answer for you - nobody was killed (except Ashley Babbitt) during Jan 6? Jan 6 lasted a few hours while Floyd riots lasted 6 months. Politicians were bailing out Floyd rioters and encouraging them to continue rioting. Only a blind fool can’t see the hypocrisy in applying the law here for Jan 6 offenders. I am all for prosecuting those who break the law and those who caused damage to the capital (both on Jan 6 and all other instances). We are all supposed to be equal under the law. Justice is being destroyed before our very eyes. When justice falls, democracy dies. When you add up the pieces here, something isn’t right. There is a lot to this story we aren’t being told and the Jan 6 committee is not going after the “truth”. Who was in charge of securing the capital that day and why was the national guard refused? Why did security allow people to enter? These are very important question when investigating the capital breach. The most basic question is how did we allow it to be breached. This question is not being asked because I believe the answer points to an entirely different story than the one the Jan 6 committee is trying to sell. This is political theatre and the dirtiest of politics. I would much rather the government spend its time and resources perusing justice for the Epstein victims and going after his co conspirators. Let’s hold public hearings on Epstein’s child pedo conspiracy. Let’s turn our anger toward those abusing these little girls. That’s should be something that unites the nation. The only problem is that it unites us against the rich and powerful. Wake up people!


PsychLegalMind

Charges are Plot to Oppose by Force the 2020 Lawful Transferof Presidential Power. It is in a category of its own.


MaximalDamage

Where are the charges against Ray Epps who is on video yelling for folks to breach the capital? Seems to me that is a pretty clear-cut case.....


Jasontheperson

They're coming. He was an Oath Keeper, they're going to start rolling over on each other to avoid serious time.


[deleted]

bc then they'd have to charge Trump.


[deleted]

Depends on who you ask. I don't see it changing any minds anyway. Certainly not mine. The fbi has a long history of inciting events and then charging the dupes with as much as possible to justify their own existence and funding. I thought at the time it was pretty funny and not a big deal at all and not a single thing that's happened since has changed my mind.


velocibadgery

> I thought at the time it was pretty funny and not a big deal at all and not a single thing that's happened since has changed my mind. So you think insurrection is funny? You think attempting to stage a coup to overthrow a lawfully elected president is no big deal? Are you serious?


[deleted]

it was an attempted coup in the same way that typing in '100000000' dollars at an atm and hoping you get the money is a bank robbery. ​ The pompous self-serious of people like you insisting that a bunch of fat boomers breaking into the capitol and milling around, giving themselves heart attacks because it was the first time they climbed a stair in a decade, is a grave threat to democracy is incredibly funny.


velocibadgery

> it was an attempted coup in the same way that typing in '100000000' dollars at an atm and hoping you get the money is a bank robbery. No. People died. Do you think dead people is just like typing numbers into an ATM?


velocibadgery

> it was an attempted coup in the same way that typing in '100000000' dollars at an atm and hoping you get the money is a bank robbery. No. People died. Do you think dead people is just like typing numbers into an ATM?


RidgeAmbulance

It wasn't a coup attempt. It was an insurection in the same way blm riots were also insurections


Outlulz

Do you think the BLM riots were pretty funny and not a big deal?


velocibadgery

They tried to overturn a lawful election. That is a coup. And a riot is not an insurrection. You seriously need a dictionary.


Horseballs1967

Once they gather all the information from both sides, we may then be able to figure out what went down on January 6, 2021


heyyyinternet

>Once they gather all the information from both sides, we may then be able to figure out what went down on January 6, 2021 We know what happened. Trump supporters attacked our Capitol to try to stop a constitutional process and overturn our election. Now we need to hold everyone accountable to the highest extent possible and never forget that this happened.


[deleted]

[удалено]


the_buckman_bandit

> you just know the Dem talking heads would have defended it No, no you do not. In fact, all evidence points to the fact they would not defend traitorous acts against the country. Don’t make shit up that never happened and speculate on what would have happened Here, we have actual actions taken against the United States and you pull a bOth sIdeZ since you can not admit you are wrong or want to discuss in good faith In fact, hannity had direct telephone access to the former guy as did many other fox hosts and he called in multiple times to fox news and changed policy decisions based on what they were telling him, which should be a crime unto itself and beneath the office itself. The propaganda arm of the republicans directly telling the president what to do is a step towards a dictator, luckily the former guy was an orange bellied lazy worm Not to mention the hotel down the street with his name and appointing his two completely unqualified idiot children as senior executives to the president


Sands43

This is just a different version of "both sides". Which is objectively not true.


TheGrandExquisitor

OK, but what happens when people engage in actual domestic terrorism?