Shard

Trump's speech has to be taken in the whole. He's speaking to a fanatical mob of supporters and he's stoking up resentment about a stolen election and the need for wrongs to be righted. He's not naive enough to explicitly demand or suggest that the mob storm the Capitol. Read the speech and draw your own conclusions, not as a lawyer seeking to defend someone, but as a MAGA hat wearing patriot who has been listen to two months of invective about how the election has been stolen. Read between the lines, as that's the connection between the rally speech and the attack of the Capitol.

Only a protestor can assert his personal reason for breaking through security and seeking members of Congress. However, what do you think was the reason for those most violent and determined ? Does disrupting the confirmation seem a possibility or was the whole episode only about selfies? What seems more likely to you?

Almost Canadian

I accept that disrupting the confirmation may have been a motive. That is a far cry from overthrowing the government.

I've listened to all 70 minutes of his speech and, as I am not a MAGA hat wearing patriot, I can't put myself in their shoes or understand why they acted the way they did, as it makes no sense to me.

Shard

Maybe we're stuck on semantics here. Since up thread you mentioned that you were involved in defending against an insurrection (Northern Ireland ??) you may view the marauding protestors as un-serious threat.

I don't totally dismiss you scepticism or reservations, but I do think that the momentum was very much toward interfering with a democratic result. And in the context of the USA, which prides itself on constitutional integrity, that level of interference constitutes an attempt to overthrow the government.

Violent and deadly struggle is not a condition of immense political change. If you look back to the Soviet Union, it's collapse was brought about by some signed documents of those in power at the time.
​​​​​

Almost Canadian

Not NI, although I was there, insurrections in which the UK was attempting to overthrow the then government. As I am sure you are aware, it isn't only the US that becomes involved in such things.

I don't agree that the politicians in the US give a crap about constitutional integrity, as can be seen by the current discussions regarding reforms to voting. It will be interesting to see if the government's senators uphold constitutional integrity. It appears that most will agree with what Biden appears to want but a few holdouts may result with him not getting what he wants.

FWIW, I can't see any reason why both sides would be against allowing as many eligible voters to be able to cast votes, in a way that guarantees that only those that are eligible to vote can do so. I don't understand why, when the rest of the world requires those eligible to vote to prove that they are eligible, when the Democrats appear to oppose this, or why the polling stations cannot be kept open for times/days, so at to ensure that the maximum numbers are able to vote, which the Republicans appear to oppose (I appreciate that this is a gross oversimplification). I appreciate why each side holds their position, but I fail to see how anyone can find either sides' position credible. But that's US politics for you: Refuse everything the other side says, even if it is perfectly sensible.

I accept that regimes can be changed with minimal casualties but I am confident that you will also accept that that is not the norm. If the media wish to whip up that Trump incited his supporters to overthrow the government, rather than simply accept that a large group of people took some action, likely couldn't believe how easy it was to enter the Capitol and then did so, they will have to come up with evidence that supports that narrative. As I have stated, I don't believe that they have to date but I accept that that may change once the investigation has run its course.

kimilseung

11 people charged with seditious conspiracy over Jan 6

BristolUK

Leader of Oath Keepers militia group faces sedition charge over Capitol attack

Yes, but that can't be serious can it. There weren't enough people injured or killed.

kimilseung

And the investigation hasn't run it's course yet, either.

Shard

CNN was commenting the fact that during the riot/insurrection, Trump himself said nothing for a whole two hours. As the sitting president, and as someone asserting that he was re-elected, surely a higher level of leadership is requisite. A simple tweet to "stand down" and clarify that he objected to entering the Capitol is all that would be required. Omission of which speaks volumes: after goading the mob on, he sat back to watch whether the power could be taken back.

dbd33

Note that his trusted associates, Hannity, Ingraham, and others, were sending text messages asking him to stop the insurrection. He chose not to and his inaction may yet be the subject of a criminal charge.

Shard

Really?! I didn't know that. I've always viewed Trump as a narcissist, but it seems he's a sociopath too.

bats

Its a feature of narcissism. They care for no one but themselves and that includes wellbeing.

BEVS

Yes.

kimilseung

Leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio , to be charged with Seditious conspiracy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61712873

spouse of scouse

Excellent!

Danny B

Who's a naughty boy then? Nicking classified documents from the WH and bringing them home. Tut tut Mr Trump.