I agree that the smorgasbord of incompatible themes provides a means of plausible deniability. I am proposing that it also reflects the motley crew gathered under his tent.

The Sovereign individual movement rejects government, as such. The various nationalists' movements who seek state power range from the old school white civilization vision of Buchanan to the 'anti-globalist' stew of Bannon. The Christian evangelists are fairly represented in the Heritage Foundation paper I linked to previously. The anti-regulation message serves the interests of the wealthy to become more so. Old school Libertarians want isolationism, etcetera.

The degree to which Trump could be said to genuinely support these various ideas has to be seen through the lens of his experiences in New York City. This article, How Gotham Gave Us Trump, gives a helpful account of his view of the world. The dynamic of wanting to be recognized by a certain elite while simultaneously seeking to punish them for not doing so still is alive today.

This case was always a longshot, but this ruling may actually set the stage for good outcome on appeal. Findings of facts from a trial are rarely overturned on appeal, and it seems to me the finding that Trump engaged in insurrection may be a finding of fact. On the other hand, interpretations of law and constitution are the typical basis for an appellate court overturning a ruling.

Michael Luttig and Laurence Tribe made this point on MSNBC this morning. They suggested this may have even been the strategy of the trial judge. (I realize MSNBC tends to tell Democrats what they want to hear, but nevertheless it's an interesting theory).

Another anti-democratic legal theory tossed in the dust bin. But then the judge falters on basic 1st amendment jurisprudence, giving anti-democratic forces some form of solace as they continue their schemes.

Trump incited an insurrection and should be in prison. In the past, hanged for treason.

Just like to occasionally point out the facts in the midst of all the make believe the cultists have developed like bad improv comedy.

:up: Is there a word for ‘sleepwalking into a nightmare?’ ‘Cause that’s what a lot of people seem to be doing.

The tribalism is so glaringly obvious it’s hilarious. Watching them go after Biden (often rightly so, in my view) and then turn around and go through the most pathetic contortions to defend Trump…just classic.

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence.

I think this only shows that the protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Do they also piss into the wind?

The protesters were too stupid to run away from pepper spray and rubber bullets. Don’t forget, there was also the one that was too stupid to run away from the real bullet.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :worry:

Who received a bronze statue for BLM rioting? Oh, you mean the slavers statue that was pulled down. Were you a fan or something? Why do care so much about that?

We didn’t get to see any of this in the J6 inquiry, which used Hollywood producers to gin up a slick narrative, but with the release of the footage we’re finally allowed to see what they hid. Here’s some footage showing Capitol officers using indiscriminate violence against protesters, inciting violence. — NOS4A2

If the time stamp on the video is correct, these "provocations" by police officers began at 1:15PM. By then, the following had already occurred:

12:45 p.m - FBI, Capitol Police, and ATF responded to a pipe bomb that had been found outside RNC HQ,
12:49PM - Police found a vehicle that contained home-made napalm, a loaded M4, and molotov cocktails
12:53PM - the outer perimeter of barricades at the Capitol had been breached
1:03PM - 3 layers of barricades had been breached
1:07PM - A pipe bomb was found outside DNC HQ

So it looks to me like the poster of that video is still trying to rationalize his irrational denialism regarding 1/6. Not one shred of that "slick narrative" you refer to is debunked.

This highly edited video makes me wish the police had used even greater force. Something similar to the force they use against peaceful pro-Palestinian demonstrators anyway.

This video only shows their restraint. Those imbeciles should have never been there anyway. They’re very lucky they weren’t mowed down.

I’m sure the police would have had such restraint if the crowd were black or Muslim. I’m sure they would have been allowed to stroll into the Capitol and shit in the hallways too.

Your racism sure does shine through sometimes.

I remember at the time thinking how if the rioters were not predominantly white it would have been more than simply tear gas being shot at them. I was amazed at the level of restraint showed by the Capitol police. Nothing in any new footage released has changed my opinion on that. Why, for example, couldn't the protesters have stayed out on the street? Why advance on the building itself? Why try to enter the building? The idea that the police, FBI informants, Antifa or any other crazy theory is the 'true reason' for the escalation is just a sad attempt to deny responsibility for what we all saw with our own eyes that day. We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. None of this would have happened if they had stayed on the street.

I think he's referring to this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_George_Floyd

Ah.

It is admirable that Floyd turned his life around with the help of the church. After being found libel for fraud and rape, and facing scores of felony charges, there’s no sign that Trump’s going to turn his life around. Despite all that there’s also no sign that NOS, who’s been diligently defending Trump in this thread for years, thinks that he’s a scumbag. No Trump supporter would say that Trump’s a scumbag. If fact, many claim that he was chosen by God.

So when a person like NOS calls someone a scumbag it is meaningless.

I don't think George Floyd deserves the sainthood bestowed upon him by popular opinion, but I couldn't agree more about everything else.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people indiscriminately and without warning. They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

We saw an angry mob fired up by Trump's rhetoric and the Big Lie about the election being stolen! And their purpose wasn't to protest, it was to disrupt, otherwise they would have never attempted to enter the Capitol building itself. — GRWelsh

Exactly. One point does have credibility, in my view: that militia were “leading the way,” so to speak. Oath Keepers, etc. That’s not a surprise, though, and doesn’t negate why people were there to begin with: they were whipped up into a frenzy by lies of a stolen election. Given that they actually believed that stupid bullshit, it’s no wonder they wanted to storm the Capitol.

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces. — NOS4A2

If they are black, it wouldn’t be “less than lethal.” There should consider themselves very lucky indeed.

There are 44,000 hours of January 6th video footage. Of course you can find footage that wasn't displayed in the January 6th Committee Hearings. Now, either side can cherry pick all they want, but so far I haven't seen anything to change the overall narrative. The protesters pushed past barricades the Capitol police set up to keep them out, and in response they were hit with non-lethal police devices like tear gas, rubber bullets and concussion grenades. They should have stayed on the street.

The way I see it is: on the street they were protesters, pushing past the police barricades and approaching the Capitol building they were rioters, and breaking into the Capitol building and trying to get into the rooms where Congress was certifying the election results they were insurrectionists. If you want to understand why and where Ashli Babbitt got shot, this is how to frame it. She was attempting to climb through a broken window beside a barricaded door into the Speaker's Lobby while Capitol police were evacuating members of Congress to keep them safe. These people weren't protesting peacefully, they were trying to intimidate and prevent Congress from certifying Biden as the President.

They’re throwing concussion grenades into the crowd of people... — NOS4A2

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

They’re shooting less-than-lethal rounds into people’s faces.

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Did you see any of this in the J6 show trial?

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

...who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol? — Relativist

It seems he's defending an attempt to overthrow the government and disregard democracy in order to whitewash Trump's connection to it.

Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump and everyone else trying to get the discussion down to earth?

The strangest correlations ... :)

Christian nationalists party at Mar-a-Lago and warn of God's wrath if Trump loses again (— Brad Reed · Raw Story · Nov 21, 2023)

Trump has long praised autocrats and populists. He’s now embracing Argentina’s new president (— Nicholas Riccardi, Jill Colvin · AP · Nov 21, 2023)

... or maybe not. That Lance Wallnau fellow is a goner. I guess we'll see what Javier Milei is going to do.

Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump — Christoffer

Responding to trolls is counter-productive. Best to ignore.

who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet?

The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?

Yes, they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet? — NOS4A2

The reports show that pepper spray, tear gas, and concussion grenades were used to disperse a crowd of hundreds. By contrast, it’s estimated that ten thousand were at the insurrection, two thousand of which made it into the capital building.

If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force. — NOS4A2

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.

100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?

What should police have done on 1/6? What do you think they would have done had they tried breaking into the White House in 2020?

I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.

Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.

They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding.This justifies the indiscriminate throwing of concussion grenades into the crowd, who are all criminals, according to Relativist. That's all I needed to know.

You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.

I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed.

I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house, which spread beyond the temporary barriers into the streets where private property was destroyed and (of course) looted. I'm just wondering where all the investigative committees and finger-wagging about "our democracy" is. This apparent hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed.

Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.

A "show trial" isn't an actual trial either.

Again, my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries, or at least I missed it. But you did see this footage in the hearings? There were 10 hearings in total (C-Span). Do you recall which hearing it was? I'd like to see it with my own eyes.