Split Thread A second impeachment

[MRC_Hans]

Yup - very true. The protesters EXACTLY used the DA3 aircraft with twin 130lb bombs to devastate the Capital building entrance, allowing the Nakajima B5N to use torpedo's to penetrate the interior.

I agree that the Pearl Harbour analogy is misplaced, among other things because it was an act of war from another nation. And of course, it was far more violent.

However ...

Oh wait.. no.. that didn't happen did it ? It was just a few hundred people who broke a couple of glass doors, and wandered around the interior doing no damage (other than stealing a few keepsakes), before peacefully leaving.

Here you are wrong. Sure, the rioters were poorly organized and not very efficient, but people were killed, death threats were made. A serious, if incompetent, attempt at usurping the democratic process WAS made.

And how - precisely - do you envisage the few hundred aforementioned people overthrowing the American democracy ?

I don't. However, what matters is that from all evidence, they intended to. If you tried to kill somebody, that is attempted murder, no matter how inefficient you were.

^{I mean.. really ? How ? By the time the crowd entered the capital building, the politicians had been evacuated. What did you anticipate ? Insurrection by Selfie ? Because that's all that most of the crowd DID. Take photographs of each other.}

On the highlighted: Incorrect. Politicians and important staff were still in the building, hiding on balconies and under tables.

For the rest: Vandalism, deaths, injuries, death threats. Sure, numerically most probably just followed along. So, do you think this insurrection is no problem because the the insurrectionists were incompetent and ineffective?

This significance of this entire event has been HUGELYL exaggerated.

I think it can hardly be exaggerated. A president lost a democratic election, but refused to acknowledge it, and incited riots to try to overthrow the democratic result. It doesn't get much worse than that. In some way, the fact that he was even too incompetent to mount anything other than a disorganized mob is even worse: How can anybody defend this?

Hans

ETA: OK, I see I was largely ninja'd here. Never mind, can't be repeated too often.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Why didn't the police show more use of force during the riots...

Because that would may have lead to a much worse situation. Many, many wounded and killed, dozens of dead police officers and screaming masses of people trampling each other to death. Police know that you don't do such things unless you have the force and resources to win.

That's why I think they chose not to use their guns. They might have still been overrun and then they would be killed.

It's a different matter to shoot the one person climbing through a window.

Wouldn't it depend on when they decided to use force?

Yes, in the middle of a crowded room where the protestors had already gained access might have been a problem... close quarters might cause a panic, or would allow the terrorists to over-power the police. But, using weapons on people when they were either attempting to break into the capitol in the first place, or when there was significant distance between the police and the terrorists (I'm thinking of the iconic image of the cop leading protestors up the incorrect hallway) might have caused the terrorists to back off.

After all, the terrorists were stupid, but I suspect they had enough instinct for self-preservation that they would be unwilling to sacrifice their lives, and i doubt any would have wanted to be "first", even if there was a large crowd behind them.

 

[dudalb]

Don't the endings of most wars kind of feel like that, though? You think it's going to be this great happy Hollywood Ending with everyone slapping each other on the back and drinking toasts, but then Hitler shoots himself in the head, and you've still got months of mopping up to do...

Things in real life never end as neatly as they do in movies and novels.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They are presenting an excellent case for Trump creating and commanding the violent attack on the Capitol.

I don't expect the defense to have anything to counter this. They are going to argue all the times Trump said "peaceful protest" as if that negates all the rest.

Dean just addressed the one time Trump said "peaceful protest", taking the wind out of the defense sails.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wouldn't it depend on when they decided to use force?

Yes, in the middle of a crowded room where the protestors had already gained access might have been a problem... close quarters might cause a panic, or would allow the terrorists to over-power the police. But, using weapons on people when they were either attempting to break into the capitol in the first place, or when there was significant distance between the police and the terrorists (I'm thinking of the iconic image of the cop leading protestors up the incorrect hallway) might have caused the terrorists to back off.

After all, the terrorists were stupid, but I suspect they had enough instinct for self-preservation that they would be unwilling to sacrifice their lives, and i doubt any would have wanted to be "first", even if there was a large crowd behind them.

Of course, "when", that's why the one woman was shot and killed.

The Capitol Police never had a decent defensible position to start with.

 

[alfaniner]

I restate my pleasure at the irony of seeing clips from the video of his speech, with the unintentional big "X" over his face reflected in the bulletproof glass.

I second that. Besides, I've got stock in Trump Kool Aid and my husband's retiring soon.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166960242f8c55ed8.jpg[/qimg]

Makes me tempted to do a similar one with an item that was called Jolly Ollie Orange -- "Jolly Donnie Orange". But my days of Photoshopping that guy are over.

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Why didn't the police show more use of force during the riots...

Wouldn't it depend on when they decided to use force?

Yes, in the middle of a crowded room where the protestors had already gained access might have been a problem... But, using weapons on people when they were either attempting to break into the capitol in the first place, or when there was significant distance between the police and the terrorists might have caused the terrorists to back off.

Of course, "when", that's why the one woman was shot and killed.

The Capitol Police never had a decent defensible position to start with.

But the question is COULD they have had a defensive position?

Set up just inside the entrance of the capitol to take on anyone who comes in the main door. Find 'choke points' in the building. Perhaps the reason they didn't have a decent defensible position is that they gave up all such positions without putting up any significant resistance.

 

[Vixen]

I didn't know the resignation of Barr was the day after he told Trump there was no significant fraud found. I knew both happened, I just didn't know how directly they were related.

Delegate Stacey Plaskett of Virgin Islands used an excerpt from the INDEPENDENT re Barr.

(Censored by myself.)

 

[dudalb]

Bombshell: The Democratic Porsuectors (that is pretty much what they are) just introduced strong evidence that Trump knew about the Insurrection is advance.
I think this is making a criminal prosecution very likely regradless of the outcome of the impeachment trial.

 

[eerok]

Bombshell: The Democratic Porsuectors (that is pretty much what they are) just introduced strong evidence that Trump knew about the Insurrection is advance.
I think this is making a criminal prosecution very likely regradless of the outcome of the impeachment trial.

I'd love to see it happen. No one could deserve it more.

 

[Vixen]

Re planning and premeditation: Did Trump know that his supporters would riot? The prosecution today (Raskin, Neguse, Costa, Lieu, Shallwell, Dean and Plaskett) made a strong case that:

• Trump had been using key words and phrase since BEFORE the elections (fraud, rigging and stealing)
• He had encouraged and witnessed violence at the two million MAGA marches in December
• He knew the Proud Boys had adopted his 'Stand Back Stand By' slogan
• When a Proud Boys convey deliberately crashed into a Biden campaign bus forcing it off the road, Trump tweeted the video next day saying, 'TEXAS I LOVE YOU!' He added 'fighting music' to it.
• His Communications Aide, Dan Scavino had kept a close eye on social media and knew the MAGA extremist groups were planning violence
• With a Trumpite called Kremer, he changed the date of a planned event from 20 Jan to 6 Jan. She tweeted 'We are sending the Calvary' [sic]
• In effect, Trump was well aware that literally hundreds of people in front of him were reckless violent thugs at his Save America rally
• It seems inescapable he knew they planned to storm Capitol Hill using whatever means necessary
• Witnesses reported Trump seemed 'delighted' watching the events unfold live.

Even when told the FBI were investigating the dangerous driving bus scenario Trump failed to condemn the behaviour.

 

[Stacyhs]

These people call themselves patriots. What they are are idiots and criminals.

 

[Vixen]

They are presenting an excellent case for Trump creating and commanding the violent attack on the Capitol.

I don't expect the defense to have anything to counter this. They are going to argue all the times Trump said "peaceful protest" as if that negates all the rest.

Dean just addressed the one time Trump said "peaceful protest", taking the wind out of the defense sails.

Do you know what? Madeline Dean points out that out of 11,000 words used by Trump at his Save America rally 6 Jan 2021, do we know how many times he used the 'peaceful'-word...?







Yes we do!








...Just once.

 

[Vixen]

A clip of Vice President Mike Pence being escorted to safety.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1359618945255419905?s=20

Kaitlan Collins
@kaitlancollins
Truly remarkable footage of Vice President Pence and his family being escorted out of the Senate chamber. President Trump was back at the White House, continuing to trash Pence, according to multiple people.

 

[Bob001]

But the question is COULD they have had a defensive position?

Set up just inside the entrance of the capitol to take on anyone who comes in the main door. Find 'choke points' in the building. Perhaps the reason they didn't have a decent defensible position is that they gave up all such positions without putting up any significant resistance.

Can't find a link, but I recall reading that the Capitol has around 400 entrance points on the ground level. Not just the "main" doors (of which there are many) but the secondary doors and all the windows. Some rioters smashed through windows. This is a big, big building. The only way to secure the building would have been to install strong fences around the perimeter -- something they did after the fact, and could easily have done before.

 

[shemp]

OMG Eric Swalwell just drank water without putting his hand on his head!

 

[Minoosh]

But the question is COULD they have had a defensive position?

IMO, of course they could have had a defensible position. But I don't know whose job it was to think of that. Well, the head of the Capitol Police could deploy his own people, but I think there was some decision not to heavily involve DC police, and neither of those agencies have the power to call in the kind of reinforcements that Trump used in his Bible photo. There are plenty of federal police in DC. But those are executive-branch agencies - probably the White House could deploy them, but expecting help from the White House was futile.

Set up just inside the entrance of the capitol to take on anyone who comes in the main door. Find 'choke points' in the building. Perhaps the reason they didn't have a decent defensible position is that they gave up all such positions without putting up any significant resistance.

This is veering into the coup thread vs. impeachment but I had a different idea - heavily defend the outside with beefed-up police presence. (Or military, or whoever. This is freakin' Congress! Of course the Capitol could have been defended.) This show of force would probably need more than just the Capitol police though.

 

[Minoosh]

Here's a fantasy: Sometime soon, enough Republican senators introduce a measure to end the proceedings, saying they've seen enough to convict, and they know from introductory remarks that Trump has no viable defense.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because that would may have lead to a much worse situation. Many, many wounded and killed, dozens of dead police officers and screaming masses of people trampling each other to death. Police know that you don't do such things unless you have the force and resources to win.

...or unless they're protestors you know are going to be peaceful and you're just using their supposed violence as an excuse, like the protests last summer.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the question is COULD they have had a defensive position?
Set up just inside the entrance of the capitol to take on anyone who comes in the main door. Find 'choke points' in the building. Perhaps the reason they didn't have a decent defensible position is that they gave up all such positions without putting up any significant resistance.

I don't know how much of this we are going to hear but I suspect some. The order came from somewhere not to send the Nat'l guard, not to arm the Nat'l guard. The head of the CP resigned so obviously he was involved in some incompetence. But there was a Trump guy at the Pentagon level who blocked request for more security presence. The DC mayor said their police were ready to go but weren't called until after a delay. Apparently a VA Nat'l guard was called but it took time to get them ready, so more of a delay.

So they could have had defensible positions.