Monday, May 17

Jan 6 "Insurrection"

I have not written anything much political since just before the Jan 6 "Insurrection", as people on the left were going absolutely nuts, though I did promise I would comment once passions subsided.

One of my most favoured sources for unbiased news and opinion is Glenn Greenwald. He was a full-time practicing US constitutional and civil rights lawyer from 1994-2005. He then started his Unclaimed Territory blog and wrote a column for Salon, a progressive/liberal news and opinion website. Greenwald was described by Rachel Maddow during this period as "the American left's most fearless political commentator." In 2012 he went to work for Britain's Guardian newspaper.

While at The Guardian, Greenwald was one of the reporters who, on June 5, 2013, broke Snowden's leak of classified documents that exposed the NSA's massive global surveillance programs. This caught the then Director of National Intelligence under Obama, James Clapper, in a massive lie to Congress during an exchange at a hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee, March 12, 2013:

SEN. RON WYDEN (D-Ore.): "This is for you, Director Clapper, again on the surveillance front. And I hope we can do this in just a yes or no answer because I know Senator Feinstein wants to move on. Last summer, the NSA director was at a conference, and he was asked a question about the NSA surveillance of Americans. He replied, and I quote here, 'The story that we have millions or hundreds of millions of dossiers on people is completely false.'

"The reason I’m asking the question is, having served on the committee now for a dozen years, I don’t really know what a dossier is in this context. So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

Director of National Intelligence JAMES CLAPPER: "No, sir."

SEN. WYDEN: "It does not?"

DIR. CLAPPER: "Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly."

SEN. WYDEN: "Thank you. I’ll have additional questions to give you in writing on that point, but I thank you for the answer."

Clapper has yet to answer for his lie to Congress.

Greenwald left The Guardian in late 2013 to found The Intercept, an independent news and opinion outlet against press censorship. On October 29, 2020, Greenwald resigned from The Intercept because of political censorship by the editors who prevented him from reporting on the allegations concerning Joe and Hunter Biden's conduct with regard to China and Ukraine, and had demanded that he not publish the article in any other publication. All the details surrounding that are explained in My Resignation From the Intercept, and Emails with Intercept Editors Showing Censorship of my Joe Biden Article.

Greenwald went to substack and published his article there, where he remains as a fully independent columnist living in Brazil to this day.

Greenwald first reported on the so-called "Insurrection" on Jan 8 in his article Violence in the Capitol, Dangers in the Aftermath. He was critical of the obvious, and politically feigned, overreaction from the left and the mainstream media. And remember, Greenwald is associated more with the left himself. He says, comparing Jan 6 to the Antifa/BLM violence of the preceding summer,

Those who argued in the summer that property damage is meaningless or even noble are treating smashed windows and looted podiums at the Capitol as treason, as a coup. One need not dismiss the lamentable actions of yesterday to simultaneously reject efforts to apply terms that are plainly inapplicable: attempted coup, insurrection, sedition. There was zero chance that the few hundred people who breached the Capitol could overthrow the U.S. Government — the most powerful, armed and militarized entity in the world — nor did they try.

Elsewhere in that article, prescient about the massive overreaction to come, Greenwald writes,

This reductive, binary framework is anti-intellectual and dangerous. One can condemn a particular act while resisting the attempt to inflate the dangers it poses. One can acknowledge the very real existence of a threat while also warning of the harms, often far greater, from proposed solutions. One can reject maximalist, inflammatory rhetoric about an attack (a War of Civilizations, an attempted coup, an insurrection, sedition) without being fairly accused of indifference toward or sympathy for the attackers.

And,

It is stunning to watch now as every War on Terror rhetorical tactic to justify civil liberties erosions is now being invoked in the name of combatting Trumpism, including the aggressive exploitation of the emotions triggered by yesterday’s events at the Capitol to accelerate their implementation and demonize dissent over the quickly formed consensus. The same framework used to assault civil liberties in the name of foreign terrorism is now being seamlessly applied — often by those who spent the last two decades objecting to it — to the threat posed by “domestic white supremacist terrorists,” the term preferred by liberal elites, especially after yesterday, for Trump supporters generally. In so many ways, yesterday was the liberals’ 9/11, as even the most sensible commentators among them are resorting to the most unhinged rhetoric available.

Greenwald wrote several follow-up articles, decrying the attack on civil liberties in the wake of Jan.6, such as,

The one "fact" that kept people excited over Jan.6, was that a Capitol Hill Police officer Brian Sicknick, was battered in the head with a fire extinguisher by a Trump supporter until dead. As it turns out, and as Greenwald covers in The Media Lied Repeatedly About Officer Brian Sicknick's Death. And They Just Got Caught, that was a complete leftist and media fabrication. Read the article. Not even an iota of truth in it. How do you feel knowing that now? Do you feel lied to? You should.

147 comments:

  1. They were just ordinary tourists

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a bit of an extreme position also, although I'm sure a few tourists there for the protests got dragged along in the wake of it all. I would say it's still not answered who instigated it and why they were let in so easily, which is a stunning failure of the current government given the resources they've deployed to date.

      Delete
    2. I mean, you can't deny there was a rally held; the guy with the buffalo hat, microphone and placards wasn't sightseeing!

      I don't think you'll ever pin down a single instigator or spark that set off the key powder, I doubt anyone addressing the crowd actually gave the go ahead to start smashing up the place. You just get enough frustrated people together and rile them up and make them feel powerful and downtrodden and eventually someone's gonna snap.

      I was just watching a globe trotting gameshow thing, and one team had to be evacuated out of Chile because there was a nationwide strike and rioting. The voiceover said the rebellion was caused by an increase in subway fares, but really it was caused by extreme economic inequality, the fares were just a catalyst. I feel it's the same thing here; these dudes feel powerless and felt Trump was their guy and now that his time and theirs had come they were going to have one last hurrah. I do wonder if it could have been avoided had Trump been a bit more gracious about losing back in November, and indeed ever since, but Trump just isn't that guy.

      Delete
    3. There will be a commission to investigate and you will invent some reason to deny their conclusions

      Delete
    4. I'm looking forward to their conclusions.

      Delete
  2. Thank you for your perspective on a uniquely American problem. It may not be what your unique blog was created for but it serves a purpose

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome. US is and has always been a bastion of liberty, and that is now threatened, and that impacts people who love liberty the world over.

      Delete
    2. John Malkovich17 May 2021 at 20:30

      Is your name a reference to that movie they did about me? Kudos if it is!

      Delete
    3. The US being considered a bastion of liberty, is a fucking joke.

      Delete
    4. Name another country that has anything at all like the US Constitution. In what country are people more free?

      Delete
    5. Canada, UK, EU, India, Australia, New Zealand, Many countries of South America, Japan etc - all free countries and have relatively a comparable amount of, or in many cases MORE freedoms. Infact in all of these countries you not only have freedom TO do things, you also have freedom FROM certain things like racial abuse, verbal assault etc - In the US people can just hide behind the 1st amendment which leaves victims without any recourse.

      Delete
    6. As a Canadian I disagree on your first example. We have a very weak constitution re civil liberties compared to the US. Others have similar issues. If you think banning so-called "hate speech" is the path to freedom, you are sadly mistaken. Who decides what is "hate speech", you?

      Delete
    7. I dont. The laws of those countries do. Which are passed by politicians, representatives of the people, elected to office by the people of those countries. As someone who lived in the US before moving to Canada, it is absolutely not true that Canada has less civil liberties or that its laws are weaker.

      Delete
    8. The Canadian courts have been crap on freedom of expression, no 2nd amendment, and anything in our constitution can be overridden by provinces.

      Delete
    9. Don't you just love it Julie, when someone moves to your country as a FIRST generation immigrant and then tries to tell you about your laws and how 'free' you are, when chances are they have no freaking clue about the history of your laws, the underlying philosophies behind them, how your laws have been interpreted or abused or changed in the past, and basically can't trace their legal trajectory whether from less to more freedom or vice-versa? This is a prime example of why many people (myself included) think first or second generation immigrants should not be allowed to vote or any say in the government at all. Let them assimilate and show they have some 'skin in the game' first.

      Delete
    10. Happy to welcome legal immigrants and their vote once they pass the requirements for citizenship. But I do wish he was better educated.

      Delete
    11. To Clarence: Stop with the BS. I am very sure, that the majority of Canadians....forget Canadians, I am pretty sure YOU have no idea of the history of the laws of your own country or the 'philosophies' behind them. Also stop with the whole xenophobic bullshit as well - am pretty sure you dont want immigrants to vote as they most likely vote liberal. So you want them to stay 2nd class citizens with no voting rights (meaning they cant speak for themselves) while you try dominate them claiming "freedom", while they suffer. Of course that will be very convenient for you. No thanks. Contrary to your belief, we have more “skin in the game” than allow that to happen. Also immigrants dont “assimilate" - we aren’t robots with the same needs as everyone else and we dont forget our cultures, our heritage, our traditions and customs and our identities - rather we come here to make our lives better and hopefully make the lives of people we touch better as well. And yes, that also means you will see your own culture influenced and changed in some ways, which you need to be open to. Hence the demand for a pluralistic society, not a melting pot that you seem to propose.

      Now the idea of freedom isn’t as it is written in a constitution or a book of law but rather it is as it is experienced by different people and those experiences differ based on situations and needs. You may think you have freedom in the United States - but no, I lived there and I did not have the freedom that you think people have. In Canada, yes, I am more secure, happier and more free - because I can walk taller than I did in the US.

      Julie and I fundamentally disagree on what counts as freedom - she wants the 1st and the 2nd amendment basically. I for one dont believe in the 1st amendment - I believe in freedom of expression, but also freedom FROM hate speech. I could care less about the 2nd amendment. Like I said, experiences differ, based on situations and needs, and so do opinions. Dont mistake that for “ooooh these immigrants dont have skin in the game, they need to 'assimilate’”. You have no idea of what you are talking about when you utter that sentence.

      Delete
    12. Oh and also Clarence, dont assume that people that immigrate are "ignorant" about your country. We know more about your country, than you do about ours.

      Delete
    13. 1st amendment is a big one for me. Your "freedom from hate speech" means you do not understand the point of free speech, which is to vigorously defend the right of folks to voice opinions you do not at all agree with. As soon as censorship comes, who gets to decide? You?

      Delete
    14. I dont have a problem with differing points of view/opinions. I do however have a problem with passing off racial abuse (for example), as "opinion", and protecting that under the 1st amendment. To me that is verbal assault and needs to be prosecuted. The 1st amendment doesn't allow for that. So while the perp in this case does have the freedoms, the victim doesn't, and is left with no recourse. In Canada, everyone can voice their opinions, as long as it stays civil. Racist abuse however can be legally pursued, ensuring that everyone's right to speech as well as dignity is protected. Hence more freedoms.

      Delete
    15. But who gets to decide where to draw the line? That is the inherent flaw with your argument. You don't have a right not to be offended by things others say. You do have a right not to be attacked physically. There is a huge difference.

      Delete
    16. Personally for myself, I do. I decide what is racist, and what is abusive and what isn't. I will take that to a court of law, and they will decide whether I am in the right or wrong. Fair enough if you ask me. What is not acceptable is for me to not even be heard. Which is the case with the 1st amendment.

      Also physical violence is not the only form of assault. Verbal assault and abuse can be equally damaging and threatening.

      Delete
    17. That's not the way it works... it is not illegal to offend you, and ought not to be. That crazy talk.

      Delete
  3. Comme tout les merdias sont principalement de gauche, ne sont pas objectif, dans tout l'occident, sous la contrainte des milliardaires propriétaire de ces médias, qui ne veulent qu'une société de la mondialisation....
    Alors qu'un journaliste devrait informer des faits, il ne font que de la propagande, idéologique au service par exemple de Soros et autres, il sont capable de mentir, de désinformer, leur lâcheté ne leur permet pas de faire leur travail honnêtement …
    Mais maintenant nous avons le choix de pourvoir s'informer autrement, en prenant des articles de gauche et de droite, pour pourvoir faire sa propre analyse, et ne pas être un mouton de Panurge, a qui l'on fait tout croire ….
    C'est pourquoi en ce qui concerne les états unis j'aime m'informer par dreuz par exemple...

    En France les merdias sont tous tenue par 10 milliardaires, et donc plus aucune information contradictoire, et libre ….

    https://www.dreuz.info/2021/01/08/elections-americaines-en-temps-reel/




    ReplyDelete
  4. It should be obvious that nobody there was actually going to overthrow the government, and I'm sure none of the BLM protesters thought they were going to end racism or defund the police or institute any immediate change. In both cases I'm sure it was frustrated people tired of feeling repressed and rebelling against the system as a means unto itself. I imagine there were plenty of people at both events that got horrified when vandalism and destruction started and bailed, those that got swept up in the moment, and those which were hoping for things to get out of hand.

    Terry Pratchett had a formula for working out the IQ of a mob: you take the IQ of the stupidest person there and divide it by the number of people. A riot is a collection of people making snap decisions under extreme, unusual circumstances. Even if you see someone doing something stupid and/or dangerous you have no time to stop them safely, and if you did you would become a target yourself.

    It's ridiculous to use the worst behaviour of either group to make generalisations about the left or the right. I will say that a lot of Americans seem to think their guns will protect them from a tyrannical government because of what the founding fathers wrote when they formed the country, and that seems just as infeasible as a coup. Times have changed.

    I think "dossier" implies a lot, but if the NSA ISN'T collecting data on millions of Americans, then what is the point of them? I'm not saying they should necessarily analyse or do anything with the data unless they have to, but they should have some data on just about everyone, surely? Unless they mean they don't collect and collate data themselves, but know how to access medical records, phone logs, credit card records, fucking Facebook pages...

    If "Glenn Greenwald" turns out to be another Mary Barkley then I'll hold my hands up; you got me this time!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rogering here.Not going to disagree with you about Greenwald and his analysis. But your comment about the U.S as a bastion of Liberty rings hollow these days.
    Both the Democrat and Republican Parties are in thrall to the demands of Late Capitalism and Liberty as an Ethical stance of Moral Governance, is jettisoned easily when the occasion demands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It sure does ring a bit hollow but I remain optimistic.

      Delete
  6. Thanks for your weighing in this episode and on the journalistic circus around it. I read and support Glenn Greenwald on Substack and used to follow him on The Intercept. It seems the best source for real news these days is independent journalist like Greenwald. In that vein, I would also like to mention Whitney Webb of Unlimited Hangout, who was recently deplatformed from Patreon of all places. Like you Julie, she's writing a book, but her's is non-fiction, all about Jeffrey Epstein and his "friends". No wonder she's so "unpopular". I also follow and recommend Matt Taibbi on Substack, and Caitlin Johnstone. Oh and not to forget Kerry Cassidy and Project Camelot for coverage of the secret space program, which apparently is where the missing trillions that Catherine Austin Fitts (Solari.com) talks about, has gone. And for Kovid news and updates, Vaccine Choice Canada maintains a pretty up-to-date newsroom. One mainstream medium I do like is Quartz (qz.com) for business news. It would be interesting to know what offbeat sources other people follow to get the scoop on what's going down in our world. - Frank

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is your point that as Sicknick died from a stroke not head trauma the actions of those attending were simply the exercise of their “civil liberties” and no harm was done?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sicknick's death was unrelated to the riot. The media lied and the left lied for weeks about it to whip up people like you. That's my point. In fact, no cops were injured as a result of that crowd. By the standards of the ongoing continuous riots all summer, in multiple cities, with hundreds of injuries and deaths, many of them cops, not even in the same ballpark.

      Delete
    2. Actually 140 cops injured on January 6 according to police union. Head injuries, broken ribs etc.

      Delete
    3. Hard to trust the partisan reporting. When you Google there are still countless articles claiming Sicknick was killed by protesters which is known to be false. If they wish to report credibly, they ought not blatantly lie.

      Delete
  8. You are really something. Those people wanted to kill Pence.

    It's incredible how you people on the right want to rewrite history. You are completely absurd, pretending to be unbiased.

    It's a farce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did they want to kill Pence? Did they really?

      Delete
    2. No, they didn't kill Pence. His body guards hustled him away before they could get their hands on him. The fact they didn't kill him is irrelevant.

      Delete
    3. And what is your evidence anybody intended to kill anybody?

      Delete
    4. They literally shouted "Hang Mike Pence" and held up signs saying the same, and then stormed the building. lol.

      Delete
    5. And Madonna said she wanted to bomb the White House, so that's evidence against her and she should be jailed?

      Delete
    6. Except she didnt bomb the whitehouse or commit any acts of violence. The Jan 6th crowd did.

      Delete
    7. Except they never got anywhere near Pence, had no viable plan to do so, and never pulled a gun.

      Delete
    8. They did have plans and they did storm the building. Some of them had zip ties and what not. Pence was lucky he got away safe, thanks to the secret service.

      Delete
    9. Zip ties is fake news I understand. Some guy picked some up which were dropped by cops.

      Delete
    10. Regardless it was a violent attack. There is no trusting a mob. They would have definitely hurt someone if they hadnt gotten away on time.

      Delete
    11. We all agree it was illegal. Just wondering where is the equal treatment under the law when the Antifa/BLM rioters, who did far worse and were far more violent, were not prosecuted.

      Delete
    12. The George Floyd protests lasted much longer but the Jan 6th mob attack was worse (and more serious). BLM protesters who rioted were also arrested and charged.

      Delete
    13. In what sense was it "worse". Amount of property damage? Nowhere near. Amount of injures? Nowhere near. Level of violence? Nowhere near. Number of rioters? Nowhere near. Number killed? Nowhere near. The BLM rioters were often let out immediately on bail and reoffended day after day.

      Delete
    14. What it stood for. It was worse in what it symbolized. The BLM protests were a demand for civil rights and equality - although some of the methods used were downright criminal and idiotic, the bottomline is that their goals were noble. Can't say the same for the Jan 6th riots - that was about sedition.

      Delete
    15. Disagree. Many don't buy the narrative that the US is institutionally racist. They say racism exists everywhere of course, but the institutions are very not racist, and in fact minorities have a leg up in many cases. Now if you believe otherwise you have the right to believe that, say so, to protest, but not to riot.

      Goals of Jan 6 folks was not "sedition", it was the opposite. They believed the election was stolen. They have the right to believe that, say so, to protest, but not to riot.

      Seems the same to me?

      Delete
    16. The only thing that is similar is that both these groups could have just protested and not rioted. But, I am talking about the reasons behind the protests - I hold the George Floyd protests on a moral high ground.

      Delete
    17. I hold the objection to having democratic elections compromised a more fundamental and higher moral high ground, so I guess I win?

      Delete
    18. A person's right to live with dignity and without discrimination comes first. Electing a president is probably a distant...5th priority or something like that.

      Delete
    19. I don't see anybody arguing against dignity and equal treatment under the law. All those Antifa/BLM riots were meaningless, I'm afraid.

      Delete
  9. I’m not in the US but my take on it is the country is hopelessly partisan on this and most issues. Was this an “insurrection”? No it was a protest that got way out of control due to a lack of police resources. Should those who trespassed, committed violence and theft be prosecuted? Yes of course. They broke the law and should suffer the consequences. The challenge is to attempt a non partisan objective view of the facts. That’s rare in the US which looks like crazy town from afar. Hopefully that will change one day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just despise the hypocrisy from the left. Are they aggressively cracking down and prosecuting the Antifa/BLM rioters and looters from the summer?

      Delete
    2. Yes. There were 10,000 plus BLM protesters arrested over the George Floyd affair. I know there were 100 plus looters arrested in Chicago alone. Many more in California I believe. Mostly in the black community. About 100 white Trump capital protesters arrested which is far fewer but that protest was smaller scale so probably quite even handed.

      Delete
    3. The left, who control the media in the US by and large, makes it look like crazy town. I can sure you there are wide swaths in the US who are tired of the media constantly whipping things up in a frenzy. Somehow most went from professional journalism to professional propagandists.

      Delete
    4. there are no "Antifa". that's a myth that right-wing people like you create.

      There are definitely looters and criminals that take part in protests, and take advantage of a big crowd. But there is no "Antifa".

      The Trump riot is very different: those people all had an agenda, to get into the Capitol illegally, and get Pence, AOC, Pelosi etc. They were unquestionably incompetent, but unlike your "Antifa" smokescreen, their goals were purely political.

      Of course rational people want to stop rioters. The rioters who took advantage of the BLM protests are being prosecuted, when possible. It's hard to find these people: they attacked locations that weren't being watched closely. This differs radically from the Capitol attack: Everything was on film there, and the perpetrators can be apprehended and prosecuted.

      Delete
    5. You are really gullible and easily programmed if you think Antifa is a "myth". Sorry. Rose City Antifa is a group. Antifa Seven Hills is a group. Antifa Sacramento is a group. Atlanta Antifascists is a group. Youth Liberation Front is a group. There are many, many antifa groups. And they are violent.

      Delete
    6. You say you want good arguments, and then you insult people that disagree with you: "gullible", "easily programmed". Not a helpful discourse. Follow your own rules.

      Sure, these are groups. So are white supremacist and KKK. So what? these are fringe, largely irrelevant groups.

      The group that attacked the Capitol are declared Trump supporters. This is a political group: his base.

      BTW, I don't like your style of argument. You don't seek to actually resolve an issue: you seek to discredit some tiny irrelevant point, so that you can push a right-wing agenda.

      Stick to sex. You are better at it. And much nicer.

      Delete
    7. The hypocrisy of the left is also illustrated by Ashli Babbitt's murder at the hands of a Capitol policeman. A black man gets killed by police and it's wall to wall coverage by the media, but when a white woman and a conservative gets killed, it's ignored or else the attitude is she got what she deserved. She was unarmed and petite. If the standard is that deadly force should not be deployed unless the policeman or someone else is in danger of death or serious bodily injury, how could the killing of Babbitt possibly be justified? Was a big male policeman with a gun really worried he was going to get killed by a petite unarmed woman? And now it's been announced that no charges against the cop will be filed. But fortunately there is no statute of limitations on murder, so after the Republicans take control again, this murdering cop can be brought to justice.

      Delete
    8. I'm sorry anon1, but if you stick to Jerry Nadler's well-discredited partisan talking point that "Antifa is a myth" you're not a credible player in this conversation. I don't make the rules. Trump supporters make up roughly half the US population, saying that is "the group" that stormed the capitol is meaningless. I could equally say Biden followers is the group that rioted for 9 months beside Antifa/BLM and aided and abetted it. Both equally meaningless statements. Stick to masturbating reading my blog. You are better at it. :-)

      anon2: I agree. A warning shot would likely have dispersed the crowd attempting to gain entry. At least, that should have been done first before lethal force was applied to an unarmed civilian woman. I think the guy was panicked and accidentally pulled the trigger, honestly.

      Delete
  10. I've seen video of the Capitol invasion, and these were not tourists. They injured dozens of police officers, beating them with clubs. They pepper sprayed and tased officers.

    The point of this was to stop the final declaration that Biden won the election, a fact that had been thoroughly adjudicated in the courts and backed up by dozens of election officials, many if not most of them Republicans. The people who took over the Capitol building literally tried to take away the democratic result of the election and hand it to a guy who lost both the popular and the electoral vote. The only thing that prevented them doing it was they were too slow in carrying out their plan, and the invasion ran out of steam before it could carry out its goal.

    This was just a plain, simple insurrection. They did it for a guy who adheres to Russia, giving that country aid and comfort. And now that they've discovered he didn't put his own life on the line for the cause and that he lied to them to get them to do it, they are selling him out.

    This crowd is still trying to overthrow democracy in the U.S., but their energy is getting more and more scattered. It must be demoralizing for these people when they got so close, but failed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you don't understand the word "insurrection".

      Delete
    2. insurrection: violent uprising against an authority or government. Jack

      Delete
    3. Did you really think horn guy was intent on taking over the government? Or anybody else there for that matter?

      Delete
    4. You probably haven't seen the video of the attack. It was definitely an insurrection.
      Unsuccessful, sure. And incompetent. But definitely insurrection.
      I am shocked you want to argue otherwise.

      Delete
    5. Saw many different videos. I don't think you realize how foolish you sound when you say "it was definitely an insurrection", echoing words programmed into you by your biased left wing news sources.

      Delete
    6. is it the word "insurrection" you don't like? Look it up:
      "a violent uprising against an authority or government"

      was it not violent enough for you to count as an insurrection? It was definitely violent: you don't argue against that, do you?
      I don't see where it says in the definition that the insurrection has to cause some number of injuries or deaths to count as such.
      it was just a failed insurrection. But it's clear that the mob wanted blood. Of their elected officials. the fact that they were incompetent doesn't make it something else.

      go ahead, call me foolish again. I don't care. It doesn't make you right.

      Delete
    7. You're playing word games. The violence was in no proportion at all to the over the top response, especially in comparison to the underwhelming response during 9 months of Antifa/BLM rioting.

      Delete
    8. So, Why did the republican who said it just tourist visiting, a photo of him helping to block the door, if it was just everyday tourist, no need to block the door. Jack

      Delete
    9. No serious threat ever.

      Delete
  11. I'll try and keep this short.

    Objectively speaking, a lot of people marched on the Capitol, and a sizable number of people forced their way into a governmental building. During this event a number of people ended up dead.

    Regardless of how you eventually describe it, it was illegal and idiotic.

    Was it an attempt at overthrowing the legal government? Don't know and don't really care any longer, because the end result was that things moved along as normal, once things were back under control.

    Did Donald Trump intend for this to happen? I seriously hope that the answer to that question is an unequivocal "No", but anyone who's not Donald Trump is guessing on this issue. However, what is objectively true, is that the man's rhetoric over an extended period of time following the election, was inflammatory to a part of his voter group, and IMO he really should have been able to foresee that something like this could happen, when you rile up a mob, and keep telling them that the government and "a perceived enemy", is trying to steal the election through illegal acts. Trump fanned the fire, and eventually the pot boiled over and gave us the invasion of Capitol.

    With this out of the way, I'll agree with you that illegal acts resulting in breaking-and-entering, looting, theft, disruption of the public order, and general destruction of private and/or public property is not to be applauded. No matter if it's happening as a result of a black person being killed during an arrest, as a result of an unruly mob of people invading the Capitol building, or for any other reason you can dream up. It's unacceptable behaviour, and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4 people ended up dead. One an unarmed woman, a veteran and Mom shot in the neck by cops. The rest died of natural causes NOT from violent ones. Read Greenwald to get the facts.

      It is Trump's opinion, and many others as well, that the election result is unjust due to multiple irregularities and late changes in practice that heavily favoured Democrats and introduced opportunities for cheating. Folks have a right to their opinion, may protest, even loudly, but may not riot, we agree.

      Delete
    2. actually the facts show that Trump did incite those who entered the building as that crowd was already over there and it was preplanned. The Vast majority of the crowd were peaceful

      Jennifer

      Emily

      Delete
    3. exactly, Kyrel.

      And Julie, I also think the election was unjust. But unlike you, I think it favored the Republicans unjustly. They just happened to be too far down for their cheating to work.

      Delete
    4. I think Jen/Emily you meant to say "did not" in the above? It was certainly true that the riot started before the Trump rally ended (and it was miles away), and Trump exhorted his supporters to make their way to the capitol and make their voices heard "peacefully and patriotically".

      I think the major problem with the US electoral system, especially this last time around, is that it is so open to undiscoverable cheating. So I think we agree, but given the nature of it, nobody will ever know who cheated more and if it would have changed anything.

      The right way to conduct elections is in person voting, ID's checked, ballots hand counted, complete and simple audit trail kept.

      Delete
    5. Yep and the democrats are trying to make it worse right now with a fake bill HR.1 fakely named "for the people Act" which basically overwrites any Republican efforts to control fraud, makes permanent the emergency changes of 2020 and give them defacto control forever through these efforts. Along with trying to steal the senate by making DC a state to give them 2 democrat senators forever. If they say they want DC to have rep so bad why not just make them part of Maryland like they were before.

      Jennifer

      Delete
    6. Of course it's not about representative government, it's about a power grab from the Dems, it's so nakedly obvious.

      Delete
  12. Create a second blog. One for the stuff we come here to see and enjoy and one for your insane bullshit political views that are absolutely retarded. Greenwald is a conservative hack. GTFO saying he’s “unbiased”.
    And proof they wanted to kill someone, they built a scaffold with a noose on it and chanted “hang Mike pence”.
    If you want to be a Trump baby dick sucking bimbo who bows down to the GOP, that’s fine. But don’t blatantly tell lies and try and tell us what we saw and heard that day isn’t what we saw and heard that day. This isn’t the book 1984. We are educated; which is why we aren’t republicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greenwald has historically been a leftists, did you not read my bio material on him in the blog? He has a rich history of criticizing both sides, especially Republicans after 9/11.

      Building a scaffold for Pence is like hauling around an effigy of Trump with a noose around its neck. Theater, not actual intent.

      Your rudeness in addressing the issue shows us all who the "undeducated" one is.

      Delete
  13. lmao at all this liberal conservative Trump haters who can't see the facts that his group that went into capitol was preplanned and not organized by Trump as much as they wish it - Also new video footage that the leftist media refuses to show shows a conversation between the group and officers as they discuss peaceful demonstrations and getting permission to enter. Twitter, Social Media, and leftist fake news media lied again to the liberals so full of Trump hate they had confirmation bias to believe it - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/new-video-reveals-capitol-police-officer-giving-protesters-permission-enter-building?fbclid=IwAR2zflW3awltt7r3PSkx4ys0iSnEz_cjEh5xMXR162H9DQRsAWeS0cVaBU8


    Emily

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it's hard for leftists to overcome their media brainwash. Those on the right have Fox and a few others, but are also constantly bombarded by the leftist media as well. Those on the left can happily exist in a bubble of never seeing a single conservative point of view other than from trained seals on CNN and MSNBC.

      Delete
  14. January 6 would not have happened if any other GOPer was in the White House. Consider Jeb Bush or John Kasich, for example. I am not a Republican, but either of those gentlemen would have been a better president and their policies would have been better for the US and the world. Unfortunately, Trump somehow got elected and ended up trashing this country and its reputation. Trump's fragile ego would not allow himself to be branded a loser so he started THE BIG LIE, which has been denounced in the courts over 60 times and audits and recounts have come to the same conclusion - Trump lost. Adults understand that in all contests, there are winners and there are losers. Trump is unable to see himself as a loser so he started whining and crying about election fraud. His millions of supporters, just like him, will never admit he lost, even though not one of them can provide or produce any evidence that proves the accusation of fraud. Is Biden perfect. No he isn't. But I truly believe he has the best interests of the country and the world in the forefront of what he is doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your use of the phrase "BIG LIE" shows how influenced you are by leftist propaganda. It was a phrase coined by Hitler that is applied to Trump. Yawn.

      There remain plenty of irregularities in the election, and the fact that you can't see any of them at all speaks to your level of brainwashing.

      Delete
    2. And here is the fundamental problem of today. At least one side is, in your words, 'brainwashed.' While the reality is there is misinformation on both sides. Sadly, as long every tells themselves its the other side that is brainwashed and their opinions have no validty then these kinds of discussions are, I guess, just form of intellectual self-gratification as we celebrated 'owning' the other side. At least self-gratification is an appropriate topic here.

      Delete
    3. I don't take sides, I look for mostly unbiased commentators, and mix many of them together, look for original source materials where possible, and then form my own opinion. Wish more people would do likewise. There are "tells" for folks overly influenced by propaganda, such as the use of terms pushed hard and heavy by left wing politicians and mainstream media.

      Delete
    4. You don't think you have those very same 'tells?' It is sadly far to easy to spot the built in bias these days. We've lost too much of our ability to empathize and find mutual agreement. We have far too many politicians and media pundits whose fortunes depend on putting out a constant stream of misinformation and while they get rich our society gets poorer, more divided, and more conflicted. Sadly I can't offer a solution beyond trying to extend grace and patience one person at time. Otherwise we'll just end up like the old Star Trek episode of 'Let that be your last battlefield.'

      Delete
    5. Well I'd be too embarrassed to use a phrase like "BIG LIE" for sure. What are my "tells"? And espousing an idea does not count, it needs to be a propaganda phrase of some sort.

      Delete
    6. Well, I don't think tells have to be simple phrases but accepting that limittThe easiest is the way you refer to "leftist" media or variations on that theme. Your use of Scott's term "Hoax" or the term "swamp" also fit. I've tried to create an inventory; those are just ones that come to mind.

      But I sense I am spitting into the wind. You enjoy the confrontation and clearly are happier escalating than deescalating rhetoric. I'll leave you to it.

      Delete
    7. Leftist is a descriptive term, correctly applied to those on the left.
      Hoax is a word that is correctly applied to... hoaxes.
      Swamp is a slang word for the entrenched gov't bureaucracy.
      I did not use either hoax or swamp in my blog post, so your examples fall a bit flat.

      Delete
    8. You used them in your prior posts. And the exact same response rom the other side could be made about "the big lie" or any tell you perceive. For them, its just an accurate term. The only difference is perspective. As long as we stereotype and belittle those with whom we disagree no progress is possible. It might be fun and pleasurable but it's not productive.

      Delete
    9. No, you don't get away with equating reasoned arguments and points of view with spewing propaganda words like "the Big Lie" that you heard on MSNBC to make your point.

      Why not actually address something I said in the blog post, or something Glenn Greenwald said on the topic, and make a cogent argument around that?

      Delete
    10. Why not argue the big lie with you? I could. I could argue any number of topics on which and I disagree. But I've read on your blog many times your contention that you are (politically) open-minded and reasonable. I wanted to avoid a politically charged argument to guage interest in a more congenial discussion. Clearly there's no interest for that on yor side. That's fine. You post for your reasons and get your enjoyment however works for you. As for me, I am tired of watching and participating in argument for argument's sake. That offers no hope of being productive. I am looking for other options. I'll continue to look elsewhere.
      Best wishes.

      Delete
    11. The only two truly dumb positions on the election is if you are positive there was not enough cheating to alter the results, or if you are positive there was. You sound like the former. Adios!

      Delete
    12. One thing to note is that if there was election malpractice in 2020, then it definitely didnt happen the for the 1st time ever. We'd have to be open to the idea that it happened in 2016 too. But if you are going to argue that it was soooo widespread in 2020 ALONE or severe enough to effect change in 2020 ALONE, then it is you that is either gullible or dumb.

      Delete
    13. I believe it happens every time, from both sides. Likely in 2016 as well, but likely more by the Dems, they just did not cheat enough underestimating Trump's popularity. What do you think Hillary was so shocked by her loss? But that's just speculation.

      2020 was very different due to mass mail in voting, delayed counts, lack of meaningful observers, and lax or nonexistent signature checks.

      Delete
  15. My Lord you right wingers are expert rationalizes, I guess you'd have to be with those ideas. They didn't go into a target, they went into the Capitol, false equivalencey one. They didn't go in on a random day, they went did it on a day we were certifying the election, falsie number two. They didn't accidentally get wound up into violence nor were they provoked by law enforcement. The attack was planned for months, the. The crowd was incited by Donald Trump, his son, Mo Brooks, Tommy Tuberville,Ted Cruz, and Rudy Giuliani. All of those people were briefed for weeks that this was being planned. Flasie number 3. They planned to murder members of Congress and the Vice president of the United States, they even erected a gallows that they brought with them from home. Falsie 4. Do you feel lied to when you're told these things from the misinformation machine that is the Fox cinematic Universe? No, its doubtfull that you do. Do you sound like a lunatic when you make these claims? Yes very much so, you should stop, as it diminished people's opinion of you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were protesting the certification of the election, so of course the place and time was not accidental, just like Dems stormed the gates and occupied the Capitol when Kavanaugh was being confirmed.

      You have zero evidence that any of those people incited violence, and much evidence that they in fact did not and condemned the violence afterwards.

      The gallows was a dumb prop, equivalent to effigies of Trump being hauled around with nooses around their necks by crazed lefties for 4 years.

      Like all the news, Fox is often over the top as well, no argument there. It is not my primary news source, though it is quite entertaining at times!

      Delete
    2. Vous savez bien que la gauche et le camp du bien et la droite celle du mal ...
      Sauf qu'a force les gens, savent qu'il sont manipulés, et depuis des années de terreur intellectuelle de la pensée unique, du totalitarisme de la gauche, a fait beaucoup réfléchir ...
      A part leur agressivités maladive , ils ne proposent que la déconstruction de notre société, par leur idéologie d'extrémistes, qui ressemble étrangement a celle de leur "guide" du communisme qui a fait plus de 80 millions de mort en Russie ...
      Le peuple qu'ils asservissaient avec leur propagande a évolué, et n'est plus dupe de leur manœuvres, et ce peuple les renvoie dans leur monde de la carricature de leur pensée unique, rétrograde, et dangereuse...

      Delete
    3. Yes, Marxist Communist ideology is a failed experiment (more properly "power grab") that has devastated countries and caused millions of deaths.

      Delete
  16. The dishonesty, hypocrisy and blatant bias of the mainstream news media in the US truly is disgraceful. They are actively and enthusiastically promoting and furthering the aggressive power grab and leftist agenda the Democrat party is persuing, and it keeps getting worse.
    It's so obvious at this point that even a lot of simple folk like me can see it, and can also see the mess this country is headed into if those in power continue moving us down this destructive  socialist path. 
      I think the way this will be turned around has to come through the  power and actions of the states.  The US is just that- a union of states.  That's how it was set up and how the constitution is written , with the central government to have limited powers.
     There are a number of states that have dug in their heels and are pushing back  against the idiocy in it's various forms  coming out of Washington, which is great to see.  There's also a coalition of states standing together-21 states so far.   In my particular state we've created a new law protecting 2nd amendment rights from federal infringement,  are performing an audit of this state's 2020 presidential election vote count ( and so far things are looking a bit fishy) and have other legislation and lawsuits are in the works as well.
    So there's hope.
    vic

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certain states do seem to be the last bastion these days. Florida's De Santis is knocking it out of the park for one.

      Delete
  17. Truly a brave post. You are fearless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely brave and fearless. Look out, you might get canceled.

      All of the deaths in the capital riot were Trump supporters. All died of non violent causes, except the unarmed woman shot by the police officer.

      That being said, I have no sympathy for those who would storm the Capital (left or right).

      Delete
  18. The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is ignorance that insists it's intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I can think of many things more dangerous, like... a Tiger!

      Delete
  19. The Jan 6 "Insurrection" is a pretty safe topic to blog about, notwithstanding all the contradictory opinions seen here in the comments. But what about the elephant in the room, the all-pervasive worldwide threat to freedom that has been keeping so manyy folks under house arrest for most of the past year? What even is it? - Frank

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Been there done that months ago on my blog. My opinion is unchanged. Utter ridiculous overreaction by idiot Government politicians and officials screeching FOLLOW THE SCIENCE like Zombies when they're generally too dumb to tie their own shoelaces.

      Delete
  20. The more people like you and minority leader McCarthy minimize what hapened on Jan. 6, the more important it is that the 'tourists' be given long prison sentences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, I think equal treatment under the law is the more noble position.

      Delete
    2. Once the commission is established, poor Mccarthy is either going to have to admit what he said at the time under oath or commit perjury.

      Delete
    3. What did McCarthy say?

      Delete
    4. look it up

      Delete
    5. What do you think he said?

      Delete
  21. I like Fraulein Julie. I could’ve used her at the beer hall putsch and to discipline those fucking Wehrmacht generals. AH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, the old "if you disagree with me you're a Nazi" argument. Well played!

      Delete
  22. I'm still looking for that line that defines where left wing begins. It can't include everyone who is simply not a registered Republican but it seems to.What if I depart from the party platform on a single issue? If I look at what happened at the Capital as less than the best way to disagree with your fellow citizens, am I left leaning? Guess so.Seems pretty anti-American to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Few thinking people line up straight on all the issues. But if there are enough data points in a cluster of things, most people cluster one way or the other. A few rare birds will not belong to either group.

      Delete
  23. I'll just say a couple of things here.

    1. The US is not a "bastion of liberty". It has NEVER been. How about the 1800s? Do you think it was a bastion of liberty? Sure if you were a straight white, christian man. Certainly no black person or woman would agree. What about the 1950s? Sure if you were a straight white christian man. Not if you were black, brown or a woman. What about today? Both liberals and conservatives will have their version of how their freedoms are threatened. So no, the US is not a bastion of liberty and has never been. All it has been till date is a flawed democracy. Calling the United States a bastion of liberty is just rhetoric.

    2. Regarding Jan 6 - I dont really care whether it was an insurrection or not. It was definitely violent and it was definitely more serious than the violence during the George Floyd protests. Bottomline is that Trumpism or right wing populism needs to be shut down. Whatever needs to be done on that front, needs to be done. Will that succeed? Not sure, only time will tell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Name a better country that had none of those problems. The founders had an educated and noble vision and embodied that in the Constitution and its amendments. It evolved so that now all citizens are treated the same under the law.

      2. On the basis of property damage, injuries, and lives lost the Antifa/BLM riots far outpaced Jan6. And yeah, you don't get to "shut down" the political opinion of about half the American population, thank goodness.

      Delete
    2. I am not saying other countries dont have the same problems. We dont call them bastions of liberty do we? Similarly the US with all its problems cannot be called a bastion of liberty. Every country that is democratic and free (as mentioned in one of my previous answers) has the constitutional provisions for ensuring legal egalitarianism. Infact in many cases they have better/more freedoms than the US.

      Property damage yes, BLM was more. It is however a more serious offence to storm the capitol building than loot a target.

      Delete
    3. Oh and it is not about shutting down anyone's political opinion. Its about not delegitimizing them. Its not uncalled for given what these people have been up to.

      Delete
    4. Are you willing to apply the same standard to the leftists who illegally occupied the Capitol building during the Kavanaugh confirmation?

      Delete
    5. Yes to the extent possible and to the extent that is relevant. 100s of people were arrested and charged for unlawfully protesting in that instance. However they didnt storm the chambers, ask to hang someone, vandalize the property, attempt to hurt people etc., So the insurrection is much more of a serious offence.

      Delete
    6. 100s arrested and charged? Where was that reported? Please provide a source.

      Delete
    7. Just google it. You'd find plenty of sources. Also equating both, lacks context.

      Delete
    8. Your inability to reference a source is noted.

      Delete
    9. Just google it. Like the first result that came up talks about the arrests and charges. Its not like I am making shit up by telling you this.

      Delete
    10. I'm sorry I just do not hear the same vitriolic rhetoric from the Democrats for one versus the other. They should equally decry all political violence. Those riots were allowed to go on and on and on.

      Delete
    11. Its context. The left has moral high ground for the issues they protest for. Because of that, response to undesirable acts such as riots, is obviously going to be toned down.

      Delete
    12. Injustice such as racism is evil. And breeds more injustice.

      Delete
    13. Nobody disagrees with that. Antifa/BLM riots were not about that at all.

      Delete
  24. Hi:
    As someone who attended the RALLY at the Capitol on the 6th I'll tell you why I was there: Because I wanted to protest for a true independent audit of the election. Somewhere between 100 to 200 thousand fellow patriots joined me. There were all races , all sexes (the only group I noticed being almost totally absent was black women, surprisingly the largest groups of women were middle aged white women and plenty of young asian women for whatever reason) and all ages. I thought it would be 75 percent or more middle aged white guys like myself or downright old men. I was really surprised and happy.

    It's estimated that somewhere between 500 to 2000 people entered ( I don't say 'stormed' because that might apply to some, even most that entered the building initially, most seem to have been let in by cops and to have walked in , not rushed in with clubs or something) the Capitol. Clearly the vast majority of us "Trumpists" were peaceful and didn't join what is laughingly called the "Insurrection" or (more fairly but still not entirely accurate 'riot') You'd certainly never know that from the "news" coverage of this event. Anyway, of the 500 to 2000 estimated people inside the Capital, maybe 1 to 200 really made any trouble. And by that I mean fought cops, smashed things, tried to enter the downstairs chamber, that sort of thing. Most of those inside seemed to treat it as more of a tour. Like I said, I've seen plenty of video of cops letting in these people and yes, I've seen video of the initial attempts to enter and some violence/destruction of property so I do know that rioter/vandal does apply to some of these people.

    Anyway I might have some pics to post if you want, Julie. I know you know about the vast majority of the charges are rather small and don't support the 'insurrection' narrative. When the 'storming' of the Capital took place I was eating lunch less than 1/4 of a mile away. I was watching the Trump speech and damned if I never heard any calls for lawlessness or violence, but that is just me I suppose. Maybe he was doing hypnosis or something over the interwebs, and I'm ust too tough minded to fall under the spell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Clarence. I very much appreciate an eye witness such as yourself weighing in. But I'm sure those who were told what to believe by Democrat politicians, never-Trumpers, and left leaning news sources (most of them!) believe they know better.

      Delete
  25. This doesn't address the specific article by Greenwald, but if you take at face value his, and only his, version of why he left the Intercept, without looking at the many other versions from his colleagues there, then you are not doing your readers any favours.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He included the entire email exchange, and that has not been disputed, and he published the original article in dispute, so I feel pretty well informed. Have read Betsy Reed's claim she just wanted to "edit it for accuracy" and yet in the email exchange Greenwald asks the editors to point out the inaccuracies and they did not. Subsequently all the facts he wrote about were verified. You're welcome to provide your point of view if you fell Reed's position is defensible, but I think she was disingenuous and Greenwald's take I believe.

      Delete
    2. Greenwald's take is credible in as much as it's his take. Yes I have read the emails and it seems to me that it's more of an editing issue than censorship. Even Greenwald admits that the charges and allegations are most likely untrue. So why - especially after the 2016 debacle - would another prominent media outlet be willing to go down that road makes no sense. Perhaps the Intercept was being over cautious, as the Hunter Biden stuff proved to be meaningless to all but the conspiracy theorists, but I don't see censorship here, unless you're Greenwald of course and you believe all your copy is perfect :)

      Delete
    3. I don't think the allegations are at all meaningless. Hunter Biden's carrying on with Burisma, Moscow, and China may be technically legal, but it's clear influence peddling and should disqualify Biden, who was credibly implicated by eye witness Bobulinski.

      Greenwald had a deal where he had final cut on what he published, they did not live up to that.

      Delete
  26. WC here
    I have no comment about that ignorance. However it does reinforce my opinion that we should have taken Canada during the Revolutionary War!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Greenwald's take is bang on, not ignorant. It's a bit ignorant to say something is ignorant and not back it up. Just sayin'. I don't make the rules.

      Delete
  27. Sitting down comments now. Thanks for the discussion.

    ReplyDelete