dajo9 said:
Let's look at all the things that legally never happened as there were no judicial convictions.
- The Boston Tea Party
- The theft of Cherokee land
- Southern treason in the Civil War
- The numerous massacres of blacks that ended reconstruction
- The massacre at Wounded Knee
- The Tulsa race massacre
- The lynching my grandfather witnessed with his own eyes
- The many murders of the Civil Rights era
- Banks screwing over people in the Great Recession
This is just a partial list. You think these things happened? Find me the case code.
Wonderful, another laundry list. As has pointed out by posters in other threads, there is a continuing strategy to digress away from the arguments at hand.
Again (and again), is your failure to provide specific evidence of a failed coup (moving past the rants of another poster who said an actual coup occurred). If your suggestion is that protestors expected to take over the government with with paper spray and the like from 1200 armed officers you have no credibility.
If you have evidence that a specific group of people tried to take over the US government then by all means name the people and tell us how they intended to do that by overruling the Capital. Tell us what specific actions they would take. You said you know what happened. Time to give us the specifics. There are plenty of specifics for the events in your latest list.
All we have from you is a bunch of general conspiratorial assertions not directly tied to the actual conduct of taking over the government, to wit:
- Event advertised in advance by the President (wow a demonstration that is being planned - what does have to do with a coup attempt)
- Urged on by the President and a series of speakers the day of (wow speaker at a demonstration what does have to do with seizing control of the govement? )
- The day of being the certification of the election that resulted in the President's loss (wow a demonstration at the same time as the event they are demonstrating against - what does this have to do with seizing control over the government? )
- An advance team probed and breached the perimeter leading the way (wow, demonstration leaders checking out where the demonstration is going. This may show an intent to take over a government building, but where does it show people trying to seize control over the government? )
- The larger mob then followed into the Capitol (if true (evidence?), wow demonstrators followed their leaders, assuming that is what they were. Again, this may show an intent to take over a government building, but where does it show people trying to seize control over the government )
- Chants of "1776" and "Hang Mike Pence" (wow, demonstrators had chants - sorta like "no peace!", "take the streets back!, "kill [or death to] the President", "lock her up", and my favorite from Seattle: "This system cannot be reformed, it must be overthrown")
- Vocal support for a coup among many participants (who? evidence this is true? what exactly did they say? What did they consider a coup, since you seem to have zipped past those pesky definitions? Don't protestors often say they want to change society, the government, etc? )
- Violence against the police defending the Capitol (wow, protestors got into a scuffle with police - how utterly shocking. I guess almost every non-totally peaceful demonstration is coup under your non-legal definition )
- A search within the Capitol for the President's opponents (a search by who? Sounds a lot like some recent protests in the Bay Area where protestors went around looking for Trump supporters? What does this have to do with a coup attempt? )
What you have done is the above list is take elements of a typical protest, and in a few cases general accusations of what may be the desire to take over a government building, and said
without any evidence that this means is some type of coup attempt occurred, using pepper spray and the like against 1200 armed police.
Then there is this:
- Security suspiciously lax
- Security instructed to not look for any pro-Trump, only anti-Trump
- National guard suspiciously late you have said right now when reduced to its basics is that demonstrators were allowed to invade the Capital building.
To quote just about every political out there, he Capitol Police's lackluster response to the riots, poor planning and failure to anticipate the seriousness of the threat have drawn condemnation. Capitol Police leaders, however, said they had prepared for a "free speech demonstration" which sound like jargon meaning a peaceful demonstration. No fencing was erected outside the Capitol and no contingency plans were prepared in case the situation escalated. The Lieutenant in charge issued an order not to use deadly force, which explains why officers outside the building didn't draw their weapons as the crowd streamed in. The testimony was officers typically are ordered against escalating a situation by drawing their weapons if superiors believe doing so could lead to a stampede or a shootout. When it was necessary to get the national guard deployed, the Department of Defense wouldn't do it, and it was necessary for the bipartisan leadership in Congress and also the vice president to intervene to get the guard mobilized.
While this reflects badly on the police and defense department (this is an understatement), this does not provide one shred of evidence to indicate that the the demonstrators came to seize the government. The spark that ignited some protestors to rampage through the capital was Trumps' baseless allegations that the November Presidential election was fraudulent. That does not make the the grievances of the mob a coup attempt. Absent evidence you have failed to provide, it makes them protestors that took over a government building for a few hours, like has happened many times before. You can manufacture facts like Tom to suggest otherwise, but right now, I'm not aware of any public facts linking with what so far looks like essentially unarmed protestors trying to seize control over a government building, not the government.
When I read the posts here I am reminded of what John Mitchell said in a speech in Detroit: "The price of
civiI tranquillity cannot be paid by submission to violence, terror and insurrection...from occupation by demonstrators of public buildings, but the right to be free of seizures of buildings and imprisonment of officials. This is an insurrection that must be stopped." You keep interesting company.
I await your next diversion.