8 ms·

This was, in fact, an insurrection, fighting between the President and the Congress. And the local police took the President's side. This is the sort of crazy n

This was, in fact, an insurrection, fighting between the President and the Congress. And the local police took the President's side. This is the sort of crazy nonsense we used to laugh about happening in Third-World countries during the Cold War. Even the Soviet countries were better than this.

erichocean 6y ago
Every agrees Donald Trump just led an insurrection, including the Senate Majority leader, a Republican. Why is Trump not in custody?
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  Because, almost insanely and extremely worryingly in itself, it seems the Mueller investigation concurred with the controversial opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Presidents are above the law. So he has to be impeached first, then indicted.
  - erichocean 6y ago
    Can Trump be arrested for treason on Jan 21st, after Biden is inaugurated?
    - zmmmmm 6y ago
      IANAL but that is my understanding, yes. There is a theory that a lot of his desperation to remain president is due to a tsunami of legal problems that are all waiting for him to leave office. Not sure what veracity that has but his desperation to stay in power certainly is consistent with it.
    - tbihl 6y ago
      The instinct to arrest political enemies is one of the really bad telltales of authoritarianism, so people generally steer well clear. Unless you think that an example needs to be set so Biden and future presidents know not to act similarly, I see very little good that could come of martyring such a lightning rod... You could get an insurrection that looks hard to defeat, rather than one that merely embarrasses law enforcement.
      - alsetmusic 6y ago
        The real reason that no one ever goes after an exiting president is because there is an unspoken agreement not to. The moment that the incoming party mounts a legal case against an exiting president, they ensure that the other team will do the same to them. Also, all other members of congress would become targets. So many of them are enriching themselves through their office that it's best for everyone to just look the other way and move on for the sake of "bringing the nation together." Edit to add: Imagine the indecisiveness that would be brought to the topic of war. Values are constantly changing. What if in 20 years, your extremely popular decision to invade a country for "democracy" is seen as being built on lies? Many of the wars we enter are unpopular when viewed years on. Some might consider this a feature, as it may reduce war. But what about that critical moment when you believe war is necessary and justified because a dictator is taking over half a continent? I despise violence, but wouldn't want a leader afraid to step up before a situation is potentially too late for fear of doing time.
        vkou 6y ago
        No sitting president has ever tried to marshal his influence to steal the results of a certified election, because there is an unspoken agreement not to. That unspoken rule has been broken. Not punishing him to the fullest extent possible ensures that this will happen again. The next time a personality like him gets elected, it might be successful. I would consider it a feature if the next guy who gets the idea to start an insurrection to think twice, before he pulls the trigger.
        slavik81 6y ago
        Political leaders ending up in prison is not that rare [1]. The United States has historically had better leadership than the sort of nations where that happens, but it's been on a bit of a decline recently. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_wh...
        koheripbal 6y ago
        It's not that rare, because those countries are politically unstable. The US is one of the longest living democracies.
    - alsetmusic 6y ago
      CNN is running an article about his inquiring if he can pardon himself. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/donald-trump-self-pardon/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/donald-trump-self-pa...
    - sn41 6y ago
      According to US law, a president can be impeached even if he is no longer in office.
      - chii 6y ago
        Trump is already impeached - which is not removal, but a judgement at the impeachment trial that he is not fit for president. Unfortunately, the senate did not act on the impeachment judgement and thus did not get removed from office.
        jki275 6y ago
        No. Impeachment is simply an indictment. We all know indictments work. The famous ham sandwich. The senate then takes up the indictment and as in every case to date, acquits the president. The bar to a successful removal from office is quite high and is so for a reason. There is no “impeachment trial” that results in an impeachment. There is a majority democrat house who decided to vote on an impeachment and send it to the senate for a trial. The senate the held a trial and acquitted.
      - jki275 6y ago
        That doesn’t even make any sense.
        sn41 6y ago
        It is used primarily to make the person ineligible for that post again, to ensure that he does not run again for president, for example.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        In this case, it's really more optics. He has zero chance of ever being re-elected to the Presidency.
        jki275 6y ago
        Alan Dershowitz: “The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 PM on January 20th an hour after President Trump leaves office. And the Constitution specifically says, “The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.” It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.”
    - kevinmchugh 6y ago
      The Constitution defines treason very narrowly and I think it's unlikely prosecutors would choose that particular charge.
pvarangot 6y ago
They are also sending a message to radicalized leftists and progressives that are active in the streets in DC, that they are the enemy and Trump supporters are not.
jonnycomputer 6y ago
I don't think the police took Trump's side. The meme here that they just let them in doesn't reflect what can be clearly seen in the video footage.
- kumarvvr 6y ago
  It clearly does. In some videos, rioters and terrorists can be seen damaging the barricade and police officers scuffling with them and preventing them from getting inside. But there is at-least one video, that I have seen, no such thing takes place. They just allow the terrorists inside. Stop spreading lies. Edit : The video. https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...
  - Lewton 6y ago
    https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...
  - jonnycomputer 6y ago
    "Stop spreading lies": I insist that you retract that. I am giving my observations from the footage I've seen. "at least one video" I will take you at your word (more than you seem to have done for me). As it turns out, police officers are individuals, who make individual decisions. The question that is important here is whether they were following orders in doing so, and what the intent of those orders were. Leaping to conclusions seems premature.
    - kumarvvr 6y ago
      Police officers maybe individuals. But in a uniform, they are supposed to follow orders. If they are ordered to put up a barricade, it obviously is for keeping people out. Not make "individual" decisions and allow them in, considering the context.
      - harmmonica 6y ago
el-salvador 6y ago
Actually we had something similar happen last year in our third world country, when a group of soldiers and supporters led by the president occupied our congress. Those actions were publicized using our government's verified social media profiles, that have kept attacking every other institution since taking power: Media outlets, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, Universities, Electoral System. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately we have not had those "fact checking alerts" or limitations on inaccurate posts of their profiles. Any chance someone from FB, YT or TW reading this? Could you escalate it internally. Country name: El Salvador.
neartheplain 6y ago
>And the local police took the President's side. That is demonstrably false. The overwhelming majority of officers did their duty, and physically cleared rioters from the building. Many were injured fighting the insurrectionists. One officer was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher and remains in critical care. Mayor Bowser and the DC Chief of Police said this in their morning press conference [0]: >"There was a lot of valiant fighting by members of the Metropolitan Police Department," Acting D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee said. "Just a tremendous amount of heroic acts. I have one officer who's still in the hospital right now. He was snatched into a crowd, he was beaten, he was kicked, he was Tased several times. So, yeah, they fought. They fought very hard yesterday." [0] https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-mayor-address-public https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-mayor-address-public
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  > That is demonstrably false Apparently our foreign allies intelligence groups don't find it so farfetched. It does help explain the incredible lack of forces, baffling to many in law enforcement, and why Congress has already started firing capital security personnel and accepted resignations of others for such a screw up. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal...
  - bilbo0s 6y ago
    NATO is just connecting the dots, which is what they are trained to do. Even as an American I have to concede that the conclusions they are drawing are measured and reasonable. Allies losing faith in the reliability of your security personnel is Exhibit A in the case for being extremely careful about who you hire as security personnel.
  - neartheplain 6y ago
    That link is a collection of anonymous quotes speculating on circumstantial evidence. Let's confine ourselves to statements supported by facts. The injuries sustained by dozens of Capitol Police officers, including one who remains on life support, suggest that if a pro-Trump conspiracy existed then it didn't extend past the Chief. There is zero evidence (so far) for such a conspiracy. On the other hand, the footage of officers fighting huge crowds, dispersing rioters with teargas and pepperballs, and even shooting one Capitol invader dead at close range all suggest they did not "side with the President." [0][1][2][3] Officers were overmatched and overwhelmed as the result of poor planning by leadership. The AP suggests complacency was to blame, not collusion or conspiracy [4]: >Both Acevedo and Ed Davis, a former Boston police commissioner who led the department during the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, said they did not fault the responses of clearly overmatched front-line officers, but the planning and leadership before the riot. >“Was there a structural feeling that well, these are a bunch of conservatives, they’re not going to do anything like this? Quite possibly,” Davis said. “That’s where the racial component to this comes into play in my mind. Was there a lack of urgency or a sense that this could never happen with this crowd? Is that possible? Absolutely.” And this is just to focus on the US Capitol Police. If we look at the DC Metro Police, "local" cops in the truest sense of the word, they're not at all aligned with President Trump. Mayor Bowser and Acting Chief Contee are not Republicans. See my comment above for a recap of MPD's conduct yesterday. I am sick of the ACAB mentality which leads to assumptions like "capitol police sided with the President." It is generally untrue, predicated on lies, and counter-productive. I hope my analysis demonstrates that in this case. EDIT: the US Capitol Police officer who was on life support has just passed away. He died from injuries sustained while fighting off violent Trump supporters [5]. Do you still think that he and other officers “sided with the President?” [0] https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1347018199653560320 https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/13470181996535603... [1] https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1347031398176223233 https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1347031398176223233 [2] https://twitter.com/zhalaschak/status/1346940634557521929 https://twitter.com/zhalaschak/status/1346940634557521929 [3] https://twitter.com/mattrodierphot1/status/1346943249680883713 https://twitter.com/mattrodierphot1/status/13469432496808837... [4] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-riots-police-coronavirus-pandemic-9c39a4ddef0ab60a48828a07e4d03380 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-riots-police-coronav... [5] https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1347404723767402499 https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1347404723767402499
prepend 6y ago
> And the local police took the President's side. What’s strange is that the capitol police report to Congress specifically to prevent executive backed coups.
rasz 6y ago
Protesters storm Kyrgyzstan president's office and parliament building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWKCYMDkE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWKCYMDkE4 The electoral authorities in Kyrgyzstan have annulled the results of parliamentary elections following violent protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54432030 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54432030 Lockdown protesters storm Serbian parliament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTMbbLq11Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTMbbLq11Q Coronavirus: Belgrade protesters storm Serb parliament over curfew https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53332225 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53332225
- slumdev 6y ago
  Incredible. In other countries, they're "protesters". Here, only a day later, they're "insurrectionists".
  - hadrien01 6y ago
    They're called insurrectionists in my country, and I wouldn't be surprised they're called this way in other countries.
    - slumdev 6y ago
      I can't speak for your country, but in the U.S., this is a well-known phenomenon. The media choose nouns according to their connotation, depending on how they intend to shape the narrative (regardless of the facts). Our allies have "governments". Everyone else has "regimes". It's interesting to see it turned inward.
bassman9000 6y ago
Even the Soviet countries were better than this. I haven't seen tanks crushing people in DC.

erichocean 6y ago

Every agrees Donald Trump just led an insurrection, including the Senate Majority leader, a Republican. Why is Trump not in custody?

zmmmmm 6y ago
Because, almost insanely and extremely worryingly in itself, it seems the Mueller investigation concurred with the controversial opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Presidents are above the law. So he has to be impeached first, then indicted.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Can Trump be arrested for treason on Jan 21st, after Biden is inaugurated?
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    IANAL but that is my understanding, yes. There is a theory that a lot of his desperation to remain president is due to a tsunami of legal problems that are all waiting for him to leave office. Not sure what veracity that has but his desperation to stay in power certainly is consistent with it.
  - tbihl 6y ago
    The instinct to arrest political enemies is one of the really bad telltales of authoritarianism, so people generally steer well clear. Unless you think that an example needs to be set so Biden and future presidents know not to act similarly, I see very little good that could come of martyring such a lightning rod... You could get an insurrection that looks hard to defeat, rather than one that merely embarrasses law enforcement.
    - alsetmusic 6y ago
      The real reason that no one ever goes after an exiting president is because there is an unspoken agreement not to. The moment that the incoming party mounts a legal case against an exiting president, they ensure that the other team will do the same to them. Also, all other members of congress would become targets. So many of them are enriching themselves through their office that it's best for everyone to just look the other way and move on for the sake of "bringing the nation together." Edit to add: Imagine the indecisiveness that would be brought to the topic of war. Values are constantly changing. What if in 20 years, your extremely popular decision to invade a country for "democracy" is seen as being built on lies? Many of the wars we enter are unpopular when viewed years on. Some might consider this a feature, as it may reduce war. But what about that critical moment when you believe war is necessary and justified because a dictator is taking over half a continent? I despise violence, but wouldn't want a leader afraid to step up before a situation is potentially too late for fear of doing time.
      - vkou 6y ago
        No sitting president has ever tried to marshal his influence to steal the results of a certified election, because there is an unspoken agreement not to. That unspoken rule has been broken. Not punishing him to the fullest extent possible ensures that this will happen again. The next time a personality like him gets elected, it might be successful. I would consider it a feature if the next guy who gets the idea to start an insurrection to think twice, before he pulls the trigger.
      - slavik81 6y ago
        Political leaders ending up in prison is not that rare [1]. The United States has historically had better leadership than the sort of nations where that happens, but it's been on a bit of a decline recently. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_who_were_later_imprisoned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_wh...
        koheripbal 6y ago
        It's not that rare, because those countries are politically unstable. The US is one of the longest living democracies.
  - alsetmusic 6y ago
    CNN is running an article about his inquiring if he can pardon himself. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/donald-trump-self-pardon/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/donald-trump-self-pa...
  - sn41 6y ago
    According to US law, a president can be impeached even if he is no longer in office.
    - chii 6y ago
      Trump is already impeached - which is not removal, but a judgement at the impeachment trial that he is not fit for president. Unfortunately, the senate did not act on the impeachment judgement and thus did not get removed from office.
      - jki275 6y ago
        No. Impeachment is simply an indictment. We all know indictments work. The famous ham sandwich. The senate then takes up the indictment and as in every case to date, acquits the president. The bar to a successful removal from office is quite high and is so for a reason. There is no “impeachment trial” that results in an impeachment. There is a majority democrat house who decided to vote on an impeachment and send it to the senate for a trial. The senate the held a trial and acquitted.
    - jki275 6y ago
      That doesn’t even make any sense.
      - sn41 6y ago
        It is used primarily to make the person ineligible for that post again, to ensure that he does not run again for president, for example.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        In this case, it's really more optics. He has zero chance of ever being re-elected to the Presidency.
        jki275 6y ago
        Alan Dershowitz: “The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 PM on January 20th an hour after President Trump leaves office. And the Constitution specifically says, “The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.” It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.”
  - kevinmchugh 6y ago
    The Constitution defines treason very narrowly and I think it's unlikely prosecutors would choose that particular charge.

pvarangot 6y ago

They are also sending a message to radicalized leftists and progressives that are active in the streets in DC, that they are the enemy and Trump supporters are not.

jonnycomputer 6y ago

I don't think the police took Trump's side. The meme here that they just let them in doesn't reflect what can be clearly seen in the video footage.

kumarvvr 6y ago
It clearly does. In some videos, rioters and terrorists can be seen damaging the barricade and police officers scuffling with them and preventing them from getting inside. But there is at-least one video, that I have seen, no such thing takes place. They just allow the terrorists inside. Stop spreading lies. Edit : The video. https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...
- Lewton 6y ago
  https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199360 https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...
- jonnycomputer 6y ago
  "Stop spreading lies": I insist that you retract that. I am giving my observations from the footage I've seen. "at least one video" I will take you at your word (more than you seem to have done for me). As it turns out, police officers are individuals, who make individual decisions. The question that is important here is whether they were following orders in doing so, and what the intent of those orders were. Leaping to conclusions seems premature.
  - kumarvvr 6y ago
    Police officers maybe individuals. But in a uniform, they are supposed to follow orders. If they are ordered to put up a barricade, it obviously is for keeping people out. Not make "individual" decisions and allow them in, considering the context.
    - harmmonica 6y ago

el-salvador 6y ago

Actually we had something similar happen last year in our third world country, when a group of soldiers and supporters led by the president occupied our congress. Those actions were publicized using our government's verified social media profiles, that have kept attacking every other institution since taking power: Media outlets, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, Universities, Electoral System. Sounds familiar? Unfortunately we have not had those "fact checking alerts" or limitations on inaccurate posts of their profiles. Any chance someone from FB, YT or TW reading this? Could you escalate it internally. Country name: El Salvador.

neartheplain 6y ago

>And the local police took the President's side. That is demonstrably false. The overwhelming majority of officers did their duty, and physically cleared rioters from the building. Many were injured fighting the insurrectionists. One officer was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher and remains in critical care. Mayor Bowser and the DC Chief of Police said this in their morning press conference [0]: >"There was a lot of valiant fighting by members of the Metropolitan Police Department," Acting D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee said. "Just a tremendous amount of heroic acts. I have one officer who's still in the hospital right now. He was snatched into a crowd, he was beaten, he was kicked, he was Tased several times. So, yeah, they fought. They fought very hard yesterday." [0] https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-mayor-address-public https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-mayor-address-public

ChrisLomont 6y ago
> That is demonstrably false Apparently our foreign allies intelligence groups don't find it so farfetched. It does help explain the incredible lack of forces, baffling to many in law enforcement, and why Congress has already started firing capital security personnel and accepted resignations of others for such a screw up. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal...
- bilbo0s 6y ago
  NATO is just connecting the dots, which is what they are trained to do. Even as an American I have to concede that the conclusions they are drawing are measured and reasonable. Allies losing faith in the reliability of your security personnel is Exhibit A in the case for being extremely careful about who you hire as security personnel.
- neartheplain 6y ago
  That link is a collection of anonymous quotes speculating on circumstantial evidence. Let's confine ourselves to statements supported by facts. The injuries sustained by dozens of Capitol Police officers, including one who remains on life support, suggest that if a pro-Trump conspiracy existed then it didn't extend past the Chief. There is zero evidence (so far) for such a conspiracy. On the other hand, the footage of officers fighting huge crowds, dispersing rioters with teargas and pepperballs, and even shooting one Capitol invader dead at close range all suggest they did not "side with the President." [0][1][2][3] Officers were overmatched and overwhelmed as the result of poor planning by leadership. The AP suggests complacency was to blame, not collusion or conspiracy [4]: >Both Acevedo and Ed Davis, a former Boston police commissioner who led the department during the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, said they did not fault the responses of clearly overmatched front-line officers, but the planning and leadership before the riot. >“Was there a structural feeling that well, these are a bunch of conservatives, they’re not going to do anything like this? Quite possibly,” Davis said. “That’s where the racial component to this comes into play in my mind. Was there a lack of urgency or a sense that this could never happen with this crowd? Is that possible? Absolutely.” And this is just to focus on the US Capitol Police. If we look at the DC Metro Police, "local" cops in the truest sense of the word, they're not at all aligned with President Trump. Mayor Bowser and Acting Chief Contee are not Republicans. See my comment above for a recap of MPD's conduct yesterday. I am sick of the ACAB mentality which leads to assumptions like "capitol police sided with the President." It is generally untrue, predicated on lies, and counter-productive. I hope my analysis demonstrates that in this case. EDIT: the US Capitol Police officer who was on life support has just passed away. He died from injuries sustained while fighting off violent Trump supporters [5]. Do you still think that he and other officers “sided with the President?” [0] https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/1347018199653560320 https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/13470181996535603... [1] https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1347031398176223233 https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1347031398176223233 [2] https://twitter.com/zhalaschak/status/1346940634557521929 https://twitter.com/zhalaschak/status/1346940634557521929 [3] https://twitter.com/mattrodierphot1/status/1346943249680883713 https://twitter.com/mattrodierphot1/status/13469432496808837... [4] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-riots-police-coronavirus-pandemic-9c39a4ddef0ab60a48828a07e4d03380 https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-riots-police-coronav... [5] https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1347404723767402499 https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1347404723767402499

prepend 6y ago

> And the local police took the President's side. What’s strange is that the capitol police report to Congress specifically to prevent executive backed coups.

rasz 6y ago

Protesters storm Kyrgyzstan president's office and parliament building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWKCYMDkE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWKCYMDkE4 The electoral authorities in Kyrgyzstan have annulled the results of parliamentary elections following violent protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54432030 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54432030 Lockdown protesters storm Serbian parliament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTMbbLq11Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTMbbLq11Q Coronavirus: Belgrade protesters storm Serb parliament over curfew https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53332225 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53332225

slumdev 6y ago
Incredible. In other countries, they're "protesters". Here, only a day later, they're "insurrectionists".
- hadrien01 6y ago
  They're called insurrectionists in my country, and I wouldn't be surprised they're called this way in other countries.
  - slumdev 6y ago
    I can't speak for your country, but in the U.S., this is a well-known phenomenon. The media choose nouns according to their connotation, depending on how they intend to shape the narrative (regardless of the facts). Our allies have "governments". Everyone else has "regimes". It's interesting to see it turned inward.

bassman9000 6y ago

Even the Soviet countries were better than this. I haven't seen tanks crushing people in DC.