3 ms·

> What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was

> What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish? The same, non-violent thing that it means in the stock phrase "fight for your rights". > None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks Other people are not unaware of the possible connotations you describe. They have evaluated the evidence for themselves and concluded that those connotations were not intended.

archdang 1y ago
Two days before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Intelligence units within the FBI and DHS were aware of this chatter, and the FBI’s Norfolk office even issued a report on Jan 5 warning of extremists preparing for “war” at the Capitol. Social media and fringe platforms (Parler, TheDonald.win, Gab, Telegram, etc.) were full of posts openly discussing storming the Capitol, bringing weapons, and even targeting lawmakers. We can conclude with very high certainty that joining this clamour with promises to send busloads of people to fight was a call for violence at the time.
- zahlman 1y ago
  > there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Even taking your claims for granted (none of this sounds familiar to me) there is no reason to suppose Kirk would have had any knowledge of it. For that matter, the FBI and DHS believing something about an ideological group doesn't make it true. > We can conclude with very high certainty No, we cannot.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]

archdang 1y ago

Two days before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Intelligence units within the FBI and DHS were aware of this chatter, and the FBI’s Norfolk office even issued a report on Jan 5 warning of extremists preparing for “war” at the Capitol. Social media and fringe platforms (Parler, TheDonald.win, Gab, Telegram, etc.) were full of posts openly discussing storming the Capitol, bringing weapons, and even targeting lawmakers. We can conclude with very high certainty that joining this clamour with promises to send busloads of people to fight was a call for violence at the time.

zahlman 1y ago
> there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Even taking your claims for granted (none of this sounds familiar to me) there is no reason to suppose Kirk would have had any knowledge of it. For that matter, the FBI and DHS believing something about an ideological group doesn't make it true. > We can conclude with very high certainty No, we cannot.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]