>> The Trump campaign; the Republican party.
The Trump Campaign was dead. The Republican Party was defeated. They absolutely were not in any way an organizing influence. Not sure where you got that. There was zero percent chance of salvaging anything and it was obvious to everyone, INCLUDING Trump himself. Trump certainly believed there was no way he was coming out the other side as president. I would point out that in his speech he called for peaceful protests. You would do well to turn off the TV and cancel your newspapers.
>> The various efforts to stop the certification of Biden's election win, those in the states and, most critically, Pence's final certification on the day in question there in the Capitol building that was being stormed, you know, the one with the noose outside.
What was the "effort" to stop the certification? There was no such effort of any substantive nature. How many people actually breached the Capitol? Most importantly, how many had weapons? (Zero weapons taken off protestors, is the answer, although they did find one in a car.) You don't overthrow a government or overturn even a stolen election violently without weapons. More importantly, the number of people involved was very few. The protestors melted away when the protest moved toward breaking in; there were angry people but not violent people. There is a difference.
>> It was about overthrowing the elected leader,
So, what was the plan? Who created it? Who organized and managed it? How was it to have proceeded from protests to an actual "overthrow" (of a future president, somehow)?
There was no insurrection by any definition I know of. At any point in time. There would have been an effort to overturn the election if the courts hadn't misbehaved, but they are the decision makers.
It is really important to understand that the Insurrection Act does not merely apply to an insurrection. In this case, the law was used by the Pelosi Regime solely to provide the trappings of insurrection so they could use the term, which of course, sounds horrible to average people, who are disinterested and not talking about it three months later.
You think it was an insurrection why? Because MSNBC calls it that 100s of times daily (effectively, brain-washing), because WaPo and NYT called it that. Not because it was. There is no evidence any of the criteria required for it to have been an insurrection were met, and there is no definition of the term which was met. It just wasn't that.
The only difference between this "insurrection" and Portland is a name. In Portland, we had peaceful protests that got out of hand. In DC we had peaceful protests that got out of hand. The Insurrection Act can technically be used against general civil disorder; but we don't call Portland an insurrection because it is inconvenient for politicians.
In DC, it was entirely convenient for Pelosi and she is still getting milage out of it (although more people seem to be seeing it as idiotic to drag this thing out).
I just don't think you have a leg to stand on here other whatever strength you pull from MSNBC. |
