For the doomers out there, stop embracing the enemy narrative.
Trump initiated with multiple Tweets in the prior months. I remember - that's why I went.
The worst thing we did was trespassing.
The Deep State ILLEGALLY...
- stole an election
- staged a false flag
- murdered several Trump supporters
- hunted down & jailed participants
- refused American citizens access to a fair and speedy trial
- withheld 14,000 hours of video evidence
- formed a investigative committee and gave it unlawful powers
- ignored FBI agents, Antifa, the bomber, and other instigators
Can we please STOP talking about J6 as if it was a mistake or that we should have done something differently?
That's a LIE.
We were there to disrupt a staged revolt. It was successful.
We need to free our men from prison.
STOP backing down and giving ground.
I've never understood this.
The insurrection act would require POTUS to tell the insurgents to disperse. True.
But the group labeled as insurgents is the one the act is targeting.
So he can't look at you, identify you as insurgents, and then turn around and arrest Biden on that basis. Because he wasn't telling Biden to go home, or if he was, it wasn't in a way that was legally significant, because Biden wasn't even there. He didn't tell Biden to disperse. He told his supporters to disperse.
The insurrection act doesn't allow the POTUS to tell one group to go away, and then target a completely different group with insurrection powers. The insurrectionists are the ones identified when POTUS tells them to disperse.
Which means his own supporters. Which means if the insurrection act was signed, the targets were his own supporters. Because that's who he was addressing.
What am I missing? Because if Trump was not talking to his supporters, despite standing in front of them, despite addressing them directly, despite having invited them there, then legally, it wouldn't have been considered a legal address to the "true" insurrectionists. Because nobody could possibly know that at the time.
There's speculation the video telling people to go home was prerecorded at an earlier time. He wasn't telling his supporters to GTFO, he was telling panty-fa to GTFO.
Didn't Scavino release videos of BTS of it being filmed on the spot?
If the point was to do things legally and by-the-book, then this wouldn't hold up in court. If the insurgents can legally say that they were not aware they were being told to disperse because of some 5D trickery by Trump and pre-recorded messages, then they were not legally told to disperse. So IA would be invalid.
If a cop is facing away from you, down the street, talking to someone else, and tells you to put your hands up, and you don't, then you're going to win in court if he shoots you. Because there is no way to prove you knew you were receiving an order from the police. You thought they were talking to someone else.
Seems silly to go to all the trouble of doing this by-the-book and then risk it all on hoping the judge won't care that you fulfilled the order to publicly, openly tell people to disperse... secretly...
At any rate, the qualifications for the Insurrection Act were fulfilled by Trump telling them to disperse.
I think he would have invoked it after 11.3, not J6.
I assumed that his announcement was for everybody - Trump supporters, Antifa, etc...
Whoever stayed would be dealt with accordingly.
His followers didn't really break any laws, other than some trespassing if you can get that to stick. So there isn't much concern there.
The other parties were actually guilty.
A court could distinguish between groups and dole out justice accordingly.
EDIT Just saw your augment about "I know your pain." I think the out for that is that he was addressing "the crowd." The reality is people didn't go home, so they actually have the ability to investigate. Investigating a Trump supported is going to lead nowhere, at worst you might catch them with trespassing. But if you investigate someone and it turns out they were undercover FBI... Well, that gets to be interesting pretty fast.
The blanket statement gives him the ability to move forward and narrow things down as needed through the investigation. I think the courts will respect that. And his statement is reasonable, he could always say that at the time he was addressing the crowd. By the time we get into this, I think we'll be more awake and be aware of what really happened anyway
What if he wasn't talking to the Trump supporters but instead talking to the FBI agent provocateurs, antifa and those stealing the elections etc.
Humm...
Trump had to do it by the book letting the foreign backed coup succeed. His advice to the crowd was also sound. Look what they are doing to those who failed to follow it. If Pence had upheld the protest or certifications from states in question the plan would have continued. Pence did not; the plan continues.
I was there (as a Trump supporter and as a witness to the theft, praying for it to be stopped), as were the FBI and Antifa provocateurs. At the time, I knew that they were up to something (as did many others that I spoke to around me), and believed they were operating at the direction of Pelosi, Biden, DS, et.al.
Who is to say whom he was addressing? They were all addressed. His supporters know he wasn't speaking to them, and he wasn't calling them insurrectionists. But the "insurrectionists" were represented in the crowd, with a human shield of supporters. It was pretty obvious who they were, even though we couldn't do anything at them time. There were FBI types, (military-aged, short-haired, organized groups acting in a coordinated fashion, like we have seen recently exposed at other false flags - "glowies") and "guerilla theatre types" (reminiscent of political activists I witnessed in the late 60s and early 70s - like Mr buffalo head-dress man - who passed a few feet in front of me as he ran into the Capitol building)
Who is to say whom he was addressing?
Well... Trump. That's the point. The people who are being addressed have to know they're being addressed. Otherwise, they aren't being addressed.
And when Trump says, “I know your pain, I know you’re hurt...but you have to go home now."
He was telling the Deep State he knows their pain? He knows they're hurting?
Because if he wasn't, then he wasn't talking to them. It sounds like he was talking to you. And if he was talking to you, telling you he knew you hurt, then he also was telling you to go home. I have a hard time believing, "I switched addressees mid-sentence" would hold up in court.
He's telling us the Insurrection happened on election day. I've heard he invoked the IA early the following morning when they stopped counting and then started again. There was a narrow window he had to act because if he did it after the announcement of "Biden's win" then it would be him committing some kind of crime in trying to take out Biden as "president elect". It sounded plausible. It may have been devolution where I read it. It's been a while.
You're missing that SCOTUS precedents declare that the "sides" don't matter, only that people agree there was a rebellion, insurrection, or insurgency. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moyer_v._Peabody
No need to debate the "correct" side in the legal battle, only whether there was harm to provide standing.