It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
You mean the highly selectively edited video broadcast by the same people currently getting their asses sued off by Dominion over their voting machine lies? How does this video prove anything? How does this video make all the video of highly violent attacks go away? It’s desperate clutching at straws.
It was a demonstration. For whatever reason, and I have no problem thinking that they were acting at the behest of Trump who wanted to "delay proceedings" for his own nefarious reasons.
But even allowing for the tooled up MAGA Proud Boy loons it wasn't a bloodbath which, with that amount of firepower, it surely would or could have been if it had been intent on overthrowing the state by use of force.
It was not a coup. It was political violence which is sometimes necessary (see: 1770s) and sometimes not (see: Jan 6th) only it is often difficult at the time to work out which is necessary and which is not.
You seem to be hugely invested in this being Trump trying to win back the presidency with the use of violence.
He is a total dickwad and it amuses and horrifies me that he was POTUS albeit millions of people voted for him and you know what they say about democracy, but you keep on going on about the "broader picture", and he didn't meaningfully attempt a coup. Which presumably he would have been charged for if there was any substance to the accusation.
He is currently under investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith over these events. He may, or may not, be charged. I think you’ve got to wait and see how that plays out before making that argument!
Trump has two battles - secure the nomination, then secure the Presidency.
Getting his collar felt absolutely helps with the former. He remains the principle figure in the GOP and the driver of all kinds of madness at federal and state level. We now have people working towards the Fuhrer Trump, implementing all kinds of crazy things which further tighten his grip on the movement.
I think we need to be a little bit skeptical of the GOP polling. Right now nothing depends on it, and the other candidates aren't well known. If you're a GOP member and you think the libs are out to get your guy, when a pollster rings up and asks you about your vote I think you say you're going to support your guy. That doesn't mean it's what you'll choose when you have to actually decide who the best person is to get rid of Biden.
I remain sceptical of pretty much all US polling in pretty much all circumstances - for one thing, they seem incapable of getting a decent sample size. The poll in the header is 566 adults - not even registered voters let alone likely voters.
ABC/Ipsos polls have consistently shown the worst favorability ratings for President Trump, so we do need to remember that too.
However, we do get weekly YouGov's (with larger sample sizes, and RVs - admittedly with a self selecting panel), and that has tended to be kindest poll to the former President. The new one will drop on Thursday/Friday, so let's see if the trend continues.
Trump has two battles - secure the nomination, then secure the Presidency.
Getting his collar felt absolutely helps with the former. He remains the principle figure in the GOP and the driver of all kinds of madness at federal and state level. We now have people working towards the Fuhrer Trump, implementing all kinds of crazy things which further tighten his grip on the movement.
The problem for the GOP is that Trumpism is driving a big surge in centre / dem registration and participation as people rightly see this as the battle to save their democratic system and the country with it. So I can't see how any of this helps him secure the Presidency. Not that he was going to do so anyway against Biden.
Tucker Carlson told viewers that now was not the time to give up their AR15s. Because a full-scale armed insurrection is the only route to the Presidency for DJT.
Trump is suffering from the fact that legal, regulated abortion is popular.
Ironically, he knows this, but the Judges he appointed to do not. Or more likely, do not care.
The overturning - by a Texas Judge - of the FDA approval of an abortion pill reinforces the Dem narrative that this isn't about returning power to the States, but of banning abortion altogether.
We saw an echo of this in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last week, where the State elected a Liberal by a 9 point margin, handing control back to the Dems for the first time in decades.
Pence is closer to the evangelicals even than Trump though. He is also much more aggressive v Putin than either Trump or DeSantis are
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
What's the impact on global markets of a Trump coup?
In the absence of the rule of law it is only your physical ability and determination to inflict violence on others that secures your ownership of assets.
If Trump were to take power in 2025, thanks to a GOP House and Supreme Court, despite losing the election, then the rule of law in the US would be worthless, and the market value of US assets would respond consequently. In the short term, the prodigious capital outflows from the US, looking for a safe haven where the rule of law still applied, might see values in other markets rise, but the knock-on consequences for the global economy would be brutal.
Who won the election in 2000 if all the votes were counted fairly?
The NORC study concluded that Gore would have won, but the margins were tight and they didn't have access to all the disputed ballots. See
However, the difference with my hypothetical scenario for 2024 is that Gore accepted the legitimacy of the process that resulted in Bush becoming President, but in my hypothetical scenario you would have State legislatures, or election officials, or the House of Representatives, or some combination of all three, and the Supreme Court, declaring Trump the winner in defiance of the normal process, because they are ensuring that the correct people are in place who are prepared to say that 1 > 2.
That's why such a scenario would lead to a dramatic loss of confidence in three rule of law in the US.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
Quite.
It was only ever mistermed a 'coup' because it was Trump, and the silly people arguing that it was one in this thread are only doing that because it was Trump. He always brings out the very worst in his opponents.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
I agree that January 6 was not an attempted coup.
But what of the creation of fake sets of electors. I mean, they were ignored in the end, but that is much closer to an organised campaign to overthrow the election.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
Driving home from Glasgow I happened to hear President Biden's speech on the Belfast Agreement. I have to say that if that is what senile sounds like I aspire to it. A careful, measured, articulate speech highlighting the many benefits of the Belfast Agreement and peace, emphasising the importance of what had been achieved and its transformative effects whilst not shying away from current difficulties. Really an exceptional effort.
"2:08PM 'We do not face a banking systemic banking crisis,' says Andrew Bailey The world is not facing a global banking crisis on the scale of 2008, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has told the Institute for International Finance.
The post crisis reforms to bank regulation have worked. Today I do not believe we face a systemic banking crisis. When I look at the UK banks, they are well capitalised, liquid and able to serve their customers and support the economy."
Trump has two battles - secure the nomination, then secure the Presidency.
Getting his collar felt absolutely helps with the former. He remains the principle figure in the GOP and the driver of all kinds of madness at federal and state level. We now have people working towards the Fuhrer Trump, implementing all kinds of crazy things which further tighten his grip on the movement.
The problem for the GOP is that Trumpism is driving a big surge in centre / dem registration and participation as people rightly see this as the battle to save their democratic system and the country with it. So I can't see how any of this helps him secure the Presidency. Not that he was going to do so anyway against Biden.
Tucker Carlson told viewers that now was not the time to give up their AR15s. Because a full-scale armed insurrection is the only route to the Presidency for DJT.
Trump is suffering from the fact that legal, regulated abortion is popular.
Ironically, he knows this, but the Judges he appointed to do not. Or more likely, do not care.
The overturning - by a Texas Judge - of the FDA approval of an abortion pill reinforces the Dem narrative that this isn't about returning power to the States, but of banning abortion altogether.
We saw an echo of this in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election last week, where the State elected a Liberal by a 9 point margin, handing control back to the Dems for the first time in decades.
Pence is closer to the evangelicals even than Trump though. He is also much more aggressive v Putin than either Trump or DeSantis are
What's the impact on global markets of a Trump coup?
In the absence of the rule of law it is only your physical ability and determination to inflict violence on others that secures your ownership of assets.
If Trump were to take power in 2025, thanks to a GOP House and Supreme Court, despite losing the election, then the rule of law in the US would be worthless, and the market value of US assets would respond consequently. In the short term, the prodigious capital outflows from the US, looking for a safe haven where the rule of law still applied, might see values in other markets rise, but the knock-on consequences for the global economy would be brutal.
Who won the election in 2000 if all the votes were counted fairly?
The NORC study concluded that Gore would have won, but the margins were tight and they didn't have access to all the disputed ballots. See
My recollection at the time was that the most likely outcomes were that Gore would have won under the counting standards Bush wanted, and Bush would have won under the counting standards that Gore wanted.
Given that the two campaigns wanted different counting standards, I don't think "all votes counted fairly" is definable tightly enough to be meaningful.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings.
Despite its flaws, it doesn't require defendants to prove they are innocent.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The US criminal justice system puts a huge amount of pressure on people to plead guilty.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted on unchallenged. Neither of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
Again, deciding it is better to monitor rather than attempt to restrain a man brandishing a spear and making specific threats to Pence in particular, does not amount to him being "allowed" to be there or to do what he was doing.
Chansley fairly obviously has mental problems. It's possible his bark is worse than his bite, and it's possible to feel some sympathy for a troubled individual who got carried away in the excitement.
But there's no fundamental injustice here - he committed offences and was convicted. He was legally represented throughout that process and accepted a plea bargain that others may not have.
One thinks back to the London riots in 2011 - some of those convicted paid a high price for pretty low level, opportunistic thieving that they wouldn't have been involved in at all in normal times. But courts tend to take involvement in widespread disorder pretty seriously and throw the book at people who weren't necessarily leaders but got carried along by it. A bit of human sympathy over that isn't the same as concluding there was some grave injustice.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
Quite.
It was only ever mistermed a 'coup' because it was Trump, and the silly people arguing that it was one in this thread are only doing that because it was Trump. He always brings out the very worst in his opponents.
And in his supporters. So that's most people he brings out the worst in. Talk about toxic.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
You mean the highly selectively edited video broadcast by the same people currently getting their asses sued off by Dominion over their voting machine lies? How does this video prove anything? How does this video make all the video of highly violent attacks go away? It’s desperate clutching at straws.
It was a demonstration. For whatever reason, and I have no problem thinking that they were acting at the behest of Trump who wanted to "delay proceedings" for his own nefarious reasons.
But even allowing for the tooled up MAGA Proud Boy loons it wasn't a bloodbath which, with that amount of firepower, it surely would or could have been if it had been intent on overthrowing the state by use of force.
It was not a coup. It was political violence which is sometimes necessary (see: 1770s) and sometimes not (see: Jan 6th) only it is often difficult at the time to work out which is necessary and which is not.
You seem to be hugely invested in this being Trump trying to win back the presidency with the use of violence.
He is a total dickwad and it amuses and horrifies me that he was POTUS albeit millions of people voted for him and you know what they say about democracy, but you keep on going on about the "broader picture", and he didn't meaningfully attempt a coup. Which presumably he would have been charged for if there was any substance to the accusation.
Depends how you define ‘meaningful’. He certainly attempted to fix an elevation which had gone against him by trying to persuade state election officials to ‘find’ votes.
That it wasn’t an organised attempt, as much as a series of half competent improvisations, doesn’t negate the intent.
This time round things will be worse at the state level in not a few states - though set against that is federal executive power in the hands of the Democrats.
It may all turn out fine, but it’s not paranoia to worry otherwise.
"2:08PM 'We do not face a banking systemic banking crisis,' says Andrew Bailey The world is not facing a global banking crisis on the scale of 2008, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has told the Institute for International Finance.
The post crisis reforms to bank regulation have worked. Today I do not believe we face a systemic banking crisis. When I look at the UK banks, they are well capitalised, liquid and able to serve their customers and support the economy."
I've seen a few stories in places about a banking crisis in Autumn 2023 - until today I was ignoring them but after that speech I'm not so sure.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
I agree that January 6 was not an attempted coup.
But what of the creation of fake sets of electors. I mean, they were ignored in the end, but that is much closer to an organised campaign to overthrow the election.
Yes. I think we're getting semantic on "coup". It doesn't have to involve armed violence.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence? He was part of a protest that forced their way into the building. He should not have been in the building, he should not have been on the Senate floor. His, and others’, actions disrupted an official proceeding. He pleaded guilty. Tucker Carlson’s video doesn’t contradict any of that.
Is 41 months too long a sentence? Otis Ferry got an 18 months conditional discharge. But the US has its laws and we have ours.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence? He was part of a protest that forced their way into the building. He should not have been in the building, he should not have been on the Senate floor. His, and others’, actions disrupted an official proceeding. He pleaded guilty. Tucker Carlson’s video doesn’t contradict any of that.
Is 41 months too long a sentence? Otis Ferry got an 18 months conditional discharge. But the US has its laws and we have ours.
He should not be required to prove his innocence, he should be allowed to defend reasonable charges without the threat of life imprisonment hanging over him, and with all evidence turned over to his defence team.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
On parish councils, they are an ok and relatively harmless body I've found and often the repository of the most vicious, vituperative, treacherous personal politics around. But once you've sorted out the speeding signs and the church windows at Easter what else is there to do so naturally they go a bit Lord of the Flies.
“Why is office politics in academia so vicious? Because the stakes are so small”
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
I agree that January 6 was not an attempted coup.
But what of the creation of fake sets of electors. I mean, they were ignored in the end, but that is much closer to an organised campaign to overthrow the election.
Yes. I think we're getting semantic on "coup". It doesn't have to involve armed violence.
I thought we were going to avoid the trans debate on here for a bit.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
On parish councils, they are an ok and relatively harmless body I've found and often the repository of the most vicious, vituperative, treacherous personal politics around. But once you've sorted out the speeding signs and the church windows at Easter what else is there to do so naturally they go a bit Lord of the Flies.
“Why is office politics in academia so vicious? Because the stakes are so small”
Ditto poetry. Brutal world
It's always a 2 big fish in a (very) small pond issues.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The US criminal justice system puts a huge amount of pressure on people to plead guilty.
I’m not here to praise the US system, but numerous 6 Jan participants have not pled guilty. It is clearly possible to assert your innocence. Q Shaman pled guilty. He hasn’t gone back on that, as numerous other 6 Jan participants have. It’s hard to see a miscarriage of justice when the supposed victim isn’t even claiming one.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
You can't operate if you're completely deluded.
Without wanting to get into a what-was-the-worst-thing-about-Liz-Truss competition, I don't agree. I'm not convinced some variant of Liz Truss's approach couldn't have worked. Where she failed was not realising that in politics you have to win arguments and get support for your approach. She didn't do *any* of the politics.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It is also worth remembering that Discovery is not usually due until fairly shortly before trial. If a plea deal was organized early, a Discover file may simply never have been created.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
On parish councils, they are an ok and relatively harmless body I've found and often the repository of the most vicious, vituperative, treacherous personal politics around. But once you've sorted out the speeding signs and the church windows at Easter what else is there to do so naturally they go a bit Lord of the Flies.
“Why is office politics in academia so vicious? Because the stakes are so small”
Ditto poetry. Brutal world
It's always a 2 big fish in a (very) small pond issues.
It’s highly entertaining to watch (if you’re not personally invested). I know a few “professional” poets. They’re always sniping and bitching, with real venom, and often they try to cancel each other. Wokeness has added to the malice. Then you find out they’re bitterly fighting over the Skane-McDougal Third Volume Award which consists of £50 and a bottle of non vintage port
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence? He was part of a protest that forced their way into the building. He should not have been in the building, he should not have been on the Senate floor. His, and others’, actions disrupted an official proceeding. He pleaded guilty. Tucker Carlson’s video doesn’t contradict any of that.
Is 41 months too long a sentence? Otis Ferry got an 18 months conditional discharge. But the US has its laws and we have ours.
He should not be required to prove his innocence, he should be allowed to defend reasonable charges without the threat of life imprisonment hanging over him, and with all evidence turned over to his defence team.
Some CCTV footage emerged later that doesn’t exonerate him in any way. If that should’ve been turned over to his defence team at the time, I hope someone is looking into that error, but it’s hard to see what difference it would make.
He was trying to obstruct an official proceeding. He’s said that. We can all see that. Doing that is a crime in the US. He did time for it. He’s now out.
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer requested full access to CCTV at the time, and was very surprised to see new CCTV of his client on the news a few weeks ago.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The US criminal justice system puts a huge amount of pressure on people to plead guilty.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I always wonder whether media personalities actually believe their own output. Apparently Tucker Carlson is one of those that doesn't.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer requested full access to CCTV at the time, and was very surprised to see new CCTV of his client on the news a few weeks ago.
'M'Lud I know there is video evidence of my client committing a crime, but I would also like to enter into evidence video which shows him just walking about and not committing a crime'
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
Driving home from Glasgow I happened to hear President Biden's speech on the Belfast Agreement. I have to say that if that is what senile sounds like I aspire to it. A careful, measured, articulate speech highlighting the many benefits of the Belfast Agreement and peace, emphasising the importance of what had been achieved and its transformative effects whilst not shying away from current difficulties. Really an exceptional effort.
Compare with the incoherent spoutings of Trump in the Tucker C. interview.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer said that he was unaware of the footage before Carlson broadcast it. Prosecutors said at the time of Chansley’s plea deal that they were still working through discovery. So, again, hard to see any miscarriage of justice.
Have to say that Macron running around sucking up to China has been fun, though a little unedifying, to watch. Apparently Europe frees itself from the shacked of America by kowtowing to China. For all of the annoyances, pain and whatever else has come after Brexit, this is why I wanted out. We are not aligned with them, our view of the world and their view of the world are miles apart. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the EU is ready to sell Ukraine out so they can start selling BMWs and dishwashers to Russians again. Any "peace" deal brokered by Macron, Xi and Putin is a victory for invaders and despots and should be rejected out of hand.
Macron is debasing himself, France and Europe to be "the guy in the room". Any world leader could do that and they have chosen not to. He is a fool and I hope the protestors win and get rid of him.
France is in a bad place because it's difficult not to see Le Pen winning the next presidential election.
GPT4, it turns out, is an exceptionally capable scientist
“Conclusions In this paper, we presented an Intelligent Agent system capable of autonomously designing, planning, and executing complex scientific experiments. Our system demonstrates exceptional reasoning and experimental design capabilities, effectively addressing complex problems and generating high-quality code”
Indeed it is so good the authors slightly freak out, and demand that it be prevented from creating new drugs, poisons, bioweapons. Etc. Good luck persuading the Chinese to do that
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer requested full access to CCTV at the time, and was very surprised to see new CCTV of his client on the news a few weeks ago.
Prosecution said at the time of the plea deal that discovery was ongoing, so it appears due process was followed. QAnon Shaman could’ve waited for discovery to have finished before deciding what to do; he didn’t.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
I'm not sure he was beaten to death by the rioters.
Unlike you to spread fake or embroider the truth.
He was pepper sprayed and then died later of a stroke, deemed by the medical authorities as natural causes.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
Have to say that Macron running around sucking up to China has been fun, though a little unedifying, to watch. Apparently Europe frees itself from the shacked of America by kowtowing to China. For all of the annoyances, pain and whatever else has come after Brexit, this is why I wanted out. We are not aligned with them, our view of the world and their view of the world are miles apart. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the EU is ready to sell Ukraine out so they can start selling BMWs and dishwashers to Russians again. Any "peace" deal brokered by Macron, Xi and Putin is a victory for invaders and despots and should be rejected out of hand.
Macron is debasing himself, France and Europe to be "the guy in the room". Any world leader could do that and they have chosen not to. He is a fool and I hope the protestors win and get rid of him.
France is in a bad place because it's difficult not to see Le Pen winning the next presidential election.
Depends, a decent Les Republicains candidate could beat Melenchon or Le Pen in the run off, maybe Bertrand. Macron of course can't run again
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I 've never mentioned him?
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
You can’t adapt Lord’s, but yes there’s two dozen world class stadia in England.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
That isn’t the choice, is it? It’s plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and face a trial.
At the time he went for the deal, the prosecution already had extensive evidence of his guilt. Indeed, extensive evidence of his guilt had been broadcast on people’s tellies around the world.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
You don't really think he was innocent of the charges, do you? Genuine question.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer said that he was unaware of the footage before Carlson broadcast it. Prosecutors said at the time of Chansley’s plea deal that they were still working through discovery. So, again, hard to see any miscarriage of justice.
If they were still working through discovery why did they "offer a plea deal" (translartion: issue threats about life imprisonment)?
OK, so who had the Campaign for Real Ale on their Woke Bingo cards?
We are currently discussing why this guidance was seemingly ignored by our South West Essex branch & instructing them not to consider the White Hart, Grays, Essex, for future awards, or inclusion in our Good Beer Guide, while these discriminatory dolls continue to be on display.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
You can’t adapt Lord’s, but yes there’s two dozen world class stadia in England.
You could adapt Lords as long as you laid down entirely new turf over everything. And then removed it. I agree this would be fairly pointless as we have 20 other stadiums that could also do the job, as you say
I know this might seem an unpopular opinion but doctors are really coming out with some shite on twitter comparing pay to rates small businesses charge.
Someone on Twitter yesterday suggested that, perhaps there might be more support for the junior doctors, if their spokespeople didn’t sound like Arthur Scargill with a stethoscope!
They are merely representing their electors. There was a 78% turnout and 98% support for strike in the BMA ballot.
Depicting the leaders as radicals unrepresentative of the real workers is fairly par for the course for government propaganda, but particularly untrue in this dispute.
Come on Foxy you know being paid £14 or whatever per hour isn't nearly the same as a business charging £14/hr for it's services...
Yes and teh £14 an hour is a real con and only applies to a year 1 junior doctor who works Mon to Fri basic hours. None of them ever get their base salary , they have uplifts and multipliers for just about everything you can think of.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Yeah, that makes sense. I assume the "National Stadium of Wales" is the latest re-branding of the Millennium Stadium?
Only two in London and one in any other city, as expected.
Eastlands an easy choice over Old Trafford, as is the new Everton stadium over Anfield.
Good choices all round, I think. Perhaps a moderate gripe at two stadiums in London and two in England's north west, but in absolute fairness they are the two real powerhouse regions for football in England and as such have the pick of the grounds.
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
If they were going to add another one in England then somewhere in the south outside of London would have been nice. Southampton maybe?
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
True, Southampton would be a good pick - B&H Albion's ground also is a reasonable logistical choice for yer Albania v Estonia-type fixtures - as, I suppose, would Aberdeen's new ground, if it ever actually gets built.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
England probably has more decent stadiums per square mile than any country on earth
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
You can’t adapt Lord’s, but yes there’s two dozen world class stadia in England.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I 've never mentioned him?
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
You keep talking about a video that comes from Tucker Carlson.
The video wasn’t disclosed to the defence, but the prosecution said they were still going through evidence when this guy decided to plead guilty.
What in the video, do you think, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt? I refer you to logical_song’s 14:36 post.
Why are you and Sandpit so determined to claim a miscarriage of justice for someone who pled guilty and has never recanted his plea or claimed a miscarriage of justice for himself? The person who’s mainly claiming a miscarriage of justice is Tucker Carlson, a proven liar and propagandist.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Was heartily mocked on here when I said a couple of years back that Everton would get it over Anfield. That a state of the art new City centre Stadium would be favoured over a hodgepodge of improvements to a 140 year old ground in a creaking, none too appealing suburb with extremely poor transport links, was trumped by the idea that UEFA officials would prefer it "because they are used to going there. And it's LFC." Same for Old Trafford it seems.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The US criminal justice system puts a huge amount of pressure on people to plead guilty.
Plea bargains ought to be banned in my opinion.
Whilst there is some merit in this in terms of the very aggressive plea bargaining (where the difference between the plea offered and back up prosecution to be brought is huge), it is very hard to see how the justice system can function without some give and take between prosecution and defence.
Ultimately, it can be a lot better for defendants and indeed victims to move quickly to a guilty plea rather than have a drawn out case arguing over the precise crime committed (which can involve fine distinctions and limited differences in penalties) and facts which are disputed which don't have a bearing on guilt but do on mitigation/aggravation.
Also, is a discount on sentence for an early guilty plea a form of plea bargain in your eyes? You certainly do get credit in sentencing for not dragging it out to trial or the eve of trial... is that really such a bad thing?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
You don't really think he was innocent of the charges, do you? Genuine question.
The charges they were preparing, were basically treason. Yes, I think he was innocent of that charge, he was a bit of an idiot, rather than someone with a serious plan to overthrow the government.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I 've never mentioned him?
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
You keep talking about a video that comes from Tucker Carlson.
The video wasn’t disclosed to the defence, but the prosecution said they were still going through evidence when this guy decided to plead guilty.
What in the video, do you think, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt? I refer you to logical_song’s 14:36 post.
Why are you and Sandpit so determined to claim a miscarriage of justice for someone who pled guilty and has never recanted his plea or claimed a miscarriage of justice for himself? The person who’s mainly claiming a miscarriage of justice is Tucker Carlson, a proven liar and propagandist.
I assume by "comes from" you mean "broadcast by", in which case it's irrelevant - the medium is not the message and you're trying ad hom.
But if you read my what my posts actually say - not what you assume they say - you'll realise that I'm not taking sides on the veracity of the video (which I haven't seen), merely pointing out that your demands for a defendant to have to prove their innocent are not how the US justice system, flawed as it is, operates.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
That isn’t the choice, is it? It’s plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and face a trial.
At the time he went for the deal, the prosecution already had extensive evidence of his guilt. Indeed, extensive evidence of his guilt had been broadcast on people’s tellies around the world.
No, the whole point was that there was no evidence of the specific crimes with which they intended to charge him.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer said that he was unaware of the footage before Carlson broadcast it. Prosecutors said at the time of Chansley’s plea deal that they were still working through discovery. So, again, hard to see any miscarriage of justice.
If they were still working through discovery why did they "offer a plea deal" (translartion: issue threats about life imprisonment)?
Why shouldn’t they? They clearly felt they had a good case and they put that to Chansley. There are no requirements that the prosecution have to work through all the evidence before offering a plea deal. If you’re arrested for a crime, the police will ask you if you did it straight away and you can say yes (and that will look good for you when it comes to sentencing).
Why did Chansley accept the deal? Could it be because he accepted he was guilty?
Driving home from Glasgow I happened to hear President Biden's speech on the Belfast Agreement. I have to say that if that is what senile sounds like I aspire to it. A careful, measured, articulate speech highlighting the many benefits of the Belfast Agreement and peace, emphasising the importance of what had been achieved and its transformative effects whilst not shying away from current difficulties. Really an exceptional effort.
Compare with the incoherent spoutings of Trump in the Tucker C. interview.
Indeed. It was slightly startling to hear him talk of being a young senator in 1972 at 29 years of age. His involvement in public life in the US at the highest levels must be pretty much unprecedented. Strom Thurmond, who served 48 years in the Senate, after being governor of South Carolina, comes close and George Bush senior probably had an even wider range of jobs but he's up there. It gives him an historical perspective on something like what he was talking about today.
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer said that he was unaware of the footage before Carlson broadcast it. Prosecutors said at the time of Chansley’s plea deal that they were still working through discovery. So, again, hard to see any miscarriage of justice.
If they were still working through discovery why did they "offer a plea deal" (translartion: issue threats about life imprisonment)?
Why shouldn’t they? They clearly felt they had a good case and they put that to Chansley. There are no requirements that the prosecution have to work through all the evidence before offering a plea deal. If you’re arrested for a crime, the police will ask you if you did it straight away and you can say yes (and that will look good for you when it comes to sentencing).
Why did Chansley accept the deal? Could it be because he accepted he was guilty?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
You don't really think he was innocent of the charges, do you? Genuine question.
The charges they were preparing, were basically treason. Yes, I think he was innocent of that charge, he was a bit of an idiot, rather than someone with a serious plan to overthrow the government.
Well, you think he was not guilty of reason and he wasn’t found guilty of treason, so all’s right with the world…?
Do you think he was innocent of the charge of trying to obstruct an official proceeding?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
You don't really think he was innocent of the charges, do you? Genuine question.
The charges they were preparing, were basically treason. Yes, I think he was innocent of that charge, he was a bit of an idiot, rather than someone with a serious plan to overthrow the government.
Well, you think he was not guilty of reason and he wasn’t found guilty of treason, so all’s right with the world…?
Do you think he was innocent of the charge of trying to obstruct an official proceeding?
My point is, that he didn’t have the opportunity to defend himself in court.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I 've never mentioned him?
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
You keep talking about a video that comes from Tucker Carlson.
The video wasn’t disclosed to the defence, but the prosecution said they were still going through evidence when this guy decided to plead guilty.
What in the video, do you think, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt? I refer you to logical_song’s 14:36 post.
Why are you and Sandpit so determined to claim a miscarriage of justice for someone who pled guilty and has never recanted his plea or claimed a miscarriage of justice for himself? The person who’s mainly claiming a miscarriage of justice is Tucker Carlson, a proven liar and propagandist.
I assume by "comes from" you mean "broadcast by", in which case it's irrelevant - the medium is not the message and you're trying ad hom.
But if you read my what my posts actually say - not what you assume they say - you'll realise that I'm not taking sides on the veracity of the video (which I haven't seen), merely pointing out that your demands for a defendant to have to prove their innocent are not how the US justice system, flawed as it is, operates.
OK, then. Well, let me reassure you that you’ve misinterpreted me. (I take full responsibility for not being clearer in my language.) I am not expecting any defendant to prove their innocence. I entirely accept that the prosecution have to prove guilt, unless of course the defendant pleads guilt.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Was heartily mocked on here when I said a couple of years back that Everton would get it over Anfield. That a state of the art new City centre Stadium would be favoured over a hodgepodge of improvements to a 140 year old ground in a creaking, none too appealing suburb with extremely poor transport links, was trumped by the idea that UEFA officials would prefer it "because they are used to going there. And it's LFC." Same for Old Trafford it seems.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
That isn’t the choice, is it? It’s plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and face a trial.
At the time he went for the deal, the prosecution already had extensive evidence of his guilt. Indeed, extensive evidence of his guilt had been broadcast on people’s tellies around the world.
No, the whole point was that there was no evidence of the specific crimes with which they intended to charge him.
Hang on.
I don't think that's true at all.
Video of him not committing crimes does not preclude the possibility that there is other video of him committing crimes.
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
You can't operate if you're completely deluded.
Without wanting to get into a what-was-the-worst-thing-about-Liz-Truss competition, I don't agree. I'm not convinced some variant of Liz Truss's approach couldn't have worked. Where she failed was not realising that in politics you have to win arguments and get support for your approach. She didn't do *any* of the politics.
Sunak's ideology looks to be very similar to Truss's. It's not one I am signed up to, but clearly it's politically possible. If "she didn't do any of the politics" equates to "she is completely disconnected from reality" (and not just on politics), then fine.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
That isn’t the choice, is it? It’s plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and face a trial.
At the time he went for the deal, the prosecution already had extensive evidence of his guilt. Indeed, extensive evidence of his guilt had been broadcast on people’s tellies around the world.
No, the whole point was that there was no evidence of the specific crimes with which they intended to charge him.
Have you seen the prosecution’s case? I don’t see how you could have. I’m unclear how you can pass judgement on what evidence they had of what crimes.
However, that’s all moot, isn’t it? He was charged with 1 (one) crime. He pled guilty to the one crime. Do you think he was innocent of that crime?
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
It's also entirely possible that the Defence had access, and viewed it. And decided not to use it in their defence, because there were other parts of the video that were less flattering to their client.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
His lawyer said that he was unaware of the footage before Carlson broadcast it. Prosecutors said at the time of Chansley’s plea deal that they were still working through discovery. So, again, hard to see any miscarriage of justice.
If they were still working through discovery why did they "offer a plea deal" (translartion: issue threats about life imprisonment)?
Why shouldn’t they? They clearly felt they had a good case and they put that to Chansley. There are no requirements that the prosecution have to work through all the evidence before offering a plea deal. If you’re arrested for a crime, the police will ask you if you did it straight away and you can say yes (and that will look good for you when it comes to sentencing).
Why did Chansley accept the deal? Could it be because he accepted he was guilty?
It could be, but is not necessarily so.
Do you have any evidence that Chansley did or does not accept he was guilty?
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
I think you're confusing being "allowed" to be somewhere from not being physically stopped from going somewhere. It's common practice in a riot to fall back to some extent rather than defend every square inch, as that's the best way to avoid physical harm to individuals.
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
He was walking around, either escorted or unchallenged, and there was no evidence of violence on his behalf. None of which should be worth a sentence of 41 months in prison, thanks to a misguided plea bargain that otherwise threatened to send him away for life, when CCTV evidence in favour was withheld from his defence.
How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?
Why should he have to prove his innocence?
Well, he was accused of a crime. He doesn’t have to prove his innocence, but you and Sandpit are acting as if Tucker Carlson’s video would’ve have changed what happened if it had been seen at the time. It only would’ve changed what happened if it provided evidence of his innocence. It doesn’t.
I don't know what Tucker Carlson has to do with anything, I 've never mentioned him?
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
You keep talking about a video that comes from Tucker Carlson.
The video wasn’t disclosed to the defence, but the prosecution said they were still going through evidence when this guy decided to plead guilty.
What in the video, do you think, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt? I refer you to logical_song’s 14:36 post.
Why are you and Sandpit so determined to claim a miscarriage of justice for someone who pled guilty and has never recanted his plea or claimed a miscarriage of justice for himself? The person who’s mainly claiming a miscarriage of justice is Tucker Carlson, a proven liar and propagandist.
I assume by "comes from" you mean "broadcast by", in which case it's irrelevant - the medium is not the message and you're trying ad hom.
But if you read my what my posts actually say - not what you assume they say - you'll realise that I'm not taking sides on the veracity of the video (which I haven't seen), merely pointing out that your demands for a defendant to have to prove their innocent are not how the US justice system, flawed as it is, operates.
OK, then. Well, let me reassure you that you’ve misinterpreted me. (I take full responsibility for not being clearer in my language.) I am not expecting any defendant to prove their innocence. I entirely accept that the prosecution have to prove guilt, unless of course the defendant pleads guilt.
Given that you asked "How does the CCTV evidence prove his innocence?" I think my "misinterpretation" was quite understandable!
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
You can't operate if you're completely deluded.
Without wanting to get into a what-was-the-worst-thing-about-Liz-Truss competition, I don't agree. I'm not convinced some variant of Liz Truss's approach couldn't have worked. Where she failed was not realising that in politics you have to win arguments and get support for your approach. She didn't do *any* of the politics.
Liz Truss' approach was to borrow lots more to cut taxes. It's what she told everyone she was going to do, and when she did it the financial markets decided that Britain wasn't a safe country to lend loads more money to, and so her approach failed. Comprehensively.
If her approach had been completely different - perhaps if she'd funded tax cuts by making large spending cuts - then it wouldn't have caused such a complete lack of confidence in the markets, and she would have been given the time to see whether it would work or not.
Personally I don't think that's a variant of her approach, but something entirely different on the basis of not being delusional.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
It showed a ragtag mob lead by Steven Shaman in his horns and other deluded no-hope types, no doubt provoked and egged on by Donald Trump, ending up, somehow, in Washington inside the Capitol building which I'm pretty sure no one really thought they would or could ever reach.
Once in, they didn't really know what to do and hung around sitting on chairs and smoking weed.
They were not an organised force seeking to overthrow the state by force although they posed a very real and present danger to those inside the Capitol, both police and legislators and I can perfectly understand that these people were and have been since traumatised by the experience.
But it was not a coup. The massed forces of the state were pretty quickly brought into play against them and they were relatively quickly subdued. There was neither a shadow administration ready to take over, nor the force at its disposal for it to do so. They had the run of the Capitol but didn't appoint a president or ruling council or a Get Your Arse Over Here DJT And Run The Country Committee. I think they might like to have had DJT back running the place but they didn't actually take any steps to enable it.
Some years ago Otis Ferry and a few mates barged into the House of Commons, shouting the odds about foxhunting. They were given conditional discharges and fined, I believe, as a result. That wasn't a coup either.
The invasion of the Capitol wasn’t all that was happening. You have to place that violence, encouraged by Trump, in the context of his planning to ignore the democratic result of the election and install himself, with fake electors and having the military seize voting machines, e.g. see https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/27/politics/fake-electors-explainer/index.html
The coup was a bad joke. In a properly-planned coup, all the pieces have been played by the time that the coup is executed.
Isn’t that the worry? They’ve tried once, but were pretty incompetent at it. What happens if they try again and execute it well?
Yes, that's another of the weird deflections. It wasn't a coup as it failed, or didn't meet a particular definition of trying to overturn an election (and therefore state).
A coup displaces the incumbent administration and replaces it with something else. There was absolutely no intent to do this in this case. Yes there were some 2nd amendment loons with their weapons slung over their backs but had they been the slightest bit serious the body count would have been huge and not the 4:1 protesters:state that it turned out to be.
No one learned how to do a coup properly by this action. They just went on a demo march which got out of hand.
Trump was actively planning in multiple ways to displace the winner of the election, Biden. Delaying the proceedings at the Capitol were part of that. You seem to be ignoring that broader context.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe he sent his willing helpers to the Capitol. But by rights no group of people should ever be able to tear down some metal barriers and force their way into the seat of government. Into a football match maybe, but not into the Capitol. Once there they were as bemused as anyone although five people did die that day and many were in fear of their lives.
So if he sent them to delay proceedings while he hatched his master plan it was both unexpectedly successful and, as it appears that he is not now POTUS, very unsuccessful.
Sending a group of people to delay proceedings if you don't like an election result is not great. But it is hardly assembling a well-armed body designed to take by force the levers of power of a nation, now, is it.
There was a lot going on that day, of which we still don’t know much of it.
There’s been some releases of video in the past few weeks, that suggest the ‘invaders’ were being almost given a guided tour by Capitol security, while there’s also been certain identifiable people in the footage suggesting an invasion, who have never been arrested, despite dozens of people being held in custody for two years awaiting trial. People on trial have been acquitted after footage of them being let into the building by security have emerged, while others have been convicted because the available video evidence was not made available to their defence.
IMHO it was an attempt to delay proceedings, rather than a genuine attempt to overthrow the government. It also sits badly, given the history of infiltration of fringe groups by CIA and FBI in the States.
I don’t recall the protestors chanting “Delay the proceedings” or holding up banners to say the same. They cried “Hang Pence”! They were there because they wanted Trump made the winner of the election.
Stop being an apologist for violence.
So asking why there is video footage of protestors being escorted round the Capitol is now being "an apologist for violence"?
You are usually the type of person who talks about "follow the science", "facts are sacred" etc. Now we have a video which clearly shows the protestors being led around and your instant response is to try to shut any discussion down.
Well quite. There appears, from the outside, to be a situation where many non-violent people are now in prison, while those inciting violence appear to be getting away with it.
For the avoidance of doubt, people who were violent and inciting violence should be in prison, and people who were protesting peacefully should be free.
Peaceful protest can still be illegal in some circumstances. That’s certainly Conservative Party policy here in the UK!
Would you like to list some of these cases of non-violent people who are now in prison?
Let’s start with Jacob Chansley, the “QAnon Shaman”. He just got released from a four-year sentence, yet there’s no evidence of him involved in any violent act, nor of breaking into anywhere that the security didn’t think he should be allowed to go.
Thanks. So, he pleaded guilty to obstructing an official proceeding. He thinks he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. The prosecutors thought he was guilty of a crime carrying a prison sentence. He went to prison. I’m not seeing the problem here.
Do you think there’s a problem when someone pleads guilty to a crime carrying a prison sentence then gets a prison sentence?
Also, it was a 41 month sentence, which is nearer to 3 years, and he was released early.
The video that’s been released in the last few weeks, was not made available to his defence team at the time of the trial. That’s a serious breach of his rights, given that all of the CCTV was requested by his lawyer. His choice was either to take the plea bargain and get four years, or to contest the trial and get life with no parole, for treason, on conviction. The US “justice” system is totally screwed up like that.
The (highly selectively edited) video doesn’t prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he wasn’t trying to obstruct an official proceeding.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
The problem with the US justice system, is that the evidence was clearly withheld from the defence, and he’s given an option of a few years with a guilty plea, or life in prison if it goes to trial and he’s found guilty
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
The evidence that doesn’t prove he’s innocent? That evidence?
It shouldn’t be for him to prove his innocence, it should be for the State to prove his guilt.
The State did prove his guilt. The State got him to say he was guilty. He willingly spoke at length about his own guilt during his sentencing hearing. He’s never gone back on those statements.
“Plead guilty and get a couple of years, or plead innocent and never get out”
That isn’t justice.
You don't really think he was innocent of the charges, do you? Genuine question.
The charges they were preparing, were basically treason. Yes, I think he was innocent of that charge, he was a bit of an idiot, rather than someone with a serious plan to overthrow the government.
Well, you think he was not guilty of reason and he wasn’t found guilty of treason, so all’s right with the world…?
Do you think he was innocent of the charge of trying to obstruct an official proceeding?
My point is, that he didn’t have the opportunity to defend himself in court.
Yes, he did. He didn’t have to take the plea deal. Notice the second word in “plea deal”? It’s “deal”, an agreement between two or more parties.
You can quixotically claim that all plea deals are a perversion of justice, but that seems a bit silly to me.
Mr. B, in Truss' defence, she didn't kill tens of millions of people and consign a similar number to slave labour camps.
No, she increased interest rates by a few basis points more than they increased in France over the same time period.
Also she had 38 days instead of 70 years to prove herself.
I was prepared to give Liz Truss the benefit of an enormous doubt when Graham Brady started his overlong selection process. She could hardly be worse than Johnson, could she? By the end of it I was convinced she would be a disaster, even if I didn't predict she would self-destruct quite so spectacularly.
She was actually gifted a pretty decent set of circumstances all things considered, too.
1. First demise of the crown in 70 years, opportunity for all the national unity patriotic stuff. 2. Enough political cover for being (a) not Johnson and (b) not having held an economic brief to be given the benefit of the doubt on things like energy bill support etc.
Problem was she was depressingly and shockingly out of her depth and that shone through pretty much straight away. She had no talent for high politics of the sort the PM needs to play.
Actually I put it more simply. Truss has a relationship with reality that matches Johnson's relationship with the truth. Non existent.
You can't operate if you're completely deluded.
Doesn't seem to discourage Trump!
I have always thought Trump knows exactly what he's doing. He's not normal but there's a malign intelligence there. I think Truss genuinely doesn't have a clue.
1) Man is charged with unlawfully entering a restricted area and obstructing an official proceeding.
2) Man pleads guilty to the latter charge.
3) Subsequently footage emerges of him unlawfully entering the aforesaid restricted area which *checks notes* led to the official proceeding in question being obstructed.
4) Somehow, this means he's not guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.
I can understand one through three, but four seems a bit of a leap of logic.
The 10 stadiums: Wembley (90,652) National Stadium of Wales (73,952) Tottenham Hotspur Stadium (62,322) City of Manchester Stadium (61,000) Everton Stadium (52,679) St James' Park (52,305) Villa Park (52,190) Hampden Park (52,032) Dublin Arena (51,711) Casement Park (34,500)
Was heartily mocked on here when I said a couple of years back that Everton would get it over Anfield. That a state of the art new City centre Stadium would be favoured over a hodgepodge of improvements to a 140 year old ground in a creaking, none too appealing suburb with extremely poor transport links, was trumped by the idea that UEFA officials would prefer it "because they are used to going there. And it's LFC." Same for Old Trafford it seems.
Should be Murrayfield in there - so one in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh
Comments
But there's no question of rioters being "allowed" in the offices of Congressmen, or onto the floor of the House.
And I think you know where I stand on this.
It was not a coup.
However, we do get weekly YouGov's (with larger sample sizes, and RVs - admittedly with a self selecting panel), and that has tended to be kindest poll to the former President. The new one will drop on Thursday/Friday, so let's see if the trend continues.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida
However, the difference with my hypothetical scenario for 2024 is that Gore accepted the legitimacy of the process that resulted in Bush becoming President, but in my hypothetical scenario you would have State legislatures, or election officials, or the House of Representatives, or some combination of all three, and the Supreme Court, declaring Trump the winner in defiance of the normal process, because they are ensuring that the correct people are in place who are prepared to say that 1 > 2.
That's why such a scenario would lead to a dramatic loss of confidence in three rule of law in the US.
It was only ever mistermed a 'coup' because it was Trump, and the silly people arguing that it was one in this thread are only doing that because it was Trump. He always brings out the very worst in his opponents.
But what of the creation of fake sets of electors. I mean, they were ignored in the end, but that is much closer to an organised campaign to overthrow the election.
I don’t believe the US justice system is so flawed that we should just dismiss its findings. I have more faith in the US justice system than I do in Tucker Carlson, a proven liar. You appear to put more faith in Carlson. If Chansley was innocent, he could have pleaded so. He said he was guilty. He’s never recanted that, AFAIK.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/12/ftse-100-markets-live-elon-musk-twitter-interview-bbc/
"2:08PM
'We do not face a banking systemic banking crisis,' says Andrew Bailey
The world is not facing a global banking crisis on the scale of 2008, Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey has told the Institute for International Finance.
The post crisis reforms to bank regulation have worked. Today I do not believe we face a systemic banking crisis. When I look at the UK banks, they are well capitalised, liquid and able to serve their customers and support the economy."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND3YIg6sPFk
Given that the two campaigns wanted different counting standards, I don't think "all votes counted fairly" is definable tightly enough to be meaningful.
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1646131274099093505
Chansley fairly obviously has mental problems. It's possible his bark is worse than his bite, and it's possible to feel some sympathy for a troubled individual who got carried away in the excitement.
But there's no fundamental injustice here - he committed offences and was convicted. He was legally represented throughout that process and accepted a plea bargain that others may not have.
One thinks back to the London riots in 2011 - some of those convicted paid a high price for pretty low level, opportunistic thieving that they wouldn't have been involved in at all in normal times. But courts tend to take involvement in widespread disorder pretty seriously and throw the book at people who weren't necessarily leaders but got carried along by it. A bit of human sympathy over that isn't the same as concluding there was some grave injustice.
How many of us, knowing we we innocent of the accusation, would still just take the plea deal?
You can't operate if you're completely deluded.
He certainly attempted to fix an elevation which had gone against him by trying to persuade state election officials to ‘find’ votes.
That it wasn’t an organised attempt, as much as a series of half competent improvisations, doesn’t negate the intent.
This time round things will be worse at the state level in not a few states - though set against that is federal executive power in the hands of the Democrats.
It may all turn out fine, but it’s not paranoia to worry otherwise.
Is 41 months too long a sentence? Otis Ferry got an 18 months conditional discharge. But the US has its laws and we have ours.
Ditto poetry. Brutal world
Do we know that the Defence did not have access to CCTV footage as part of the Discovery process, or is this conjecture? (Or a Carlson allegation?)
Because his lawyers would have known that there was CCTV footage of the Capitol during the riot, because there were a large number of stills from it published in the immediate aftermath.
Did they ask for it? If so, did the Prosecution deny that it existed?
Or is possible that the Defence was buried in disclosure? (As tends to happen in all trials.)
I did express concerns that he was OK
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/12/snp-accounts-nicola-sturgeon-mother-in-law-campervan1/
A 32 team tournament could have accommodated a couple more, you'd have thought. Murrayfield and one of the City Ground or Hillsborough, maybe.
Let us not also forget that Police Officer Brian Sicknick was beaten to death by the rioters.
He was trying to obstruct an official proceeding. He’s said that. We can all see that. Doing that is a crime in the US. He did time for it. He’s now out.
Proviso, though: IIRC from previous tournament bids the list of stadiums in the bid document isn't necessarily the final one.
(Fact is, this really could/should have been an England bid - five nations co-hosting is taking the piss a bit. A lot of very good stadiums in this country. I get why it's not though.)
“Conclusions
In this paper, we presented an Intelligent Agent system capable of autonomously designing, planning, and executing complex scientific experiments. Our system demonstrates exceptional reasoning and experimental design capabilities, effectively addressing complex problems and generating high-quality code”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.05332.pdf
Indeed it is so good the authors slightly freak out, and demand that it be prevented from creating new drugs, poisons, bioweapons. Etc. Good luck persuading the Chinese to do that
Unlike you to spread fake or embroider the truth.
He was pepper sprayed and then died later of a stroke, deemed by the medical authorities as natural causes.
That isn’t justice.
On top of those listed you’ve got Twickenham, Anfield, Old Trafford, Chelsea, the Olympic stadium, the new Highbury, etc etc. You could even adapt Lords. An embarrassment of riches
If there is video that wasn't disclosed to the defence, it could have changed what happened if it created a reasonable doubt of his guilt. This is a weaker standard than providing evidence of innocence and much weaker than your desired standard of proof of his innocence.
At the time he went for the deal, the prosecution already had extensive evidence of his guilt. Indeed, extensive evidence of his guilt had been broadcast on people’s tellies around the world.
Genuine question.
We are currently discussing why this guidance was seemingly ignored by our South West Essex branch & instructing them not to consider the White Hart, Grays, Essex, for future awards, or inclusion in our Good Beer Guide, while these discriminatory dolls continue to be on display.
https://twitter.com/CAMRA_Official/status/1646130516171579392
The video wasn’t disclosed to the defence, but the prosecution said they were still going through evidence when this guy decided to plead guilty.
What in the video, do you think, creates a reasonable doubt of his guilt? I refer you to logical_song’s 14:36 post.
Why are you and Sandpit so determined to claim a miscarriage of justice for someone who pled guilty and has never recanted his plea or claimed a miscarriage of justice for himself? The person who’s mainly claiming a miscarriage of justice is Tucker Carlson, a proven liar and propagandist.
That a state of the art new City centre Stadium would be favoured over a hodgepodge of improvements to a 140 year old ground in a creaking, none too appealing suburb with extremely poor transport links, was trumped by the idea that UEFA officials would prefer it "because they are used to going there. And it's LFC."
Same for Old Trafford it seems.
Ultimately, it can be a lot better for defendants and indeed victims to move quickly to a guilty plea rather than have a drawn out case arguing over the precise crime committed (which can involve fine distinctions and limited differences in penalties) and facts which are disputed which don't have a bearing on guilt but do on mitigation/aggravation.
Also, is a discount on sentence for an early guilty plea a form of plea bargain in your eyes? You certainly do get credit in sentencing for not dragging it out to trial or the eve of trial... is that really such a bad thing?
But if you read my what my posts actually say - not what you assume they say - you'll realise that I'm not taking sides on the veracity of the video (which I haven't seen), merely pointing out that your demands for a defendant to have to prove their innocent are not how the US justice system, flawed as it is, operates.
Why did Chansley accept the deal? Could it be because he accepted he was guilty?
Do you think he was innocent of the charge of trying to obstruct an official proceeding?
I don't think that's true at all.
Video of him not committing crimes does not preclude the possibility that there is other video of him committing crimes.
However, that’s all moot, isn’t it? He was charged with 1 (one) crime. He pled guilty to the one crime. Do you think he was innocent of that crime?
If her approach had been completely different - perhaps if she'd funded tax cuts by making large spending cuts - then it wouldn't have caused such a complete lack of confidence in the markets, and she would have been given the time to see whether it would work or not.
Personally I don't think that's a variant of her approach, but something entirely different on the basis of not being delusional.
You can quixotically claim that all plea deals are a perversion of justice, but that seems a bit silly to me.
1) Man is charged with unlawfully entering a restricted area and obstructing an official proceeding.
2) Man pleads guilty to the latter charge.
3) Subsequently footage emerges of him unlawfully entering the aforesaid restricted area which *checks notes* led to the official proceeding in question being obstructed.
4) Somehow, this means he's not guilty of obstructing an official proceeding.
I can understand one through three, but four seems a bit of a leap of logic.
Should be Murrayfield in there - so one in Glasgow and one in Edinburgh