Standing up to people stealing your money or very life. Does not equal or even resemble a “coup”…
Mentioned because violent protests occurs at all points on the political spectrum.
And wtf is JFK in there for?
Because we are discussing coups. That one occurred on American soil.
“The HSCA conducted its inquiry until 1978 and issued its final report the following year, concluding that Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They concluded that there was a “high probability” that a fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll, but they stated that this shot missed Kennedy.”
A protest is not the same as a coup. A coup is a coordinated attack to replace one regime with another, a sudden, violent overthrow of political leadership by a relatively small group of people. The business plot, Jan 6, Brooks Brothers Riot, were all about that.
Even if it turns violent, a protest is not the same as a coup. A protest is basically where you try to affect change or public opinion through large public demonstrations. It’s trying to appeal the public or leadership to listen to you. Meanwhile, a coup doesn’t really need the public. You’re forcefully attacking the levers of power or the process to change leadership itself (ex: stopping elections, disrupting people counting votes, stopping electors from voting or swearing in, etc.). Meanwhile, even if some hooligans burn a police car during a BLM protest, that doesn’t suddenly turn the protest into a coup.
Occupy was mostly peaceful anyway. The whole joke at the time was that it was a bunch of dirty hippies doing drum circle in the park and in front of finance buildings, like that they were peaceful to the point of not being effective, just annoying. That and their demands weren’t clear. There was no criticism of them because violence that I remember at all.
A protest is not the same as a coup. […] Even if it turns violent, a protest is not the same as a coup. A protest is basically where you try to affect change or public opinion through large public demonstrations.
I think most people on Jan 6th would agree. They were protesting (some violently and unlawfully). How could the 6th “coup” succeed?
I’m not even American, but by intercepting the ballot count before it could be certified by the Senate, which was being done in the exact place they were directed to protest at (and that a particular security guard, one individual alone, was smart enough to lead them away from). As I recall they came as close as just a few hallways away from where the count box was being transported.
Had they successfully intercepted it, that could either lead to Trump having more time to position/submit false electors or their ballots… The plot of which was already rolling.
He could either stand up appearing to save the day with fraudulent duplicates of the ballot counts (pushing his ballot count via the loaded supreme court, where bribery scandals are both currently ongoing and rife) , or try to convince Pence that this interruption/destruction in ballot count certification made things more constitutional.
That particular day was legally significant as it was the final step in the authentic chain of custody over the as yet uncertified ballot count. Interrupting that chain of custody would have raised questions, as I believe the constitution provides room for ballot counts to be given on the elector’s authority alone, and that it’s the process of the VP and Senate verifying and authorising them as the official/valid count results that actually certifies them as the true and only valid Presidential Election results (the True account of who is President).
So Trump both had been attempting parts of this plot already, had already asked Pence to do it (I believe he called him a “pussy” for not doing it), and it was really only Pence’s refusal that prevented it being a coup. Interrupting the ballots may have been a “Plan B” to recover from Pence’s refusal.
Very lucky that Pence is a staunch constitutionalist and wasn’t pressured into going along with it, and then in lieu of that, that one security guard lead protestors away from the as yet uncertified ballot count box. That may have been all there was between having a sanctified election result, and one that was constitutionally, and legally, in doubt.
I’ve heard about the ballot claims but I’d not heard that the crowd were supposed to interrupt the chain of custody. Were certain individuals given that task? The Wikipedia link only talks about the crowd chanting “hang Mike Pence”.
There’s a bunch of investigations and court cases going on still, but what we do know is that there’s hard evidence that Trump wanted to accomplish the goal of staying in office, and was already asking people to use illegal conduct to achieve that goal… Which was high treason.
He was asking for elector’s to produce counts that give him more votes, he was asking Pence to go against his constitutional duties.
Some participants involved in J6 did appear to be trying to breach baracaded and protected areas (many of those participants had professional training as police, and military personnel others were from militias). A security guard (who turns out was a Capitol Hill Police Officer, named Eugene Goodman) was protecting an area of the senate where the ballot custody chain was, and did misdirect protestors away from areas the custody chain travels through.
To my mind that sounds like there was motive, an expressed goal, ongoing attempts, and people with the right training who were at the right place and time.
Are there any confessions? Not to my knowledge. Have their been convictions of interrupting congressional business, and was that business the certification of vote counts that decide who the President of the United States of America is?
Yes. Absolutely.
Will there be more convictions on the matter? I think we’re all waiting to see. There may be a push to leave some until the next President is in office, as to not further upset the processes and stability of American democracy.
There was nothing violent about 90% of either of those protests. And what violence there was, there is a fair amount of evidence it was plants to undermine the protest goals.
JFK was an assassination. There isn’t a shred of evidence there was an attempt to seize power.
There was nothing violent about 90% of either of those protests.
Same with the first list.
And what violence there was, there is a fair amount of evidence it was plants to undermine the protest goals.
I don’t doubt there were agent provocateurs. Similarly, on Jan 6th there were police who dismantled barriers and the FBI lost count of the number of informants it had in the crowd.
JFK was an assassination. There isn’t a shred of evidence there was an attempt to seize power.
Nor does the CIA attempt to seize power in coups created in other countries.
Lol what?
Point 1
The Jan 6th insurrection was founded with violence as a goal. Their whole purpose was to force their way into the Capitol building by any means necessary.
Point 2
ROFL, I can’t even, conflating an informant with a provocateur…
Point 3
Please, please look up the term “coup” the CIA installed puppet governments under their control…
The Jan 6th insurrection was founded with violence as a goal. Their whole purpose was to force their way into the Capitol building by any means necessary.
Some certainly had that idea, but there are also photos of (nonviolent) grandma’s in the Capitol building. Also, those actions alone would never have resulted in a coup.
ROFL, I can’t even, conflating an informant with a provocateur…
Why? The FBI has a history of goading victims into violence.
Please, please look up the term “coup” the CIA installed puppet governments under their control…
And president Kennedy wasn’t under their control. He said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
Mentioned because violent protests occurs at all points on the political spectrum.
Because we are discussing coups. That one occurred on American soil.
“The HSCA conducted its inquiry until 1978 and issued its final report the following year, concluding that Kennedy was likely assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. They concluded that there was a “high probability” that a fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll, but they stated that this shot missed Kennedy.”
A protest is not the same as a coup. A coup is a coordinated attack to replace one regime with another, a sudden, violent overthrow of political leadership by a relatively small group of people. The business plot, Jan 6, Brooks Brothers Riot, were all about that.
Even if it turns violent, a protest is not the same as a coup. A protest is basically where you try to affect change or public opinion through large public demonstrations. It’s trying to appeal the public or leadership to listen to you. Meanwhile, a coup doesn’t really need the public. You’re forcefully attacking the levers of power or the process to change leadership itself (ex: stopping elections, disrupting people counting votes, stopping electors from voting or swearing in, etc.). Meanwhile, even if some hooligans burn a police car during a BLM protest, that doesn’t suddenly turn the protest into a coup.
Occupy was mostly peaceful anyway. The whole joke at the time was that it was a bunch of dirty hippies doing drum circle in the park and in front of finance buildings, like that they were peaceful to the point of not being effective, just annoying. That and their demands weren’t clear. There was no criticism of them because violence that I remember at all.
I think most people on Jan 6th would agree. They were protesting (some violently and unlawfully). How could the 6th “coup” succeed?
I’m not even American, but by intercepting the ballot count before it could be certified by the Senate, which was being done in the exact place they were directed to protest at (and that a particular security guard, one individual alone, was smart enough to lead them away from). As I recall they came as close as just a few hallways away from where the count box was being transported.
Had they successfully intercepted it, that could either lead to Trump having more time to position/submit false electors or their ballots… The plot of which was already rolling.
He could either stand up appearing to save the day with fraudulent duplicates of the ballot counts (pushing his ballot count via the loaded supreme court, where bribery scandals are both currently ongoing and rife) , or try to convince Pence that this interruption/destruction in ballot count certification made things more constitutional.
That particular day was legally significant as it was the final step in the authentic chain of custody over the as yet uncertified ballot count. Interrupting that chain of custody would have raised questions, as I believe the constitution provides room for ballot counts to be given on the elector’s authority alone, and that it’s the process of the VP and Senate verifying and authorising them as the official/valid count results that actually certifies them as the true and only valid Presidential Election results (the True account of who is President).
So Trump both had been attempting parts of this plot already, had already asked Pence to do it (I believe he called him a “pussy” for not doing it), and it was really only Pence’s refusal that prevented it being a coup. Interrupting the ballots may have been a “Plan B” to recover from Pence’s refusal.
Very lucky that Pence is a staunch constitutionalist and wasn’t pressured into going along with it, and then in lieu of that, that one security guard lead protestors away from the as yet uncertified ballot count box. That may have been all there was between having a sanctified election result, and one that was constitutionally, and legally, in doubt.
I’ve heard about the ballot claims but I’d not heard that the crowd were supposed to interrupt the chain of custody. Were certain individuals given that task? The Wikipedia link only talks about the crowd chanting “hang Mike Pence”.
Why do you think they were trying to hang Mike Pence? To stop him from certifying the election results so that Trump could steal it.
Yeah. They wanted Pence to back Trump.
But chanting that doesn’t imply that some (or any) of the Capitol stormers were an integral part of any plan.
What a coincidence that all was then
Again, what pivotal role were the mob supposed to play?
There’s a bunch of investigations and court cases going on still, but what we do know is that there’s hard evidence that Trump wanted to accomplish the goal of staying in office, and was already asking people to use illegal conduct to achieve that goal… Which was high treason.
He was asking for elector’s to produce counts that give him more votes, he was asking Pence to go against his constitutional duties.
Some participants involved in J6 did appear to be trying to breach baracaded and protected areas (many of those participants had professional training as police, and military personnel others were from militias). A security guard (who turns out was a Capitol Hill Police Officer, named Eugene Goodman) was protecting an area of the senate where the ballot custody chain was, and did misdirect protestors away from areas the custody chain travels through.
To my mind that sounds like there was motive, an expressed goal, ongoing attempts, and people with the right training who were at the right place and time.
Are there any confessions? Not to my knowledge. Have their been convictions of interrupting congressional business, and was that business the certification of vote counts that decide who the President of the United States of America is?
Yes. Absolutely.
Will there be more convictions on the matter? I think we’re all waiting to see. There may be a push to leave some until the next President is in office, as to not further upset the processes and stability of American democracy.
There was nothing violent about 90% of either of those protests. And what violence there was, there is a fair amount of evidence it was plants to undermine the protest goals.
JFK was an assassination. There isn’t a shred of evidence there was an attempt to seize power.
Same with the first list.
I don’t doubt there were agent provocateurs. Similarly, on Jan 6th there were police who dismantled barriers and the FBI lost count of the number of informants it had in the crowd.
Nor does the CIA attempt to seize power in coups created in other countries.
Lol what? Point 1 The Jan 6th insurrection was founded with violence as a goal. Their whole purpose was to force their way into the Capitol building by any means necessary.
Point 2 ROFL, I can’t even, conflating an informant with a provocateur…
Point 3 Please, please look up the term “coup” the CIA installed puppet governments under their control…
Some certainly had that idea, but there are also photos of (nonviolent) grandma’s in the Capitol building. Also, those actions alone would never have resulted in a coup.
Why? The FBI has a history of goading victims into violence.
And president Kennedy wasn’t under their control. He said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he “wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”