Trump Says Jan. 6 Was an Insurrection
rollingstone.com
Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”
Trump disagrees, apparently.
“They kept saying about what I said right after the insurrection,” he said outside Mar-a-Lago after arguments concluded in Washington, D.C. “I think it was an insurrection caused by Nancy Pelosi.
But Biden’s brain is the one we should be worried about. 🙄
We should, because it's the brain that has to beat Trump. We don't have any better options, unfortunately.
We have better options; the DNC and GOP both refuse to present one.
I really thought in 2016 Bernie would splinter the democrats and we’d have a true left party. I also thought trump would create a new party on the right and the republicans would go back to being republicans. Can you imagine a 4 party system!
To my surprise, the trump dragged the republicans even further to the right, and the democrats moved even more center-right to appease ex-republicans. So the whole nation just moved right, which is sad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
FPTP tends towards a two-party system. CGP Grey made a video about it.
it's been moving to the right my whole lifetime. i'm 64. we're not right at the fascist line, with our right wing party actually over the line, and no far left at all.
Wouldn't last.. you'd end up like Australia where they just form coalitions and it's the same result as if they never split
The Republicans recently had a split with the Tea Party, that's where we got Ted Cruz from. Then they lost the election to Obama and came back to republicans
What better options? What names are well known to people? What people that are well known can overcome incumbency bias? Do any have literal decades of experience in congress and the white house?
I would have preferred Bernie but throwing out names only a small percentage of the electorate will know is a fools gamble. And the DNC using marketing to get them well know would have been a huge waste of times and resources to build someone up when there's already a good candidate sitting in the oval office. You're not going to throw out a sitting President unless he's WILDLY unpopular.
Barack Obama wasn’t very well known when he ran for president t. And he won twice.
I think the point is that both the Dems and GOP are pigeon-holing themselves by only allowing one candidate to run. Why does it have to be that way? So what if there are 10 dems and 22 GOP to choose from? Or whatever.
Make them actually have to work for it and let the American people decide. Scrap the first past the post rule and ditch the electoral college. Give the people their voices back. The way it works right now does not work. It’s high time everyone just admits to it.
He wasn't trying to primary an incumbent either.
I’m down for Gretchen Whitmer.
He is wildly unpopular. A majority of Americans thinks he is too old to be an effective president. This has nothing to do with his record, but with the simple biological fact that our minds decay as we reach our 80s.
For that same reason Trump is a terrible candidate as well, and I actually am not worried that a younger candidate with some name recognition will be able to defeat him. I am much more worried about Biden.
Name literally one.
Gather every D senator and congressman into a giant circle and toss a stone into the air. Whoever it hits is likely better.
Bob Menendez.
(Sure you qualified it with "likely" but I couldn't resist)
Granted, the odds are in your favor, but there are definitely some much worse options in that crowd.
Are any of them running? Actually, forget that. Anyone currently running is probably a moron.
Do they have the name recognition and wide appeal? Can they raise the money and give a good speech? Can they argue with a madman and win? Are any of them leaders, and if so, where the fuck have they been?
A friend of mine suggested Michelle Obama and I was like... That could actually have been a realistic option 🤔
No it absolutely could not. She doesnt want it and this is a racist and misogynist country. The GOP literally believes she's a trans dude and their media tells them that every day.
Stop trying to make MO happen. It's not gonna happen.
It's not as if any Democrat candidate was going to be sold as being great to the Republicans by their media so I don't know why you think that's an argument...
The US has already elected a black president twice so I guess the racists don't win overall? She's also seen in a much better light than Hillary Clinton, I do think a woman could have won 2016 if she had been not-Clinton.
Obama is a reaction to Bush and Iraq. Biden is a reaction to trump and fascism. Obama got shellaced in 2010. Democrats still do not control the Senate. Nothing has been the win you think it is.
2008, Obama's popular vote? 52.9%
2012? 51.1% (funny how he got elected twice with more than 50% of the vote in a country that's so racist it wouldn't elect a black person if it wasn't for Bush? 🤔)
2016 Clinton's? 48.18% (46.09% for Trump)
2020 with Harris as vice President? 51.31%
Looks to me like it's not that a woman or a black person can't win on their own merits, it's that the electoral system is fucked up in the USA.
Looks like you made my point for me as none of those are strong showings and still desplay reactive voting over proactive voting.
So Obama being elected a second time was a vote against Bush... That wasn't a eligible candidate at that point because he already was elected twice...
Yeah so I'm just going to ignore you from this point on because clearly you must have something against women and POC and don't want them in politics or something.
Wow look at all the slander you had to make up to cover your pathetic loss.
Jon Stewart.
I would vote for him for anything, but he doesn't want the job, and he isn't running. Those are two important prerequisites to voting for the guy.
Katie Porter
I vote for her as president in a heartbeat.
Maybe he decides to step down. I think the people are pretty well set on voting either Trump or [person against Trump]
Nah, I don't think Harris has the charisma to rally the party. Biden needs to survive the election, and then he can step down after beating Trump if needed.
Don't get me wrong, I will vote for just about anybody over Trump, but I think it's going to be a close race.
party has no choice but to rally itself under current circumstances.
I know this is nothing remotely new, but I feel like it's justified to keep repeating it:
US elections is a shitshow.
Apologies for being that guy, but just a FYI, only because you keep repeating it, it should be US elections are a shitshow, not 'is'.
Honestly, that's quite intriguing to me. I had originally written "politics" but decided to change it. Would that make a difference, or would it still be "are"? Also, I find it abit strange to use "[plural noun] are a [singular noun]", but maybe this is just me repeating it too much, making it sound weird.
I can think of one but Katie has other ideas
In the Idiocracy timeline i think Joe Rogan gets elected.
I'm worried about both. Neither should be president. Trump never should have been. Having 70 and 80+ year old presidents that couldn't program a damned TV remote is just a showcase of how terrible our plutocracy has become.
Well, to be fair I'm late 30's and I can't program a tv remote either.....
I wouldn't vote for you.
Oh no! I'll go cry in the corner now....
You mean you cannot program the embedded soft- and firmware that the remote runs on?
The what, and the what?!?
Even with auto correct, he fails. Lol
the embedded soft- and firmware...?
But I guess you love Japan where it's the norm?
Yes, because he's currently the president. There are more important things than some has-been Cheeto monster shouting at clouds, like the genocide the current sitting president is actively abetting.
Well then, we all better vote for Trump. Everyone knows how fiercely critical of Israel he is.
Yeah, that's definitely what I meant. I'd love another four years of Trump. /s
How 'bout you just vote for the candidate that might put more than lip service towards stopping this generation's Li'l Hitler? Here's a hint: you won't find them in either of the major parties.
Guys don't bother with this dope. He trolls every thread. He's an idiot.
Says the person with over 3 times as many comments as me.
A quick look in my history shows this is the second thread I've ever participated in in this community. Why lie? How do you benefit? Lemmy has no account Karma. Do you get some sort of satisfaction out of riling up the other dummies against the common enemy of nuance and understanding? Or are you just so offended by non-extremists invading your echo chamber that you have to lash out?
The world isn't black and white. There are at least 50 shades of gray. Probably more. You should try taking off your cool-guy sunglasses and looking around unfiltered. You might like what you see.
You're that weird guy at the party where no one invited you, and they all want you to leave.
Oh no! I don't fit in at the kool-aid party!
And how do you plan on getting that candidate to 270+?
Get a clue
That's not my job. My job as a citizen is to vote for the candidate I believe deserves the position, regardless of party affiliation.
The only reason Democrats and Republicans rose to the top is thay they once held the most generic, inoffensive views that people from the less popular "third" parties could support when it eventually became clear they didn't have chance at winning. That's no longer the case, so why continue voting like it is? Change has to start somewhere, and it sure as hell isn't going to come from someone who benefits from maintaining the status quo.
If everybody voted with hope and optimism rather than despair and cynicism, we might have more variety than blue dick vs red asshole.
I am curious… do you think that there is any realistic chance that someone other than the two main candidates will win the upcoming election?
Wouldn’t you agree that this ‘change’ of being able to vote for a candidate who both deserves the position and also actually has a chance of winning, is not going to happen this year regardless of how you vote?
Unless something major happens very soon, it’s going to be one or the other. Most voters are not happy with this reality, particularly Biden voters, but this is the reality we find ourselves in.
I am happy to hear you express a desire to end the genocide and destruction of Palestine. A large portion of Biden voters agree with you on that point.
Other than his age and his ‘soft on Israel’ position, I happen to think Biden has done a decent job. But let’s assume I am wrong and he has done a terrible job. Would he be worse than trump? Would trump be worse?
Would you agree or disagree that, like it or not, we are in a ‘lesser of two evils’ situation?
Here is your chance to prove that you are not just a troll. These are genuine question which I hope you will answer honestly, however you may truly feel.
If you prefer trump, just say it, you have the right to your opinions. Pulling the ‘genocide Joe - vote third party’ card comes across as disingenuous, far-right propaganda.
Sorry, dude, but I don't feel the need to prove I'm not a far-right provocateur simply because I acknowledge that Joe Biden and his administration are knowingly abetting an active genocide. I cannot in good conscience vote for him or anyone who supports Israel's aggression. If I thought Trump would actually try to stop it, I'd vote for him, but I know he won't, so no, I don't prefer Trump.
I'm normally not a single-issue voter, but there is an immediate risk of an entire culture being wiped out, and while I'm too poor to send any aid myself, if there's even the tiniest chance that enough people are as done with the left/right, red/blue bullshit as I am to vote for someone who'll actually try to help, I have to take that chance, infinitesimal though it may be.
I'd rather live on the false hope of a better world than the false hope of a not-even-worse one. We're all fucking fucked no matter what we do, so why not hope for the best and act accordingly? Maybe it'll catch on.
This is not the choice you have, that’s my point.
Your choices are false hope of a better world, or the reality of a not-even-worse one.
One of the two will win, and one of the two is certainly worse.
I don't really see much of a difference between the parties. You either get blatant evil in Republicans or concealed evil in Democrats. Either way, things will only get worse as long as we're stuck in this two-party loop.
I refuse to directly contribute to either of them, so my choices are to not vote or to vote third party. It's not ideal, but my conscience remains clear.
I suppose in the trolley problem, I choose secret answer C - throw my wrench on the tracks and hope the trolley derails without causing too much collateral damage.
There are 100 people on the trolley and you've just put all of them at risk.
Plus if you don't see much difference between those two, I can't imagine the level of privilege you live with. I certainly doubt you're trans for instance, or in a situation where you may need an abortion, if you're saying that.
You know the real privilege we all live with? Peace. Not being the targets of mass-murder campaigns.
So yes, I'd rather things get worse for a small part of our population for a short while if it means we can stop our government from actively funding a literal genocide.
And not that it's any of your business, but I am trans (enby) and my partner and I fairly recently (post-2020) narrowly avoided needing an abortion.
Political nihilism doesn’t grant you a clear conscience.
Maybe not for you. But it's the best option I can see. And with the electoral college making the real decision, individual votes don't really matter, especially in my state.
Thank you, citizen.
I get that you are in a downvotes storm right now, but for what it's worth, you're right, and I agree with what you're saying.
It's the party's responsibility to put someone up that is capable of doing the job successfully, and have them earn the votes, and not just being coerced into voting for one party for the sake of the country, and then having that repeated again and again.
Well, we do have that well publicized viral tweet from Pelosi where she called all her supporters to DC telling them "Will be wild!" then topped that off by whipping the crowd into a frenzy by telling them they have to "fight like hell".
Oh, wait, that was Trump...
I mean, I understand how the law works and everything, but from a very pragmatic perspective, how is there even a soupçon of doubt at this point? Having a trial for this really feels more like we're asking "which side has craftier lawyers" rather than "did he actually incite an insurrection". It seems so silly.
(I hope this makes sense, I'm a little high.)
I don't understand, but I'm also a little high. So I blame that
That being said, I can't tell you how excited I am for soupcon this year. I'm going dressed as split-pea
Soupcon 2023 was a dud after they banned the soup pit event because of the incident.
I'm sorry. I'll keep my pants on if they allow me back.
But that was the issue last time. No clothing allowed in the soup pit!
I mean, the fact should be established in a trial of some kind before you could exclude someone. Otherwise you'd end up random secretaries of state excluding people they don't like.
Was that the case during the Civil War era when that amendment was first created? Or were people just deemed insurrectionists without a trial? Honestly asking.
I have no idea, it's an interesting question. You would assume there would need to be some kind of due process.
If a person has been voted in to make those decisions, makes that decision, that might be all the due process that's needed.
That's why I'm asking the question I am, when that Amendment went into a place, did anyone actually have a trial before they were labeled an insurrectionist, or were court judges identifying people as insurrectionists and using that brand new amendment to punish them as such.
If Nancy Pelosi caused the insurrection why didn't your people try to charge her instead of focusing on Hunter Biden?
Two words:
Dick.
Pics.
Two more words:
For.
MTG.
He meant Nancy Pelosi (and schumer) insurrected against his rightful rule by coordinating with the police, mayor, and national guard to squash his... "good people"
The Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault. <- We are now here
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did, you deserved it.
We're definitely not going to get to hear "i didn't mean it."
And I'd argue that we're already on the last line.
Nah, it's a bit like experiencing the 6 stages of grief - when you list them like denial, anger, bargaining, et cetera... it makes it sounds like they're going to happen in chronological order. The reality is however that they will all occur simultaneously with the extent of each varying moment to moment.
So... guilty verdict?
He's not currently on trial for insurrection, for some reason.
He's on trial for the January 6th insurrection. Specifically: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.
The two in the middle are going to be very hard to defend against considering he admits it was an insurrection.
I agree he's guilty on all charges, but he wasn't charged with insurrection. He should have been charged with insurrection and seditious conspiracy.
What's the statute on those last two?
— 18 USC § 2383
— 18 USC § 2384
Sorry, statute of limitations. Been hanging around lawyers too much. Last I googled those sections were unlimited but, you know, Google ain't CLL.
Those first two words are doing some hard work fending off a slander suit.
Colorado needs to throw the middle finger to scotus and keep trump off the general election ballot.
Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.
So the people who were Antifa and MAGA patriots who went to the Capital to peacefully cause an insurrection that was and wasn't a false flag setup by the FBI and "globalists" and are going to prison because of the actions they did and didn't do on Jan 6 were all being led by... Pelosi?
I kind of feel for him. It would be hard to keep track of that many unhinged lies
No need to keep track, just say whatever you want to say in the moment. Your followers don't care and the media certainly isn't going to call you on it.
This post is the media calling him on it. The media has been calling him on his lies as long as I remember. The problem is that his supporters don’t care if he lies.
I suppose, though I'm not sure a lone article in Rolling Stone amounts to much.
I don't hear the media call him on his lies at all, or when they do it's in the same breath as reporting some other lie. It's a huge fucking problem. The media very much plays the game because it gets clicks and views and that = money. Election season has already started, they love it.
That they're still giving him airtime, reporting on his various trials and statements daily. Voicing his responses to the rulings and accusations, amplifying his messaging. It's criminal in itself, the rabid rightwing have one thing right, the "mainstream media" is not our friend. They're corporate owned and are mostly mouthpieces for those corporations.
We must have been using different news sources over the last 8-9 years. Hell, there are websites dedicated to just counting his number of lies.
I think it is pretty much common knowledge at this point that whenever he opens his mouth, he is lying.
His base doesn’t care and everyone else is used to it, so headlines like “Donald Trump lied again” are pretty redundant. He is still called out in his lies in most articles that I read though. It’s just not the headline anymore.
I definitely wouldn’t say that reporting on the lead candidate being a jackass is criminal, but you do you.
That link is pay-walled.
I'd say giving equal airtime to an insurrectionist fraudster and rapist is pretty borderline. The only time the word Trump is mentioned it should be prefaced by "Proven Criminal and Liar"
edit: here's a non-paywalled version it's a pretty thin article from 3 years ago when Cheeto was still pres. If anything it proves my point, they're still covering all the bullshit he says 3 years later. Stop giving him a platform so his sycophants have to seek out what he says.
Whatever. I’m not going to argue with a stranger on the internet. Keep your weird beliefs about it being criminal to interview people.
Yes, but also he loves them and thinks they're very special.
Does that mean he loves Nanci Pelosi by extension?
Yep, and before Pelosi, Trump said it was Nikki Haley who caused it.
Man, I just need Trump to blame Taylor Swift for the whole thing, and then my Insurrection-Bingo card will be full!
How dare Nikki Haley cause an insurrection!
She was still bitter about losing in 2016!
Trump beat Obama in 2016.
That's RIGHT! January 6th was OBVIOUSLY an Insurrection plotted by Nancy Pelosi to send FBI and Antifa into the Capitol to STOP the certification of their chosen Candidate because that's the ONLY way to make Grab Her By The Pussy look BAD! But it also WASN'T an Insurrection and all those people in jail are PRISONERS OF WAR that need to be released! Unless they are Antifa or FBI which they AREN'T even though it was ONLY FBI and Antifa committing the Insurrection that was NOT an Insurrection!
Well, they are right on part of that. It definitely wasn't well organized, just like the entirety of Trump's presidency. I thank the powers that be on a regular basis that he and his cronies were so incompetent.
It was more organized that most realize I think is the problem, it just went wrong. People were fired, others were hired, reinforcements were re routed, orders were given to not intervene, not to supply aid, defenses, weapons, anything. It is just being lost to time.
And something to keep in mind is they can learn from it, how it went wrong, if they have the opportunity to try again.
I commented here a while back about how I was pretty sure my dad wouldn't vote for him again because of this. Had it been a Democrat, he'd be screaming for them to be thrown in the gulags (he was raised/went into the military during the cold war). But when I asked... He said he had faith our institutions could handle it. I asked why he would take that risk and he didn't have much of an answer
At least for most people who answer like that and still support Trump it's probably cause they know that if the institutions fail and they manage to seize power it'll be good for them because the people they like are doing it. They don't want a dictatorship but don't really care that much as long as it's a dictator they agree with.
Yeah that went well for the underling Nazis in Germany.
It was well organized internally. It was just wrapped in an extra layer of disorganized random people that clung to it as a disguise for plausible deniability.
If J6 was all democratic agitators in red hats, why is half of his platform pardoning anybody and everybody with J6 charges? 🤔
Because everyone knows that Trump's supporters are mindless idiots that could easily be influenced to do insane things. What they're disputing is that is was Trump influencing these people. Maybe Nancy Pelosi (legislative branch) ordered the the FBI (executive branch which was run by Trump at the time) to influence the mindless idiots that support Trump to storm the Capitol to interrupt the formalities involved with recognizing Joe Biden won the election. Any ignorance of how the government is actually structured can be waved away with the term "deep state".
So we've achieved some kind of common ground... at least we all agree that Trump's supporters are mindless idiots that are easily influenced. Even Trump agrees with that. And therefore even Trump supporters agree that Trump supporters are mindless idiots. Common ground!
The tricky question is: Why would Nancy Pelosi want to interrupt the formalities to declare that Joe Biden won the election? I guess just to make Trump look bad. Which makes sense to Trump because he's a narcissist. And Trump supporters go along with this because... well you know.
Are you kidding me? These ads are fucking insane. Christ
Ad blocker.
I'm so glad I don't have to deal with that shit.
His stupid mouth is like how Darth Vader was supposed to bring balance to the force in Star Wars Ep. 6
Star Wars Ep. January 6
No matter what he says or does we'll never get him because his fanatics either don't care or admire it.
His cultists will still say it was peaceful or bring up another event lol.
straight from the horse's ass's mouth 🤣
Can he say that again in front of the Supreme Court Justices? I bet he doesn't have the balls!
He can say whatever he wants and those fuckers will still rule in his favour. The Supreme Court is very much part of the insurrection.
Could you repeat that last sentence louder for the folks in the back?
Insanity defense? He’s not competent to stand trial.
last year i read an article by a neurologist who made the case that trump has dementia. it was pretty well supported by both his own observations and those of others. i was convinced.
My bet is on him confusing Haley/others enough to call her Pocahontas.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court heard arguments on Thursday pertaining to whether states can throw Donald Trump off the 2024 presidential ballots if they determine he violated the 14th Amendment — which essentially disqualifies insurrectionists from holding office.
Trump’s legal team also tried to throw cold water on the idea in a filing earlier this week, writing that the “events of January 6 were not an ‘insurrection’ as they did not involve an organized attempt to overthrow or resist the U.S. government.”
There’s zero evidence she had anything to do with the attack on the Capitol, and it’s flat-out absurd to think she would have been incentivized in any way to marshal a mob of people waving Trump flags to disrupt the certification of a fellow Democrat’s election win.
“No matter what unhinged lies Trump spews about the insurrection he instigated, as numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed, Speaker Pelosi did not plan her own assassination,” spokesperson Aaron Bennett said in a comment to Rolling Stone.
Republicans in Congress — totally in thrall to Trump’s now-years-long push to rewrite reality of what happened around the 2020 election — are doing what they can to tamp down the idea the former president did anything wrong.
“When Joe Biden was inaugurated, and this entire Capitol complex was surrounded with 30,000 National Guard troops, none of you stood there and called that an insurrection,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) told reporters, referring to the security measures put in place after Jan. 6.
The original article contains 631 words, the summary contains 244 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
STFU, Margarine Three Names
His lawyers right now be like:
No I'm pretty sure his lawyers don't see any problem with what he says
His personal lawyers already made a shit case in front of the Supreme Court, but luckily he's got at least four Justices also working the case.
I feel like thered be a case one could argue for having the justices who directly owe their jobs to Trump to recuse themselves from these proceedings... but we all know that won't happen.
Clarence Thomas, who's wife was literally supporting the insurrection didn't recuse himself from the trial to disqualify Trump for that insurrection. That's not something that really needs a case made for it. We all know they're not going to do the ethical thing. They don't have to.
oops
"sortition." look it up. i dare ya.
"Selection by drawing lots."
And Obamna stubbed your toe on your table in your house.
Someone institutionalize this guy god damnit.