The events that occurred on January 6th are still being replayed in our minds as we watched not only Congress certify a stolen election but protesters barge onto the House floor.
The protesters’ actions were bad but it is what happened afterward that is the real crime. Anyone who watched the ordeal on television could tell that this was not an organic riot or that Trump incited violence that prompted them to act. However, the media pounced on that lie and began to run with it as far as they could, which so happens to the impeachment process of Trump.
Nowhere in the speech that was given that day by the president was in any way an encouragement to storm the Capitol. There was not one phrase uttered that could be interpreted as him saying, ‘Go assault the Capitol!’ In fact, my friends, if those words were even said there would have been damage to that building that would have been in the millions. Yet, the damage was minimal and the most these so-called insurrectionists did was take photo ops, sit at Nancy Pelosi’s desk, and sit in Mike Pence’s seat.
Thankfully, there is a thorough investigation being conducted and the truth of what happened that day is being revealed and that makes the Democrats very nervous.
Growing evidence of advance planning and coordination of the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol undermines claims that the rioters were responding spontaneously to former President Trump’s speech to supporters about a mile and a half away, according to legal and intelligence experts.
As Senate Democrats mull their options for convicting or censuring Trump and banning him from future public office for allegedly inciting insurrection, experts said their incitement case against him was dealt a severe blow this week when federal prosecutors charged three men in the Capitol attack, alleging their communication and coordination dated back to November.
For speech to meet the threshold of incitement, a speaker must, first, indicate a desire for violence and, second, demonstrate a capability or reasonable indication of capability to carry out the violence, according to Kevin Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI.
In Trump’s case, Brock said, there were neither.
“I didn’t hear a single word about — or anything that would trigger a reasonable person to believe that he was inciting— violence,” Brock told Just the News. “He even used the words ‘peaceful’ and ‘respectful.’”
He also believes the former president “was caught by surprise at what happened” at the Capitol, which was “a failure, frankly, on the intelligence that he should have been provided as president of the United States.
“We shouldn’t be in a position where knuckleheads like Proud Boys and Oath Keepers can plan a disruptive violent event and it catches us by surprise,” he added.
A side note: There are “knuckleheads” in every organization, but these two groups make a concerted effort to keep them out of their ranks.
Nevertheless, as Brock notes, none of the president’s other verbiage such as “march”, “strength”, and “take back our country” amounts to anything other than typical political phraseology.
“Every other politician in this country uses those kinds of words and that kind of language,” Brock said. “So I think to convict him on those words would open up politicians across both parties for future examination as to whether or not their words are inciting violence across the country. Frankly, I think a lot of them are exposed in that regard.”
Bingo.
Leave a Comment