An insurrectionist and a felon

Dems set up a committee and 'probed' the events of January 6, 2021. They also initiated a number of questionable lawsuits against Trump. They did these things just so they could call Trump an insurrectionist and a felon if the 'probe' and the lawsuits went the way they wanted. That's, of course, how things went, with a lot of help from Dem operatives. So the media hacks repeated these slurs endlessly in the vain hope that GOP will ostracize Trump, or at least, the voters will ditch him. But GOP stuck with Trump. The voters saw right through the bullshit, and sent Trump back to the White House. Now the media people are puzzled why their little scheme didn't work. "But he is an insurrectionist and a convicted felon!", they object. These claims seem to have also caught on with Dem voters just like the Russion collusion hoax did earlier. It doesn't take much effort to dispel these myths, though.

The January 6th event started out as a protest and devolved into a riot. The protesters didn't carry weapons. You'd expect insurrectionists to be armed. They didn't have control of Capitol in any real sense, but even if you think they did, is that all it takes to overthrow the American government? You occupy the Capitol, and the army will just come surrender to you? How dumb are the leftists to think this is an insurrection? Sure there were government proceedings in Capitol on January 6th that were disrupted, but why is that a big deal? It's not like Trump will automatically get another 4 years in office if Obiden is not certified as a winner on January 6th. Whatever could not be done on that day will simply be done the next day. There's no cosmic importance to that date. People wanted to do one of those in-your-face protests, and hoped to convince the electors to do the "right thing". But it went sideways. Nothing more and nothing less.

(The whole idea of in-your-face protesting is terrible. You have a right to voice your opinion, but you have no right to an audience. I think it was AOC that said protesters should make people feel uncomfortable. If you try to make people feel uncomfortable, they try to leave. And if you try to stop them, you will have committed a crime. Just try to get people's attention without committing a crime. Don't harass people having dinner. Don't corner people in an elevator. Don't stop people from their Black Friday shopping, like the BLM goons used to do in Chicago. Don't block traffic. Try to get your message popularized on media or social media. If you can't, take the L.)

Trump had apparently authorized use of special forces for January 6th security. This would be a weird thing to do if he were planning on forcibly overthrowing the government. (No special forces were actually deployed, and this was apparently due to actions of Dem operatives.) Trump also apparently asked Pence to not certify the election because of suspicions of election fraud, but that's the exact opposite of overthrowing a government. If Trump wanted to take over the government by force, he wouldn't be asking Pence to do anything. He wouldn't be following any procedures. He was following procedures because he believed he was doing lawful things. (I am not saying they weren't lawful.) Didn't the Dems want electors to be "faithless" after the 2016 election loss? A lefty professor (Lessig) even wrote a lengthy article explaining how that is people's patriotic duty or whatever. Nobody called them insurrectionists then, right?

Trump was also on record telling people to protest peacefully, and to respect law enforcement. (Some of those tweets were deleted by the then Twitter management on questionable grounds.) Would an insurrectionist do that?

As for the 'felon' label, Trump was guilty of a made up felony. Falsifying business records is a midemeanor. The statute of limitations for Trump's falsification of business records ran out. He couldn't be prosecuted for it any longer. So the crooked Manhattan DA turned it into a felony (which could still be prosecuted) by simply claiming it was done to cover up another felony. What is this other felony that it was supposedly covering up? That part was not really spelled out. Whatever that other felony was supposed to be, Trump was not convicted of it. It was simply a supposition, and not a fact in evidence. (The Manhattan DA does not really have the authority to prosecute Trump for that other felony, whatever it was supposed to be. One felony it could be was "election interference". But FEC, which is in charge of prosecuting election interference crimes, looked at it and decided not to pursue it in Trump's case.) I am no lawyer, but anyone with common sense can see that, if prosecutors are allowed to just assume facts without proving them, they can convict a lot of innocent people of crimes. How could a judge allow this case to proceed, and how could a jury convict Trump? The answer is, anything is possible if the proceedings are in a dumb lib state like New York. People are highly partisan. The DA didn't care if the case got thrown out on appeal later. He just wanted the conviction then, so the Dems and the media hacks can call Trump a felon before the election. He got what he wanted, and the Dems got what they wanted. But it didn't damage Trump's chances, so it was all for nothing. Expect the media hacks to repeat it until the conviction is thrown out, though. They might as well use it - their side worked so hard for it. It's not like the media pundits have any credibility to lose anyway.

Any so called intellectuals on the left calling Trump an insurrectionist and a felon are destroying their own credibility by doing so. The election ought to be a wake up call to them.

Update: Apparently, it is DOJ that has the exclusive authority to pursue criminal cases of election interference. FEC has the exclusive authority to litigate civil cases of election interference. In any case, both DOJ and FEC looked at Trump's activities, and decided not to sue him.

Links: