US Capitol rioters await Trump pardons

[John D. Brey]

Regardless of what media or friends had said, the important thing is what Trump said and did. Remember, that directly led to the January 6th Capitol Riot.

At a Trump rally, Elon Musk pointed out that our Founding Father's gave us the First Amendment so that we could talk back to liars in the media and or the government. He then noted that in their wisdom, our Founding Father's realized that the only way to guarantee that government and their media lackeys don't take away the freedoms related to the First Amendment, is to give us the Second Amendment.

Though it might bristle against leftist and liberal sensibilities, our Founding Father's encouraged us to take arms against any government, to include our own, that tries to steal our freedom to elect whom we, not they, think should be elected. In 2020, the media, and a large swath of the population thought Joe Biden should win the election at all cost, and under any circumstance, such that even though the majority of voters voted for President Trump Biden was made to win.

During the recent election night, a Democratic governor in Wisconsin told his fellow Democrats to chill out. He said Trump would appear to be winning until the lights went out, but that in the middle of the night Harris votes would materialize such that he guaranteed she'd win. In other words 2020 all over again.

Unfortunately (for the Democrats), a Republican noticed the locks on the voting machines in Wisconsin hadn't been sealed causing a grip of ballots to be recounted after the locks were properly secured. A Republican senator pointed out that a Democratic group in charge of the machines had one simple mandate, secure the machines. The machines weren't secured.

Republicans spent, with Musk's personal care, millions and millions of dollars to ensure that nothing like 2020 took place in this election. Guess what, with voting machines sealed and secured, with legal challenges to questionable practices mounted throughout the union, Trump secured an amount of votes similar to what he secured in 2020, while the Democrats suddenly, mysteriously, lost about 10 million votes. A picture is worth a thousand words:

The Democratic slice of the pie has been nearly identical for the last four elections except for that miraculous ten million or so ballots that showed up in the middle of the night, and over the next week, all of which, ironically, were for Joe Biden. In Wisconsin, in 2020, CNN's vote total for Joe Biden suddenly jumped up by a few million or so votes with not a single one of the votes being cast for Donald Trump. When Fox news viewers saw it and pointed it out, Jake Tapper said (and I was watching live), that it was just a glitch in the system. There were lots of glitches in the 2020 election. Similar things happened in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Large batches of votes were dropped of that had not a single vote for Donald Trump and many of which had no signature but were counted anyway since Democrats were running the machinery for the election that guaranteed a Biden victory.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

... there wouldn't have been an arms race and most of the wars of the 20th century wouldn't have happened. Nobody voted for the US to be the world police, and the people of Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, most of Latin America and others know exactly what to think about a bully who declared himself to be the police.

You really have guzzled the jug of leftist KoolAid haven't you?



John

 

[Heyo]

You really have guzzled the jug of leftist KoolAid haven't you?

Yep, but it's home brew.

 

[Stevicus]

Your argument engages the question of "originalism" versus "living constitutionalism." That question expands to engulf much of the debate between the Right versus the Left. Furthermore, the question of originalism versus constitutionalism hinges on the physical laws of thermodynamics.

Originalism interprets the second law (negative entropy is never created) to imply that all the good (negative entropy) that can come out of the Constitution had to be in it in the first place, since negative entropy is never created, only guarded. On the other hand, living constitutionalism implies (in a round about way) that negative entropy can be created in, or by, "living" organisms. Living constitutionalism sees even a written text, dead letters (in Pauline terms) as living entities able to produce negative entropy rather than just storing and guarding what already exists.

Conservatism, in a general sense, wants to conserve the negative entropy that exists, while liberalism, believes living organisms can create new pools of negative entropy. If the latter is the case, then the Constitution is merely a framework manifesting the brilliance of the men who wrote it, even though, in the dead letter, it's inert and worthless without being interpreted and re-interpreted by living readers of the document. Googling the terms:

Originalism​

This method interprets the Constitution based on the original intentions of the framers, as they were understood at the time of the Founding. Originalists believe that the Constitution's text has a public meaning that has not changed over time. They often oppose amendments because they believe changes to the Constitution would detract from the original intent.​

​

Living constitutionalism​

This method views the Constitution as a living document that can be used to guide the current government. Living constitutionalists support amendments and view the Constitution as a malleable expression of the will of the people.​

​

Conservatives tend toward originalism, while liberals are more like living constitutionalists.



John

I think you've given a good explanation of the scope of the problem, but my contention is that, in the end, whether they're conservative or liberal, they still come across as lawyers arguing over "dead letters." Obviously, the Founders and original framers of the Constitution couldn't predict or anticipate every single issue that would come up. But they left it open-ended enough so that if necessary, the leaders of the future would have a legal framework for dealing with it. They had faith that future generations of leaders would be able to figure it out for themselves.

In the political sphere, my view is that conservatives and liberals have different philosophical positions and conflicting moral values, but then it gets into the hands of politicians and lawyers who turn it into a big legal battle, instead of coming together and amicably settling their differences. There's no real spirit of compromise or negotiation anymore, which is also essential in a democratic society. Instead of arguing over dead letters, they should be getting together and talking about the country and how we should move forward.

 

[John D. Brey]

In the political sphere, my view is that conservatives and liberals have different philosophical positions and conflicting moral values, but then it gets into the hands of politicians and lawyers who turn it into a big legal battle, instead of coming together and amicably settling their differences. There's no real spirit of compromise or negotiation anymore, which is also essential in a democratic society. Instead of arguing over dead letters, they should be getting together and talking about the country and how we should move forward.

I agree with you. Which is why bringing in the laws of physics is important. Are there non-negotiable, immutable principles, at work in the world that are based on a secure reality, and which can be used to sniff-out who's trying to change the world in potentially honorable, but false, ways, in the sense of their good intentions leading to hell for the real world and those who must live in it?

The "originalism" versus "living constitutionalism" debate is near and dear to my personal epistemology and worldview since I deal with it in my Biblical exegesis daily. Is the text of the Bible alive for the reader, and thus able to speak constantly new things, new revelations, or, ala originalism, is it meant to be read to imply only what the most general and literal reading of the text implies the writer intended?



John

 

[Stevicus]

I agree with you. Which is why bringing in the laws of physics is important. Are there non-negotiable, immutable principles, at work in the world that are based on a secure reality, and which can be used to sniff-out who's trying to change the world in potentially honorable, but false, ways, in the sense of their good intentions leading to hell for the real world and those who must live in it?

The "originalism" versus "living constitutionalism" debate is near and dear to my personal epistemology and worldview since I deal with it in my Biblical exegesis daily. Is the text of the Bible alive for the reader, and thus able to speak constantly new things, new revelations, or, ala originalism, is it meant to be read to imply only what the most general and literal reading of the text implies the writer intended?



John

There may be some things which can be written so vaguely that it may be open to interpretation. But there are also things which are rather plain and obvious. For example, the Bible makes it pretty clear that murder, stealing, lying (among other things) are morally wrong and prohibited according to that code. Or, if we state that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then a government saying that would be expected to live by that principle. Admittedly, "pursuit of happiness" might be subject to interpretation, but "life" and "liberty" are rather plain and obvious, and a good part of the time, we can't even get that right.

 

[Heyo]

In the political sphere, my view is that conservatives and liberals have different philosophical positions and conflicting moral values, but then it gets into the hands of politicians and lawyers who turn it into a big legal battle, instead of coming together and amicably settling their differences. There's no real spirit of compromise or negotiation anymore, which is also essential in a democratic society. Instead of arguing over dead letters, they should be getting together and talking about the country and how we should move forward.

Well, conservatives don't want to move forward, they want to stay where they are. Progressives want to move forward, but in the US there are no progressives who have any power.
The Democrats want to at least appear progressive and while that made it not easy to compromise, it wasn't impossible when they had to deal with the other conservatives. But there are no conservatives in the GOP any more, only regressives. They are not content with staying where they are, they want to go back.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

At a Trump rally, Elon Musk pointed out that our Founding Father's gave us the First Amendment so that we could talk back to liars in the media and or the government. He then noted that in their wisdom, our Founding Father's realized that the only way to guarantee that government and their media lackeys don't take away the freedoms related to the First Amendment, is to give us the Second Amendment.

Though it might bristle against leftist and liberal sensibilities, our Founding Father's encouraged us to take arms against any government that tries to steal our freedom to elect whom we, not they, think should be elected.

Yet again, we return back to the idea that the January 6th Riot was violent rebellion against our government based on misinformation told to us by the losing candidate. They are lucky Samuel Adams isn't deciding their fate.

According to your argument, ought Democrats, as the losing side with evidence of election interference by Conservatives, including voter suppression and Trump-appointed judges using the court to help him win and consolidate power, now seek armed resistance against a corrupt government?

Democrats aren't going to do that, and we're lucky they aren't.

In a democracy, if one side is able to get away with misleading the public about election interference without proof, the other side is more likely to do so. This cycle could continue until violence becomes inevitable and we have civil conflict. No one should want that.

Your preferred side has gotten away with election interference and consolidated power throughout all branches.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Do you think the rebels who murdered tens of thousands of Mother England's police force merely for trying to put down an unlawful revolution should face no consequences? Every one of our Founding Fathers, including the likes of Jefferson, would have voted MAGA the other day.

Which is to say, Democrats now know they don't just hate President Donald Trump, they hate the Country and people who love him (to include those who's ideas he's upholding: our Founding Fathers).

Democrats want America to be something its never been. They've never really liked the Country as anything other than a place where, because of the freedoms that exist here, they can try to turn a Country whose very foundations they despise, into a Country they can be proud of for the first time. You know, like how Michelle Obama said the first time she was proud of this Country was when her husband was elected President.

Republicans love the Country at its core, and in its foundations. Many Democrats love the Country only when they steer it away from its foundations, and core values. Michelle Obama loved the Country for the first time not when she read about its foundations, and core values, in school, but when her husband was empowered to try to change the core values in order to make the Country a better place by undermining its foundations and core values. Hussein's attempt is the soil out of which MAGA sprouted. Obama's actions are the fertilizer that grew MAGA. Every time he speaks he fertilizes another shiny sprout of the MAGA movement.

John

You seem to be saying that one of America's "core values" is to shake off any regime some faction doesn't happen to like. I mean, John Adams wrote that approximately one-third of the American population supported the move for independence (Patriots), one-third of the population supported the king (Loyalists), and one-third supported neither side (neutral). So, really, your "core values" include "if one-third of Americans hate Donald Trump, they have the right to violently overthrow him?"

 

[John D. Brey]

Yet again, we return back to the idea that the January 6th Riot was violent rebellion against our government based on misinformation told to us by the losing candidate. They are lucky Samuel Adams isn't deciding their fate.

According to your argument, ought Democrats, as the losing side with evidence of election interference by Conservatives, including voter suppression and Trump-appointed judges using the court to help him win and consolidate power, now seek armed resistance against a corrupt government?

Democrats aren't going to do that, and we're lucky they aren't.

In a democracy, if one side is able to get away with misleading the public about election interference without proof, the other side is more likely to do so. This cycle could continue until violence becomes inevitable and we have civil conflict. No one should want that.

Your preferred side has gotten away with election interference and consolidated power throughout all branches.

The proclivity for all of us to read events through our own personal lens is why, since the beginning of human history, wars, civil and non-civil, have been fought repeatedly and without fail. When unity disintegrates, when we all start to take sides, all that's left is to see who has the biggest guns, and the willingness to use them. Naturally that's not what any of us would desire. Nevertheless, history dictates that we all be prepared for what, so far, historically speaking, is inevitable.

January 6th, and then President Elect Trump shaking his fist "Fight, fight, fight!," is one reason why his side won this election. Those on the other side who were more than willing to sway the election their way like they did last time determined it might lead to more violence than even they were willing to entertain.

President Trump intends to end the war in Ukraine using the same tactic. Making both sides believe their continued prosecution of the war will lead to more trouble than either of them are willing to entertain. President Elect Trump knows that our leaders have seen fit to make sure we have a really big stick and he intends to threaten to use it in hopes he won't have to.



John

 

[F1fan]

The proclivity for all of us to read events through our own personal lens is why, since the beginning of human history, wars, civil and non-civil, have been fought repeatedly and without fail. When unity disintegrates, when we all start to take sides, all that's left is to see who has the biggest guns, and the willingness to use them. Naturally that's not what any of us would desire. Nevertheless, history dictates that we all be prepared for what, so far, historically speaking, is inevitable.

January 6th, and then President Elect Trump shaking his fist "Fight, fight, fight!," is one reason why his side won this election. Those on the other side who were more than willing to sway the election their way like they did last time determined it might lead to more violence than even they were willing to entertain.

That is your cloudy lens distorting your judgment.

President Trump intends to end the war in Ukraine using the same tactic. Making both sides believe their continued prosecution of the war will lead to more trouble than either of them are willing to entertain. President Elect Trump knows that our leaders have seen fit to make sure we have a really big stick and he intends to threaten to use it in hopes he won't have to.

Trump intends a lot of things that are stupid and corrupt. Time will tell. Will you see any of it through your cloudy lenses? I doubt it, as it seems you feed off of disinformation and poorly informed. This is how the criminal got elected.

 

[John D. Brey]

You seem to be saying that one of America's "core values" is to shake off any regime some faction doesn't happen to like. I mean, John Adams wrote that approximately one-third of the American population supported the move for independence (Patriots), one-third of the population supported the king (Loyalists), and one-third supported neither side (neutral). So, really, your "core values" include "if one-third of Americans hate Donald Trump, they have the right to violently overthrow him?"

In an earlier post, I noted a heated argument I had with a leftist Aussie who was bragging about how many more social programs Australia had compared to big bad USA. I implied to him that if his country, and all the other countries in the world, were prepared to defend themselves against threats to their sovereignty, the USA would not have to spend as much on defense as we do, and thus we could spend more on social programs.

The argument with the Aussie took place prior to the Ukraine war. But that war is a case in point. We've sent billions of our taxpayer's hard earned money to Ukraine because they can't afford to defend themselves. Worse, by far, left-leaning leaders in Ukraine willingly gave up their own nuclear weapons to appease the very nation now invading their soil.

Surely you're aware that many on the left, even one of those participating in this thread (see @Heyo message #80), believe that if we disarm the world will be a safer place (you know, like Ukraine). Any right thinking conservative could have told you that Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons for peace would backfire terribly. Similarly, any Republican can tell you that if we give up on the second amendment, Republicans will be in a situation similar to Ukraine: we'll never win another election.

January 6 was a somewhat pathetic warning. And even it scared the pejesus out of those who had planned to stage the election that took place last week. Mao Zedong's statement that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun is true enough to explain why those on the political right will defend the second amendment even if it requires defending it with what comes out of the barrel of a gun.



John

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The proclivity for all of us to read events through our own personal lens is why, since the beginning of human history, wars, civil and non-civil, have been fought repeatedly and without fail. When unity disintegrates, when we all start to take sides, all that's left is to see who has the biggest guns, and the willingness to use them. Naturally that's not what any of us would desire. Nevertheless, history dictates that we all be prepared for what, so far, historically speaking, is inevitable.

January 6th, and then President Elect Trump shaking his fist "Fight, fight, fight!," is one reason why his side won this election. Those on the other side who were more than willing to sway the election their way like they did last time determined it might lead to more violence than even they were willing to entertain.

One of the necessities to avoid civil conflict is governing and making decisions through critically thinking using quality informationas best we can. There was no evidence for election interference in 2020. There is evidence for this in 2024.

You are making assertions based on a conclusion without supporting evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In an earlier post, I noted a heated argument I had with a leftist Aussie who was bragging about how many more social programs Australia had compared to big bad USA. I implied to him that if his country, and all the other countries in the world, were prepared to defend themselves against threats to their sovereignty, the USA would not have to spend as much on defense as we do, and thus we could spend more on social programs.

The argument with the Aussie took place prior to the Ukraine war. But that war is a case in point. We've sent billions of our taxpayer's hard earned money to Ukraine because they can't afford to defend themselves. Worse, by far, left-leaning leaders in Ukraine willingly gave up their own nuclear weapons to appease the very nation now invading their soil.

Surely you're aware that many on the left, even one of those participating in this thread (see @Heyo message #80), believe that if we disarm the world will be a safer place (you know, like Ukraine). Any right thinking conservative could have told you that Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons for peace would backfire terribly. Similarly, any Republican can tell you that if we give up on the second amendment, Republicans will be in a situation similar to Ukraine: we'll never win another election.

January 6 was a somewhat pathetic warning. And even it scared the pejesus out of those who had planned to stage the election that took place last week. Mao Zedong's statement that freedom comes out of the barrel of a gun is true enough to explain why those on the political right will defend the second amendment even if it requires defending it with what comes out of the barrel of a gun.



John

Yes, well, whatever that was about, it only obliquely acknowledged my question.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Approximately 547 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 163 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6

Approximately 1,417 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 171 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

There are zero cases where a defendant was charged only with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so. Every defendant also faces other criminal charges—felonies, misdemeanors, or both—for illegal conduct related to the Capitol Breach.

Approximately 894 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing.

43 Months Since the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol

www.justice.gov

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes, well, whatever that was about, it only obliquely acknowledged my question.

I apologize. I intended to answer your question more directly and got sidetracked.

You seem to be saying that one of America's "core values" is to shake off any regime some faction doesn't happen to like. I mean, John Adams wrote that approximately one-third of the American population supported the move for independence (Patriots), one-third of the population supported the king (Loyalists), and one-third supported neither side (neutral). So, really, your "core values" include "if one-third of Americans hate Donald Trump, they have the right to violently overthrow him?"

Yes. If they're really that concerned, and if they have the gumption and courage necessary. And naturally, it will help if they believe the majority of the nation supports them.

Case in point. The fact that the person who instigated the January 6 uprising was given a mandate to lead the nation a mere four years after January 6, should be proof enough that the actions of January 6 were supported by a real majority of the voters in this Nation. Add to that truism, the fact that the leaders the January 6 zealots sought to remove, thereafter tried to imprison the instigator of January 6. They tried to do that by trying him in the court of law, and in the court of public opinion, i.e., the legacy media that serves the power-brokers who were trying to imprison Donald J. Trump (the instigator of January 6).

Despite the fact that for four years Donald J. Trump was tried in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, for the January 6 uprising, Donald J. Trump was given a mandate by the people to finish, legally, and as the Elect President of the United States, what the uprising on January 6 failed to achieve: the thorough removal from power of those who took a left turn away from sanity and went down a dark tunnel all the while inviting the good people of this Country to join them in a grotesque transformation of the core values of these United States of America.

The people who have now been removed in a legal action, have been removed after they made it perfectly clear to the voters of the United States that Donald J. Trump instigated the uprising, and would pardon those who took part in it. Having been thoroughly educated on those two points, the majority of the voters in these United States entered a voting booth and pulled the lever to make Donald J. Trump the 47th President of the United States of America. With that action, they knowingly lent their full support to the courageous patriot, and his supporters, who tried to spare the nation what has occurred under the current administration for the last four years.



John

 

[Viker]

You know what would be funny. If Biden were to pardon the Jan6 insurrectionists first and then arrested Trump and Vance. Then give them a televised half an hour mock trial( one minute commercial break...Tesla cars or something) and then deported/exiled them to Siberia with a bottle of bitters and 50 Pecos each.

 

[John D. Brey]

You are making assertions based on a conclusion without supporting evidence.

For four years Donald J. Trump has been tried in the courts and in the court of public opinion for the crime of the January six uprising. It's fair to assume not one single voter who pulled the lever to make Donald J. Trump the President of the United States of America was unaware that he instigate, supported, and will pardon, everyone who took place in that uprising.

All that's left, for the Left, is to demonize and belittle the critical thinking, and decision making, of the majority of the population of these United States of America who pulled a lever to say "Bravo!" to President Elect Donald J. Trump for trying to save us from what has taken place over the last for years, and for being willing to be point-man for the clean up made necessary when the patriotic uprising failed.

All those brave patriots who will be pardoned soon should, and hopefully will, be given a medal to document their courage, their critical thinking, and their decision making. All the monies the Biden's treasonously received from China should be confiscated and divvied up amongst those patriots whose lives he and his administration ruined.



John

 

[Guitar's Cry]

For four years Donald J. Trump has been tried in the courts and in the court of public opinion for the crime of the January six uprising. It's fair to assume not one single voter who pulled the lever to make Donald J. Trump the President of the United States of America was unaware that he instigate, supported, and will pardon, everyone who took place in that uprising.

I think there are a lot of reasons people pulled that lever. I thonk it's fair to assume a lot of them didn't know that.

All that's left, for the Left, is to demonize and belittle the critical thinking, and decision making, of the majority of the population of these United States of America who pulled a lever to say "Bravo!" to President Elect Donald J. Trump for trying to save us from what has taken place over the last for years, and for being willing to be point-man for the clean up made necessary when the patriotic uprising failed.

Note my quoted comment was based on Donald Trump's election denialism that you are asserting justified a violent riot against the last election results that Trump lost.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I apologize. I intended to answer your question more directly and got sidetracked.



Yes. If they're really that concerned, and if they have the gumption and courage necessary. And naturally, it will help if they believe the majority of the nation supports them.

Case in point. The fact that the person who instigated the January 6 uprising was given a mandate to lead the nation a mere four years after January 6, should be proof enough that the actions of January 6 were supported by a real majority of the voters in this Nation. Add to that truism, the fact that the leaders the January 6 zealots sought to remove, thereafter tried to imprison the instigator of January 6. They tried to do that by trying him in the court of law, and in the court of public opinion, i.e., the legacy media that serves the power-brokers who were trying to imprison Donald J. Trump (the instigator of January 6).

Despite the fact that for four years Donald J. Trump was tried in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, for the January 6 uprising, Donald J. Trump was given a mandate by the people to finish, legally, and as the Elect President of the United States, what the uprising on January 6 failed to achieve: the thorough removal from power of those who took a left turn away from sanity and went down a dark tunnel all the while inviting the good people of this Country to join them in a grotesque transformation of the core values of these United States of America.

The people who have now been removed in a legal action, have been removed after they made it perfectly clear to the voters of the United States that Donald J. Trump instigated the uprising, and would pardon those who took part in it. Having been thoroughly educated on those two points, the majority of the voters in these United States entered a voting booth and pulled the lever to make Donald J. Trump the 47th President of the United States of America. With that action, they knowingly lent their full support to the courageous patriot, and his supporters, who tried to spare the nation what has occurred under the current administration for the last four years.



John

Fine. You won't mind, then, if I laugh scornfully in the face of the next American who says, "we are a nation of laws?"