Beats me.
But back to the OP, I think that fascist terrorism is with us to stay, I think that we’ll see an increase in terrorist incidents like Buffalo with some larger incidents like Oklahoma City. In red state America, there will be attempts to continue to prevent blacks from voting and the rewriting of American history. Trump was a symptom, not the cause of our rot and he will be replaced.
Fascistic terrorism has always been a reality of American life. The only difference this time is that it’s affecting white people.
I can see the fascist Trumpistas waving their guns around. What happens Liberals start waving their guns back at them?
Actually, an earlier recorded presentation by Jim Jones himself showing the supplies that he had in a storage building, showed that both Flavor aid and Kool aid were present in his compound.
Every time I see that omission, I always suspect that the Kool-aid people had better PR… 
They certainly had a larger legal budget with which to threaten people reporting the news.
I’ve been poking around a few RWNJ message boards, and the majority of Trumpistas posting there don’t believe that liberals have any guns. [Sarcasm on] After all, liberals are for gun control, which we all know means banning guns completely, so they’re leading by example and thus, they don’t own guns. [Sarcasm off]. These right-wingers figure that they will have an easy time of things if a conflict occurs, because their opponents don’t have any guns, while they (right-wingers, that is) do.
This Bloom County Sunday comic from 1982 sums up these Trumpistas’ attitude nicely:
At the risk of derailing the thread, yes, that’s exactly how mass protests work, and influence things.
Slight difference between mass protests and riots.
Sometimes the only difference is who puts out the stronger message.
It’s magical thinking on a ridiculous scale to believe otherwise
I find this comment inappropriate and offensive. Law enforcement, including on the federal level, warn people all the time that they are being looked at for crimes. Also, your statement is not factually true, Merrick Garland held a press conference a couple of weeks ago and an affidavit has been released in redacted form, so the norms you may have been used to are no longer standard operating procedure. Also, the Secret Service WAS given about an hours heads-up so they were warned before the FBI arrived.
But that really doesn’t matter to me. I do not think that such an insulting comment should be made, especially by someone in a position of authority. I understand that you disagree with my proposed suggestion, that is your absolute right, but there is no need to be insulting or to make it personal. I would appreciate it if you could contain your distaste for me or my views, or whatever has you upset. Thank you for your time.
To ask them privately is a risk as I stated myself. But if they want to try to spin it as an attempt to censure their point of view, the DOJ could make a public statement that they are concerned about mob violence and have reports that show good reason to be concerned.
"We spoke to many news outlets (including ones that have sometimes made false or misleading statements) and politicians from both parties. We shared our concerns about rioting and calls to arms. Most genuine news sources appreciated the forewarning and agreed that keeping people calm as this FIRST STEP in a criminal proceeding is conducted is wise. The accused will have every opportunity to mount a vigorous defense and this process is a long, but fair process that is only beginning.
We did mention that calls to arms are illegal and that any attempt to stir up discord, or to incite a riot is actionable. Even broadcasting others making a call to arms, while certainly news, is irresponsible and could lead to violence. Most professional newscasters and politicians agreed that calm deliberation is the best way to find a solution in this unusual situation" Unspoken part - although some may prefer to stir-up trouble.
It can as you state, certainly backfire. But if you address it first, you get to frame it as an effort to maintain peace AND to allow for lawful, peaceful protests if anyone wants to protest. State that accommodations are being made for calm, peaceful, unarmed protests because we know some will want to express their views-- we are just trying to avoid any situation where conflict and violence are the tools used to express dissatisfaction. They could even make reference to the unprecedented nature of the news and how calm is required of the nation - just like when Kennedy was assassinated. (I also personally believe that if some ordinary Joe does make a call to action – and action is taken – and someone is seriously hurt or killed – that person should be prosecuted fast and hard!! That will let others know this is a serious business.) While it would be unconventional, it is far from absurd to consider this course of action.
Do you have a better suggestion for how to proactively allow for unarmed, peaceful protests but guard against violent, armed mobs attacking federal buildings? It is not like two separate armed individuals did not mount a solo attack on the government right after the documents were seized from Trump’s property.
In addition, an entire arm of the January 6th Committee is looking at Trump and his cronies for “inciting a riot” with their words. Would you rather wait until after it happens and then work backwards again? This is far from the only solution, or even a best solution. It is a first idea to address a genuine threat in a fair and proactive manner. Even if it had never been done before it is a place to start. What is your suggested solution?
Do your best to listen for chatter about planned attacks and prepare for them. Find the leaders of radical groups who’ve committed crimes and prosecute them. In other words, what law enforcement already does and is doing.
Modding: I’m reviewing your posting in this thread. In the meantime I’m telling you to no longer post in this thead until further notice.
More to come.
Attacking another poster outside the pit is not allowed. Further, harassing a moderator is rather frown upon. Desist immediately. I strongly recommend you avoid such interactions in the future.
This may be elevated to a suspension. I consider this very serious. That is under discussion.
I’m going to try to break down the OP, my opinions on it, and what is more and less likely to happen based on my various assumptions.
One, not fighting the hypothetical, although I think it very likely that Trump will never be sentenced to anything with jail time, the point where Trump calls for Insurrection will be right before he actually has to go into actual prison. So after all the appeals, calls for mistrial, bias, etc. And let’s be honest, he’s likely to die of old age / ill health before that happens given his influence and supposed assets - and that’s if we don’t have another (R) president before that who pardons them for the good of the country.
So - in light of this assumption - assuming he lives through all this, he’s not going to be silent about the trial/appeals/etc during the years this is going on. And it will be years. During which, unless his influence wanes, his follows if true to form will continue to double down on their support, because they can’t give up at this point.
So, given this supposition, I suspect the time and hardening of POV will lead to both @Johnny_Bravo’s well prepared crazies (thinking of the Aurora Gunman but on larger, more liberal scale), as well as various groups that will (a la Michigan) be ready to do various organized assaults on the FBI, the judges, informants, and prosecutors as well as possible jury members.
In short, it’ll be very, Very ugly. I don’t quite think we’ll go the route of full on violent riots in the majority of areas, but it’ll be lots of widespread actions and very little effective action because it’ll be mostly disorganized groups.
But a LOT depends on who runs, and who is elected (and if the elections are anything close to fair which I will not bet on given the ways various (R) legislatures seem to want to override popular vote)… if we get another 4 years of something resembling sanity, and the economy rumbles along with a minor upswing, I suspect said influence will wane, leaving us to just the individual crazies.
If he runs, and god-forbid loses in 2024 with the prospect of eventually being held accountable, that’s when I expect him to perhaps openly call for his fans to rise up with the familiar ‘stolen election’ credo. And they juuuuust might.
Again, I’ve tried not to fight the hypothetical, but I think this is a much more likely scenario for him calling for a direct insurrection.
I actually heard a former DOJ official this morning state when he expects the charges to be laid. He said the end of November or December. I think that’s a good estimate of when.
Trump is already panicking, as evidenced by him trying to whip up his minions on his Truth Social network.
Just an interesting touchstone. Obviously, it’s all speculation at this point. But I always appreciate speculation by someone knowledgeable, as this person was.
It upsets the hell out of them.
Hmm…He refereed to “AR-47s”. According to every nit-picking pro-gun argument I’ve ever seen, his improper use of terminology means he cannot ever again express an opinion about guns. 
What I hope will happen is nothing besides a lot of whining on social media. What I fear is that DJT will instruct his followers to attack particular facilities such as the DOJ or FBI headquarters. But in that event the DC NG would be quickly mobilized to protect any announced targets and there could well be shootouts in the streets of DC.
I suspect what will happen will be isolated attacks by scattered MAGA faithful against FBI field offices or agents and perhaps Democratic politicians. I believe some people will die as a result of these attacks. The Venn Diagram of MAGAbots and dangerous psychopaths has enough of an overlap that I don’t see a scenario where no violence happens.
Followed by some latter-day Timothy McVeigh repeating the same stunt on a softer, but really important, target.