And those people were not physically rioting. Those are the people that the Republicans don’t want investigated.
@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper: This is the problem. It’s like someone hiring a hitman to take someone else out, and only the hitman gets prosecuted because the person who hired them didn’t engage in physical violence themselves.
Sure, but that’s why it’s illegal to hire a hitman. It’s why any first-year law student can tell you about the distinction between speech that does and doesn’t cross that line, such that a given utterance is to be prosecuted while another isn’t — adding that we, as a society, are aware of the hitman problem and consciously put a legal framework in place to address it.
Absolutely this.
And I am pretty confident that some of the loudest voices in the GOP who want to shut down the effort are actually complicit in the backroom planning and encouragement of the insurrection.
Yes! And it should be equally illegal to provoke an insurrection. (IANAL, but I believe “seditious conspiracy” probably covers this.) Yet the mainstream GOP is doing everything in its power to prevent those who did so from being held accountable. I wonder why.
Oh yeah, that’s why.
I want to apologize to @D_Anconia for a personal insult, I don’t know why I thought this thread was in the BBQ Pit, but I really thought it was. It was a honest mistake.
I didn’t realize my mistake until the edit window had timed out, and I have flagged the post for moderation.
Thank you. Moderators, please consider the matter resolved satisfactorily.
Moderating:
This is inappropriate, and we appreciate that you flagged it to our attention stating that you realized after the fact that this thread is not in the Pit. We don’t modify posts on request, so this language will stand and you can consider yourself mod-noted for it. Not a warning.
Sometimes we’re a little slow on the draw. Thanks for being gracious.
Most people here are getting it. The blurred line isn’t between those who demonstrated peacefully and those who stormed the castle. The blurred line is between the castle stormers and those with the power to organize and influence the castle storming.
Which is why certain Republican members of Congress are desperately obstructing the investigation. They do not want it revealed if they were in discussions with the Oath Keepers about strategy or with Trump on what actions to take (or not take) to maximize the chances of halting the count.
Yeah, I’m not at all convinced that the people actually pulling the levers of power and influence in the GOP are actually true believers in all that religious nonsense. But I am absolutely convinced that they’re smart enough and cynical enough to encourage that stuff and/or latch onto it in order to further their own goals, which seem to be political power and influence.
I mean, McConnell isn’t a right-wing Christian nut-job as best as I can tell, but he’s completely willing to use those people’s beliefs and stoke that fire in order to further his goals as a politician.
And I’m also sure, like many of you, that the events of Jan 6th were more of the same. They went along/go along because it was politically convenient.
What I wonder now, is whether they have the tiger by the tail, or if they soon will. Being in bed with that sort of crazy isn’t actually sustainable unless they win absolutely, and at some point, they’ll probably realize that either they aren’t going to win, or that if they do, they don’t want to live in that sort of country.
Nice try (for values of “nice” approaching “pathetic”). The investigation is directed toward the acts of violence and subversion; ergo, any complaint that the investigation is illegitimate* is advocacy of violence and subversion, not “legitimate political discourse”.
*It is possible to offer legitimate criticisms of this or that tactic used in the investigation while accepting the investigation itself as legitimate and necessary, but the Republican statement made no attempt in that direction.
Again, by decrying the existence of the investigation, which is directed against the perpetrators of violence and subversion, on the spurious grounds that the rights of people who engaged in lawful political dissent are being infringed, they did precisely that.
No, they didn’t do “precisely” that; they did “precisely” the opposite.
If we start getting into the practice of disregarding what folks actually say when they take the time to draw a line here and not there, then, seriously: what the hell is the point of any of this? I’m still limited by the request upthread not to both-sides this, but I’d think it’s beyond obvious that no discussion will go anywhere if all of us dismissively toss aside the positions that people actually take with a quick look, I know they don’t mean what they say; they mean something else, and I’m against — well, again, not what they “precisely” stated, but what I sure wish they’d come out and say.
If you want to be skeptical and guard against the possibility that someone is lying instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt, that’s fine; heaven knows, I’m happy to do likewise. But if we’re to mull what, “precisely”, someone has done? Well, that’s a different story, or else none of this means anything.
Let’s do this one step at a time:
No, they’re taking the position that — in addition to investigating those perpetrators — the investigation is also going after some other group of people: they’re saying they draw a distinction between those who violently stormed the Capitol and those who didn’t, and they’re explicitly condemning the acts of the former while refusing to condemn the acts of the latter. Instead of taking the position that violence is legitimate political discourse, they’re taking the position that it isn’t: that legitimate political discourse is one thing, and that the violence at the Capitol is another thing; and that the difference is demonstrable, in that various people managed to engage in one while having nothing to do with the other.
I quoted Rubio as saying that “anybody who committed crimes on January 6th should be prosecuted. If you entered the Capitol and you committed acts of violence and you were there to hurt people, you should be prosecuted”. What position is he thereby taking?
Which part of the word “subversion” (as in “violence and subversion”) was unclear?
Which part of the word “and” was unclear? If it’s not the case when it comes to “violence”, then it’s already clearly not the case when it comes to “violence and subversion”.
“Perpetrators of violence and subversion” also means “perpetrators of violence and perpetrators of subversion”, as in they are investigating both. Admittedly the English language could be clearer on this sort of thing, but it is pretty clear to everyone without an axe to grind that both are worthy of investigation.
My favorite talking point is when Republicans, who refused to allow a bipartisan commission to form, call this committee a one sided partisan blah blah blah.
But — speaking of axes to grind — I’m wary of equivocation on that point. Off the top of my head, I’ve heard flag-burning described as subversive (sometimes, commendably!) sure as we could soon get into some kind of If-By-Whiskey tangent about whether a “fuck the draft” sentiment counts as subversive speech and what it means to call for impeaching a president and thus and such.
It’s comparatively easy to talk about criminal acts of violence, subversive or otherwise; but if we start talking about purely nonviolent subversion, then we’re probably headed for a long Freeze Peach discussion in short order.