Hacker News Reader

Comment by CapitalistCartr | Hacker News Reader

This was, in fact, an insurrection, fighting between the President and the Congress. And the local police took the President's side. This is the sort of crazy nonsense we used to laugh about happening in Third-World countries during the Cold War. Even the Soviet countries were better than this.

View on HN

Actually we had something similar happen last year in our third world country, when a group of soldiers and supporters led by the president occupied our congress.

Those actions were publicized using our government's verified social media profiles, that have kept attacking every other institution since taking power: Media outlets, Legislative Branch, Judicial Branch, Universities, Electoral System.

Sounds familiar?

Unfortunately we have not had those "fact checking alerts" or limitations on inaccurate posts of their profiles.

Any chance someone from FB, YT or TW reading this? Could you escalate it internally. Country name: El Salvador.

>And the local police took the President's side.

That is demonstrably false. The overwhelming majority of officers did their duty, and physically cleared rioters from the building. Many were injured fighting the insurrectionists. One officer was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher and remains in critical care. Mayor Bowser and the DC Chief of Police said this in their morning press conference [0]:

>"There was a lot of valiant fighting by members of the Metropolitan Police Department," Acting D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee said. "Just a tremendous amount of heroic acts. I have one officer who's still in the hospital right now. He was snatched into a crowd, he was beaten, he was kicked, he was Tased several times. So, yeah, they fought. They fought very hard yesterday."

[0] https://wjla.com/news/local/dc-mayor-address-public

> That is demonstrably false

Apparently our foreign allies intelligence groups don't find it so farfetched. It does help explain the incredible lack of forces, baffling to many in law enforcement, and why Congress has already started firing capital security personnel and accepted resignations of others for such a screw up.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal...

NATO is just connecting the dots, which is what they are trained to do. Even as an American I have to concede that the conclusions they are drawing are measured and reasonable. Allies losing faith in the reliability of your security personnel is Exhibit A in the case for being extremely careful about who you hire as security personnel.

That link is a collection of anonymous quotes speculating on circumstantial evidence. Let's confine ourselves to statements supported by facts.

The injuries sustained by dozens of Capitol Police officers, including one who remains on life support, suggest that if a pro-Trump conspiracy existed then it didn't extend past the Chief. There is zero evidence (so far) for such a conspiracy. On the other hand, the footage of officers fighting huge crowds, dispersing rioters with teargas and pepperballs, and even shooting one Capitol invader dead at close range all suggest they did not "side with the President." [0][1][2][3]

Officers were overmatched and overwhelmed as the result of poor planning by leadership. The AP suggests complacency was to blame, not collusion or conspiracy [4]:

>Both Acevedo and Ed Davis, a former Boston police commissioner who led the department during the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, said they did not fault the responses of clearly overmatched front-line officers, but the planning and leadership before the riot.

>“Was there a structural feeling that well, these are a bunch of conservatives, they’re not going to do anything like this? Quite possibly,” Davis said. “That’s where the racial component to this comes into play in my mind. Was there a lack of urgency or a sense that this could never happen with this crowd? Is that possible? Absolutely.”

And this is just to focus on the US Capitol Police. If we look at the DC Metro Police, "local" cops in the truest sense of the word, they're not at all aligned with President Trump. Mayor Bowser and Acting Chief Contee are not Republicans. See my comment above for a recap of MPD's conduct yesterday.

I am sick of the ACAB mentality which leads to assumptions like "capitol police sided with the President." It is generally untrue, predicated on lies, and counter-productive. I hope my analysis demonstrates that in this case.

EDIT: the US Capitol Police officer who was on life support has just passed away. He died from injuries sustained while fighting off violent Trump supporters [5]. Do you still think that he and other officers “sided with the President?”

[0] https://twitter.com/mattdizwhitlock/status/13470181996535603...

[1] https://twitter.com/KySportsRadio/status/1347031398176223233

[2] https://twitter.com/zhalaschak/status/1346940634557521929

[3] https://twitter.com/mattrodierphot1/status/13469432496808837...

[4] https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-riots-police-coronav...

[5] https://twitter.com/LindsayAWatts/status/1347404723767402499

Also from the Associated Press - the National Guard was oddly absent from all of this, when they are normally involved [1]. Can that be a fact?

Here's Congress already asking the same questions, and a few more facts supporting surprisingly bad and out of character police behavior [2]. This is only 1 day after the event - give it a few to see if it takes off.

The statements by trained intelligence professional are not facts? Sometimes by looking at evidence and seeing there is likely more going one leads one to dig and find more facts, right?

Many in law enforcement have called what happened ridiculously surprising. Assuming it was all just random bad luck and not investigating it in detail is a sure way screw up again, whether it was bad luck or had some component of insider issues.

Certainly Congress has fired some people over it, some have resigned, and it looks like Congress is certainly going to investigate.

Just a few months ago capitol police certainly had multiple layers of police around the Capitol building, so it's clear they can do that. This time they didn't, despite being given ample warning many in the crowd have been posting for weeks they will storm the building.

So I don't know either way, and neither do you, but these questions are from reputable sources, not some far out left wing rag, so it's worth looking into them.

[1] https://www.syracuse.com/news/2021/01/national-guard-troops-...

[2] https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawmakers-demand-answers-outrage-e...

>So I don't know either way

You should have started and ended here. The officer who died to protect the Congress was still clinging to life when you accused him and his colleagues of treason.

We will find out soon enough if the Capitol Police Chief took part in any real or imagined conspiracies. That has no bearing on the demonstrated actions and loyalty to the Constitution of the vast majority of DC police officers.

I don't think anyone is accusing the officers who were doing their jobs of failures, but military sense demands we investigate why the other security personnel were not on site. That's just security 101.

>The officer who died to protect the Congress was still clinging to life when you accused him and his colleagues of treason.

How did you possibly jump to me claiming all officers were complicit? Nowhere was I, or any source I posted, even close to that claim.

And trying emotional manipulation over a dying and now dead officer I find disgusting. I'm done.

I confused your username with the OP commenter, whose remark prompted my initial reply:

> This was, in fact, an insurrection, fighting between the President and the Congress. And the local police took the President's side.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25680210

Apologies, your usernames are similar and you seemed to support their point.

> And the local police took the President's side.

What’s strange is that the capitol police report to Congress specifically to prevent executive backed coups.

Protesters storm Kyrgyzstan president's office and parliament building https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGWKCYMDkE4

The electoral authorities in Kyrgyzstan have annulled the results of parliamentary elections following violent protests. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-54432030

Lockdown protesters storm Serbian parliament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTMbbLq11Q

Coronavirus: Belgrade protesters storm Serb parliament over curfew https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53332225

Incredible. In other countries, they're "protesters". Here, only a day later, they're "insurrectionists".

They're called insurrectionists in my country, and I wouldn't be surprised they're called this way in other countries.

I can't speak for your country, but in the U.S., this is a well-known phenomenon. The media choose nouns according to their connotation, depending on how they intend to shape the narrative (regardless of the facts).

Our allies have "governments". Everyone else has "regimes". It's interesting to see it turned inward.

Even the Soviet countries were better than this.

I haven't seen tanks crushing people in DC.

Every agrees Donald Trump just led an insurrection, including the Senate Majority leader, a Republican. Why is Trump not in custody?

Because, almost insanely and extremely worryingly in itself, it seems the Mueller investigation concurred with the controversial opinion that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Presidents are above the law. So he has to be impeached first, then indicted.

Can Trump be arrested for treason on Jan 21st, after Biden is inaugurated?

IANAL but that is my understanding, yes.

There is a theory that a lot of his desperation to remain president is due to a tsunami of legal problems that are all waiting for him to leave office. Not sure what veracity that has but his desperation to stay in power certainly is consistent with it.

The instinct to arrest political enemies is one of the really bad telltales of authoritarianism, so people generally steer well clear. Unless you think that an example needs to be set so Biden and future presidents know not to act similarly, I see very little good that could come of martyring such a lightning rod... You could get an insurrection that looks hard to defeat, rather than one that merely embarrasses law enforcement.

The real reason that no one ever goes after an exiting president is because there is an unspoken agreement not to.

The moment that the incoming party mounts a legal case against an exiting president, they ensure that the other team will do the same to them.

Also, all other members of congress would become targets. So many of them are enriching themselves through their office that it's best for everyone to just look the other way and move on for the sake of "bringing the nation together."

Edit to add: Imagine the indecisiveness that would be brought to the topic of war. Values are constantly changing. What if in 20 years, your extremely popular decision to invade a country for "democracy" is seen as being built on lies? Many of the wars we enter are unpopular when viewed years on.

Some might consider this a feature, as it may reduce war. But what about that critical moment when you believe war is necessary and justified because a dictator is taking over half a continent? I despise violence, but wouldn't want a leader afraid to step up before a situation is potentially too late for fear of doing time.

No sitting president has ever tried to marshal his influence to steal the results of a certified election, because there is an unspoken agreement not to.

That unspoken rule has been broken. Not punishing him to the fullest extent possible ensures that this will happen again. The next time a personality like him gets elected, it might be successful.

I would consider it a feature if the next guy who gets the idea to start an insurrection to think twice, before he pulls the trigger.

Political leaders ending up in prison is not that rare [1]. The United States has historically had better leadership than the sort of nations where that happens, but it's been on a bit of a decline recently.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_government_wh...

It's not that rare, because those countries are politically unstable.

The US is one of the longest living democracies.

By all means, go after Obama or Biden if there is merit.

Go for it.

In fact, let's have ALL the presidents be presidents and not kings. How does that sound to you?

Also you are ignoring the fact that Trump DID go after his political opponents after the 2016 election (and again in 2020). Yet somehow, Hillary Clinton remains free, despite his best efforts.

So tell me again about unspoken rules.

Trump didn’t “go after” Hillary or any other political opponent in any form whatsoever after he took office. He said a lot of things on the campaign trail and then left it at that.

He pressured his DOJ to act against them.

DOJ has pretty much done nothing but investigate Trump for his entire presidency.

I'm not sure what "pressure" you're talking about, but if it existed it was quite ineffective.

That's because you are willfully blind.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-08/trump-com...

https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/2020/10/20/trump-pressure...

And the reason why Trump is being investigating is because he's a fucking traitor who deserves everything that entails.

I hope you are proud of what you are defending. This isn't over yet. More details will come out of how Trump has betrayed our nation.

And you know why it didn't work? Because there's nothing there.

You want to pretend that Trump's personal lawyer was not shopping around hacked documents of Biden's son? Pushing for criminal investigation?

Trump supporters have no allegiance to truth, just like Trump himself.

CNN is running an article about his inquiring if he can pardon himself.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/politics/donald-trump-self-pa...

According to US law, a president can be impeached even if he is no longer in office.

Trump is already impeached - which is not removal, but a judgement at the impeachment trial that he is not fit for president. Unfortunately, the senate did not act on the impeachment judgement and thus did not get removed from office.

No.

Impeachment is simply an indictment. We all know indictments work. The famous ham sandwich.

The senate then takes up the indictment and as in every case to date, acquits the president. The bar to a successful removal from office is quite high and is so for a reason.

There is no “impeachment trial” that results in an impeachment. There is a majority democrat house who decided to vote on an impeachment and send it to the senate for a trial. The senate the held a trial and acquitted.

That doesn’t even make any sense.

It is used primarily to make the person ineligible for that post again, to ensure that he does not run again for president, for example.

In this case, it's really more optics. He has zero chance of ever being re-elected to the Presidency.

Alan Dershowitz: “The case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 PM on January 20th an hour after President Trump leaves office. And the Constitution specifically says, “The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.” It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.”

The Constitution defines treason very narrowly and I think it's unlikely prosecutors would choose that particular charge.

They are also sending a message to radicalized leftists and progressives that are active in the streets in DC, that they are the enemy and Trump supporters are not.

I don't think the police took Trump's side. The meme here that they just let them in doesn't reflect what can be clearly seen in the video footage.

It clearly does. In some videos, rioters and terrorists can be seen damaging the barricade and police officers scuffling with them and preventing them from getting inside.

But there is at-least one video, that I have seen, no such thing takes place. They just allow the terrorists inside.

Stop spreading lies.

Edit : The video.

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...

"Stop spreading lies": I insist that you retract that. I am giving my observations from the footage I've seen.

"at least one video" I will take you at your word (more than you seem to have done for me). As it turns out, police officers are individuals, who make individual decisions. The question that is important here is whether they were following orders in doing so, and what the intent of those orders were. Leaping to conclusions seems premature.

Police officers maybe individuals. But in a uniform, they are supposed to follow orders. If they are ordered to put up a barricade, it obviously is for keeping people out.

Not make "individual" decisions and allow them in, considering the context.

I’m sorry I am extremely concerned that you’re right, that the police did let them in, but how do you know they were not instructed to fall back? There is at least one account, from a journalist, linked in this thread, that suggests they were about to be overwhelmed and therefore were tactically abandoning the post.

And God willing there will be investigations (see Karen Bass’, Claire Mckaskill’ tweets), but shouldn’t we wait for those before we proclaim the police guilty here? By all accounts they were woefully outnumbered at the barriers, the chief resigned under pressure already for the clusterfuck he oversaw and so let’s hope more heads roll if they did wrong, but let’s not say people are spreading lies when we don’t have the full picture. Doesn’t make “us” any better than the obviously-lacking-the-full-picture rioters and insurrectionists when we do that.

You are right. It is entirely possible that they were instructed to fall back and re-group at a location where they can control the crowd better.

But, that needs an investigation.

However, emotions are high because there is an obvious difference between treatment of BLM protesters and those who rioted yesterday.

Is it because of orders or individual decisions?

The original poster tried to shift the blame from the police as an entity / institution, to individuals taking decisions.

That is an obvious tactic of trying to cover-up the complicity of the institution. Happens always.

edit : Another video showing a police officer guiding rioters into the areas.

https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961

First, the video you post does not "clearly show" that the police were letting protesters in.

Second, even if in some instances police were letting protesters through, why they were letting them through is a question that must be answered. The most pressing question, from the perspective of the interested public, is whether there were standing orders to let them do so or that there was some kind of conspiracy among the officers to disobey orders in order to do so.

So, do you see the disconnect? you have some (dubious) evidence that some group of police officers let people approach the capitol building, and on the other you have an accusation that the Capitol Police Department took the side of Trump and made a decision to endanger the lives of Congress.

This is not covering up the complicity of an institution. Neither is it shifting blame, because blame hasn't yet been assigned. It is simply a requirement that accusations be backed up by evidence.

I think it is fairly obvious that wrt BLM, the police officers responded the way they did because they the protests were directed at them. BLM threatens police legitimacy, police power, and demanded that those same police be held accountable for the wrongs they commit.

Explanation is not justification.

A second point. Here you acknowledge that an alternative explanation for the evidence you have seen is plausible, and recognize the need for investigation, but that is not what you said to me. Why not?

>The meme here that they just let them in doesn't reflect what can be clearly seen in the video footage

Because you have chosen to take a tunnel vision and look at some videos to declare the possibility of police being complicit just a "meme"

You fight fire with fire.

If you choose one video to "prove" they are not complicit, I choose another video proving my point.

But if someone has a broader view that includes possibilities and probabilities, I speak their language.

Why? Because I feel the only way to talk to a person with a set point of view is to outright refute them with evidence or ignore them entirely.

No use of trying to show the whole picture.

I don't have a set point of view. You don't even know me. I am guilty, however, of writing poorly.

I said that it was a meme, and that the evidence in video footage does not unambiguously substantiate the meme. I didn't deny the possibility of the police being complicit. A few confusing videos of a few officers acting in ways that I don't understand in stressful situations (in a police department with over 2000), or the speculation of (so-called) experts that it might have been, just is insufficient for me to accuse that police department of participating in a coup.

In fact, I am urgently concerned that there was a conspiracy by the police department to commit insurrection. I am desperately afraid that it was a coordinated coup. Trump's reticence to provide National Guard support, and the fact that Pence actually gave the order, is very troubling. But I'm not gonna believe catchy easy narratives that push all the buttons. That's how millions of Trumpers got to believing that the election was stolen in the first place.

Well, Ok then.

You state authoritatively that the video footage supports your statement when you haven't seen all of the video footage. He shouldn't retract anything. You are the one who should retract your statement. Regardless of if they were following orders or not taking actions that benefit the rioters actions is supporting them.

The person called me a liar. I think it is fair to demand a retraction.

They did edit their response to post a video, here:

https://mobile.twitter.com/justinjm1/status/1347174957613199...

as evidence that the police let them in. But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building. Do you?

> But I don't think that that video supports his contention that police just let these people into the capitol building.

Especially since it's a tweet with a quote from the guy who shot the video explaining that it's not a video of the police "just letting them in"

Edit 2 : Another video showing a police officer encouraging rioters to enter.

https://v.redd.it/tl6j5jo2lz961

Couple this with upcoming news that DC police guard were severely restricted from acting or keeping a presence around the capitol, its really concerning.

https://www.businessinsider.in/international/news/some-among...

What caught me off-guard was how few officers were present, considering months of rhetoric and weeks of rioters gathering into DC.

It makes sense that key positions in the Pentagon were shuffled just a few weeks prior.

All this could be avoided if the president is made powerless to make such drastic decisions and the period of "lame duck" presidency is reduced.

In that video, you can clearly see that the police lines had already been breached. Continuing to hold that particular line would have been both pointless, and potentially dangerous. Also read the thread. The person who took the video refutes your point.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com