So indeed. The real question is why was there seemingly no preparation to handle it.
So indeed. The real question is why was there seemingly no preparation to handle it.
Clearly some of the Establishment wanted it to succeed.
It's hard to overstate how poorly they managed this. This is something a special investigation should be commissioned out by congress/the DOJ.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/01/867532070/trumps-unannounced-...
Or massively & publicly fail... if we’re trading conspiracy theories.
January 6 was either luck and foolery or clever planning.
A year ago I would have said luck but the weekend before super Tuesday last year with the centrists clearing the lane for Biden all within 36 hours convinced me there's capable skilled political actors who can orchestrate things.
January 6 was perhaps the least harmful version of the storm possible. The people there, they are the kinds of people that follow crazy conspiracies and do mass shootings, tens thousands of them. They've been antagonized and fueled this antigovernment narrative, some of them for almost 30 years by the shock jock grifters.
They got their storm, the pitchfork moment and relatively little violence happened, it lasted just an afternoon, then they left, not returning the next day and now people are being arrested in a way that doesn't martyr them as revolutionaries or put them into any kind of overarching constructive narrative.
They weren't lined up against the wall and taken care of like revolutionaries but instead individually arrested like common criminals. There was no clear "deep state" repression or large arrests to stoke the conspiracies of prison camps etc.
The storm happened. It was a dud. Afterwards the conspiracy social media accounts were denouncing the Republican party. Almost like the Republicans were able to shake off this toxic part of their coalition in the exchange.
This is an extremely favorable outcome for the establishment. They even got to shut down a bunch of the biggest troublemakers in the process. So really I don't know what to think. Brilliant execution or dumb luck, maybe a bit of both...
This is no joke—one of the rioters who made it to either the House or Senate floor was carrying a sign with a vague message about saving the children, while another one—the one who faced off with heroic Capitol Police officer Eugene Goodman—was wearing a “Q” hoodie.
It’s very strange to consider that some 4chan troll had this impact on history.
To your point, I think it’s worth considering all the potential outcomes:
1. Harm coming to any of the elected officials in the Capitol that day 2. A bloodbath on the Capitol steps on live television 3. Chaotic scenes of men in pelts occupying the Senate floor followed by the resumption of normal business that evening 4. A large armed presence with physical barriers and riot squads surrounding the Capitol
Obviously in retrospect we would take #4, and that’s what we’ll get for the inauguration. But #3 was obviously the second best choice on the table, and potentially the best if you want #4 to look legitimate, especially after about half a year of anti-police narrative.
I'm sure we all know a few people who have slipped into sheer lunacy down internet rabbit holes and seem to more or less be literally insane from the various wild stories.
The best I can imagine is for it to occupy the same fringe space as other wild conspiracies from the grifters like David Icke and Alex Jones.
These people will always exist in society but they should be a small enough group that we aren't forced to deal with them as a political force.
We shouldn't have to spend time, for instance, showing how Vincent Fusca isn't the secret alias of a JFK Jr faked death... it's such a waste of public engagement.
It was incredible to see so few Capitol police guarding the capitol. Further, the fact that they didn't employ things like tear gas sooner was incredible. They just sort of let the rioters through the weak barriers they setup.
Security HAD to have known this was coming. This wasn't some secret plot. I knew this was coming just because I like to keep tabs on what the trump supporters are saying. It was all over the reddit knockoff (win).
"Not just a good idea... It's the law."
It hasn't been invoked without state/local request since Kennedy.
Part of the answer that I am surprised you haven't been given yet is that there is an ongoing infiltration of the police forces in this country by far right wing activists. I mean, Exhibit A is the two off-duty cops from (I think) one of the Carolinas that were present in the actual riot. Here is a think piece [0] that has links to sources. I would not be surprised at all to learn that there were people in the Capitol Police itself who were sympathizers.
[0] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd...
(and besides, there were a good number of people with guns at the protest. And some others brought pipe bombs. Thankfully neither ended up being a factor but no one would have known that at the time)
And again: if you have the support of the police (and potentially also the armed forces) it’s all pretty moot anyway.
Or at least that's the common interpretation of QAnon ramblings.
But the point is that there wasn't any centralised leadership plotting this. There was some groups (who did have weapons) who were absolutely planning this, but the protestors in general was much more decentralized in purpose and method.
FBI charging documents do make references to the telecommunications of the OK defendants, where they are trying to trap and gas congress people under the capitol.
Neither the FBI nor Capitol Police has made claim that any lethal gas was present, period. Not in possession of "Oath Keepers" or otherwise. Not in "underground tunnels" or anywhere else.
No reputable news agency seems to be claiming thus, either.
So, the burden is on the claimant to show that this isn't pure narrative fantasy.
Perhaps "seal them in, turn on gas" was a figurative way of saying "trap them and kill them". Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/conspiracy...
Surely you are not conflating quotes from peaceful demonstrators against (alleged) election fraud, with militants trying to violently overthrow the government?
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IKWa_6...
Because despite their public rhetoric and willingness to carry guns when they don’t expect law enforcement opposition, they realized that their only chance of success at the Capitol was to not be treated by law enforcement the way that law enforcement (including the Secret Service) would treat a visibly-armed mob surrounding the Capitol during proceedings (which include Secret Service protectees).
“Realized that the likely law enforcement stance likely at the Capitol would make visibly carrying a firearm increase their personal risk rather than their effectiveness” is probably more accurate.