The sad reality of Jan 6th

Regime vs. Regime

In the Washington Post, the Justice Department explained why the words of its indictments of those it claims trespassed on the Capitol will not result in the severe prison sentences they imply. Those words try to fit acts prima facie of mostly peaceful protest into the Democratic Party’s and associated oligarchy’s narrative of “armed insurrection against our democracy.” But in the Post story these “legal experts” mention regretfully that, their best efforts notwithstanding, what remains of the U.S. legal system cannot wholly erase the fact that “trespassing is still only trespassing, even in the U.S. Capitol,” and that “a misdemeanor is still only a misdemeanor.” Drat, still!

Nevertheless, these prosecutors and friendly experts fill most of the article with how they combine unlimited pretrial detention under harsh circumstances and limitation of legal assistance to press the accused to accept maximum penalties and to forgo bringing cases to juries.

An armed insurrection needs a few of important things to be an armed insurrection. First and foremost it needs the people within the insurrection to be armed. Secondly, it requires that the people involved have an active plan to rebel against the Government for a very specific political purpose of defiance and possible overthrow. Lastly, insurgencies are generally a long-term revolt with long term plans that are accomplishing a particular political goal. 

A few hundred people breaking off from a peaceful rally and storming a Government building does not an insurrection, an insurgence, a political revote, or a violent coup make. We have seen people breaking off from peaceful rallies/protests to challenge police authority or to attack a government building more times than we can count over the past two years and none of them are insurrection or insurgencies.

So to be clear. The people who stormed the capital building were not armed. It cannot be an armed insurrection without arms. These people were not organized and there was no central plan in place that can be found. There is no insurrection without a plan. There has been no conspiracy or insurgency group actively following up on the events of Jan 6th. No long term plans. No actual group that can be identified as the insurgents or any leadership of any sort.

On the flip side, BLM/Antifa attacking police or other Government buildings have been armed. They have been organized and planned. Generally on Facebook or Twitter. They continue to exist as a group and continue to plan attacks. The same people participate over and over and over for their so called "cause". There is even known leadership. Yet nobody demands that these riots should be labeled as an insurrection or that BLM/Antifa is an insurgency.

But here is the logical rub. 

Those who want to claim that Jan 6th was an armed insurrection use the term as if it is describing a bunch of people looking to overthrown the Government. But when you break it down to the semantics,  they will tell you that any "rise up against authority" is an insurrection. However, when pressed they will still try to argue that such a definition does not apply to BLM or Antifa riots without really offering a reason why other than the argument that they personally do not agree with the anger associated with Jan 6th, but that they agree with the anger associated with BLM/Antifa. 

Here is a little check box for you - which Group:

• Is a known group with organization and leadership
• Has a known set of propaganda or goals
• Has had multiple preplanned events 
• Has been armed
• Has the same people joining multiple riots or protests

Which ever group fits these criteria is more likely to be considered an actual insurgency responsible for any insurrections.