Why do we keep talking about January 6th?

Just don't forget for a moment how he created this situation.

Just don’t forget for a moment how he CREATED this situation….

Yes, I know that sounds like a stupid question, but hear me out.

I keep hearing people talk about Donald John Trump’s culpability — which no rational person can challenge — for what happened that day. I hear clips of what he said. Got it. No question that he incited them to act, on that day.

But what happened that day — his actual appearance before them at that rally — was just the cherry on top.

Why don’t people talk more (and they do some, but not enough) about what he’d been doing every day for more than two months before that? The crime for which he should be convicted by the Senate should be spending all those weeks creating the mob that he was speaking to on Jan. 6 — assembling it, bringing it into being.

If not for that, those people would not have been in Washington on Jan. 6, filled with insane and treasonous delusions, to begin with.

And I’m not hearing enough about that.

If the President of the United States — and that’s what he was at the time, to our nation’s everlasting shame — had not claimed, day after day, that the election had been stolen from him, a complete and obvious lie which he was unable to support with any evidence, that “Stop the Steal” movement would not have existed. Those astoundingly gullible people would all have been far away, in their homes. There would have been no one to stir up and egg on to attack the Capitol.

Of course, in a way, I’m doing what those who make the mistake of concentrating on Jan. 6 do — I’m leaving out a huge chunk of the evidence. I’m not even getting into those months before the election when he was preparing the way for his treasonous lie — telling all those people, over and over, that the vote could not be trusted.

Leave out what happened on Jan. 6, and there is already no question that he is guilty of what the House has impeached him for doing. No honest senator could possibly do anything but vote to convict.

Of course, you can say the same about what he did on the 6th alone. But don’t leave the rest of it out. Consider all the evil he has done — not only grabbing control of the situation for his nefarious ends in the moment, but having created the situation to begin with…

19 thoughts on “Why do we keep talking about January 6th?

  1. Mark Stewart

    The issue with this, perfectly rational, outline is that more than a few of the jurors should therefore be properly labeled as accomplices. Which, obviously, opens a whole other can of worms. But it is probably a threat best left on the table for the duration.

    Reply
    1. Barry

      I heard an attorney on TV say that an impeachment trial was unconstitutional because the jury wasn’t unbiased.

      An impeachment is a political remedy. There is never an unbiased jury.

      Reply
      1. Mark Stewart

        Then that attorney ought to support removal of Lindsey Graham…

        I don’t understand why more people cannot take a country-first stance to these kinds of existential issues; politicians most especially. Is it because they don’t feel beholden to the country and constitution? or is it that they aren’t reminded of that by us all enough? of course, we would also have to vote that way, too…

        Reply
    1. Doug Ross

      You just can’t quit Trump, can you?

      [Feel free to respond with some random video. My goal last year was to avoid this blog. My goal this year is to respond to anonymous trolls who are largely responsible for the toxic tone of discourse in this country. Keyboard heroes with mental issues who spout b.s. with no recourse. The beauty of my goal is that I will never go back and check if any of you trolls respond. So feel free to engage in some witty mental masturbation with a response. I’ll never see it. Spew your impotence for the other trolls to lap up. Brad supports your anonymous vitriol especially when it supports his Trump obsession. Now you’re all left to be miserable together.]

      Reply
      1. Bob Amundson

        Not just anonymous trolls, all trolls are “responsible for the toxic tone of discourse in this country.” Doug, your posts are mean spirited and add no value. I used to appreciate your point of view; now you just “[s]pew your impotence for the other trolls to lap up.” If the shoe fits, wear it. Please step up and stop.

        Reply
      2. Mark Stewart

        Doug, just because you were not able to discern the menace to our society and democratic republic that Trump represented doesn’t mean that you get to be a bitter bomb-thrower. I hope you find some offline revitalization and accommodation.

        Reply
      3. Jane BIshop

        You sound unapologetically unhinged.

        I feel for that doggie of yours that has so much work to do to get you straightened out.

        Reply
      4. Scout

        You could just skip the musical references if you don’t get them.

        If you are going to respond to those who are the cause of the toxic tone of the discourse, you might find yourself stuck in an endless feedback loop.

        Reply
      5. Scout

        If Trump would quit messing with my country, I could easily quit him. If his mindless brainwashed minions would quit trying to destroy what is right and good and true, I could quit him. I don’t care about Trump. I care about my country. As long as he is the poison in the wound, he will have my attention.

        Reply
  2. Randle

    I think they will build a case to show the incitement started before the 6th, including the red mirage, the fraud allegations, the coup attempts and even how he undercut the election before it was even underway. The evidence is overwhelming. However, facts do not persuade people uninterested in the truth.

    Reply
  3. bud

    Question – Can Trump be indicted for crimes he committed while in office even if he does not get convicted in his impeachment trial? If the answer is yes the what purpose does impeachment serve?

    Reply
    1. Mark Stewart

      Impeachment/conviction is a political “solution” marking someone as unfit to hold office. It is also a signal to the flow of history that we, being in the here and now, are able to adhere and respect the Constitution. Not doing so opens ourselves to the unraveling of our Republic, corrosively now and potentially catastrophically in the future. The country has been tested before, and we have wobbled, but never to the degree now on display. I pray the GOP Senators understand the gravity of this situation in the arc of American history.

      Criminal conviction is supposed to be an apolitical event determining a law breaker and inflicting a punishment for this breech.

      These are not at all the same. Convicting the man for legal crimes committed is not the same or equivalent as convicting the office-holder of betrayal of their oath to the Constitution.

      Reply
    2. Scout

      All those things Mark said, but also so he is barred from running again.

      I’m unclear why he couldn’t be barred from running again based on the 14th amendment with or without impeachment.

      If there is consensus that he incited insurrection, with or without impeachment (for those that say you can’t impeach once he is no longer actively the President), then the 14th amendment should still apply, right? I think they could get a straight up majority vote agreeing that he incited insurrection. They’d have to get 2/3 of each chamber to undo that, so he could run again.

      Reply
  4. bud

    “A signal to the flow of history”. That sounds just like something Brad would say. I’m more of a tangible results kind of guy. I want him to (1) be denied the opportunity to run for office again and/or (2) be prosecuted for his crimes. IF neither of these things result from the trial then I see no point. The signal that gets sent with an acquittal is that future presidents are above the law.

    Reply
    1. Bob Amundson

      Conviction would deny “He Who Shall Not Be Named” the opportunity to run for office. If that doesn’t work, find another way.

      Reply
  5. Scout

    I’ve heard discussion of all the things he did prior to Jan. 6 that lead up to this. I certainly hope that will part of the case they make. We shall see.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.