Election 2020: The Armed 'Insurrection' That Wasn't

 Ron Wright at Am Think reviews The January 6th ‘Insurrection’ that Wasn’t

The Capitol Police’s chain of command is clear - the Capitol Police Chief, to the Sgt of Arms in the House, and then to the Speaker of the House. If I were an FBI investigator charged with investigating this "insurrection," knowing the intelligence Capitol Police had, I would start with this chain of command to ask probative questions. Five deaths were directly attributed to this attack that the media has bannered incessantly. In my opinion, the felony murder rule would apply to those who facilitated or aided in this attack, including those in the chain of command that denied the multiple requests of the Capitol Police Chief for more resources.

There are at least two possible scenarios why this attack was successful in penetrating the Capitol building. One is the total failure and or incompetence by the decision-makers and politicians involved influenced by the optics of the presence of law enforcement. Common sense would dictate a rally of this magnitude would be likely infiltrated by radical groups for their political agendas. Democrat operatives have done so before. If I were a Capitol officer, I would probably resign or retire as my command structure placed me at immediate risk unnecessarily. As reported by ProPublica, "I Don't Trust the People Above Me," an excellent account, except for the claim of an officer dying from a thrown fire extinguisher. This is not true.

The second is that the top decision-makers, including politicians, knew that an attack was likely. They intentionally understaffed and watered down the rules of engagement to facilitate this attack for their political agenda. The Capitol Police Chief’s request for the National Guard before the event was denied. Trump reportedly wanted 10,000 National Guard Troops in DC on the 6th, but Nancy Pelosi said no. The Chief also said members of the Congress were briefed on the event. These decision-makers then blamed the attack on Trump's rhetorical speech as inciting the attack, which they called an "insurrection.” The Democrat party majority in the House then launched an impeachment based on this narrative without any due process. It was evident from the media coverage the narrative was going to be that Trump’s followers were White nationalists and incited by his speech to storm the Capitol.

The Writer in Black (henceforth TWIB), They Called it “Armed Insurrection”? Worst armed insurrection ever. 

Um, there is a problem with that. “Riot” I’ll cop to, but “insurrection”? At most it might be considered a “warning shot across the bow” of what might arise if the concerns of a large and growing portion of the population are not adequately addressed. But actual insurrection? No. The folk making those “insurrection” claims are banking on You the People not having any idea what an actual armed insurrection would look like.

Matt Vespa at Town Hall, These Remarks By an FBI Official on the Capitol Riot Might Have Shredded a Key Liberal Talking Point, but Althouse notices their moving with the "Proud Boys" narrative, "The group, whose total membership is unknown but believed to be in the thousands, has never articulated a specific ideology or dogma...."

From "Police Shrugged Off the Proud Boys, Until They Attacked the Capitol/Two Proud Boys accused of leading a mob to Congress followed a bloody path to get there. Law enforcement did little to stop them" (NYT).

[F]ederal law enforcement officials said, no evidence emerged that the Proud Boys had plotted murders, kidnappings, gun crimes or — apart from Jan. 6 — insurrection. Yet the Proud Boys’ belligerence fit the definition of terrorism, other officials said: unlawful violence and intimidation for political aims. Members raised money to travel across state lines to dozens of rallies with the intent of street fighting....

“If the Proud Boys was not a white male chauvinist club but a Black male chauvinist club, I think that, sadly, we would have seen a different policing posture,” said [Elizabeth] Neumann, the former Homeland Security official....

Critics argued that... arrests were rare because police generally favored the Proud Boys over their left-leaning opponents....

Shades of the Roger Stone raid,  FBI Uses SWAT Tactical Team, Armored Vehicles and Armed Troops to Arrest Man Who Attended January 6 Capitol Hill Protest (Sundance at CTH). Remember, there is no evidence that the Capitol Hill "incursionists" ever had firearms. And yes, the press was there, so they were probably notified in advance.

Collier County, Florida – The FBI said it executed a search and arrest warrant on Stanhope Circle in Collier County for a man investigators say was involved in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. According to the FBI, Christopher Worrell faces charges related to the Capitol violence.

“Everyone is just shocked. Just shocked,” neighbor Lynn Elias said. “Because we never had anything like this in the neighborhood go on. This was a little too much when you see FBI and SWAT teams”

It was a startling morning for Elias and other neighbors when FBI investigators barricaded their street to raid a home. Law enforcement brought in armed men with helmets and a tanker truck.

“Whole outfits on like military and it was crazy,” Elias said. “There was like six or seven, the big black vehicles that follow like on [the Criminal Minds TV series] … They busted down the front door.”

Daniel Greenfield at Front Page, Washington D.C. Falls Under Permanent Military Occupation "When are the troops leaving? Never, if the Democrats have their way." We'll see, but I'm not hopeful. 

AllahPundit at Hot Hair is slowly coming to grips with what he voted for, Stacey Abrams: Senate Dems Should Make An Exception To The Filibuster For The House’s Voting Rights Bill, and at Breitbart, Abrams: Georgia GOP Election Proposals Are ‘Jim Crow, in a Suit and Tie’, as is any resitance to Democrat fraud tactics. Insty, WELL, THAT’S THE GOAL: U.S. Democracy Could Be in Peril By Pelosi’s HR1.

The House has just passed a bill that would compel states to accept mailed-in votes for 15 days prior to and 10 days after Election Day; set up automatic and online voter registration; prohibit review of the eligibility of voters; compel acceptance of ballots cast in the wrong precincts; bar the removal of the ineligible voters from the rolls; permit ballot harvesting; ban any voter identification laws; consign to unelected officials the redrawing of congressional districts; infringe upon free speech by the imposition of “onerous legal and administrative burdens on candidates, civic groups, unions, and non-profit organizations”; and establish a disturbingly named “Commission to Protect Democratic Institutions” in order to end-run the courts.

The potential for gross abuse with these changes if they are enacted is too obvious to require elaboration. Any opposition to it is labeled “voter suppression.” If this bill is enacted, especially with the provision for a bare majority vote on any issue in the Senate, and the addition of two or four sure Democratic senators from Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia admitted as new states, the question of whether and to what extent the United States remains a government of laws and a genuine democracy will not be possible to answer affirmatively with any confidence.

Should this be enacted, it will be reasonable to regard the U.S. government as lacking in democratic legitimacy.

The part about prohibiting review of voter eligibility makes pretty clear what they’re after.

PM, WATCH: Pelosi says it's okay to overturn an election if a Republican wins

Mike Berg - @GStephanopoulos asks @SpeakerPelosi why she's trying to steal an election where the votes were "counted, recounted, and certified by the state." Pelosi says it is ok to overturn the results because the Republican candidate only won by 6 votes. What a hypocrite. #IA02

But from Rick Moran at PJ Media, Democrats Will Refuse to Cooperate With Republicans Who Questioned the Election

Silvio Canto at Am Think, How long before CNN starts screaming that Biden stole the election? "Cable news ratings for the first quarter are in and they show big drops across the board for CNN and MSNBC and even to Fox News, but to a lesser extent." Trump was a big draw, Biden, not so much. 

Ed Ring at Am Great, Conservative Victory Requires Overcoming Popular Fantasies

It will take more than a disastrous performance by Joe Biden for conservatives to win back control of the U.S. House and Senate in 2022, and retake the presidency in 2024. For conservatives to get their country back, they will have to build a coalition that brings together NeverTrumpers, libertarians, social conservatives, economic nationalists, millions of independents, and moderate Democrats.

Defining an agenda that ought to appeal to all of these groups is actually the easier part. It just requires courage combined with tact. Reject, with Reaganesque grace rather than Trumpian bluster, all the nihilistic absurdities of left-wing Democrats. Reject them categorically.

For example: We will not enforce quotas based on race or gender. Anywhere. We will not tolerate curricula that teach K-12 students that America is inherently oppressive. We will take back our city streets and, if necessary, conscript homeless, willfully unemployed, able-bodied substance abusers into a national service. We will control our borders and protect American jobs. We will have realistic energy policies that embrace an all-of-the-above strategy, recognizing that fossil fuel and nuclear power are essential to our economic health.

These pivotal issues involve a clear-eyed approach to the twin pillars of leftist thought: Fighting oppression and fighting climate change. They are both tools to cause further centralization of wealth and power, they are both massive exaggerations of facts, and both exploit primal emotions of envy, resentment, and fear. The challenge for conservatives is to unite to expose identity politics and extreme environmentalism as frauds, and replace them with common sense.