(06-15-2024, 09:51 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(06-15-2024, 08:46 AM)Sneakers Wrote: He gave a speech at a rally, after which he went back to the White House.  Nothing in the speech exceeded his 1st Amendment rights.  

After his departure, many of those present marched to the Capital and the rally evolved into a protest.  A handful of protesters tried to force their way inside and began struggling with Capitol Police.  Many others who probably wouldn't have initiated such an action on their own, spontaneously joined in and the event turned violent.  

After the perimeter was breeched and protesters entered the building, some Police gave up and allowed many more to walk in unimpeded.  Most of those who entered were completely peaceful and just wandered around taking pictures.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump did little to quell the crowd.  It was poor leadership, but neither criminal, nor proof of any conspiracy.  You're desperate to believe him guilty of insurrection, but supporting facts simply don't exist.

Let me ask you a simple question.  What was the point of that rally?  What was supposed to happen as a result of that rally?  "Stop the steal."  The election was over.  There's no legal way to overturn it at that point.  So why have a rally at all?

I have no idea what the point was, and I doubt even Trump had any specific reason.  In his mind the election was "stolen", probably in part because his ego couldn't acknowledge a loss.  Maybe he was anticipating a 2024 campaign and wanted to maintain his image as the presumptive nominee.  Are there any politicians who don't love getting in front of a crowd whenever the opportunity presents itself?

If you want to assume the actual end result was the direct intent of the organizer, what are we to assume about the BLM rallies in Minneapolis and Fergusen? 

The rally itself is not a smoking gun.

---