[Steve_American]

Sweeping new report examines the roots of the U.S. Capitol attack. Feb 2, 2021
PBS NewsHour

The storming of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 was a shocking moment for many Americans, but new details are emerging about who was involved and how it was planned. A New York Times report examines the role former President Trump and his allies played in the crucial weeks leading up to the attack. Jim Rutenberg, a writer-at-large for the Times, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss some of the key points.

No smoking gun in this report about the NYT report. I hope it is there.
.

[Wolvenbear]

Trump did not actually plan a violent attack on the capitol. And, as many politicians have complained about the illegitimacy of their loss, without violence following, it's not like the outcome was completely foreseeable. (Though, to be fair, no one has ever gone on to the lengths Trump did to undermine confidence in the election.)

While what Trump has been peddling is false, and shameful, he did not incite violence in the actual meaning of the word.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Trump did not actually plan a violent attack on the capitol. And, as many politicians have complained about the illegitimacy of their loss, without violence following, it's not like the outcome was completely foreseeable. (Though, to be fair, no one has ever gone on to the lengths Trump did to undermine confidence in the election.)

While what Trump has been peddling is false, and shameful, he did not incite violence in the actual meaning of the word.

The context around the alleged incitement is important, and a couple of points on that:

1. From the beginning of his term Trump has continually been coy, to the point of being apologetic, towards right wing extremism, which is unquestionably violent. Add to this Trump's vitriol against a mythical antifa/left wing activists, and you get an enhanced threat of right wing violence. Trump, in his rhetoric, made no effort whatsoever to alleviate this threat.

2. The possibility of violence on the Capitol during the scheduled protests was not unanticipated. The FBI sent out warning of Trump supporters calling for "war", and I have little doubt that Trump was aware of these warnings. I also have no doubt that Trump new full well that when he gave his infamous "incitement" speech, there were violently inclined people in the audience.

[QatzelOk]

...the role former President Trump and his allies played in the crucial weeks leading up to the attack...

Yeah, there was some serious planning in the weeks before.

"What will I wear? Should I put my battery-saver on to maximize photos? What sort of shoes look good on Youtube? Do these horns make me look radical enough?"

Logistics ahoy.

[Wolvenbear]

The context around the alleged incitement is important, and a couple of points on that:

1. From the beginning of his term Trump has continually been coy, to the point of being apologetic, towards right wing extremism, which is unquestionably violent. Add to this Trump's vitriol against a mythical antifa/left wing activists, and you get an enhanced threat of right wing violence. Trump, in his rhetoric, made no effort whatsoever to alleviate this threat.

So, I'm a Never Trumper, but this isn't remotely true. The roots of this claim go to a speech in which Trump supposedly said "there are fine people on both sides of the debate. The talking point was that he was talking about Neo-Nazis. However, he had just rebuked the neo-nazis. Snopes, while criticizing some hesitancy, has also reported that he has repeatedly and forcefully condemned right wing violence. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... remacists/

Moreover, antifa and left wing activist violence is hardly "mythical". BLM protesters destroyed thousands of homes and businesses nation wide (almost all owned by blacks) to protest the violence of the man. St. Louis, where I live, saw widespread looting and violence. While I sympathize with the original cause (George Floyd), the BLM movement are hoods and criminals whop used his death to engage in widespread violence and destruction.

2. The possibility of violence on the Capitol during the scheduled protests was not unanticipated. The FBI sent out warning of Trump supporters calling for "war", and I have little doubt that Trump was aware of these warnings. I also have no doubt that Trump new full well that when he gave his infamous "incitement" speech, there were violently inclined people in the audience.

The problem is, similar claims were made after Hillary lost. No violence followed. It's easy to monday morning quarterback, but law enforcement gets similar threats all the time and doesn't act on them. While I am not a fan of Trump, he did demand peaceful action in his "incitement" speech (which is the opposite of incitement.)

The question of incitement requires more than someone making ridiculously stupid statements that can (and her did) lead to violence. Incitement requires the person actively push the listener into violence. That simply did not happen here. For as irresponsible as Trump was, he didn't actually call for violence. And as he seems to be an exceptionally stupid man, the claim of "reasonably foreseeable" is beyond murky.

[GandalfTheGrey]

So, I'm a Never Trumper, but this isn't remotely true. The roots of this claim go to a speech in which Trump supposedly said "there are fine people on both sides of the debate.

No, it goes back long before that. It goes right back to his primary rally days when he blatantly called on his supporters to be violent towards protesters - eg to "knock the crap out of them". Violence has actually been a frighteningly common theme in Trump's Presidency - very deliberately so IMO. For a full list going back to 2015:

https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-viol ... ate-speech

make of it what you will. For me, the most shocking was the Presidential debate in which he told the proud boys to "stand by". Very relevant to the violence on the capitol IMO.

The problem is, similar claims were made after Hillary lost. No violence followed. It's easy to monday morning quarterback, but law enforcement gets similar threats all the time and doesn't act on them. While I am not a fan of Trump, he did demand peaceful action in his "incitement" speech (which is the opposite of incitement.)

Disingenuous. When Hillary lost, she didn't go around falsely alleging the election was rigged, and she especially didn't say to an angry crowd they must "fight like hell" while whipping up outrage about this false allegation.

Sure, he threw in the word "peaceful", once, in a very long-winded speech in which the word "fight" was used probably a couple of dozen times. And that is probably what will save him from conviction. But it doesn't mean his stirred up audience took it to heart. If you watch the delivery of the speech again, you'll find the audience was shouting "fight! fight! fight!" - not "peacefully! peacefully! peacefully!".

The question of incitement requires more than someone making ridiculously stupid statements that can (and her did) lead to violence. Incitement requires the person actively push the listener into violence. That simply did not happen here.

How do you know?

I think Trump is more cluey on this than you give him credit for. As I mentioned, Trump had been dabbling in "wink, nudge" almost-incitement of violence since before he was President. He has clear form. And the idea that at the same time he is feeding what he knows must be blatant lies to a frenzied audience of bigots - an audience that he would already know was inclining towards violence - he implores them to march on the capitol and "fight like hell" - he was completely clueless about the possibility of violence? I mean, come on...

[late]

The idea that Trump didn't plan that is beneath contempt.

[Torus34]

One reason for the differences of opinion as to whether Mr. Donald Trump was responsible for the attack on the US Capital building and those within it is how the issue is framed. The search for evidence of Mr. Trump specifically saying, 'Go and break into the Capital,' is one frame. The search for evidence of many statements by Mr. Trump having as their cumulative result the breaking into the Capital building is quite another.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

[Rugoz]

While what Trump has been peddling is false, and shameful, he did not incite violence in the actual meaning of the word.

"actual meaning of the word"? Wtf is that supposed to mean? If you believe Trumps lies about the election, there literally is no alternative to violence, unless you're a cuck.