Thursday, January 07, 2021


I'm really at a loss on how to blog about yesterday.  It's just insane.  The WSJ has an article about violence over the years at the Capitol, but nothing like this:

Over its two centuries as the seat of government, the U.S. Capitol has seen countless protests, along with occasional bombings, shootings, fights between lawmakers and, in 1814, conflagration at the hands of British troops. Until Wednesday, however, it had never been occupied by a mob determined to obstruct the constitutional process.
“The Capitol was a symbol of protest during the Vietnam War,” said Donald Ritchie, historian emeritus of the U.S. Senate. “We had farmers who protested and set their sheep loose on the Capitol grounds,” pro- and anti-Shah demonstrators during the Iranian revolution of the 1970s and, in 1932, the Bonus Army of World War I veterans who occupied the Capitol steps to demand their pensions, Mr. Ritchie said.
“When Congress voted down the pensions and then immediately adjourned, the marchers stayed outside and sang ‘America.’ That’s a lot different than what’s going on now,” Mr. Ritchie said.
“I’ve never encountered a protest where people broke into the building and tried to stop the proceedings,” he said. “That’s totally out of character for American protests.”
Despite its place at the heart of government and its symbolic power as an emblem of American democracy, for most of its history the Capitol has been lightly guarded. Members of Congress have been reticent to put up barriers to the public they represent, and Americans have expected access to a pre-eminent public space.

Trump has been booted from Twitter for 12 hours.  Will he be booted from the White House before Jan. 20?

Biden plans to nominate Merrick Garland to be AG.  He will, I'm sure, prosecute the terrorists to the full extent of the law.

In other news, there is a push for Justice Breyer to retire.


Anonymous said...

David, you write, "Until Wednesday, however, [the Capitol] had never been occupied by a mob determined to obstruct the constitutional process." I think you undersell what happened. That was not attempted obstruction. That was a violent failed coup (a so-called "self-coup," actually).

If we don't call it by its name, apologists and villains alike will continue to downplay it and to try to sweep it under the rug with the false narrative that "this was no different than BLM protests." What a shameful lie that is - a lie that I have heard told many times. Some in the Senate have already told, or implied, that lie. I stayed up and watched every single speech made on the Senate floor last night. More than one Senator, including Senator Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), described last night's failed coup in the context of a "violent year." This is a clear and unmistakable message that he is equating, and encouraging others to equate, the failed coup with protests for civil rights. Sen. Hawley is the very same man who gave the clenched fist salute to the Trump and Confederate flag waving mob just before they stormed the Capitol, and then later in the night still had the chutzpah to object to Arizona's electoral delegates. Disgusting.

And for those of you who continue with this ridiculous election fraud insanity, let me quote Sen. Lindsey Graham (R - S. Carolina): "Fraud. They say there's 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 that voted. How many people believe that? I asked, 'give me 10,' hadn't had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted, 'give me 10,' I hadn't got one . . . I don't buy this. Enough's enough . . . If you're a conservative, this is the most offensive concept in the world." (start this video at 3:00:

David Oscar Markus said...

9:50am I didn't write that... the WSJ did.

Anonymous said...

This is 9:50. Thank you for clarifying David. The indentation made it look like it was part of your original post. Either way, I think it was a point worth making, and I was not in any way attacking you. If it came off that way, I apologize.

Anonymous said...

Can someone show me comments and posts on this blog or other such blogs condemning the burning of a federal courthouse in Portland for 30 straight days or businesses burned by BLM antifa? All by "fiery protesters" to quote CNN. In other words, protesters that set fires and destroy people's livelihoods.

This is obviously not right either and I am sure there are many differences that the esteemed readership will come up with but at the end of the day an unarmed protester/trespasser got shot and killed at the Capitol. Is looting, destruction of property justified or not? Do we stand up against police abuse or not? Where are the calls for the reform of the Capitol Police?

It's not a double standard or hypocrisy. It is insanity.

Anonymous said...


You are laughably off base. While all violence in our society is unacceptable, last night saw the invasion and temporary capture of the Capitol building in an effort to obstruct or supplant the will of the voters. That is an attempted coup and is in no way comparable to anything that has happened in the United States in my lifetime. Stop your nonsense.

Anonymous said...

So declaring an Autonomous Zone is not a coup. Got it. Also, if this was a coup and they got into the building why didn't they do anything about the vote other than take pictures sitting at Pelosi's desk and delaying the vote. Why did they send the National Guard to disperse them? Did Trump plan a coup and then changed his mind in the middle?

Using labels such as coup and fiery protesters is a convenient way to turn off your brain.

Finally, is the burning of a federal courthouse for 30 days straight something you experienced in your lifetime?

Anonymous said...

One more point.

Were you alive in 2016 when the outgoing government approved spying on a campaign, promoted disinformation that the candidate was a Manchurian Candidate based on a dossier that was baseless to say the least and then used those tactics to impeach the president for a telephone call that he had with another world leader. Some may call that subverting the will of the voters and attempting a coup. Biden stated in an interview that he threatened to wothhold the aid and he got the prosecutor fired. Everyone agrees that was quid pro quo. So please get off your high horse and realize that things are not as black and white as you wish they were. There are no simple answers here, despite your experiences in your lifetime. Having some humility is the way to start understanding the other side. I for one understand that you feel the situations are different and this was a coup. Do you think the above grievances are legitimate or are they "Conspiracy theories" as decided by experts.

Are 71 million trump voters just racist crazy evil people?

Anonymous said...

"Are 71 million trump voters just racist crazy evil people?" Facts don't care how many people agree or disagree with them.

Also, I was bitterly against the impeachments of Trump and Bill Clinton (although I think both deserved censure). I think that the people who set fires and loot in BLM and other protests in the street should be prosecuted. And I stand by my statement that nothing in my middle aged lifetime compares to what happened last night.

As to your question "Did Trump plan a coup and then changed his mind in the middle?" No and no. He incited this, which is not quite the same as planning it. If he'd planned it, he should be in handcuffs in a dark cell right now. And I do not believe for a second that he "changed his mind." His disgusting and disingenuous speech calling on the insurrectionists to go home began with a repetition of his false claims that he won the election and the implicit message that his supporters had been disenfranchised and democracy overthrown. You can't tell people that and then say the equivalent of "aw shucks, guess we'll all have to go home and live with it." He either knows that and is responsible for yesterday, or doesn't know that and is an even bigger fool than I thought.

Ted said...

Senator Mitt Romney said that he had been “shaken to the core” by what he called an “insurrection.” He bluntly told his fellow-Republicans that if they objected to the electors they would be complicit, and that “the best way we can show respect for the voters who were upset is by telling them the truth; the truth is that President-elect Biden won the election; President Trump lost.”

Anonymous said...

Here are demonstrable examples of Democrats promoting/cheering riots and looters. You can look up these examples yourself and ask yourself why these actions were accepted in society and by mitt Romney before he was shocked to his core.

Here are some examples if you dont want to click the link:

“Please, show me where it says protesters are supposed to be polite and peaceful,” CNN’s Chris Cuomo had barked while his news network showed rioting and looting in New York.

When a leftist mob assailed the Supreme Court, pounding on the doors, MSNBC called it an “extraordinary moment” and praised the crowd, “besieging the Supreme Court” and “confronting senators”.

A bail fund backed by Senator Kamala Harris and Biden campaign staffers focused on helping the rioters and looters get out of prison. Along with any other criminals along for the ride.

Martin Luther King's infamous quote, "a riot is the language of the unheard", popped up in Time, USA Today, and on CNN. “Violence was critical to the success of the 1960s civil rights movement,” a Washington Post op-ed argued. The AP urged reporters to use "uprising" instead of "riot" to describe the violence, while suggesting that protests can be violent and that reporting should not focus on the "property destruction”, but instead on the “underlying grievance". There is a great deal of irony in quoting "a riot is the language of the unheard" to describe the race riots of a movement with unlimited political and corporate backing, whose message is heard all the time, but not to address a movement that is genuinely unheard. Before the fighting started, there was virtually no media coverage of President Trump’s speech and the rally.

Conclusion: Democrats and the media normalized violence when they were in the opposition and now want to normalize the suppression of political protests and speech as they expect to take power.

Anonymous said...

Here is another beauty:

"If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them," Rep. Maxine Waters had urged earlier that year.

Anonymous said...


This isn't partisan, and you are perpetuating the false equivalence that looting businesses has resemblance to what happened when the Capitol was invaded and temporarily occupied in an unambiguous attempt to obstruct the certification of a legal presidential election.

No doubt, all acts of violence should be forcefully and vocally condemned and prosecuted. There is no excuse for violent protests in our society - full stop.

But when you falsely compare the apples of January 6, 2021 to the oranges of, for example, a BLM protest turned violent, you wrongly diminish the danger faced by our republic on Tuesday.

On Tuesday, an armed mob invaded and effectively attacked Congress on the urging of the President of the United States with, what reasonably appeared to be, the aim of forcefully overturning the results of a legitimate election. If there is any doubt about what they were doing, just look at the name that they gave their own event: "Stop the Steal." Their belief in the flat-earth conspiracy theory that the election was stolen doesn't exonerate them.

Let's play out the consequences of a BLM rally turned violent and compare it to the potential consequences of Tuesday's insurrection.

If a BLM rally turns violent and is allowed to go on to its natural conclusion, that conclusion is property damage and possible loss of life. Serious consequences that should not be permitted and that should, if they occur, be harshly punished under the law. Think, for example, of the Rodney King riots. A sad moment for sure, but not exactly history altering in scope.

Now look at January 6, 2021. Had that been allowed to run its course and to go on to its natural conclusion, the oldest democracy in the world would have ended, rule of law would have become of thing of the past in the US, and we'd be no better than Russia or Venezuela.

Apples to oranges.

Anonymous said...

And now we get to experience political persecution just like we read about happening in Russia or Venezuela.

Anonymous said...

Punishment for sedition is not "political persecution" and all your whataboutism doesn't make it so.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:43, this is 1110.

First, as a matter of constitutional law, Trump's speech during the rally was protected speech and not actionable as incitement/call for violence. Do you agree?

I understand your point and maybe I should have been clearer in explaining my point. I was NOT drawing equivalence between the January 6 riots and the BLM riots, which are of course different. I am pointing out the incredible difference in people's reaction to the two events. You say that if a BLM protest runs its course "that conclusion is property damage and possible loss of life. Serious consequences that should not be permitted and that should, if they occur, be harshly punished under the law." I am not sure that this is the conclusion of a 30 + day siege on a federal courthouse and the declaration of an autonomous zone--but I will grant this point anyway. The point I was making, which is starting to come to fruition is the insanely disproportional reaction to the two events. At the time of my posting last week, my predictions were just that i.e. predictions.

Now: Trump is off Twitter, Parler is off the internet and blacklisted by Google, Apple and AWS. Swipe JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THEY WOULD NOT PROCESS DONATIONS TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. Was this the reaction to the BLM riots/looting loss of life in the summer, during which dozens of people died (as opposed to 4 here.) Four is horrific of course but not comparable to the loss of life in the summer. Was BLM cancelled? Their Twitter handles disabled? Political contributions blocked? Were any of their tweets taken down? You had people tweeting how they were travelling interstate to put pigs in blankets and then cops in NY were executed. Were those twitter handles taken down?

OF course you will say their actions did not warrant such a reaction, but think about that for a second. They declared an autonomous zone and had armed guards stationed there. Police officers executed. Business and lives ruined. You say IF this happened. There is no "IF." It did happen on national live TV, while CNN called it fiery protests.

Are these actions (silencing/censorship of entire groups) defensible? Let's say I owned a diner on the side of a highway and I denied entry/refused to serve African Americans wearing BLM t_Shirts because they may cause violence. Would you be ok with that? How about if I denied entry to all African Americans full stop?

Finally, if these riots ran its course--which they did--lawmakers came back and cast their votes and Biden will be president as he was elected. Trump called in the National Guard and stopped the riot, so I am not sure what you mean that democracy would be over. I have not seen any reporting that Trump was planning a military coup and changed his mind in the middle.

The country, however, will never be the same because you can no longer send a political donation as you wish or download an app to communicate with others.

I suspect that this is what @459 means. And @1234 if you want to punish criminals for sedition, why are you punishing millions of others who had nothing to do with this. Be careful because your view--whatever they are--may be next. The mob does not discriminate, all dissent will be silenced.

Anonymous said...

"First, as a matter of constitutional law, Trump's speech during the rally was protected speech and not actionable as incitement/call for violence. Do you agree?" I'm not sure that I do. He lead with the objectively false statement that the election was stolen. False speech is not protected, and this seems analogous to falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Anonymous said...

Unlike yelling that there was a fire in a crowded theater, which can be demonstrated as objectively false if there was no fire, Trump's statement that the election was stolen likely falls under opinion and protected speech, because whether there was fraud/unconstitutional ballots counted in this election has not been proven as a matter of fact. Courts have dismissed cases based on equitable theories like laches (PA) or in split decisions (WI 4-3). As a matter of election law, Trump may be out of legal challenges. As a matter of asserting his free speech rights as a defense against incitement changes, Trump likely has a solid defense.

The better analogy is a person yelling fire in a crowded theater because he LEGITIMATELY THOUGHT that he saw smoke. The prosecutor may show that there was little smoke or not enough smoke to cause a fire (i.e. insufficient fraud to overturn the election) but would you convict the person who yelled fire where he thought he saw smoke--along with millions of other people that also believe there is smoke? You may legitimately think that those people are crazy but the question is what did they think and did they have a reasonable basis to believe these claims. The court challenges dismissing cases based on laches and split opinions give these people a leg to stand on, whether we like it or not.

This is not an easy question, especially as we weigh free speech rights on the one hand and incitement to insurrection on the other. Not black and white in my eyes at all. But a tie (or anything less than reasonable doubt) goes to the Defendant in criminal cases. So you say you are not sure. You have to be sure for Trump to lose this defense.

Anonymous said...

@1:52, this is 1:11. I'm glad to see that we agree on more things that it might appear from the prior string of comments. Personally, I have not called on Trump to be arrested. That is a very high standard and I haven't seen direct evidence that he knowingly and intentionally directed the attack on the Capitol.

That said, I don't entirely agree with your analysis. To quote Lindsey Graham, "They say there's 66,000 people in Georgia under 18 that voted. How many people believe that? I asked, 'give me 10,' hadn't had one. They said 8,000 felons in prison in Arizona voted, 'give me 10,' I hadn't got one . . . I don't buy this. Enough's enough."

Trump's continued insistence on falsely claiming fraud is negligent under a "knew or should have known" theory. I think that is enough to strongly and uniformly condemn him regardless of political party, and potentially to impeach and convict (as opposed to incarceration).

Anonymous said...

I am in for a censure. I would not support impeachment if there is no underlying criminal conduct, because the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language would not likely be satisfied.