Trump spent months telling his supporters that the election (and by extension their voices) were being stolen from them. He then invited them to the capitol on January 6 the claiming it "will be wild". He then held the speech where he told them they have to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore". This BTW followed a speech by Giuliani saying "let's have trial by combat".
Cherry picked quotes clearly meant to be metaphorical. You fight through legal means not by physical combat. Also having the opinion that the election was stolen is not illegal. Hillary thought the 2016 election was stolen, and by the way saying the election was stolen was something Al Gore also said and it could mean any number of things. It's such a vague statement and at best the only thing you can glean from it is that the election is being called unfair. It's not inciting a riot to have that opinion or to say you have to fight, there are videos of Nancy pelosi saying to fight for your rights also. Nobody with a 3 digit IQ takes it as a call to actual violence,
he months long effort by Trump to convince his supporters that the country was being stolen from them and his clearly violent rhetoric on the 6th do not get cancelled out because Trump slipped in the words "peacefully and patrioticly" in one sentence of his speech. One of these things is clearly not like the others. And you know who understood that? His supporters.
Dumb interpretation of his words. I took it to mean that he didn't want his words to be misinterpreted as meaning to be violent. Do revolutions such as by Mao, or Hitler or Mussolini, did any of those guys add anything after their rhetoric to say "peacefully" . Is this something that violent revolutionaries do? Did Thomas Jefferson hedge his bets by saying "We need to go to war, but in a peaceful way with the British" ?
And then there's the 3 hours or so that Trump spent watching the riots on TV while taking no official action whatsoever to stop it. That demonstrates his intent very clearly.
The secret service would not have allowed him to wear a uniform and go down there to police the situation himself.
So instead of railing against us for "believing whatever CNN tells us", maybe it is you who needs to question where you are getting your information and talking points fr
Not from anyy news agency that has proven they are biased that is for sure. By the way, I am sure you are not a partisan hack so what footage released by tucker carlson that painted an alternate vision of that day did you think was the most compelling?
Why do you think a lot of the footage he released seemed to contradict CNNs narrative? I would assume an unbiased news agency wouldn't push a narrative so you would get a wide range of footage that could be interpreted any number of ways.
By the way what is with your attack on Trump anyway? People literally can't afford rent or groceries because America is ruled by Democrats now. Even if Trump is that dirty he is still a better alternative than people literally starving in the streets.
