Thread by @FreedomFriesInc

(1) The Capitol riot of 1/6 was a worse crime than the rioting of Summer 2020 over the BLM movement because the target was the occupants of a building that is the center of the US legislative branch, while it was in session.

I see 1/6 whataboutism as an admission of guilt.

https://twitter.com/FreedomFriesInc/status/1374797376808873984

(2) There's a saying in the conservative movement that "whataboutism is a moral necessity." I agree with that when talking about issues that don't involve criminal offending such as domestic terrorism. IMO, issues that do should be treated the way a court would treat them.

(3) Yes, the domestic terrorism carried out last summer was criminal offending and I hope all the LE agencies with jurisdiction have been doing their best to apprehend the offenders. Just because some of them didn't is no excuse for carrying out violence on 1/6.

No. Excuses.

(4) One thing that attracted me to conservatism was the belief held by many people that on some issues we should not tolerate excuse-making. In particular, I try to hold myself to that standard in everything I do. Naturally, I tend to respect others who do the same.

(5) I have worked in law enforcement and government, so I am used to weighing the strength of different factors when assessing an event or situation. Not all violent crime is the same and not all domestic terrorism is the same. Courts needs to calibrate their responses.

(6) I take a longer view of terrorism and security than just the events of, say, the last 4 years or even 20 years. A better timeframe is 120 years.

I grew up hearing about regular IRA bombings in the UK, plane hijackings, and tragedies like the Lockerbie disaster in 1988.

(7) Lockerbie (Pan Am Flight 103) struck many of us harder than the other aviation attacks because 11 of the 270 people murdered were hit by parts of the exploding plane when they made it to the ground below.

This was a particularly disturbing kind of terrorism because of that.

(8) Terrorism is defined as violence or the threat of violence that is intended to change the minds of the public (or specific targeted people) regarding a political issue.

In short, it is a form of bullying. Like in defamation, the more people targeted, the bigger the crime.

(9) Many security experts add the "domestic" modifier to terrorism as a way to draw attention to the problem, which is helpful. Many among the public pay more attention to terrorism that could occur in their neighborhood and/or target their decision-making as voters or citizens.

(10) It is abundantly clear what the goals of the 1/6 rioters were. At a minimum, they intended to breach the police security line outside the building and then the building itself, and to stay there for as long as they could.

Some believed LEOs and military would join them.

(11) The stated goal was to "make [our] voices heard."

Specifically, they wanted to change the minds of members of Congress during the joint session regarding the electoral college votes.

I warned against this on Twitter several times, eg 1 week prior:

(12) At that time I considered there was a slim chance the joint session might decide not to accept certain states' EC ballots that day. I considered this an almost impossible last resort option, after better options had already failed. I had accepted the election result by then.

(13) IMO at the time, even if the joint session did that, the end result would be the same within a few days. I certainly did not support the idea of Trump remaining in office beyond 1/20 using emergency powers. I was more concerned about the GOP Senate numbers.

(14) I predicted that a mass gathering "outside" the Capitol would fail in it's objective AND risk lives AND risk prosecutions that may or may not be completely legit.

I didn't know that thousands were willing to become the target of genuine and appropriate prosecution.

(15) Political violence, AKA terrorism, is an extreme form of bullying.

My four years of support for Trump (that ended on 1/6) was never unconditional. Implicit in my support for any politician is that they strenuously avoid the promotion or condoning of violence. Any violence.

(16) Trump's public actions, omissions, and statements prior to the 2020 election campaign aligned with my values, such as supporting the military, LEOs (and wanting those who break the law fully investigated), and a strong national defense (peace through strength.)

(17) Trump's behavior in the final months of his presidency "dropped the mask" on how he actually views these policy issues.

He doesn't back the blue. He failed in his duty to use the powers he had at the time to prevent the breaching of the police line _outside_ the Capitol.

(18) And every time I say this, a few MAGA folk drop by to claim Trump had no such power or duty.

I took the time to find out which elected officials had which powers and duties concerning the District of Columbia that day. I reviewed primary sources like these:

(19) Anyone claiming those letters absolve Trump of responsibility for the DC component of the National Guard on 1/6 has not read them closely enough, or objectively.

They do the opposite. They're evidence that Trump could easily & quickly have prevented or stopped the riot.

(20) Gonna wrap up this thread here.

GOPers like McConnell, Graham & Haley were right to condemn Trump for 1/6. Unfortunately they soon flipped back to trying to appease him.

We have the start of a #PostTrumpGOP in the brave 17 who stood up to his bullying.