timeline of capitol invasion events.

www.nytimes.com...
12:29, almost 30 minute before Trump's speech ended, crowds are moving towards the capitol.

As they arrive, another crowd of Trump supporters that has already gathered along the west perimeter fence becomes more agitated.

then:
12:49, still before Trumps speech ended:

Around this time, a pipe bomb is reported at the Republican National Committee building, just a block away from the Capitol. Not long after, another device is discovered nearby at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

The violence was planned long before Trump spoke, even though his speech is supposedly what he was impeached for.
Who planned it may be just Q folks, may be just Antifa folks, or a combination of the two. (which would be hugely ironic, two opposing factions polar opposite, working against each other to accomplish the same goal)

The narrative is that Trump whipped his base up into a frenzy and they got violent. You cannot discount all of that, as it's partially true. He has been using his ability to command a large presence to help bring awareness to the fight against election fraud that he thinks exists. But the key point would be if he asked (directly or indirectly) for his supporters to commit violent acts. I'm biased, but I still think the answer to that is no. The MAGA movement is and has been peaceful from the start. Completely against riots, violence, and completely for law and order, and backing police and military.

As we have all seen, the machine controls the narrative, and will drive the opinion of the non thinkers to whatever direction they wish. Using the MSM to push this, they will try to silence the facts. We need to be vigilant in exposing the facts, even if they say things we don't want them to. The truth is what's important here. The Damage is done, so we can only move in a positive direction from here.

a reply to: network dude

The violence was planned long before Trump spoke, even though his speech is supposedly what he was impeached for.

Everybody knew that. The FBI new it, the CIA knew it, the Capitol Police knew, the Save America speakers all knew it, including President Trump.

The narrative is that Trump whipped his base up into a frenzy and they got violent.

Just your everyday "locker room" pep talk before the big game.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

what was he impeached for? I was told it was that speech. Was that wrong?

Again, I'm not trying to change any facts, just make sure they are known.

a reply to: network dude
The articles of impeachment can be found here:

www.cbsnews.com...

The mention his speech on the 6th, and prior conduct.

a reply to: network dude

The seeds where sown weeks before Jan 6th.

In a serious of tweets by Trump, he used the word " fight " on several occassions, in regard to the rally in Washington.Also saying that events on that day would be " wild "

Yes of course " fight " and " wild " has a few meanings but some Trump supporters are stupid enought to take it to mean the viloent option.

Then we had Rudy Guiliani who was acting as Trumps " warm up man " before Trump took to the stage at rally, asking for " trial by combat "

They all added up to what eventually took place.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: network dude

The seeds where sown weeks before Jan 6th.

In a serious of tweets by Trump, he used the word " fight " on several occassions, in regard to the rally in Washington.Also saying that events on that day would be " wild "

Yes of course " fight " and " wild " has a few meanings but some Trump supporters are stupid enought to take it to mean the viloent option.

Then we had Rudy Guiliani who was acting as Trumps " warm up man " before Trump took to the stage at rally, asking for " trial by combat "

They all added up to what eventually took place.

So you believe that Trump's use of words like "fight" and "wild" made some nutjobs carefully calculate a plan to cause trouble during a planned Trump event, knowing it's completely counter to everything Trump and his movement has been against for the last 4 years?

If that's true, you can consider yourself and everyone in the US who isn't a MAGA, super lucky. With power like that, he could have actually said the words, and all of his followers, 75 million of them, would attack whatever target he pointed to. We don't have an army for that kind of fight.

It amuses me, Trump is a bumbling idiot who lucked into his fortune, can't tie his shoes, but also has the ability to command 75 million followers to do his bidding.

a reply to: network dude

My confirmation bias may be showing... or maybe just my instincts... so take this for what it's worth...

I very strongly suspect that the timing of the actual "storming" of the Capitol was coordinated (very likely from inside House chambers) with the first objection to the vote count; specifically, Arizona (alphabetical order, I presume).

In fact, if I'm right about that, then I would expect the actual hearing was scheduled (looking at Pelosi here) in order for the first objections in the House would coincide with the expected surge arriving from Trump's speech -- allowing for travel time of course.

But because Trump spoke about 40 minutes late, and the House had already begun proceedings, they had to go ahead with the "storming" in accordance with Arizona's objections, but it screwed up the timing to coincide with the ending of Trump's speech. There wasn't enough time for the bulk of the rally-goers to make their way to the Capitol before the "storm."

As a result, maybe the true rabble rousers didn't have quite as much cover (masses of people) as they expected. And maybe not as many Trump supporters took the bait as they expected.

a reply to: network dude

So you believe that Trump's use of words like "fight" and "wild" made some nutjobs carefully calculate a plan to cause trouble

Read what i said. Here it is again. " Some Trump Supporters Are Stupid Enough to take it to mean the violent option "

You are inteligent enough to know that in all walks of life there are some people who lack common sense, and take things literally. If you say there are not then you know you are lying to yourself.

a reply to: alldaylong

That's as bad and as weak as saying that using a bull's-eye on a map is inciting people to shoot political opponents.

It's not and it's a common thing used on all sides the same as using fight is.

Good lord, I supposed we ought to ban fight songs at universities because someone got into a fight in the parking lot.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: alldaylong

That's as bad and as weak as saying that using a bull's-eye on a map is inciting people to shoot political opponents.

It's not and it's a common thing used on all sides the same as using fight is.

Good lord, I supposed we ought to ban fight songs at universities because someone got into a fight in the parking lot.

You need to get out into the real world and mix with real people.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: network dude

So you believe that Trump's use of words like "fight" and "wild" made some nutjobs carefully calculate a plan to cause trouble

Read what i said. Here it is again. " Some Trump Supporters Are Stupid Enough to take it to mean the violent option "

You are inteligent enough to know that in all walks of life there are some people who lack common sense, and take things literally. If you say there are not then you know you are lying to yourself.

Again, let's go back to the summer of love then. Some leftists are also too dumb to understand that their political allies in DC weren't telling them to actually riot and burn down whole cities. So why aren't those people in DC getting likewise censured and impeached for their rhetoric in support of the BLM/ANTIFA rioting?

a reply to: alldaylong

I do.

Frequently.

Perhaps you just want to criminalize the word? Or is that only when it's convenient to achieve your ends?

a reply to: ketsuko

Again, let's go back to the summer of love then

Why ?

It's the storming of The Capitol that's under discussion here.

a reply to: ketsuko

I do. Frequently

Not frequent enough it would appear.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ketsuko

Again, let's go back to the summer of love then

Why ?

It's the storming of The Capitol that's under discussion here.

Because the situations with rhetoric and action are similar enough to be comparable. Not wanting to shows avoidance of that reality.

Whataboutism only works when things are dissimilar, but here they are not. The actions all summer were made against Federal government buildings just the same.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ketsuko

I do. Frequently

Not frequent enough it would appear.

*shrug*

Just cause you don't like having someone speak up against you ...

a reply to: ketsuko

Just cause you don't like having someone speak up against you .

Take a look in the mirror.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: network dude

So you believe that Trump's use of words like "fight" and "wild" made some nutjobs carefully calculate a plan to cause trouble

Read what i said. Here it is again. " Some Trump Supporters Are Stupid Enough to take it to mean the violent option "

You are inteligent enough to know that in all walks of life there are some people who lack common sense, and take things literally. If you say there are not then you know you are lying to yourself.

I'm not saying you are wrong, Just clarifying. So by that standard, if this is enough to impeach Trump over, then the violent rhetoric we heard from Maxine Waters, and VP elect Harris would also fall in the same category. I don't think any of that is impeachment worthy, but we have to be equal. Remember, NOBODY is above the law. Even Pelosi should be lumped into this group of agitators.

Is that the way you think we should be moving, or has this been blown WAY out of proportion?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: network dude

So you believe that Trump's use of words like "fight" and "wild" made some nutjobs carefully calculate a plan to cause trouble

Read what i said. Here it is again. " Some Trump Supporters Are Stupid Enough to take it to mean the violent option "

You are inteligent enough to know that in all walks of life there are some people who lack common sense, and take things literally. If you say there are not then you know you are lying to yourself.

I'm not saying you are wrong, Just clarifying. So by that standard, if this is enough to impeach Trump over, then the violent rhetoric we heard from Maxine Waters, and VP elect Harris would also fall in the same category. I don't think any of that is impeachment worthy, but we have to be equal. Remember, NOBODY is above the law. Even Pelosi should be lumped into this group of agitators.

Is that the way you think we should be moving, or has this been blown WAY out of proportion?

I can't disagree with what you have stated. However the title of your thread being " timeline of capitol invasion events." , i have tried to point out that the timeline began wel before what occured on January 6th.

This was an event in the making. Any fool can see that.

And i do say that with respect for your own analysis.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ketsuko

Again, let's go back to the summer of love then

Why ?

It's the storming of The Capitol that's under discussion here.

No. Not when a poster has already mentioned the articles of impeachment included 1/6/21 AND previous occurrences...