1 in 10 defendants from US Capitol insurrection have military ties. Some former and others who were current members on January 6, 2021. Is this something that is a cause for significant concern. If so, what can be done about it?
By - PsychLegalMind
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[census.gov](https://census.gov) says approximately 7% of the population is veterans, then add active duty military to that list...?
Current active duty military only makes up about 0.4% of the population. So in total that is 7.4% of the population.
>census.gov says approximately 7% of the population is veterans, then add active duty military to that list...?
I'm actually shocked that it's this high. I'm guessing this is a regional thing?
The South is overrepresented in the military, but only by about 20%: https://www.facingsouth.org/2020/01/understanding-souths-unequal-contribution-military-recruits
It says less about the region you live in and more the social circles you travel in. Military enlistment is across economic, educational, and regional groups. That you don't know many is a personal bias that you are projecting onto society.
The military has long been a escape from dying towns and poverty.
Came here to say the same thing... though a table napkin mathed it from googling the number of veterans and active duty and rough dividing by 400 million.
Your way is better and easier
I know that when I got my security clearance they asked if I had any ties to any hate groups, paramilitary groups (and this actually includes the boy scouts), or groups who wanted to overthrow the US government.
I think they should add the Proud Boys, QAnon, and the Oathkeepers to the list of those groups.
Note: Having been a boy scout will not preclude a security clearance. It's just classified as a paramilitary group, and you're required to disclose it.
>w that when I got my security clearance they asked if I had any ties to any hate groups, paramilitary groups (and this actually includes the boy scouts), or groups who wanted to overthrow the US government.
>I think they should add the Proud Boys, QAnon, and the Oathkeepers to the list of t
They need to make it more specific. I know one of the questions asked of me \[government\], was to list every single club I ever belonged to of any kind, including Academic; plus Magazine Subscriptions: So I listed all of them including ABA, CBA \[California Bar Association\], Book of the Month, California Lawyers \[multiple sections\]. Filled out a supplemental page; It was quite thorough.
The honest to god truth of the matter is that it's not that thorough, at least not for secret. TS and above is where they actually do some legwork investigations, and even then they're basically just interviewing associates.
I honestly think part of the problem is that the military over-classifies information leading to almost every service member needing a secret clearance. This overburdens the investigators. At least that's what it was in the Navy. Pretty much anybody who wasn't a mess specialist needed a clearance. Maybe it's different in the Army.
This is pretty accurate. I know the Army requires all officers have at least a Secret, even those without access to anything very sensitive. The weird thing is you will see people go their entire careers with the most classified stuff they see is maps during training exercises, and still they need to go through the entire background clearance process. I definitely wouldn’t advocate for laxer standards, but you would be amazed how little “secret” information Soldiers typically see over their career.
I read some pretty juicy secrets in the latrine stalls, so Uncle Sam got his money’s worth on my clearance at least.
They interviewed my neighbor from childhood for my TS. And my dealer.
Mine was a civilian service. They were through, they even went to local bars and neighbors. Asking about my drinking habits and whether I had loud parties. Generally conducted by the FBI; they need to use the same standard for the military recruits. It is worth the expense.
DoD contracts out to investigating companies. Theoretically the DoD Central Adjudication Facility should adjudicate clearances to the same standard as any other federal government.
Some do a good job, others do not. More government oversight is needed; either that or classify background investigation as inherently government work in nature.
Yeah my last investigator wanted me to fax her some minor financial stuff but never followed up and 4 months later I was good to go.
Some agencies have been authorized specific discretion on how in-depth. Usually, the first one is the most thorough. My subsequent ones took less than six months; many have gone electronic, but still showed up at the office for personal interview and look at my current passports and also all the older ones that I had not discarded. I suppose she was looking for countries I may have visited. It was all good. We need a more consistent standard. I have heard that some agencies just do a criminal national background and credit check \[financial assets\], and leave it at that; that is certainly not enough. Private contractors are getting paid $10,000 per background checks \[just for standard checks\].
This isn't really related to the core discussion but those questions were so stressful when being interviewed for friends going through clearance screening for jobs right after college.
Do they drink and party a lot? Do they have a lot of foreign contacts?
Like yeah, but it's senior spring in college and we have a huge international student contingent.
>it's senior spring in college and we have a huge international stud
No need for stress; they are just looking at your risk level for spying as to foreign relationships. Drinking is looked to determine if you will spill the secrets after drinking.
Actually you’re wrong. Investigators follow a set standard. A secret clearance investigation can be exactly the same as a top secret.
I believe that every soldier that is deployed to a combat environment receives a secret clearance. At least that’s how it was in my unit.
>I know that when I got my security clearance they asked if I had any ties to any hate groups, paramilitary groups (and this actually includes the boy scouts), or groups who wanted to overthrow the US government.
I wasn't asked this question when I got my Top Secret clearance. Especially not about the Boy Scouts (I was an Eagle Scout).
The Boy Scouts are heavily involved with the US military. The Boy Scout Jamboree and regional events are at Army bases.
>Boy Scouts are heavily involved with the US military. The Boy Scout Jamboree and regional events are at Army bases.
So renting public space is heavily involved?
I'm under the impression that it's donations from the Army. The Army was also helping us build stuff when I went to the jamboree. I'm really surprised anyone is questioning this. Have you participated in the Boy Scouts?
Yes , never had any open assistance from the military.
I still feel bad about this one. During my TS clearance I was asked if I had been part of a militia, but not which one.
I'm autistic and hyper-honest, so I answered yes. Meant an interview and investigation. She leads off with "which militia?"
"The SCA is technically the second largest army in the world..."
She managed not to facepalm (using willpower I'm sure) but I could tell she wanted to. The rest of the interview and deep dive into my past was anticlimactic.
Did she write "Virgin" in the block for problematic sexual behaviors and skip those questions?
Nah, she wrote “this guy fucks” in block caps and did the cool S with mini stars around it.
Seriously though TS clearance seems so tedious until you read about Fuchs and the Rosenbergs etc
What does SCA stand for here? I searched SCA army and SCA autism and nothing came up that seemed relevant
Society for Creative Anacronism.
People who wear metal armor and bash each other with swords/maces.
Oh wow, I’m relatively familiar with HEMA but I had no idea this existed.
I’m reading that there are about 60,000 participants (only 30,000 members) that’s no where near the 2nd largest army in the world. I don’t think it’s even 50th.
I was in SCA about 25 years ago, I think it was bigger then, but I also admit there might have been some exaggeration that young dumb me would have believed without checking.
It used to be bigger I think, because HEMA circles were smaller. So you joined the SCA, or you did LARP and that was it. Nowadays the HEMA/WMA hobby group has fractured into a kaleidoscope of groups so no one group is very big, but there's overall a lot more interest in the hobby.
Society for Creative Anachronism. They're more or less a huge medieval roleplay group
Oh that’s funny.
It’s funny their called Oathkeepers when each of them broke their oath of service they took when they shipped off to boot camp.
Their oath is to the confederacy.
Lotta good that did them.
I’ll probably get shit on for this but I’m completely out of the loop.
What have the proud boys actually done?
I feel like they’re just redneck losers who pick fights with ANTIFA losers.
It’s the grey area that they take advantage of, like - trump didn’t smash windows or break doors on the capitol building but dog whistled people enough into thinking there wouldn’t be consequences if they did it in his name, its all those implications that make groups like proud boys a potential threat. They might not go around insurrecting shit every weekend but they build a nurturing environment that could push individuals to lone Wolf if themselves which brings about the same end result.
This shit is certainly more complicated than “they re just bad bad” because the hard part is defining exactly what aspect of their organisation is detrimental to the public good - which leaves room for enough debate to throw in un-nuanced “freedom of speech” defences
It really seems like the Proud Boys and Antifa amount to a nuisance, and are used as boogeymen to terrify people (mainly boomers) into thinking there are roving gangs of violent extremists destroying the country.
If it weren't for the constant fear-mongering from partisan sources of media, I would have forgotten about both of these groups 4 years ago.
but aren't there like hundreds of groups like that? I just saw a video of Black Nationalists advocating for the shooting of all white people at an armed rally last Friday.
there's groups all over the political spectrum doing that kind of thing. it's still not a reason to ever change the 4th amendment.
I agree with your comment but this thread was asking about the proud boys. I only used Trump as an example - I wasn’t intending to specifically associate him with them; but I think it can muddy the waters to bring up unrelated groups when trying to define “what the proud boys have actually done”.
But you raise another point in my mind; there are indeed plenty of fringe groups and militias, but the proud boys had a whole different paradigm of exposure to American citizens towards the end of Trumps days in office - as such their influence was documented with closer scrutiny than….to use a slightly bizarre example of another fringe group - the black Hebrew Israelites who caused all that shit at the Lincoln memorial (FUCK! Remember that?!?)
As such I reach a point where my feeling is; don’t do anything - because you re also right about the 4th…messing with such things is a slippery slope. EVEN if they planned to kill everyone on jan 6th. EVEN if stone had some grand design. EVEN if they had literal magical powers; I don’t like the idea of elevating them by treating them differently, you break the law you are a criminal - not a freedom fighter or a Star Wars rebel is the status quo and it’s the least worst option for now.
There's plenty of videos of them in publicfreakout brutally beating people just for walking near them, including stomping on heads and beating with weapons. They don't care who they assault. There's a video of them nearly lynching an AP photographer on January 6th while chanting "He's antifa!" I guess the photographer was too brown for them.
I don't think you're that wrong. While individual proud boys definitely have done some bad things. As an organized whole, the militia groups seem significantly more threatening.
I've always seen them more as a street gang than anything else, definitely a bad bunch, but not some organized terror group either
> I know that when I got my security clearance they asked if I had any ties to any hate groups, paramilitary groups (and this actually includes the boy scouts), or groups who wanted to overthrow the US government.
Imagine having to disclose you're a former Republican...
It boggles the mind wondering why the fuck are they not already included as required to disclose? Are they afraid that people will lie or find out more are among their ranks than they would have hoped?
Teach U.S. government, civics, and humanities as part of their curriculum going through basic or tech school. It doesn’t even have to be very extensive because most of these people, both military and civilian, don’t seem to have even the most fundamental core understanding of how the fuck our government works.
What exactly do you think that will do?
Cause here's what's going to happen. Our capital rioter will have sat through those classes, think "damn straight. Love this country. Go 3 branches of government!" And then drove to Washington to smash up Congress.
The motivation to invade the capital wasn't "oh. I'm an uneducated bumpkin who thinks that it's in the constitution to kill congress." The motivation is "I fundamentally believe that Trump's opponents conspired to illegally oust him from power and now American democracy is dying and I have to do something now to save it."
The problem is not education. It's radiclization.
Education is way overrated when it comes to this kind of stuff. You can't teach 90% of the population to suppress their nature, which tends to be favorable to forms of despotism.
It doesn't help that every time I go into the food court that Fox News is playing
I used to work at a company that played fox news in the breakroom. It pissed me off. I purchased a little thing to put on my keychain that sends a bunch of codes to the tv until it turns off and then you hit a button confirming that was the right code. Now you have a remote and can change channels and volume/power.
For 4 years every time I went into the breakroom I changed the channel to Animal Planet when nobody was looking.
Hospital waiting room, McDonalds, sports bar with stuff on you don't care about and nobody is watching it? Change that shit!!!
In the mid 2010s it was common for high end android phones to have Infrared Blasters. Which let you have the functionality of your kechain thing with an app on your phone. Wish they still made them like that.
Dude I miss my Note 4. I kept that phone for almost 5 years, I wore out 3 batteries.
Oh my god, you reminded me of my first year of university. The amount of times we turned off the professor's projector...
Where can I buy this? They lost the TV at my gym weeks ago and I've been trying to find something that can help.
Thank you for your public service btw.
It was similar to this one
TV-B-Gone Universal TV Power Remote Control Keychain - NA/Asia
Learn more: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006GD9CE/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_PDFDBPB546195W1MF72D
Can you pm me the link to this device please? There is one employee at my gym that comes in and changes **all of the TVs in the building to FOX** when he clocks in
It was similar to this one
TV-B-Gone Universal TV Power Remote Control Keychain - NA/Asia by FamilySafe Learn more: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0006GD9CE/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_PDFDBPB546195W1MF72D
My current job played Fox in the break room just because there are a bunch of boomers there that turn it on. So I go in multiple times a day and flip it to MSNBC just to piss them off.
I have never seen Fox News playing out in public where I live. It's CNN or sports on the West Coast at least
In Brazil CNN only has crazy people that support the governament, no matter what, and downplay the pandemic.
CNN Brazil is a separate company that licenses out the CNN name from AT&T/WarnerMedia, it's not the same network as American CNN.
Thanks I didn't know that, looked at it and: Founded in March 2020.
It was obviously created to make fake news about the pandemics and the founders have deep ties with the governament.
I live in a heavily Republican city and I see CNN just as if not more often than Fox. Both are untrustworthy as they both hide opinion pieces among factual reporting, but their biases are pretty weak. In the rare instances I’ve watched either, CNN was shitting on Biden and Fox was praising Biden. When people assert their “heavy” biases they’re confusing the opinion articles and shows with actual reporting.
I have to ask, Republican city? What city is heavily Republican? I know there are cities in Republican states, but typically the cities themselves are pretty blue.
In the US to be a city it either needs to have a large population (unincorporated area; unofficially a city though many call themselves a city) or it simply has to be incorporated. I’m between two corporates cities which are heavily Republican run and populated whereas where I live falls under the former. The largest cities in the US are usually Democrat led and populated but not all. Jacksonville, FL is considered left leaning but only slightly and is mostly because of the large college student population, if you exclude that population it would likely be further right on the scale and a good portion of the leadership is republican.
Fort Worth Texas is one of the largest red-leaning metros. You do get them, but generally people mean large suburbs when talking about conservative cities. Arlington, TX would be one such situation.
Reminder that this only changed under Bush, prior to this it was CNN, or something local even. The "All Fox All The Time" policy was a fairly recent and deliberate move.
I don't think it's a policy so much as people having preferences and using the remote control. I certainly never encountered a mandate about a particular news channel being on.
I wouldn't say it is a policy, but the timeframe of Bush's first term was around the time Fox went from being news to being "news"
This was peak Bill Oreilly we've gotta invade Iraq to save America from 9/11 time, and for a lot of people the news turned into Fox news around then.
The most pleasing thing Trump said imho was that Iraq was a major screw up. He said it to put Jeb in his place, but he said it. Since then you don't hear much about Iraq on Fox.
You don't hear much about it because it's a reminder of what an enormous fuckup/lie it was by the entire Republican party to the American people (and shamefully many Democrats were cowed into acquiescing).
Fox just cynically plays on whatever is currently bubbling up on the rightwing rumor mill, it's their business strategy.
Does anyone actually believe that the military wouldnt have ‘hard right’ elements. Its the freaking military.
You may be right, but that doesn't mean we just look the other way and let extremism blossom
Military is about honor and service. Standards need to be addressed.
>Military is about honor and service
In the abstract, sure, in reality no.
Propaganda has somehow confused the idea that the average Joe in the military is not, well, average. Part of it is that honor, loyalty and such makes for a better story, part is that fhe Pentagon only backs you up if you paint it pretty, another part is the military spends buttloads advertising those concepts, and I'm missing more.
The reality is very different though. The Military cares about getting the job done, and as retired people point out, almost nobody is court maetialed for following orders, even bad ones.
What’s more concerning to me, tbh, is gangs and organized crime on military bases in the US
>Those companies would hire anyone with a pulse and half had records if not active probation or parole.
hence USS Mahan incident & MA2 Mayo losing his life because a bunch of people cant stand a proper fucking watch, from gate guards all the way to the incompetent POOW who got their gun taken from them because in my SAMI opinion, they weren't qualified to carry it.
*I'm not sorry. every range day, we had people who lacked the finger strength to pull the trigger on the M9 without doing some awkward "barely enough" two index fingered shit. I have strong, loudly overt opinions on arming anyone up who cannot operate the weapons properly. I'll call them a liability to their face, to their LPO and CPO, I don't care.*
I'm all for equal opportunity where its applicable. I cannot in good faith be "for" arming up a 100lb 4ft 11" female who cannot pull the trigger, and that's what happens during NHQC. Its the "can't pull the trigger" part that gets me. There *are* plenty of tiny females who are anywhere from competent to impressive with a firearm, but a "presence" on watch, they are not. If the smallest uniform they make is baggy on you, you're not intimidating.
>gs and organized crime on military bases in the US
All extremism in the military has to be addressed.
Definitely, but these people know how to hide their true beliefs and affiliations. Not that many in the military are advertising their Proud Boys membership while they are at work.
They make mistakes, that is when they get caught. Past, these days, are never easy to hide.
Until recently they hung "Confederate" flags in the barracks, put "Confederate" flag bumper stickers on their cars, and got "Confederate" flag tattoos. The military has started cracking down on that treasonous crap.
Should we be glad they were surpiseingly incompetent for having had military training.
Yes. And i would further argue that there is some benefit to them doing what they did. None will wind up as a Timothy McVeigh terrorist. Why? They will all be on a watchlist for the rest of their life. They will be monitored. And they have also exposed anyone with whom they are in regular contact with to much greater scrutiny.
Our government has gained a lot of experience exposing terrorist networks since 9/11. These bozos gave our government justification to treat them and their networks how we treat al Qaeda as far as intelligence collecting is concerned.
The problem won’t go away overnight. But, you don’t want the feds motivated to investigate your life.
>Our government has gained a lot of experience exposing terrorist networks since 9/11. These bozos gave our government justification to treat them and their networks how we treat al Qaeda as far as intelligence collecting is concerned.
The pick up trucks with giant Trump and thin blue line flags didnt tip everyone off that these are overt, proud-to-be-terrorrist, domestic terrorists?
The Y'all Qaeda meme isn't joking. They are both religious conservatives using terrorism to attempt to coerce political agenda.
Maybe they were perfectly competent, but never planned to overthrow the government in the first place. Otherwise they would have done basic things, like bring guns with them, and securing the building instead of walking off with a lectern.
> basic things, like bring guns with them
[Like this, for instance?](https://abcnews.go.com/US/oath-keepers-stashed-weapons-hotel-potential-jan-violence/story?id=77048420)
Reading that article, it sounds like they all brought their guns and left them at the hotel? Interesting paragraph:
> Prosecutors have not alleged, however, that such a force was ever positioned with the intention of targeting the Capitol specifically. Instead, discussions surrounding the so-called "QRF" appeared to center around having quick access to firearms in the event demonstrations in the city devolved into violence or if former President Donald Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, effectively instituting martial law.
There's a few ways to read that and I'm not sure I would interpret it as they were preparing to secure the capitol. The text messages from the latter half of the article also make it look like they were pretty disorganized and that the "insurrection" was not part of the group's plans.
At any rate, I'm more inclined to agree with the above poster. The more I learn and read about 1/6 the more it just sounds like a bunch of disorganized assholes and morons. Dogs who caught the car, so to speak.
"I’d like to have the weapons secured prior to the Op tomorrow.”
That sure sounds like they were thinking specifically of the Capitol as they stockpiled guns.
It sounds to me like some militia LARPers talking about locking their guns up in the hotel before going to the protest. But as I said, it's open to interpretation. I'm just not inclined to give these guys much credit.
At an absolute minimum they fully intended to stop the peaceful transfer of power; this was their stated intent. They wanted the lawful election results to be rejected. Same as overthrowing a duly elected government. They attacked the Capitol and injured close to 150 officers, some very seriously. Several were maimed and had their fingers amputated. 5 people died either directly or indirectly as a result of the insurrection. These people had also brought along Molotov bottles, arms and ammunition stored in a nearby parked truck. They were deadly and were looking to hang people. It has all been recorded.
That seems to be most probable explanation. Had they actually wanted to do damage I highly doubt they would've willingly followed local weapons laws.
Not a cause for concern. Veterans make up about 10% of the total US population. There's no statistical aberration here.
Also, veterans probably lean toward the conservative side of the spectrum, as most recruits are pulled from historically conservative states. It’s not surprising that a decent number of military veterans were present at that event.
Veterans make up far less than 10% of the population - you just searched for this on Google - and the top result said 'less than 10%' and you dropped the 'less than' bit and ran with it - without noticing that the first half of the sentence said that there are 19m veterans in the US (which is around 5.7% of the population).
So, almost twice as many veterans were arrested than expected. Which actually is statistically significant.
Also, there are a little over 200 million people over the age of 18 (old enough for military) which would put that 19 million closer to 10%.
Statistical analysis. I love it. This is how you debate...
It's 10% of the adult population.
I don't think any children were involved.
I am curious though (genuinely asking as I don't know) about what share of the Jan 6th people were men vs. women, because the percentage of men in the US who have served in the military is much higher. On the other hand, to your point, I imagine that the percentage of Americans in the military is still propped up to some degree by some much older age groups who were drafted in Vietnam or even earlier, who were probably too old to be involved in any of these shenanigans for the most part.
In any case, it's still worth talking about -- whatever the relevant numbers are. I think the much broader, related problem we need to study is the military to police department pipeline.
Maybe look at the percentage of republican veterans? I would be willing to be it's closer to that 10% mark
I don't think being republican makes them being military any less concerning.
What percentage of the male population do they make up? I'm not going to say it's not significant, but I would expect that military and the rioters heavily skew male.
The majority of them are well into their late 60s or older though - the group at the capitol involved few of those
Wrong. Thanks to the almost 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan the vast majority of veterans today are not that old.
Most of those guys didn't want to miss Murder She Wrote or Matlock. I think it was mostly younger people.
“Younger” is still pushing it. They mostly older millennials/gen xers. The vets among them fought in desert storm or Iraq
One of them electrocuted himself with his own taser. I'm not worried about those clowns.
But that doesn’t mean every demo should be proportionally represented. 51% of the us is women. Were 51% of insurrectionists ?
No. The insurrectionists can be statistically skewed towards men or women but not towards (or against) military veterans. They are completely independent.
Well, the large majority of military members past and present are male so if you draw a sample from the total population that is predominantly male, it will be skewed towards military service. It might actually be showing that military service is lower than expected.
At first glance, veterans make up approximately 10% of the overall population, so there doesn't seem to be a statistical aberration as noted above.
Per a recent Frontline episode on PBS (s39, e15 "american insurrection"), however, the primary investigative journalist in that episode tracks the disturbingly disproportionate share of active & former military service members' involvement in far right groups. Moreover, some of the worst criminality perpetuated by those groups (or in the name of those groups) tends to be by active or former military personnel (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_boogaloo_killings).
There is also evidence that some individuals have been radicalized while serving. In fact, the Biden administration considers right wing infiltration of our military to be a clear and present danger and his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, is actively investigating.
It's a fair point, but you would ideally want the military to be statistically *under*represented in this group
Ideally you want the military to be representative of the American people.
I would be concerned if the military didn’t have people with a rebellious streak in the same proportion as the general population.
Why would you ideally want them to be representative of the American people? Literally why? I would like them to have better discipline and critical thinking skills than the average American, personally.
And then there's also the practicality of warfare to consider. We pick and train soldiers in specific ways for specific reasons.
There's a good chance that veterans are indeed over-represented compared to the general population, but it's neither a cause for concern nor can there anything be done about it.
People who join organisations like the military, the police or a fire brigade tend to score higher on trait conscientousness and lower on traits agreeableness and openness than the average adult.**\*)**
An individual with such a personality structure is more likely to vote conservative than not, and the events of January 6 were a riot in support of a politician of a conservative party.
You can't change the fact that military members tend to sit on the right side of the aisle, just as you can't change the fact that e.g. artists lean left.
Our career choices are influenced by our personality traits.
**\*)** See Big Five personality model. The mentioned categories are not value judgements but descriptors. For example, an individual who scores low on trait agreeableness is more likely to be competitive.
Using the Big 5 for anything other than diagnostic assistance for professional psychologists in an appropriate context is erroneous. You certainly shouldn't be using it to pigeonhole entire segments of the population.
Though it cannot quite determine (for obvious reaons) where correlation ends and causation begins, the model is way too conclusive a tool not to use it at least in an indicatory fashion.
And since the surveying of representative voter groups has indeed shown a persuavive correlation between personality traits and political leanings, I don't think I'm wrong to build on that.
As a matter of fact, the correlation is strong enough for advertising agencies to make a conscious effort to appeal to their targets' personality traits when running political campaigns.
Naturally, this is not to suggest that personality traits are the only predictors of political leanings. Familial imprint is another, for example. Adolescents have a tendency to adopt their parents' world view – unless they loathe them.
Yup. Similarly, how many Proud Boys are there? I bet there r way more KKK members than Proud Boys or the even lesser known Oath Keepers out there.
One expects a certain standard of conduct from people who have served in the military. Besides, there were those who were then serving.
They're still human, and just as prone to mental instability amped up by weaponized propaganda.
As a fellow veteran, i say fuck that. They literally give away college education in the military. You can stay in and use it or you can get out and use it.
If we're going to give excuses, then we might as well give this country away.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not making excuses for criminals. I think we should throw the book at all these scumbag Insurrectionists. All I'm saying is lots of people got caught up in the hurricane of weaponized disinfo, and some happened to be veterans. However, stupidity is not a viable legal defense, so these traitors should see plenty of prison time. I hope that makes it clearer.
Basic training nowadays does a good job of screening for mental health. So while the statistics suggest a military has twice the rate of suicide as civilians. they're also more likely to be well adjusted.
Not one is ‘military brass’. The highest is an O-4? That’s pretty weak for a coup—None of these guys had any kind of sway with a large sect of the military. In this case ‘military ties’ is thankfully euphemism for ‘washed-up’. That said, these are for sure fashy A-holes that would slap on red arm bands and joyfully salute a dictator-for-life so long as he’s their team
So 45 veterans stand accused of participating. That represents less than .002% of the veteran population and you are proposing that there needs to be greater scrutiny on recruiting based on that? I think your question tells me more about you than veterans.
In my opinion, they should be dishonorably discharged for their part in capitol insurrection. I find this following quote from the Anti-federalist No.70 to be disturbingly relevant-- " let us suppose a future president and commander in chief adored by his army and the militia to as great a degree as our late illustrious commander in chief; and we have only to suppose one thing more, that this man is without the virtue, the moderation and love of liberty which possessed the mind of our late general -- and this country will be involved at once in war and tyranny."
Side note - who's the "late illustrious commander in chief" being referred to here?
Edit: Washington doesn't make sense, this was written in 1787. Washington had been commander in chief, but certainly wasn't "late" as he would go on to become president for eight years, and wouldn't pass away until eleven years after this was written
I think he's most likely referring to George Washington.
But this was written before George Washington was elected president, let alone dead
I share your confusion about the use of word "late" but according to the Meriam-Webster, late, though uncommon, could also signify "being something or holding some position or relationship recently but not now." As you've also pointed out the author referred to him as "commander in chief" instead of the president. I assumed that's just how they used the word in the past. In addition, I really can't think of another person who fits that the description. But I'd be curious to see if someone can introduce another possible candidate.
I got curious because you’ve commented a few times and it’s a decent question. Turns out his official title was “Commander in Chief of the Continental Army” when he was, you know, the general of the continental army. By the time anti federalist paper were written he wouldn’t have that title anymore, thus the “late”
> In my opinion, they should be dishonorably discharged for their part in capitol insurrection.
I agree with that but how is the quote relevant?
I think this quote is relevant because Donald Trump fits the description of "a president without virtue who's unwilling to resign such eminent power", who also has the military support over his claim over the "stolen election." Trump could very well have started a coup using the military power.
He didn’t get much of the military supporting him. Most of the military supported Pence and Biden. So if you were concerned about a politician having too much sway over the military shouldn’t it be one of them? So from that perspective I think it’s comforting that members of the military are still thinking for themselves even if I don’t like their decision and even if I agree that they should be prosecuted.
You can certainly be assured of that. Plus a more thorough recruitment process is not going to hurt.
That is about the same as the actual number of Americans who have served or are serving.
The oath that the military takes is to defend the nation against all enemies, both foreign and **domestic**. Many see Democrats, and especially Biden, as domestic enemies as their economic and energy policies are extremely damaging to the nation, bordering on treason.
In their minds, they are serving the nation, not betraying it, as our nation was founded by guys who fought against King George III, so fighting another tyrant that is the lawful ruler is their patriotic duty.
Did any part of what transpired on January 6th strike you as a military operation?
Had it actually been planned as an "insurrection" by military members, or even people with a military mindset, you would have seen a very different sort of event. There would have been attempts to cut off the capital from communications networks, attempts to interdict reinforcements for the police on the scene from arriving, attempts to exclude the media from the area. Above all, the insurrectionists would have been heavily armed and would have employed those arms; nobody would have been operating under the illusion that they wouldn't need to employ deadly force and they would have actually done so.
Instead of even a half-cocked attempt at planning, what we got was... what? A bunch of idiots that swarmed in, and broke things and pranced around and turned right around when they ran into any opposition stiffer than a wet noodle. Some of them had guns but they didn't shoot anybody. Some of them, apparently, had bombs, but they didn't blow anything up. It's as if they expected that they'd appear, that the members of Congress would wake up from a trance and say "oh yes, you've been right all along, how could we not see it before?!" and go along with them. That kind of magical thinking was, if it must be said, emblematic of Trump's entire administration. But it ain't how the military rolls.
Bluntly, if anyone from the military was involved with it, they should be drummed out, not only because of conduct unfitting, but because of obvious, shocking incompetence. A backwoods militia of superannuated Vietnam veterans would have planned and executed better; most Boy Scout troops could have at least done better planning. (Of course, anyone capable of good planning would quickly realize that no, even if you razed the Capitol building and killed every senator and representative, that doesn't hand over control of the government to you or yours...) I'm not saying that a bunch of actual soldiers or veterans could win, but they'd at least have actually tried.
The idiots of January 6th weren't conducting an insurrection any more than the idiots who were going to charge Area 51 a couple years back were trained ninjas.
TBH the more I look at it, the more Jan 6th seams like it was really blown out of proportion. A bunch of boomers and trolls wandered around the capitol, did stupid shit like take Pelosis Podium, and basically just Shitposted IRL.
The fact that people were actually crying about how they almost died and how there was almost a coup was the most surreal and laughable thing to me. I honestly thought I was missing something but idk.
I think of Jan 6th as what happens when you overdose on conspiracy theories and memes. I don’t see it as anything resembling a coup and the fact that so many on Reddit and indeed congress do is baffling to me
Hi everyone, I think this article offers some clarification on the topics--especially, why the capital riot is appropriately classified as an insurrection.
An insurrection simply means an uprising against the government.
For those who are interested, this article also explains why the capital riot is an "insurrection" but not a "coup"
According to author, the capital riot should NOT be understood as coup, as much as an insurgency. In his book, “Seizing Power,” he defines a coup attempt as an explicit action, involving some portion of the state military, police or security forces, undertaken with intent to overthrow the government. Therefore, he sees the involvement of some state agencies as a necessary condition to qualify the event as a coup. He explains that Donald Trump's attempt to overthrow the government is entirely achieved by private actions as an invidivual rather than by his authority as the president. This important distinction is exemplified by his inveigling of Raffensperger into stealing the electoral vote of Georgia and his instigating of his supporters to rally for his cause via social media. Neither of these two examples involve the use of "state power", entrusted in the commander in chief, as he is.
[Was the U.S. Capitol riot really a coup? Here’s why definitions
I think this is an interesting read though I don't know if I necessarily agree.
I think the author takes a quite firm stance on what seems to be a bit of murky territory on whether or not President Trump's instigation or (though to a lesser extent) talk with Raffensperger breach the line of state power. Though not a direct enforcement action of other state authorities, I think there's an argument to be made still that abuse of power includes abuse of implied authority - in which not just social media but appearing publicly in his capacity as President, both in videos released officially by the White House and in his appearance before the 'Stop the Steal' rally in front of the White House on Jan 6 breach in use of his authority as a standing part of the government. And though what will be a story I presume we'll only get more information on over time, the refusal to activate the National Guard response in a timely manner (inclusive of the people in the chain between the President and the request) constitutes exercise of state power in choosing not to.
All mostly for the sake of argument here. The author is faculty at the Naval War College specialising specifically in studying and analysing coups, so I'll still defer to his expertise on final judgment over my armchair argument.
This. This was a group of enthusiastic idiots who bumbled their way into a historic event with minimal forethought and planning. They also had everyone's boomer aunt and uncle there waving flags like they were at a Trump rally, boosting numbers enough that the media thought this was a mass revolution rather than some idiots who got lucky. Five years from now this will be a minor footnote in history, but the Democrats are going to use it to justify their (almost reasonable) purge of everything and anything related to Trumps term.
> This was a group of enthusiastic idiots who bumbled their way into a historic event with minimal forethought and planning
For *the majority* of the people there, this is true. But there seems to be pretty compelling evidence that there was a level of coordination between some of the groups.
Obviously, this wasn't planned by military planners as a military operation. And just because someone was in the military, doesn't mean they have any experience planning operations. Some dude who spent four years in the Army may know how to execute squad tactics, but he's not going to be an operational planner.
But, don't discount that many of the groups involved had the real intention of getting to members of Congress in an attempt to stop the certification of votes *by any means necessary*.
There was a lot of planning to get those people to the steps of the Capitol, but those planners didn't go as far as planning what to do once they got them there.
You could make the exact same statements about the Storming of the Bastille.
It housed 7 prisioners at the time and about 1000 people stormed it.
The Storming of the Bastille became a flash point in the French Revolution.
There are many times that poorly planned events turn into historical events that define the start of something major.
There are also plenty of cases were an event like January 6th stays just a footnote in history class and nothing more comes of it.
It is way to soon to figure out which one January 6th will be.
They Bastille was stormed to get gunpowder for the huge amount of guns they had just captured from another armory. Also cannons were involved, it was not a spur of the moment event.
Incompetence doesn't mitigate anything.
We got that swarm of half-cocked idiots because there was never an insurrection planned or attempted. As you well explain, an actual insurrection would have looked *very* different. Those calling it an insurrection are gaslighting, nothing more and nothing less.
The only part I disagree with here was the ending: whether or not they were successful, those idiots absolutely attempted an insurrection against the capitol.
> Did any part of what transpired on January 6th strike you as a military operation?
Not in the morons waving flags and taking selfies part, they were obviously idiots. But the fact that Trump replaced several high ranking DOD people in 2020, and the whole military just happened to twiddle it's thumbs as the US Capitol was being broken into and a joint session of Congress had to barricade doors and hide in closets strikes me as a little curious.
I watched for hours and hours wondering why nobody was doing anything to stop it. Turns out approval to do anything was being waited on by people who for whatever reason seemed to not be watching the news that day.
So yea, it was a wacky dumb thing for a lot of the tourists grabbing crap off of Senators desks and rubbing feces onto Pelosi's door but there very well was some fishy shit going on with the upper brass.
Facts. Trump replaced key people whom, I suspect, he had hoped would ensure whomever showed up to try, succeeded in coercing by force, the election to be overturned.
>ned as an "insurrection" by military members, or even people with a military mindset, you would have seen a very different sort of event. There would have been attempts to cut off the capital from communications networks, attempts to interdict reinforcements for the police on the scene from arriving, attempts to exclude the media from the area. Above all, the insurrectionists would have been heavily armed and would have employed those arms; nobody would have been operating under the illusion that they wouldn't need to employ deadly force and they would have actually done so.
>Instead of even a half-cocked attempt at planning, what we got was... what? A bunch of idiots that swarmed in, and broke things and pranced around and turned right around when they ran into any opposition stiffer than a wet noodle. Some of them had guns but they didn't shoot anybody. Some of them, apparently, had bombs, but they didn't blow anything up. It's as if they expected that they'd appear, that the members of Congress would wake up from a trance and say "
It was half baked. Yet, organized enough to breach the Capitol and came close to killing many Senators and House members. That should concern any American.
No, "half baked" would have been "they tried to do a bunch of the things they needed to succeed, but failed at most of them". This wasn't even to a recipe. It was a little kid throwing a bag of flour in the air and saying "BE CAKE!" and not understanding why the only thing they got was a mess.
Had they actually intended to kill people and overthrow the government, they would have at least managed some of the former; the opposition that they ran into wasn't really enough to stop that from happening. The fact that it -didn't- happen - that there wasn't even a little squad in those thousands ready to shoot their way past the final few cops - is pretty good evidence that none of the people who were there actually intended to carry it through. They were carrying out a protest fantasy and, like a dog chasing a car who actually catches it, had no idea how to proceed once they got in.
I suppose it's good news that even among the loonies there just aren't that many murderous bastards? Or even if it's just "the hardcore types knew it wasn't going to happen and stayed the hell home so they wouldn't catch Covid", that's at least something.
You're kind of making my point for me here, I think.
You don't bring clubs, batons, or bear spray to a frickin' military operation. That's the sort of thing you bring along if you're intending to riot, not "okay, it's time to seriously get on murdering Congressional representatives". You'd expect to see those things in the list of things used on the streets of Portland during the protests there.
And while you can certainly say Molotovs raise the relative seriousness, the idea that these guys were planning a serious takeover of the nation's government, that they armed themselves with firebombs to that effect, and then -left them in the car- because what, they didn't want to pay taxes to rebuild the Capitol after? Maybe they just thought that roasting people alive was horrible and didn't want to do that? You'd think, having brought them and resolved to overthrow the government, they'd have actually attempted to employ them at some point, no?
I'm not disagreeing with you one little bit that what these guys did was against the law, that they should be punished, or that people didn't get hurt. But what I am saying is that the number of people hurt and killed were far less than the capabilities of these idiots, and that isn't because the Capitol Police were so effective at keeping control of the situation. At the end of the day, it's just this: the people involved were expecting to be part of a street protest, they were expecting to deal with police in the oh-so-lovely screaming brawl that we saw plenty of in the last year, and when the police didn't oblige, their reaction was not "an opportunity to take the heads of our political enemies, forward!" but "oh -shit-, what now?"
I understand that there's political advantage to be had in polemics after the fact, lamenting that our government and very way of life was a hair's breadth away from toppling forever. But you and I both know that's a gross exaggeration of what actually happened.
Not really, they did not expect much resistance. They thought they would get cooperation from within or some segments of the force guarding the Capitol. Besides, they did have guns and Molotov stored in a van, as well. It just did not appear out of the blue. They also had gallows erected and were looking to hang some politicians whom they were calling out by name. This is not something you ignore and expect to move on from without a thorough investigation and additionally must take action to prevent another attack on Democracy.
>They also had gallows erected and were looking to hang some politicians whom they were calling out by name
This is a common piece of theater. [BLM did the same thing](https://www.newsweek.com/protest-trump-doll-guillotine-outside-white-house-rnc-1528381) not long ago. Jeff Bezos got the same treatment.
Far as guns/molotovs, I can say with an absolute fact that just my own personal city's BLM riots/protests were at least this heavily armed.
This entire thing basically comes down to being ceaselessly uncharitable and trying to magnify everything to push a narrative.
> Many Capitol Officers were seriously injured as a direct result of the attack and 5 people died.
How did those 5 people die? Who were they?
Why are you inflating and contorting death counts to demonize political opposition?
Had there been no attack on the Capitol those 5 would have been alive today. We are not talking about some technical diagnoses. They died as a direct result of the climate that was created during the attack. Some people have minimized the insurrection, but everyone knows what happened.
Who was nearly killed? They were a bunch of morons who should have been shot before they ever had a chance to enter the Capitol. I'm concerned that security was so lax that a riot led to the capitol building being breached. The crowd itself was a bunch of idiots.
>5 were killed as a direct result of insurrection
Its 4; 3 from geezer medical conditions and the woman who was too stupid to stop trying to enter the chamber and got shot for it. One of those 3 died had a stroke while looking for parking. The other was crushed by the crowd and the last had a heart attack.
In something of a microcosm of the whole event, reports of a cop being killed with a fire extinguisher by rioters [were made up, and dutifully signal boosted](https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-media-lied-repeatedly-about-officer).
Who were the five killed and why did they die?
I’ll save you the trouble, most died of things like heart attacks or falling from a height, the only notable one being the lady who got killed by the secret service.
If this surprises you, you should look into how many mass shooters are vets.
I looked, and was surprised.
> There’s no need to have any contact with the U.S. military in order to dress and act as if you’re in the military, as many mass-shooters do, some of them waging their own delusional wars against immigrants or other groups. But it is remarkable that at least 36% of U.S. mass shooters (and quite possibly more) have in fact been trained by the U.S. military.
This topic is actually quite controversial in academia. There is a very famous book about this topic called "On Killing". It was written by Dave Grossman who was a Lieutenant Colonel during the Vietnam war.
Basically, the book argued that the Vietnam war changed the psychology of war. Pre-Vietnam, most soldiers actually wouldn't fire their weapon unless they were under fire, even then, many wouldn't actually fight. The earliest study showing this to be true were done by the Prussian army in the mid 1800s. They estimated what the raw killing power of their army was and then compared it to how many people were killed in recent battles. The Prussians found that only between 10-30% of their soldiers would actually shoot to kill. They then sent a team to observe the American Civil War and found similar results there.
What made Vietnam different was that the American military was experimenting with new training techniques to get the number up from 10-30% to about 70-90%. These training techniques were essentially full on simulations and war games to desensitize soldiers to killing. They also were extremely successful and are still, to some extent, used by the military to this day.
What Grossman argued was that this training had long term negative results that were never taken into consideration. This training essentially breaks your brain and puts you in a permanent state of flight or fight. The military also has no way to de-train individuals to go back into normal society.
Now, what makes this idea controversial is because it is really hard to calculate in any objective matter. This has long been an issue with psychology, and Grossman essentially doesn't provide the detailed academic evidence that many in academia would want.
edit: This is the book if you are interested: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78127.On_Killing
I see this as a good thing personally. To me this shows, beyond a doubt, that there is at least a segment of the armed forces of the US would probably not follow the orders of a tyrannical government.
I think you’re asking the wrong question. You’re assuming that the US military has either let “bad” people in, or that being upset at a scenario that may or may not be false (it’s factuality is not relevant here) makes one unfit for service.
I can say both from personal experience and from talking to many current and ex government employees both in and out of the DOD, just because you don’t read about it in the news or see it on TV doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, and regardless of security clearance you hear a lot of the inner workings while being actively employed by the government, regardless if you should or even want to.
Chances are if you’ve ever worked a day for the government, you’ve been in possession of a document or heard a conversation you simply weren’t supposed to.
That said, it’s no surprise some in the military feel betrayed by their country. The way many of them are talked about is disposable fodder, if you think civilian jokes are bad the things the people we elect say behind “closed” doors can be far more sickening. For whatever reason a lot of those in the DOD liked working under Trump. Personally I found things went a lot smoother for me too under Trump. They felt the election was stolen, and they have the right to express that.
The biggest thing to me is our government is supposed to be open, and it being closed down is a more recent thing - more recent than many realize. We went from anyone being welcome into the White House, if you had a qualm with your representative you could sit outside of their office and wait for them and demand answers, to needing an appointment and background check JUST to go into the VISITORS CENTER. There was a time that, which many of us have relatives that are still alive who grew up during that time, that not only was what they did legal, it was expected.
The reality is our representatives have gotten soft, they’ve become too complacent with being seen and treated as more important than the general population. I’m DEFINITELY not saying any harm should come to them but being in public service you shouldn’t have the ability to act freely without fear of repercussions for your actions while the citizens have slowly begun to fear practicing the freedom of speech out government is supposed to protect.
No it’s not. But I’m sure the media will blow this out of proportion for the next 4 years.
“Military ties” is kind of vague. If 7% of the population is veterans, I would almost expect it to be higher than 1 in 10.
The majority of rioters were male, and virtually all of them were Republican. When you consider that veterans make up about 10% of the adult population, but factor in gender and political leaning, I think it actually shows that the military were under represented.
> Ninety-one percent of those who have served in the military at some point in their lives are men. Looked at differently, *over one-quarter -- 27% -- of men aged 18 and older say they are veterans or currently serving in the military*, compared to just 2% of adult women.
> For the entire adult population, *34% of veterans and those currently on active military service are Republican, compared to 26% of those who are not veterans*, while 29% of veterans identify themselves as Democrats, compared to 38% of those who are not veterans. (Thirty-three percent of veterans are independents, compared to 29% of nonveterans.)
> But like earlier protesters, they are 95 percent White and *85 percent male*
There were cops in the crowd too. If our govt was serious I would think they would have all the depts go under some sort of a review to find and weed out the extremists. Some depts even work with far right groups. For example, in my city when the George Floyd protests were happening the cops stood with and protected the boogs. They literally had their backs to the guys with guns. In Portland the sheriffs deputy can be overheard telling proud boys where the protesters are and when and where the cops were going to gas/shoot rubber bullets. I saw waaaay tooo much collaboration between cops and far right groups over the summer. And I’m a nobody when it comes to authority to do anything about it. I do not see anyone in a position of authority even talking about this. As for the military we need to do that same thing. I think Germany had to do something similar recently when one of their units was found to be riddled with neo nazis.
>verheard telling proud boys where the protesters are and when and where the cops were going to gas/shoot rubber bullets. I saw waaaay tooo much collaboration between cops and far right groups over the summer. And I’m a nobody when
The cops who participated from various cities during the attack on Capitol have already been discharged. Additional penalty awaits them and others not fit to serve.
Good to hear. Have they done anything about the vets and active duty military personnel?
Poetic Justice: Federal convictions for insurrection would strip pension and VA benefits from former service members. \[Northwestern University Law Review\]. The current ones can face possible sedition charges.
Yeah, it's pretty shitty when you signed up to defend freedom and the rule of law in your nation and a bunch of blowbags steal an election after letting the country burn for a year... I'd say it should concern the people involved greatly that a bunch of Americans trained in urban warfare know how full of crap they are.
The W administration lowered the standards for military enlistment because they started an unpopular war on blatantly false premises. Raise the standards higher than what they were before W.
That is a very good and legitimate point. I have always felt the lower standards causes all sorts of problems.
It sounds pretty concerning but using a quick Google search I found out about 10 percent of U.S. adults are serving or have served on the military, so actually it checks out.
Huge. Christian fascists are trying to penetrate our military from top to bottom.
Students at the Air Force Academy report being pressured to go to church.
Makes sense to me. The left can sometimes do a bad job of directing their anti-military sentiment. They can sometimes direct it at the soldiers even though it should be directed at the people that make decisions. The result is that military members may view Democrats adversely and be drawn toward the right.
The same thing is currently happening with cops. Most of the things that the left blames cops for should actually be blamed on lawmakers.
4 or 5 of 1.5 million active armed forces members participated in the riots. and 45 total were veterans. There's been veterans in Antifa / BLM riots, so I'm going to say, no its not a cause for concern.
America is very diverse, including veteran status.
When vets from Vietnam protest against police brutality and you say they rioted that’s sad. On today of all days as well.
Antifa isn’t a real thing. What is it with people and being scared of boogeymen (because they don’t exist.) BLM is a real thing and the organization has been taken over a money hungry jerk. But the BLM sentiment/ rhetoric hasn’t changed.
This shouldn’t even be a partisan issue. Everyone should want police to be held accountable and not allowed to get away with anything. That breeds corruption.
I want to add one last thing. Most the people whining about riots and antifa talk about them burning down police stations and cities. The police station fire was started by a Trump loving boogaloo boy that the FBI arrested. The red umbrella man who burned an entire autozone down was also a white nationalist.
These folks who did riot had nothing to do with the movement or the left. It was anarchist and opportunist taking advantage of a situation.
This doesn’t mean there weren’t people who identify as left leaning being assholes those nights shit went array. But there is a major difference from kids looting a target to men storming the capitol while the voting process is underway. Y’all tried to over throw democracy. Those people looting target didn’t shit all over the constitution.
And for the record I do agree with you on those numbers and it shouldn’t be a concern. Just don’t like the idea of painting people looting stores (who weren’t veterans) to people storming the capitol to over throw democracy.
Again those kids looting target didn’t try to install a dictator.
This is something of extreme concern. There's a possibility that we have insurrectionist cells in the military and if so we need to root them out. What we can do is call our representatives and demand for emergency funding for an investigation.
Considering that both parties are relatively bipartisan on increasing military funding, we can very easily foster bipartisan support so long as it's marketed well so the Republicans don't get wise to what is actually happening. I'd include plenty of general funding alongside the investigation funds as a cover.
Sounds like paranoia if I'm being honest. We already have all of the mechanisms to deal with them. The American justice system may not be fast but it will sort everything else. Let's allow it to run its course before jumping to conclusions about "insurrectionist cells".
David Duke planned to infiltrate every level of government IN THE 70's! THE FBI KNEW ABOUT IT AND HAS DONE NOTHING FOR 50 YEARS. What does anyone expect? Really, you let the largest domestic terrorist organization go unchecked in the US for HALF A CENTURY, full well knowing they are trying to take over the government from the inside out, and people act surprised? Biden needs to fully vette EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT. There needs to be an entire department set up independent of every branch of government, with unfettered surveillance capabilities for every government employee and every elected official. I fear the problem is so out of control things will have to get far worse before they get better.
I honestly don’t think that’s much of a significant fact unless they were in leadership positions.
Court martial the whole lot, put them all behind bars, take away all their pensions. They are traitors to the country. Do nothing and they will be emboldened to do far worse.