This past January 6, a joint session of Congress certified the election of Donald Trump as president. The event was ceremonial, as everybody knew right after the November election that Trump had defeated Kamala Harris, whose efforts to fill in for dead “President” Joe Biden, had been a miserable failure, in an overwhelming victory. It was ironic that Harris, presiding over the session, had to read the tally of her own defeat. January 6, 2021 was not at all like that. There was credible evidence that the election of 2020 had been stolen from Trump, and he and his supporters were not about to go quietly.
Let’s first look at the evidence the election was stolen. According to Paul Craig Roberts: “The official narrative that there was no election theft is likely the largest lie ever perpetrated on the world. The lie is so vast and so fragile that everyone who disagrees with the official narrative is suppressed, deplatformed, kicked off social media, ostracized, and fired from their job in order to protect the lie from examination and exposure. In Michigan the state attorney general is attempting to debar attorneys who represented cases of electoral theft. Massive effort was made—including an orchestrated “storming of the Capitol”—to insure that the evidence would not be presented and that the majority of the population would never encounter the evidence. The presstitutes from the first instance declared continuously with one voice ‘there was no vote fraud,’ ‘baseless claims of vote fraud,’ and the old standby ‘conspiracy theory.’
Obviously, if there was no fraud, there would have been no danger in examining ‘baseless claims.’ Their baselessness could simply have been demonstrated. If the claims of electoral fraud are baseless, there was no need to spilt the country and to cause half of the voting population to distrust the public institutions that are supposed to uphold election integrity Even without hard evidence of a stolen election, it is obvious that Trump did not lose to Biden who inspired no enthusiasm and whose campaign events had to be halted due to non-attendance. How did Trump lose the election when on December 29, after two months of his heightened demonization following the November 2020 election, he won the annual Gallup survey as America’s most admired person, ending Obama’s 12-year run. According to the official vote count, Trump received 11 million more votes in 2020 than the number he won in 2016 and three times the black support. In 2020 Trump received 8 million more votes than Obama received in 2012 and Hillary received in 2016. It is not possible that this extraordinary performance is a losing one. And this is his official vote count, not his suppressed actual vote.
No sane person believes that such an uninspiring candidate as Biden garnered 81.2 million votes—15.3 million more popular votes than Obama in 2012 and Hillary in 2016. The Obama-Hillary popular vote of 65 to 66 million is the limit of the Democrat vote. Even Trump’s losing official vote count of 74 million is larger than any winning president in American history other than the fraudulent 2020 Biden vote count.
In other words, no voting machine or other material evidence is needed to see that the 2020 election was stolen.
Nevertheless, there is massive evidence. Giuliani collected a lot of it, and it was presented to members of state legislatures in swing states. I watched presentations of the evidence by highly skilled analysts and sworn witnesses. In previous postings on this website there are links to the presentations. As so much information has been deplatformed, the links might no longer work. But ‘MyPillow’ CEO Mike Lindell has collected some of the experts who investigated the electoral fraud and has put together a two-hour video that provides some of the massive evidence, certainly enough to liberate you from the media indoctrination ‘there is no evidence.’”
Trump and his supporters had every right to challenge the election. This includes the right to demonstrate against the counting of the ballots in Congress. Although the counting is normally a formality, it does not have to be, and members of Congress have the right to challenge the seating of electors.
With that in mind, Trump spoke to a rally in Washington. He urged his supporters to demonstrate against the counting and planned to join them, but he was turned away from doing so. He urged the demonstrators to be peaceful, and except for a few agent provocateurs, they were. They did not break into the Capitol but were let in by the police. Indeed, the main violence that day was the murder of a peaceful protestor, Ashli Babbitt. A policeman shot her in the back. As Jacob Hornberger reports, “The Washington, D.C., establishment is, needless to say, up in arms over President-elect Trump’s plans to pardon the protestors who stormed the Capitol on January 6 four years ago. After hundreds of criminal prosecutions and sometimes long jail sentences meted out by federal judges, Trump’s pardons will be upending not only the entire prosecution-and-conviction scheme but also the ludicrous official narrative that has been used to justify the prosecutions and sentences. The narrative states that the protestors were intent on violently overthrowing the federal government and installing Trump into power — overcoming the opposition, of course, of the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, the Capitol police, the D.C. police, and the FBI.
It would be difficult to find a more ludicrous narrative than that. It’s worth mentioning that not one of the protestors had AR-15s or other assault rifles or high-powered handguns. Just think — this would have been the first violent overthrow of a government in history without one ‘insurrectionist’ wielding a gun.
Not so, however, with the Capitol police. They were fully armed, as one of the unarmed protestors, a woman named Ashli Babbitt, discovered. As Babbitt was attempting to get through a broken glass window inside the Capitol, Capitol policeman Michael Byrd shot her dead with his gun instead of simply arresting her and taking her into custody.
Mind you, Babbitt was not threatening Byrd with any force, much less deadly force. She was just trying to get through the window. The problem is that Byrd got scared, and his fear caused him to shoot and kill an unarmed protestor. Under the law, fear is not a justification for the unauthorized use of deadly force.
Grow or Die: The Good ...The Good, DavidBest Price: $13.29Buy New $13.99(as of 01:26 UTC - Details)
Not surprisingly, however, the U.S. Department of Justice let Byrd off the hook. They said that he was justified in shooting and killing Babbitt.
Well, let’s change the situation around. Let’s assume that Byrd was an unarmed Capitol guard. Let’s also assume that Babbitt trespassed into the Capitol with an AR-15. Let’s say that Babbitt encountered the uninformed Byrd, got scared, and shot and killed him.
What would have been the reaction of the Justice Department to that sequence of events? We all know the reaction. It would have been totally opposite to how they treated Byrd’s killing of Babbitt. They would have arrested Babbitt, quickly had her indicted and convicted of murder or some lesser included offense, such as manslaughter or at least negligent homicide. Some federal judge would have thrown the book at her, meting out the highest possible prison sentence.
Not so though with Michael Byrd. He gets to go scot-free despite the fact that he employed deadly force against an unarmed woman who was not threatening him with any force whatsoever, much less deadly force.
Michael Byrd doesn’t deserve a pardon for his disgraceful killing of an unarmed protestor, and we can only hope that President Biden doesn’t give him one before he leaves office. Byrd deserves a criminal indictment, which Trump’s Justice Department should secure for him. Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.”
Despite this, a large number of protestors were charged with crimes, including insurrection, and given draconian prison sentences. The protestors were clearly not engaged in an insurrection, which is an attempt to overthrow the government. They were not trying to overthrow the government; they were trying to prevent the election from being subverted.
Some radical leftists went so far as to claim that Trump was guilty of insurrection and should be barred from running for president because of a law passed by the Radical Republicans in the 1860s, which was aimed at preventing supporters of the Confederacy from holding federal office. The Supreme Court of Colorado bought this transparently false argument in a split 4 to 3 decision, and ruled that Trump should be removed from the ballot in Colorado, but the Supreme Court unanimously overruled ruled this.
Trump was not guilty of an insurrection. We should do everything we can to oppose the false claim that he was. Trump has promised to pardon the protestors, as he should, and Michael Byrd should be prosecuted. We must defeat the efforts of the radical left to subvert the electoral process.
