On January 6th 2021, a violent mob broke into the DC Capitol building in an effort to change the outcome of the electoral process. You can call these people “protestors” or you can call them “insurrectionists,” whatever you want to call them today, that’s fine (I don’t give a turkey), this isn’t about them or what they did. This is about broaching the question: did Trump actually “incite” the DC Capitol violence?
CNN, MSNBC, and a vast swath of media outlets are blaming Trump (or, if you’re reading this in the future, ‘have blamed Trump’) for the riot due to what he said in his nearly hour-long speech preceding the event.
But what did he actually say leading up to the chaos?
Here’s the transcript from the speech they’re using against him.
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country ….”
Now, of course, this is all protected speech. Trump is saying that he knows they’re walking over to Pennsylvania Ave. and he wants them to peacefully make their voices heard to urge Congress to only count the legal electors. This is all Constitutionally protected speech for peaceable assembly and even to petition government to address certain grievances. Now, is it presidential…is it correct? Well, that’s up for debate, but he continues and concludes with this:
“So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, I love Pennsylvania Avenue, and we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” the President concluded. “So, let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”
That’s the end of the speech at which point many thousands of people walked over to the Capitol to show their support for the President. I believe the idea in this was to urge and give strength to the Republican members to change the course of the final electoral process. Once again, I’m not going to get into the veracity of the beliefs within, but suffice it to say, it certainly got out of hand, became violent, and criminal activity ensued by a much smaller group of people as compared to the rest of the crowd.[1] The mainstream media, of course, blamed Trump for this instead of attributing fault to the individuals involved.
He’s now being brought up on impeachment…again, with potential charges of inciting an insurrection.
But here’s the question, did Trump really incite a mob or is this another case of the media shaping and telling you how to think?
The case to decide if speech goes beyond its limits into criminal activity is called the Brandenburg Test which was established in the Supreme Court back in 1969 with the case, Brandenburg v. Ohio.[2]
The test determines that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both of the following two elements:
- The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,”
- The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
This test has been applied in a couple of similar cases. Hess v. Indiana (1973) was applied in defense of a protestor who said, “We will take the fucking street again.” It was determined that the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.”
Again, in 1982 with the case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. However, this speech was protected stating, “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”
With all that in mind, at no point did President Trump call for violence either directly or indirectly. Now, you can raise your hand up to protest this as much as you want, but it simply not the case. Raising the temperature of the crowd, sure. But not a direct call for violence. In fact, from the first video and transcript I showed, it was quite the opposite when he said the crowd should act “peacefully and patriotic.” Additionally, in his post-riot address he tried to tell everyone to go home and to go in peace, that the Republican party was the party of law and order and to respect law enforcement.
Of course, the agenda of the media gets in the way and they’re still searching for a good angle to spin even this.
Let’s be clear, the President didn’t mention violence on Jan. 6th, much less provoke or incite it. He said, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
District law defines a riot as “a public disturbance…which by tumultuous and violent conduct or the threat thereof creates grave danger of damage or injury to property or persons.” When President Trump spoke, there was no “public disturbance,” there was only a rally.[3] The havoc came later at the Capitol by a small minority of supporters who entered the perimeter and broke the law. Those people should be prosecuted. It was their decision to do what they did.
But one thing is for sure. You won’t be seeing politicians and celebrities—like Kamala Harris and Justin Timberlake—setting up bail funds for those arrested like was set up for Minnesota rioters in 2020.[4] [5] [6]
But why does the media keep saying Trump incited a riot?
The same reason why the media ran with fictitious Pissgate story without having any evidence, the same reason why they ran with the Russian collusion hoax, the Stormy Daniels scandal, and the false perjury report for a Trump Tower in Moscow. And there’s more. Washington Post claimed Russians accessed the US electrical grid through a Vermont utility. Not true. Slate claimed a Trump server had been communicating with Russia. Not true. The Guardian claimed that Paul Manafort had visited Julian Assange in his hideout at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Not true. The media runs with stories containing fact-free accusations like points in the Steele dossier which were never proven. And it’s the same reason they dream up out-of-context fabrications just to paint him in a certain light, i.e. the “very fine people on both sides,” and the “immigrants are animals” smear campaign. Two thoroughly debunked slanders many duped people still believe in. [7]
Well, this all has something to do with “Agenda Setting Theory” proposed by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw which states how the influence of media affects the presentation of the reports and issues made in the news that affects the public mind. And we’ve seen how the news media has moved away from having a slight bias to a full-on agenda.
And this is true for both sides.
Evidence of this can be seen in virtually every headline or within the first sentence of news reports these days. You’ll see that within the first sentence the writer is telling you how to feel or how to think.
For example:
- Parler isn’t just a social media platform alternative to Twitter. It’s a “banned conservative social media platform. In the headline they’re already telling you that it’s dangerous and you should avoid it.[8] The same goes for Gab, a Twitter alternative which Wikipedia describes as a haven for alt-right, neo-Nazis as opposed to a site for anyone and everyone who doesn’t want to be arbitrarily fact-checked by a bot.
- Laura Loomer wasn’t just a Republican candidate for Congress, she’s a “far-right activist, kicked off of Twitter.”[9]
- Rand Paul “whines” about election concerns.[10]
- Joe Biden is “doddering.” [11] [12]
- Hillary Clinton is “indefensible.” [13]
Within that first leading line, the writer is telling you that this is a person or this is a thing you want to avoid. Look no further, this is how it is. Trust us, we’ve looked it up for you. There’s nothing going on here. Move along but hold this information in your brain.
That’s what they’re trying to do.
Well, if you tell a lie over and over again, people will begin to believe it’s true. Most of the media hate Trump and they want you to feel the same way they feel. The media has gone from biased to agenda-driven and they want to weaponize the public to go against those that oppose them. And with that, we have Cancel Culture now.
But why does the media hate Trump?
In part, it’s because the media helped create Trump. When he began his run for Presidency, they thought it was fun and never expected him to become President. They thought it was cute.
At the start of the Republican primaries in 2016 there were 17 different candidates seeking the GOP nomination. It was hard to sift through all the candidates and see who stood out. But the media latched on to Trump because he was good for ratings.
According to a Harvard study, Trump got media coverage with an estimated value of $55 million. The next closest candidate, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, got $19 million less in coverage.
Trump was good for business.
And according to that Harvard study, 63 percent of coverage from the New York Times and 74 percent of the coverage from the USA Today was either positive or neutral. But that didn’t mean the media wanted Trump to be President. Quite the contrary. It was his personality and off-the-cuff remarks that was good for ratings.
They never thought he’d win, and they thought he’d be an easy candidate over the experience of Hillary Clinton who was poised to be the first female President. But as soon as the two candidates were locked in, the news media turned on Trump, and they turned on him in a big way.
Reports show that coverage of Trump’s first year in office was three times more negative than Barack Obama’s. [14]
The media knows it helped Trump win the Presidency by giving him such a wide platform. They didn’t take him seriously, and they didn’t take his voter base seriously. The news media is arrogant and to this day they have their heads up their collective ass. They thought he was fun and cute at first, that they could take him down at any time, ruining him in the process.
But the media was wrong. And the news media doesn’t like being wrong.
By the time they had figured out what was going on—that Trump had outfoxed them—it was too late.
Politics is downstream of culture and it’s the Democrats that particularly respond to what the media decides to put out and make important. The media is by-and-large left-leaning and they know they have the Democrats in their pocket. But the media couldn’t control Trump. When they tried to get him to stop saying “anchor baby” he responded by insisting on using the term “anchor baby.”
And look, just because you happen to agree with the popular narrative right now doesn’t mean you’re morally superior, it just means you’re easily led.
So, does the media just inflate the issues and exaggerate the details to fit their side of the spectrum, or do they outright lie?
Well…both.
How long did the media run with the “very fine people on both sides” hoax?[15] It’s been debunked time after time but there are still people clinging on it. How long did the media run with the false claim that Trump called illegal immigrants “animals” when they damn well knew he was referring to MS-13 gang members?[16] How long did the media report that Trump was putting kids in cages when that whole practice was put into place with the Obama administration in response to being sued for having kids and adults held together in the same facility? [17] [18]
(Just a side note, isn’t it reasonable to believe that children would be separated from adults in order for authorities to authenticate that they are indeed the children of the adults they are with so they can determine whether or not these children are being trafficked into the U.S. for heinous reasons? Or do you think they’re just being mean?)
The media is some combination of knowingly and outright lying to us, knowingly exaggerating the details to fit their narrative, or completely incompetent at their jobs.
Regardless if you’re left-wing or right-wing, you need to be aware of this and you need to be open to the fact that you very well could be holding on to beliefs that are partially or absolute gooseshit.
We live in a time where everyone’s agenda is clear and the echo chamber that reinforces these beliefs build into fundamentalism. Whenever a person holds a fundamentalist belief, they are certain they are on the side of righteousness. Anyone else questioning that fundamentalist belief is viewed as an enemy to their worldview of righteousness.
Ans we’ve seen how fundamentalists can act.
Again, they say politics is downstream of culture, meaning politics responds to cultural changes. It has been the media’s position—according to Agenda Setting Theory—that the media tells you what topics are important. But now they’re also trying to tell us how to think about those topics.
Don’t be led. Question their agenda and do your due diligence.
Dialogue is the path to truth, so feel free to have at it.
Just make sure you cite your source.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/golf/the-majority-of-capitol-hill-protesters-were-peaceful-sara-carter/vi-BB1cxeYU
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test
[3] https://wentworthreport.com/2021/01/11/no-trump-isnt-guilty-of-incitement/
[4] https://100percentfedup.com/kamala-harris-encouraged-5-7-million-followers-on-twitter-to-help-fund-bail-used-to-release-3-men-previously-charged-with-violent-crimes-one-of-them-accused-of-raping-an-8-yr-old-girl/
[5] https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2020/05/31/justin-timberlake-encourages-fans-to-donate-bail-money-for-minneapolis-protestors-after-city-burns/
[6] https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/09/black-lives-matter-bail-fund-promoted-kamala-harris-bailed-man-raped-8-year-old-girl/
[7] https://nypost.com/2019/10/13/inside-the-medias-relentless-crusade-to-destroy-president-trump/
[8] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/tech/what-is-parler/index.html
[9] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/laura-loomer-banned-twitter-after-criticizing-ilhan-omar-n939256
[10] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rand-paul-wont-say-election-wasnt-stolen_n_600d94c7c5b6fe97669d5c27
[11] https://nypost.com/2020/08/23/joe-bidens-doddering-interviews-prove-he-may-not-be-all-there-devine/
[12] https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/03/28/charles-hurt-doddering-joe-biden-unfit-to-lead-in-time-of-crisis/
[13] https://trueconservativepundit.com/2021/01/19/hillary-clinton-and-nancy-pelosis-utterly-indefensible-and-frivolous-statements-about-trump-the-capitol-riot/
[14] https://americauncensored.com/media-really-hates-trump/
[15] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/10/prager_u_steve_cortes_the_charlottesville_lie.html#!
[16] https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/08/19/fact-check-trump-called-ms-13-gang-members-animals-not-immigrants/
[17] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/26/fact-check-obama-administration-built-migrant-cages-meme-true/3413683001/
[18] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/failed-experiment-immigrant-family-detention-n403126
Great job! Love the “slight editing”. 😂