You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough, and that he encouraged the violence without explicitly stating so.
But you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing - no "this is obviously the truth and alternative facts have no place" as has become so popular. You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it.
I've watched the recordings a number of times. I am aware that he didn't explicitly say to storm the Capital, however he plays the crowd. There had been a lot of individuals and groups discussing actions since November. I would be shocked to know that the campaign had no knowledge of these threats/plans in the Facebook groups and Parler posts.
> But you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing
And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did.
If you know you’re going to be scrutinised by your words, choosing them carefully becomes paramount—you’ll want to make sure you send the message across while being able to deny it, and the people who the message is targeted to understand and accept the compromise.
If you always consider only the words, you’ll be weaselled out. You have to consider not everyone is acting in good faith.
> You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough
The people who stormed the capitol might agree.
In this case, a well-established pattern of behaviour forces one to consider the intention behind the words and not just the words themselves. A lot of people acted in unison on a specific interpretation of those words, with consequences the speaker is aware of and (as far as I’m aware) didn’t admonish.
In sum: both sides agree on the interpretation of these words and the person who wrote them is aware of it and didn’t offer any clarification. Thus far, everything indicates the interpretation is correct.
In my mind, the question is whether this is a speech that I would have to ban someone for on a forum, as a CM.
And my answer would be yes, it is ban-worthy, because it isn't going to lead to a productive discussion of grievances. Especially within the context of a poster who has been making the same attack across hundreds of threads, willing to lie and exaggerate repeatedly along the way.
Now, I can hear the free speech brigade on this one, so that should be addressed too. It happens to be the case that members of the armed forces are in a separate category with respect to their 1st Amendment rights. Given that the President is commander in chief of the military, he sits in a place where his speech is of at least the same consequence as a general. Using that speech to interfere with the processes of the US Government, even if credible claims are made, poses a threat to the nation as a whole.
What does he expect to happen? Is it for everyone else to say "Oh, gee, I guess you're right after all, let's do the election over?" If the process is corrupt, but you believe in the system as a whole, you aim to fix it on the next cycle, not instigate a crisis after losing.
> You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it.
And so will they. They refuse to believe Trump has any complicity at all for the effect of his rhetoric or the ways his language can be interpreted, because he didn't give explicitly say "go murder that priest," just "will someone rid me of this turbulent priest."
Not really. They said it was sort of yes and no because he said “you have to show strength” and “demand that Congress do the right thing”. No those are not telling people to storm congress, in the context of what he was saying before, this clearly refers to showing strength and making demands in the form of a protest. The answer is just No. He did not say this. They didn't even give this a "Mostly false" and give a spiel about how "He encouraged people to protest at the capital + his supporters may have interpreted his words that way", they said it was half-true, it was mixture, that claim is no more false than it is true. Rating scale: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check-ratings/
He sure as hell riled people up and he set the seeds for what happened and has a degree of culpability for what happened. However in regards to the specific question "Did Trump Tell Supporters to Storm US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?" the answer is No. Intermediate ratings on fact checkers are what are used to slip bias into what are not very ambiguous situations, because you can say "Yes, but..." or "No, but..."
The good thing about fact checkers, and the reason I generally support them even if I don't see them quite as neutral, is at least they write down the facts so you can come to your own judgement. I just ignore the ratings they give at this point, the articles are much better.
I just think that rating the interpretation of what Trump meant, as equally valid to the literal truth of what Trump said, is veering right into the territory of "Alternative facts". How we felt about what Trump said has become just as important as what Trump actually said. His supporters can overlook that what he says is BS and can just focus on "What he meant", and his opponents can ignore that he didn't say something and condemn him for "what he meant".
It all feels very post-truth to me and seeing a fact checker endorse this sort of view is absolutely depressing in a way. These are institutions of which there is broad support for making the arbiters of truth on social media for whom truth is subject to subjective interpretation. In which case what's the point of fact checking at all?
> How we felt about what Trump said has become just as important as what Trump actually said.
This free interpretation of words uses a new (repurposed) trendy term too: "dog whistle". Suddenly you are free to interpret anything one says in the most negative light, just by claiming it's a "dogwhistling" for some group or action you despise.
This was not a balanced perspective at all. It gets various verifiable facts entirely wrong. For example, it claims "senators [] would break laws governing U.S. elections", presumably referring to objecting to results. But not only are there no laws against this, moreover there have been objections for every single presidential election this century!
Snopes also claims that this vote is "ceremonial", yet it was used in the aftermath of the civil war to disenfranchise every southern state which sent electors; that doesn't sound very "ceremonial" to me.
Arguably both of these issues are immaterial to the rating, but then why include them at all? And why trust a fact checker who is demonstrably spreading misinformation themselves, however immaterial it may be?
The social media companies and stripe etc, should also sever ties and ban the lawmakers that egged people on and supported this insurrection. Why stop at trump? Or do actions only on their platforms count?
EDIT: I meant the few lawmakers that refused to certify Biden and incited the crowd into insurrection.
Severing ties with about half the lawmakers in half the country is ... quit the step.
This is quite literally the sort of stuff you find when reading about the prelude to civil wars. No really; think about the actual practical implications this would have and what the country would look like in five years' time.
There is a massive problem on our hands, yes, but this is absolutely not the way to solve it.
I don't read his post as pointing the finger at all Republicans. I see it more targeted at people like Cruz who refused to even Certify Biden for President. I doubt he's saying Pence who was notably outspoken in his support of certifying Biden and had violent threats against him as a result is who he's talking about just because he's a Republican.
Rereading the speech I must agree and I don’t know that this will be enough for Trump to be punished in a court. Would “context” and ““knowing they would do it”” be enough to actually blame him?
How would one prove that Trump knew they would do this? The vast majority of "reasonable persons" sure didn't expect this to happen despite hearing Trumps rhetoric around this. Most people were completely shocked.
I think there is plenty of room for Trump to get blamed here even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't expect this to happen. He was droning on about how the election was stolen from him on twitter as people were dying. He riled people up over his horsecrap sore loser claims and people died as a result.
There were more or less similar attacks on some state capitols in the weeks before this, too. Besides, as you mention if your rhetoric is that "Democrats are stealing the election and want to destroy this country" then ... what do you expect people to do? Sit peacefully at home going "oh shucks, that's too bad, what else is on TV?" Never mind that rhetoric on various social media posting has quite literally been saying they will do something like this for years. I used to keep a list of these kind of things; but I got bored of it and I'm not sure if I still have it (but there are various reddit subs that are a good start).
Was I shocked? Yeah, but not because it was surprising. While the specific date and details of the incident are always hard to predict, even a casual observer could see that something like this was bound to happen from miles away. In some ways I'm relieved because I expected it to be far more deadly (which may still happen).
Can we prove that Trump knew what he was inciting this in a court? Probably not. I'm not sure if it really matters as such, depending on what happens with Trump in the coming weeks/months/years.
I think one big unspoken assumption in a lot of this discussion is that claims to something like the Dems actually rigging and stealing the election would reasonably lead to physical resistance. For instance, if the Dems actually were stealing the election, many people would probably sympathize with the rioters. The assumption is that this isn't true, but it's something that does warrant physical resistance, therefore claims to it at a certain level are the same as incitement to violence. There's also the implicit assumption that the president needs to exercise special care because of his power.
Like a lot of these sorts of things, the issues are complex, and I think a lot could come to light in coming days that might change perspective on exactly what Trump did and didn't do. But I think some care is needed in being explicit about what's being claimed. I think political biases are bleeding into claims of violence-inciting speech more than people realize. I personally don't think claiming election fraud is impeachable, even if it is followed by events such as happened at the capitol, but I do think, say, coercion of a public official might be, as would willfully neglecting to institute expected security protocols at an event known to be high risk.
If it goes to the courts, Trumps part in the fundraising campaigns that mention armed rebellion, and was funding travel of known violent community members will also enter in to it.
You can’t just hide behind “technically I didn’t say kill” as a mob boss telling a hit man you flew across the country to “take care” of someone.
Not just that, but trumps actions once it became known the demonstration had turned into an attack will also enter into he record and his part in police being underprepared.
There is a lot more to this than just the litteral words of his speach.
What's missing from this analysis is the context. The White House undoubtedly knew that there were extreme elements among those attending the rally who were organized, armed, and ready to resort to violence. Is there conclusive evidence that Trump knew this? We'll see.
That is what the people he has gathered understood. I suspect ( can't tell for sure ) that no individual came to Washington and then said "oh he didn't say storm, I am going back home".
Yes he did. Perhaps not pedantically and explicitly, but implicitly he did. It's no different than a mob boss saying 'wouldn't it be a shame if X had an accident', and then X dies at the hands of some associated people.
Did the mob boss explicitly (and perhaps pedantically) call for the person to be killed? No. Did he call for the person to be killed - yes.
I'd point out that Trump has been doing stochastic terrorism for the past 4 years. That he uses a few simple rhetorical tricks, he appears to be a pretty simple man. One that seems to work amazing well is to take multiple contradictory positions. People then try to interpret this. Some go with the interpretation that suits their view (like - he's telling us to storm the capital). Others look at it an try to unify it into some whole - as if Trump is articulating some kind of coherent position that you can divine by looking at the contradictory positions.
No, there isn't some special sophisticated underlying reasoning - it's cover.
Such nuance is perhaps hard for Snopes to get into. If they answer the question literally then they have to conclude no - because he didn't literally say that. He went right up to the edge of explicitly asking for it, and then mumbled a few 'peaceful' bits at the end.
His supporters knew what he meant. He knew what he meant. This was all for his benefit. He knew his followers were talking about doing this (I mean I did).
He could not know for sure it would happen. That doesn't mean that wasn't his intent, and that was not what his actions encouraged.
I would also point out, typically (perhaps always) with previous Trump scandals it's worse than what it initially seemed. More information comes out - and it gets worse. With Georgia election call - we find out they had tried to make the call 18 times. That there were two calls to persuade to 'find votes'.
I have little doubt over the next few weeks, and years as more comes out Trump will look significantly worse around this than he does right now.
They were there specifically to support Trump's effort to overturn a valid election whatever it takes.
Some of them even explained what they were prepared for and capable of beforehand.
Now Trump gets a Nixon moment where he can resign without further disgrace for interfering with the election process, and most likely benefit from less interest pursuing his other indiscretions after that.
Or he can end up being impeached and convicted for high crimes which might not all be misdemeanors.
29 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 69.7 ms ] threadBut you have to acknowledge that interpreting is what you are doing - no "this is obviously the truth and alternative facts have no place" as has become so popular. You'll need to accept the opposing view point as valid and engage with it.
And interpreting is what the people who stormed the capitol did.
If you know you’re going to be scrutinised by your words, choosing them carefully becomes paramount—you’ll want to make sure you send the message across while being able to deny it, and the people who the message is targeted to understand and accept the compromise.
If you always consider only the words, you’ll be weaselled out. You have to consider not everyone is acting in good faith.
> You can of course argue that a plain reading of this words is not enough
The people who stormed the capitol might agree.
In this case, a well-established pattern of behaviour forces one to consider the intention behind the words and not just the words themselves. A lot of people acted in unison on a specific interpretation of those words, with consequences the speaker is aware of and (as far as I’m aware) didn’t admonish.
In sum: both sides agree on the interpretation of these words and the person who wrote them is aware of it and didn’t offer any clarification. Thus far, everything indicates the interpretation is correct.
Trump tacitly telling people to enter the building is one possible explanation.
The other could be that they were very angry.
And my answer would be yes, it is ban-worthy, because it isn't going to lead to a productive discussion of grievances. Especially within the context of a poster who has been making the same attack across hundreds of threads, willing to lie and exaggerate repeatedly along the way.
Now, I can hear the free speech brigade on this one, so that should be addressed too. It happens to be the case that members of the armed forces are in a separate category with respect to their 1st Amendment rights. Given that the President is commander in chief of the military, he sits in a place where his speech is of at least the same consequence as a general. Using that speech to interfere with the processes of the US Government, even if credible claims are made, poses a threat to the nation as a whole.
What does he expect to happen? Is it for everyone else to say "Oh, gee, I guess you're right after all, let's do the election over?" If the process is corrupt, but you believe in the system as a whole, you aim to fix it on the next cycle, not instigate a crisis after losing.
"The radical left knows exactly what they're doing. They're ruthless, and it's time that somebody did something about it"
Seems like it would depend on exactly what the president intended that to mean.
And so will they. They refuse to believe Trump has any complicity at all for the effect of his rhetoric or the ways his language can be interpreted, because he didn't give explicitly say "go murder that priest," just "will someone rid me of this turbulent priest."
He sure as hell riled people up and he set the seeds for what happened and has a degree of culpability for what happened. However in regards to the specific question "Did Trump Tell Supporters to Storm US Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021?" the answer is No. Intermediate ratings on fact checkers are what are used to slip bias into what are not very ambiguous situations, because you can say "Yes, but..." or "No, but..."
The good thing about fact checkers, and the reason I generally support them even if I don't see them quite as neutral, is at least they write down the facts so you can come to your own judgement. I just ignore the ratings they give at this point, the articles are much better.
I agree that Trump did not explicitly tell his supporters to Storm the Capitol, as does Snopes.
The grey area is in the riling up you talk about and the phrasing of the question.
Tell/told is often used to convey meaning rather than literal instructions, so I understand why they have stated this is mixed.
It all feels very post-truth to me and seeing a fact checker endorse this sort of view is absolutely depressing in a way. These are institutions of which there is broad support for making the arbiters of truth on social media for whom truth is subject to subjective interpretation. In which case what's the point of fact checking at all?
This free interpretation of words uses a new (repurposed) trendy term too: "dog whistle". Suddenly you are free to interpret anything one says in the most negative light, just by claiming it's a "dogwhistling" for some group or action you despise.
Snopes also claims that this vote is "ceremonial", yet it was used in the aftermath of the civil war to disenfranchise every southern state which sent electors; that doesn't sound very "ceremonial" to me.
Arguably both of these issues are immaterial to the rating, but then why include them at all? And why trust a fact checker who is demonstrably spreading misinformation themselves, however immaterial it may be?
EDIT: I meant the few lawmakers that refused to certify Biden and incited the crowd into insurrection.
This is quite literally the sort of stuff you find when reading about the prelude to civil wars. No really; think about the actual practical implications this would have and what the country would look like in five years' time.
There is a massive problem on our hands, yes, but this is absolutely not the way to solve it.
Rereading the speech I must agree and I don’t know that this will be enough for Trump to be punished in a court. Would “context” and ““knowing they would do it”” be enough to actually blame him?
I think there is plenty of room for Trump to get blamed here even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he didn't expect this to happen. He was droning on about how the election was stolen from him on twitter as people were dying. He riled people up over his horsecrap sore loser claims and people died as a result.
But then again IANAL.
Was I shocked? Yeah, but not because it was surprising. While the specific date and details of the incident are always hard to predict, even a casual observer could see that something like this was bound to happen from miles away. In some ways I'm relieved because I expected it to be far more deadly (which may still happen).
Can we prove that Trump knew what he was inciting this in a court? Probably not. I'm not sure if it really matters as such, depending on what happens with Trump in the coming weeks/months/years.
Like a lot of these sorts of things, the issues are complex, and I think a lot could come to light in coming days that might change perspective on exactly what Trump did and didn't do. But I think some care is needed in being explicit about what's being claimed. I think political biases are bleeding into claims of violence-inciting speech more than people realize. I personally don't think claiming election fraud is impeachable, even if it is followed by events such as happened at the capitol, but I do think, say, coercion of a public official might be, as would willfully neglecting to institute expected security protocols at an event known to be high risk.
You can’t just hide behind “technically I didn’t say kill” as a mob boss telling a hit man you flew across the country to “take care” of someone.
Not just that, but trumps actions once it became known the demonstration had turned into an attack will also enter into he record and his part in police being underprepared.
There is a lot more to this than just the litteral words of his speach.
Did the mob boss explicitly (and perhaps pedantically) call for the person to be killed? No. Did he call for the person to be killed - yes.
I'd point out that Trump has been doing stochastic terrorism for the past 4 years. That he uses a few simple rhetorical tricks, he appears to be a pretty simple man. One that seems to work amazing well is to take multiple contradictory positions. People then try to interpret this. Some go with the interpretation that suits their view (like - he's telling us to storm the capital). Others look at it an try to unify it into some whole - as if Trump is articulating some kind of coherent position that you can divine by looking at the contradictory positions.
No, there isn't some special sophisticated underlying reasoning - it's cover.
Such nuance is perhaps hard for Snopes to get into. If they answer the question literally then they have to conclude no - because he didn't literally say that. He went right up to the edge of explicitly asking for it, and then mumbled a few 'peaceful' bits at the end.
His supporters knew what he meant. He knew what he meant. This was all for his benefit. He knew his followers were talking about doing this (I mean I did).
He could not know for sure it would happen. That doesn't mean that wasn't his intent, and that was not what his actions encouraged.
I would also point out, typically (perhaps always) with previous Trump scandals it's worse than what it initially seemed. More information comes out - and it gets worse. With Georgia election call - we find out they had tried to make the call 18 times. That there were two calls to persuade to 'find votes'.
I have little doubt over the next few weeks, and years as more comes out Trump will look significantly worse around this than he does right now.
This was Trump's mob no one else's.
They were there specifically to support Trump's effort to overturn a valid election whatever it takes.
Some of them even explained what they were prepared for and capable of beforehand.
Now Trump gets a Nixon moment where he can resign without further disgrace for interfering with the election process, and most likely benefit from less interest pursuing his other indiscretions after that.
Or he can end up being impeached and convicted for high crimes which might not all be misdemeanors.