The Trump Presidency

[Sarkus]

I think you got the timing wrong. AFAI have read, the Reps wanted to start their objections. The best moment for the Dems to stop this. Remember that the police there is under Dem control. After all this ended, the Reps did no longer aim to start objections and accepted everything.

So, it was the last legal attempt of the Reps to fight the result of the elections, which was prevented. If you want to describe that action as a coup, ok, but then, please, as part of the Dem coup - stealing the elections and preventing public representations of the proofs.

As a Trump-side coup that timing makes no sense at all.

Moreover, it makes no sense to name a coup something which had no plan and no chance at all. What I have suggested as the Dem plan was a reasonable and meaningful plan and it actually reached the presumed aims, 100%. And they have even created a possibility to reach something like this:

Who yet knows if there will be Trump alive 2024. Or elections at all 2024. Or Dem or Rep parties. Or the US.

Is this an example of Poe's Law in action? I'm really not sure. I mean, had you put a smiley, a winking emoji, or some such then sure, the parody in what you wrote would be understood as such. But you forgot to put one, so...

 

[pjdude1219]

Is this an example of Poe's Law in action? I'm really not sure. I mean, had you put a smiley, a winking emoji, or some such then sure, the parody in what you wrote would be understood as such. But you forgot to put one, so...

no he is a true believer. him and reality no longer live in the same zipcode

 

[Quantum Quack]

I think you got the timing wrong. AFAI have read, the Reps wanted to start their objections. The best moment for the Dems to stop this. Remember that the police there is under Dem control. After all this ended, the Reps did no longer aim to start objections and accepted everything.

yet... the objections that may be raised would not have prevented confirmation. The confirmation being a mere formality. It was only an opportunity for Reps to show their support for Trump.
The sitting president at the time was Trump. The insanity is that it appears he sought to over throw his own government, his own rule of law and his incitement actually prevented his own supporters from raising their objections to confirmation of the president elect.
This is far from a rational situation ( event ) that makes little sense no matter how you look at it, except:

The only thing that could make sense of it, is that Trump was hoping to inspire a general uprising against the constitution to prevent the transition to Biden on Jan 20th led by the crazy incursion into the Capital building.

The problem is that Trump has to betray the constitution so that he can make use of the constitution...he has to sh*t on the very thing that gives him power to begin with...

 

[Quantum Quack]

Looking at recent video indicates strongly that Trump is attempting to intimidate the American population and congress with threats of violence by his supporters implied but simultaneously denied.

 

[Schmelzer]

yet... the objections that may be raised would not have prevented confirmation.

But they were legal.

The confirmation being a mere formality. It was only an opportunity for Reps to show their support for Trump.

That dude thinks they were unethical. But so what - that was legal, not even that dude denies this, and it was successfully stopped by those entering the capitol.

Then, Trump makes a video saying "go home". But the asocial media block it. Means, they wanted to prevent them from going home. Not?

The sitting president at the time was Trump. The insanity is that it appears he sought to over throw his own government, his own rule of law and his incitement actually prevented his own supporters from raising their objections to confirmation of the president elect. This is far from a rational situation ( event ) that makes little sense no matter how you look at it, except:

This insanity appears only if one thinks he incited this. He was played by using provocateurs in cooperation with (at least some of the) police.

The weak place of all such fake events is the cui bono question: Who has the motive to do that? Fakes are created only by those who profit from what happens. But, given the results, the claimed evil action makes no rational sense. You would have to invent something completely off, like the following:

The only thing that could make sense of it, is that Trump was hoping to inspire a general uprising against the constitution to prevent the transition to Biden on Jan 20th led by the crazy incursion into the Capital building.

Unfortunately, the irrationality of the claimed motive does not matter much. Because one can claim, without hesitation, that the enemy is not only evil, but also insane. An insane evildoer is even more horrible, so for the sheeple who never ask cui bono this is fine.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But they were legal.

That dude thinks they were unethical. But so what - that was legal, not even that dude denies this, and it was successfully stopped by those entering the capitol.

Then, Trump makes a video saying "go home". But the asocial media block it. Means, they wanted to prevent them from going home. Not?

This insanity appears only if one thinks he incited this. He was played by using provocateurs in cooperation with (at least some of the) police.

The weak place of all such fake events is the cui bono question: Who has the motive to do that? Fakes are created only by those who profit from what happens. But, given the results, the claimed evil action makes no rational sense. You would have to invent something completely off, like the following:

Unfortunately, the irrationality of the claimed motive does not matter much. Because one can claim, without hesitation, that the enemy is not only evil, but also insane. An insane evildoer is even more horrible, so for the sheeple who never ask cui bono this is fine.

to me it calls comes down to a simple but extremely important choice for the American people:
Trump or the Constitution
but not both....

 

[pjdude1219]

so is it laziness, immaturity, or the mistaken belief that i don't try and read everything that made you not say my name

But they were legal.

only in so far nobody ever thought anyone would be brazen enough to object to the results with out a valid reason

That dude thinks they were unethical. But so what - that was legal, not even that dude denies this, and it was successfully stopped by those entering the capitol.

nice of you to admit you support unethical behavior

Then, Trump makes a video saying "go home". But the asocial media block it.

that never happened. so nice try

Means, they wanted to prevent them from going home. Not?

nope it means you are peddling in conspiracy theories again

This insanity appears only if one thinks he incited this. He was played by using provocateurs in cooperation with (at least some of the) police.

no he incited this. your refusal to deal with reality does not change this fact

The weak place of all such fake events is the cui bono question: Who has the motive to do that? Fakes are created only by those who profit from what happens. But, given the results, the claimed evil action makes no rational sense. You would have to invent something completely off, like the following:

Unfortunately, the irrationality of the claimed motive does not matter much. Because one can claim, without hesitation, that the enemy is not only evil, but also insane. An insane evildoer is even more horrible, so for the sheeple who never ask cui bono this is fine.

nothing was faked. that was trumps supports acting like the fascists they are. no matter how many times you want to blame BLM or ANTIFA doesn't change the fact this is all on rightwing authortarians like your self.

 

[Schmelzer]

only in so far nobody ever thought anyone would be brazen enough to object to the results with out a valid reason

They think they have a valid reason.

nice of you to admit you support unethical behavior

LOL, double error: You think it is unethical =/= I accept that it is unethical.
I argue it is legal =/= I support it.

that never happened. so nice try nope it means you are peddling in conspiracy theories again

Then tell me what happened. The video itself is visible elsewhere:

The link claimed to point to that twitter shows a page removed https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1346928882595885058 Western media write:

President Donald Trump finally addressed his supporters at the U.S. Capitol building in a video shared to ... The video of Trump has since been locked by Twitter.
Trump continued to stand by his unsubstantiated claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen by widespread election fraud, but told his supporters, who he called "very special," to leave the Capitol.

Facebook and Twitter remove Trump video, citing risk of 'violence'
President Trump told protesters to 'go home' while maintaining he won election in a 'landslide'
Facebook and Twitter removed President Trump's video message addressing Wednesday's riots due to the risk of "violence," as the president told protesters who stormed the Capitol to "go home," while maintaining the 2020 election had been "stolen."

Twitter has removed a video posted on Twitter Wednesday afternoon, in which President Donald Trump urged his supporters to "go home" after a mob stormed and vandalized the U.S. Capitol in apparent protest the legitimacy of the 2020 election.

 

[Sarkus]

But they were legal.

And they were heard, and noone sought to stop them being heard. What was seemingly being sought by the mob was to stop the eventual confirmation.

That dude thinks they were unethical. But so what - that was legal, not even that dude denies this, and it was successfully stopped by those entering the capitol.

When the aim is to stop the overall confirmation, that the timing of the invasion was such that it stopped the token arguments against the confirmation becomes irrelevant. Would you actually expect the mob to know the precise timings, and to only go in once the arguments had been heard??

Then, Trump makes a video saying "go home". But the asocial media block it. Means, they wanted to prevent them from going home. Not?

No. It was blocked because it yet again breached the rules of those sites - i.e. constant unsupported accusations etc. That he also told the crowd to "go home" is an unfortunate case of throwing out the good with all the bad. Reading more into it than that is simply laughable.

This insanity appears only if one thinks he incited this. He was played by using provocateurs in cooperation with (at least some of the) police.

Whether he intended it or not, his words seemed to incite the mob to storm the building. Whether he subsequently told them to "go home" is after the event to that possible incitement, and thus irrelevant to it.
And what else was he going to tell them? "No, they should stay there and fight for me! Fight for the result in the election that I want! Take up arms! Take up the fight! Don't let this election be stolen from me! Vive La Revolution!"

The weak place of all such fake events is the cui bono question: Who has the motive to do that? Fakes are created only by those who profit from what happens. But, given the results, the claimed evil action makes no rational sense. You would have to invent something completely off, like the following:

Who has motive to overturn the election result in such a manner? Well, let's see:
Maybe someone looking to stay in power as long as possible? Maybe some narcissistic bully? Maybe a person craving power who feels it slipping away? Maybe someone who had exhausted all avenues in the courts to overturn election results? Maybe someone with delusions that he actually won the election and felt generally aggreived about what he saw as it being stolen, despite lack of convincing evidence? Maybe a combination of the above?
Or perhaps the Democrats, who had appeared to win the election, and who had only a formality to go through, given that the overwhelming number of Republicans would not go against the electoral vollege votes, and only a couple of weeks before Trump's term came to an end?
Yeah, who would have the motive for wanting people to storm the Capitol building and prevent an orderly transition of power? Who indeed!

 

[Schmelzer]

When the aim is to stop the overall confirmation, ....

When ...

Would you actually expect the mob to know the precise timings, and to only go in once the arguments had been heard??

Not the mob. But the organizers.

No. It was blocked because it yet again breached the rules of those sites - i.e. constant unsupported accusations etc. That he also told the crowd to "go home" is an unfortunate case of throwing out the good with all the bad. Reading more into it than that is simply laughable.

Given that it was clear for them that what actually happens in the Capitol is only some kindergarten game, ok.

If one would really think that there was something serious, like a coup starting or so, then it would have been obvious that sending the people the "go home" message is what matters. And that he says "you are good guys, I like you" is essentially what is necessary to say to people who are doing something very dangerous and should be stopped doing such things.

Who has motive to overturn the election result in such a manner?

Nobody except may be some freaks who really want a civil war. The plausible aim - namely the one which has been reached - was to prevent the presentations of the evidence for the stolen elections in the Congress, and the discrediting of Trump. So, your argument starts with an incorrect question - an invented aim.

Maybe someone looking to stay in power as long as possible? Maybe some narcissistic bully? Maybe a person craving power who feels it slipping away? Maybe someone who had exhausted all avenues in the courts to overturn election results? Maybe someone with delusions that he actually won the election and felt generally aggreived about what he saw as it being stolen, despite lack of convincing evidence? Maybe a combination of the above?

As I explained. Once "cui bono" points in the direction of those suspected of a false flag operation, they have to invent some motive. But this is not a problem, given that attributing to the enemy evil intentions as well as stupidity (once the means are clearly and obviously insufficient to reach those evil aims) is not a problem for propaganda at all. You present a nice example of that. A lot of questions, the reader is free to choose the in his opinion most plausible one, you don't even make a particular choice because that particular choice would be quite implausible.
Compare with the other side. They present a clear motivation, aims which can be reasonably reached with the means used, simply because they have been reached, the means are described, two busloads of Antifa with MAGA caps and some cooperation of the police letting them inside, and there is some evidence for this by identification of some of the participants as BLM/Antifa or so.

 

[Quantum Quack]

When ...

Not the mob. But the organizers.

Given that it was clear for them that what actually happens in the Capitol is only some kindergarten game, ok.

If one would really think that there was something serious, like a coup starting or so, then it would have been obvious that sending the people the "go home" message is what matters. And that he says "you are good guys, I like you" is essentially what is necessary to say to people who are doing something very dangerous and should be stopped doing such things.

Nobody except may be some freaks who really want a civil war. The plausible aim - namely the one which has been reached - was to prevent the presentations of the evidence for the stolen elections in the Congress, and the discrediting of Trump. So, your argument starts with an incorrect question - an invented aim.

As I explained. Once "cui bono" points in the direction of those suspected of a false flag operation, they have to invent some motive. But this is not a problem, given that attributing to the enemy evil intentions as well as stupidity (once the means are clearly and obviously insufficient to reach those evil aims) is not a problem for propaganda at all. You present a nice example of that. A lot of questions, the reader is free to choose the in his opinion most plausible one, you don't even make a particular choice because that particular choice would be quite implausible.
Compare with the other side. They present a clear motivation, aims which can be reasonably reached with the means used, simply because they have been reached, the means are described, two busloads of Antifa with MAGA caps and some cooperation of the police letting them inside, and there is some evidence for this by identification of some of the participants as BLM/Antifa or so.

try this from his own party:

"The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution," she said in a statement. ~Liz Cheney Number 3 Republican.

While there are plenty of ugly monsters under your bed you need to look on top of it occasionally...

 

[Sarkus]

When ...

Yes, when it happened. Past tense. Not some future conditional.

Not the mob. But the organizers.

The organisers who were going to get what they wanted regardless of any protest? Regardless of the risk they would go through to instigate such? Sure.

Given that it was clear for them that what actually happens in the Capitol is only some kindergarten game, ok.

If it is to them, as you say, only some kindergarten game, why bother banning Trump's video at all? There seems to be a lack of consistency in your argument.

If one would really think that there was something serious, like a coup starting or so, then it would have been obvious that sending the people the "go home" message is what matters.

By then it wouldn't have made a difference. The situation was contained.

And that he says "you are good guys, I like you" is essentially what is necessary to say to people who are doing something very dangerous and should be stopped doing such things.

He doesn't say "you are good guys, I like you" in his speech that was blocked, but I'm guessing you knew that, right?
He does tell them to go home, and he does try to calm things, sure. No one is disputing that. His video and account weren't blocked for that reason, but because of his continuing false accusations with zero evidence. He had been warned. The companies acted upon those warnings.

Nobody except may be some freaks who really want a civil war. The plausible aim - namely the one which has been reached - was to prevent the presentations of the evidence for the stolen elections in the Congress, and the discrediting of Trump. So, your argument starts with an incorrect question - an invented aim.

Oh, jeez! There was no evidence, and there still is no evidence. You honestly think that if there was evidence that the courts wouldn't have allowed some of the complaints? You don't think the news outlets, especially the likes of FOX etc, would be all over it? You don't think there hasn't been ample opportunity to present the evidence?
No, all that was stopped was a few spurious arguments, that had already been addressed previously, or some cries for more time to actually investigate the matter further. There was no new evidence of stolen elections being presented that hadn't already had its day in court.

But I'll give you that there was a motive in discrediting trump - but a tiny one, given that the Orange One would have been vacating the premises in 2 weeks. Why go through the fuss, the organisation, the risk, just to see give his already dubious legacy a bloody nose? It simply doesn't make sense. All you're doing is raking up some small possibility and trying to promote it rather than the highly likely alternative: that Trump (probably inadvertently) incited a mob to storm the Capitol building with language and posturing that he refuses to acknowledge, and for which he should be held accountable.

As I explained. Once "cui bono" points in the direction of those suspected of a false flag operation, they have to invent some motive.

Cui bono points primarily toward Trump inciting a mob, resulting in the storming of the Capitol. Whether Trump intended anything more from his words than just a peaceful protest, whether anyone seriously thought storming the Capitol would work, all irrelevant to the fact that his words incited the mob, which subsequently stormed the Capitol, and there was motive in his speech (that seemed to incite): there was a benefit to Trump in maintaining his defiance and looking strong doing so, supported by a show of force. It got out of hand, though.
Now, since you are biased and looking to deflect cui bono away from obvious, you're looking through the trashheap of theories for a motive no matter how ridiculous it might sound.

But this is not a problem, given that attributing to the enemy evil intentions as well as stupidity (once the means are clearly and obviously insufficient to reach those evil aims) is not a problem for propaganda at all. You present a nice example of that. A lot of questions, the reader is free to choose the in his opinion most plausible one, you don't even make a particular choice because that particular choice would be quite implausible.

It's like you're dismissing death by an observed swarm of killer bees simply because one can not point to the specific bee or bees that stung them....

Compare with the other side. They present a clear motivation, aims which can be reasonably reached with the means used, simply because they have been reached, the means are described, two busloads of Antifa with MAGA caps and some cooperation of the police letting them inside,...

... and instead you're going with the theory that someone injected the person with bee venom, simply because you know that the person has a motive to.
Seriously, do you ever listen to yourself and not realise how far down the conspiracy nutjob hole you've gone?

...and there is some evidence for this by identification of some of the participants as BLM/Antifa or so.

Other than one who was there supposedly "documenting" the storming, I'm not aware any others have come to light... but feel free to share your evidence? Or are these to be as baseless as Trump's claim that the election was stolen from him?

 

[Quantum Quack]

So... for the first time in USA history a President has been impeached twice. He is the face of the Republican party. Any future protests or moves towards insurrection by his supporters will add to the body of evidence to be presented at his trial in the Senate to be held some time after the inauguration of Biden.
Congress has contained the situation as best as they can legally. IMO
The rest is up to Trump and the Republican party.

Any future protest against Biden's inauguration is a protest against the constitution, democracy and rule of evidence based law.

 

[James R]

Nancy could bring the house down around Trump's head and it still won't matter
Trump will be out of office in 8 days without Nancy's help

It does matter, for the reasons I gave in my previous post to you. Didn't you read the whole thing?

It does not matter what she and her house do to try and harm or embarrass Trump
It is all just meaningless grandstanding trickery

I explained it to you. What's your problem?

IF I were a betting man, I would give odds against the senate voting to convict in the time remaining
2:1
3:1
10:1
100:1
It ain't gonna happen

Like I said, you mean? You're actually agreeing with me? Then why are you so upset?

then pretending that there is value in initiating impeachment proceedings
is an exercise in time wasting futility.

No.

Since my last post, the House has voted to impeach Trump for a second time. That is not a waste of time, even if it doesn't go further than that. Trump is now the only President in US history to have been impeached twice. This is now his legacy.

Icing on the cake would be if enough Republicans can escape from the bubble long enough to make sure that Trump can never hold public office again.

 

[iceaura]

Remember that the police there is under Dem control.

That is false.

After all this ended, the Reps did no longer aim to start objections and accepted everything.

They did not. (Nothing has "ended".)

As a Trump-side coup that timing makes no sense at all.

Sure it does - stopping the vote count and paralyzing the Federal government is a last resort, dangerous and unlikely to succeed, and what small chance it has gets a lot smaller when Trump no longer controls the upper level command of Federal law enforcement, or commands in chief the US military. He had to launch now, in the window when the new Congress is in session (so the working legislature is crippled, and the right people are present to be beaten, murdered, or taken hostage), but before Biden is inaugurated (and gets command of the military and police and so forth),

He's cornered, see: as soon as he loses the immunity of the Presidency he faces civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution - and not only in the US. That means giving depositions under oath - under oath his continual lying would become felony crime in the US, and is probably illegal in Scotland and Ireland and Germany as well.

But they were legal.

Not necessarily. Frivolous abuse of the courts is illegal in the US. They were tolerated.

Compare with the other side. They present a clear motivation, aims which can be reasonably reached with the means used, simply because they have been reached, the means are described, two busloads of Antifa with MAGA caps and some cooperation of the police letting them inside, and there is some evidence for this by identification of some of the participants as BLM/Antifa or so.

We see once again the phenomenon of the language falling apart when the Republican media feed victim hits the wall of physical record and event.

We all saw the video, dude.
Those were not BLM guys, and there is no such thing as Antifa in that sense - it's another propaganda invention from your source. You parrot them all.

The weak place of all such fake events is the cui bono question: Who has the motive to do that?

Easy one: Trump. His line of defense now is threatening the US with violence from his voting base if he is prosecuted for crimes or excluded from power - that threat is now fully credible. Also, all fascist demagogues gain power and support by demonstrating their ability to get away with lying and grifting and bullying in public - if the more gullible actually believe what they say so much the better, but the goal of the strongman wannabe is to demonstrate that they can get away with anything, that no one and nothing can hold them accountable.

 

[iceaura]

If it ain't gonna happen
then pretending that there is value in initiating impeachment proceedings
is an exercise in time wasting futility.

Nonsense.
All successful demonstrations that fascist governance is not all powerful and unstoppable weaken it, loosen its grip. Trump did not want to be impeached, he tried to prevent impeachment - but he was impeached anyway. That takes the curtain back a few feet - Oz is not all powerful.

 

[sculptor]

curiously
There does not seem to be a constitutional requirement for the senate to hold an impeachment trial.
In Johnson's impeachment trial, the senate chose to deliberate some of the articles and ignore others.
It seems that they could ignore all.

The arguments of that should prove entertaining.

 

[iceaura]

There does not seem to be a constitutional requirement for the senate to hold an impeachment trial.
In Johnson's impeachment trial, the senate chose to deliberate some of the articles and ignore others.
It seems that they could ignore all.

As they did a couple of months ago, yep.

The Party of law and order, the Party of personal accountability, the Party of defending the nation against assaults by enemies foreign and domestic, tucked tail and hid under the couch, whining.

They were forced to stage a charade, though (no witnesses, no testimony, no cross-examination, no new evidence, no implicated Republican publicly questioned under oath or otherwise held legally accountable for what they said, etc). They might have to do that again - it's unlikely that recent events or the continuing shitshow we all see coming in the next few weeks will strengthen their hand, even against the gormless and degraded Democratic Party leadership.

The more often they have to resort to absurd theatrics, stuff even their base cannot bring into accord with the reality they see around them, the weaker they look and the better the odds of beating them.

You do want to beat them, right?

Or if not:

The arguments of that should prove entertaining

Arguments?
Arguments haven't been much of a factor for a while now.

How many cops beaten to death by organized mobs of Republican voters will it take to meet your standards for an evening of good television? - asking for a friend.

 

[sculptor]

2 part question:
Will the house present the articles of impeachment to the senate?
Will the senate try the articles of impeachment of/against Donald John Trump?

 

[Schmelzer]

When the aim is to stop the overall confirmation

When ...

Yes, when it happened. Past tense. Not some future conditional.

"is" is past tense?

If it is to them, as you say, only some kindergarten game, why bother banning Trump's video at all? There seems to be a lack of consistency in your argument.

Because this was part of the aim. To ban Trump. Think about the power they gain in this way: They have now a precedent that they can really ban whoever they want to, without any reasonable justification.

By then it wouldn't have made a difference. The situation was contained.

I don't have a sufficiently certain timeline. I have heard that those guys started entering the Capitol even before Trump's speech was finished. And in all those videos I have seen there always were already people inside.

He doesn't say "you are good guys, I like you" in his speech that was blocked, but I'm guessing you knew that, right? He does tell them to go home, and he does try to calm things, sure.

Of course, I was too lazy to look for the exact quote.

Oh, jeez! There was no evidence, and there still is no evidence. You honestly think that if there was evidence that the courts wouldn't have allowed some of the complaints?

If there was evidence or not you can find out yourself, at https://hereistheevidence.com/. I'm certainly too lazy. At the top they claim "50+ Courts Blocked An Evidentiary Hearing". If the evidentiary hearing itself is blocked, it obviously does not matter what evidence would have been presented there.

I don't know how degenerate the US legal system is. From what I have heard, the Trumpists had, from the start, no hope that local courts will give them something, they hoped only for the Supreme court. That the US itself is corrupt is known - look at the military budget, compare with the Russians, and compare the result. About the court system I don't know enough. The Russians claim that they are corrupt too. I don't know.

You don't think the news outlets, especially the likes of FOX etc, would be all over it? You don't think there hasn't been ample opportunity to present the evidence?

Most news outlets of course. If FOX is an exception or not I'm not sure, I have heard about conflicts there about this. I don't use TV at all, so I don't even know what FOX presents. All the other mainstream media are already gleichgeschaltet. The asocial media have censored any such claims. So, about which opportunity you are talking here?

But I'll give you that there was a motive in discrediting trump - but a tiny one, given that the Orange One would have been vacating the premises in 2 weeks.

Sorry, but that the aim of the impeachment is to forbid him to participate in the 2014 elections.

Seriously, do you ever listen to yourself and not realise how far down the conspiracy nutjob hole you've gone?

You think I have to care about such invectives? With "conspiracy" you cannot impress me, I know it was proposed by the CIA to be used to discredit those who didn't believe the official version of the Kennedy assassination. I have checked this, seen that CIA document. What else? In such cases, the first question is "cui bono". If the answer to "cui bono" points to somebody else than to to the guy who is blamed for that event, I always ask myself how easy it would be to fake that event, to do that "conspiracy". In this particular case, it is quite simple and a standard technique - use some mass demonstration of the other side to send some provocateurs to incite the necessary violence. Have you anything to object against this strategy? Can you suggest some improvements?

Other than one who was there supposedly "documenting" the storming, I'm not aware any others have come to light... but feel free to share your evidence? Or are these to be as baseless as Trump's claim that the election was stolen from him?

You think I collect evidence about such kindergarten parties? I couldn't care less.

That is false.

Ok. This claim came from a Russian blogger who thought that this was local police, thus, under command from Washington DC, which is ruled by the Dems. But the Capitol police seems to be a quite separate structure.

They did not. (Nothing has "ended".)

?????? So these guys are yet sitting in the Capitol or what? LOL. I thought after some time they were taken out of the Capitol or going out themselves (AFAIU some after hearing Trump's "go home"), and after this the vote count was continued and finished. Without the planned Rep objections.

Sure it does - stopping the vote count and paralyzing the Federal government is a last resort, dangerous and unlikely to succeed, and what small chance it has gets a lot smaller when Trump no longer controls the upper level command of Federal law enforcement, or commands in chief the US military. He had to launch now, in the window when the new Congress is in session (so the working legislature is crippled, and the right people are present to be beaten, murdered, or taken hostage), but before Biden is inaugurated (and gets command of the military and police and so forth),

Nice try. But it fits under quite implausible (as you have to admit yourself, I have emphasized this). And it also fits under "extremely stupid". If you want the people inside to be murdered or taken hostage or so, you should at least send there some people able to do such things, instead of very weakly suggesting some arbitrary demonstrators to fight or so.

But you feel completely comfortable with that explanation, because it does not matter how stupid and implausible that explanation is.

Just to clarify my position: I have started this with a "See how the pro-Trumpers look at this Capitol story". Like in the case of the stolen elections, my point is more how all this looks like to the outside world. I personally think that the official Dem version makes no sense, given what cui bono tells us. In the case of steeling the elections, there is the quite serious question that this should be possible, imaginable at all, given that one needs a quite large amount of falsification to steel elections. Judging from the discussion here, I conclude that it was possible. But, whatever, my main point was the view from outside. The whole non-Western world laughs about that banana republic which is unable to organize safe elections.

In the case of the Capitol storm, there is even no such problem. Sending some provocateurs to create violence is a well-known technique, widely applied, and, in fact, every serious political protest which aims to be non-violent has to be aware of this possibility and to organize defense against this, else they will be played with high probability.

Does it matter if there really were some provocateurs or not? Not really. At least it does not matter for what follows. What matters for what follows is what the people believe. The Dems believe the official Dem version, and some version like that proposed by iceaura of the cui bono question seems sufficient to them. What about the Trumpists? Many of them even believe it was ok to storm the Capitol. One can think about those as being ready and expecting to fight a civil war, and for those it does not matter much how the war starts. But there are also many of them who believe that it was a provocation, and they have provided something looking like evidence for this. These voices were strong enough that they were heard also outside the US. Of course, only by non-Western media. In principle, there may be those who don't believe in a false flag and think that this was wrong. But will they blame Trump for this? No. They take a look at the speech, and find there was no explicit "storm the Capitol". Trumps reaction after this, his "go home", will prove them that there was no intention on his side. Given this, the impeachment attempt is not ok. So, both parts of pro-Trumpers will reject what the Dems are doing now. But if the last group can ignore this thinking "ok, they see the chance to use this against Trump, and given how they hate him, it is natural that they try this", those who believe that this was a false flag will be radicalized a lot. So, this action will increase the split.

Internationally, the US has lost a lot of soft power. Even in the Western press people comment this by comparing it with how their media have celebrated similar events in other countries during color revolutions. So, US color revolutions will have, in future, a much harder job - all what will be done now in the US against the pro-Trumpers can be, with a smile on the face "we have learned this from Biden", applied by the governments under color attack. (This already worked, in Belarus, with France fighting the yellow vests, but it is much better if one can see such things from the US.) So, the Russian media have already widely distributed claims about some pro-Trumpers whose airflights were canceled for political reasons.

But the event which will have the greatest impact is the coordinated action of the asocial media against Trump, and, even more, against Parler. This shows the world the danger connected with these asocial media, as well as the general danger of depending on US-based infrastructure.