That’s me, my friends.
I am hard at work on a posting about enemies Israel faces: An important posting that will come out very shortly. It is material I am eager to share.
At the bottom of that posting I intended to provide a response to a handful of readers who had written to me with regard to my last posting on Trump’s acquittal, readers who expressed a certainty about Trump’s guilt. But I realize that it cannot be an addendum, it must stand alone: that is the subject of this posting. For a variety of reasons I decided to put this up first, with some new and important information included. And then it is time for closure.
Unless something additional of considerable import regarding this issue arises, I intend this to be the last posting on the subject.
For those who approach the matter in reasoned fashion – and one reader in particular differed with me in exactly that way – there may be an opportunity to rethink matters. At minimum, I would hope my points would be considered with seriousness.
Perhaps some of you will find what I say here useful in other contexts. I hope so.
But first, a correction: Of course Lincoln’s birthday is February 12, and having made an error on this (which left me mighty embarrassed), I set the record straight.
I make no apologies with regard to my celebration of Trump’s acquittal.
The action against him was political in nature, constructed with intent to finish his career irredeemably.
This week Trump alluded to a “witch hunt” and I see this as, figuratively, an accurate description of what he endured. This is not simply with reference to the second impeachment, just ended, but rather to a sustained attack he had to contend with from the day he entered the White House. This was an attack coming from the left, spurred by fear that their progressive agenda, so neatly advanced by Obama, was threatened (as indeed it was). It included not just plans for the first impeachment but the spreading of lies and innuendoes that unfairly undermined his reputation.
I do not believe that the Democrats successfully made a case against Trump on the charges they had advanced. What is more, I believe that he achieved a great deal for the United States that has not been adequately acknowledged in the rush to attack him.
It is hardly a secret that there are people who dislike Trump with considerable intensity because of his style. It stands to reason that many of those prepared to buy into the Democrats’ accusation that he was guilty of “incitement to insurrection” are the very same people who already disliked him. It was easy, perhaps, to slide from dislike for the man to accepting that he purposefully incited insurrection.
But if this is the case, it’s important to think twice, for that is a huge charge.
“Insurrection” is a strong term, suggesting a coup, sedition. Yet Trump’s statements over a period of time – with his calls for law and order, and his passionate expressions of devotion to the republic – simply do not suggest that he is someone who would promote a coup. What ultimately happened on January 6 horrified him, and he told his people to go home.
I like the way Dennis Prager mocked the idea: “Right, insurrection with selfies taken at the desks of people they oppose politically. A selfie insurrection.”
Not remotely was the mob that entered the Capitol on January 6 intent on overturning the government.
 President Trump was still addressing his followers at a venue 45 minutes away when the first rioters broke into the Capitol – the violence was underway before his supporters arrived on the scene. What is more, there is zero evidence that he ever exhorted them to be violent. Before he finished speaking, he admonished them to go peacefully.
 It has been documented that the FBI had information before January 6 that there were groups intent on causing trouble at the Capitol. This is of paramount importance and there has never been a satisfactory explanation as to why, in light of this information, there wasn’t adequate security in place. After the Democrats at the trial decided they would call witnesses, the suggestion was advanced from the Republican side that then they would call Pelosi (who has the final say regarding House security) to question her about this – at which point the Democrats decided not to call witnesses.
There are video clips – I have seen at least one – of guards at the door of the Capitol pleasantly just allowing people to enter. What was this? And how different from the picture that has been painted of what went on that day.
The overriding point here is that if there were plans in place beforehand, the talk Trump delivered to his followers could not have been what promoted the riot. But there is a secondary point as well, with regard to a question of potential negligence on the part of Democratic leadership.
 There were individuals identified as Antifa at the riot. One source I accessed said “at least one bus-load full.” BLM people were identified as being there, as well. These radicals were NOT Trump supporters even though they (or some of them) dressed as such at the Capitol. Far from it – they hate Trump. Donning their MAGA hats, their intent was to lend the impression they were with him. Verbally, as well, they would have identified as Trump supporters.
In point of fact, BLM and Antifa wished to destroy Trump. I wrote about this during the summer, when BLM was rioting: one of the BLM founders said explicitly that the goal was to take Trump down.
It would be exceedingly short-sighted not to consider this factor in assessing what went on.
They took advantage of the situation to generate unrest – just as they had done during the summer. They use rioting as a tool.
Were there no individuals who were genuinely Trump supporters within that mob? I am not making that claim, I could not. But if they were there, it was on their own cognizance. Remember that the charge against Trump was “incitement.” To incite is to urge or goad. Saying, as he did, that we have to fight for our rights is a rhetorical expression, commonly used. He never suggested that they should break the law, push their way into the Capitol, or cause unrest.
In closing, I want to share a Tucker Carlson video, “Everything the Media Told You about January 6 Is a Lie.”
There’s a lot about the riot we still don’t know, Carlson says. What he shares, regarding what is known now, certainly leads to a conclusion that media reports were designed to maximize the impression of how bad the riot was. No, actually they did not maximize. As the title of the segment indicates, they lied.
I urge you to watch this!!
Carlson asks an exceedingly important question: If this was supposed to be a riot by Trump supporters who were intent on causing damage, why is it that the only victims were the Trump supporters?
A police officer, Brian Sicknick (who was a Trump supporter himself), was reported by the media and certain Democratic officials to have been bludgeoned to death by rioters with a fire extinguisher. But it was not so. There is no evidence of his having been hit that way. The facts are that he left the riot and said he felt fine. He died of a stroke 24 hours later.
At least two of the dead were Trump supporters who had arrived at the Capitol but had not entered – they were not rioting. Outside the Capitol, one died of a stroke and another of a heart failure.
At the impeachment trial the charge was made, repeatedly, that Trump had incited an armed insurrection. Armed. But, Carlson tells us, there were no reports of rioters threatening anyone with guns.
So why did this happen, with media sources and certain Democratic officials complicit in a misrepresentation of the truth? One reason of course, is that it would make Trump and his supporters look bad.
Prager suggests that the impeachment trial was an attempt to cover up a left wing, radical riot.
If you consider yourself an objective person, open to receiving factual information, and until now you have been convinced that President Donald Trump had incited insurrection at the Capital, you might, just might, want to reconsider this in light of the above.
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.