From Israel: “Live: An American Tragedy”

Had someone described to me, just months ago, what is going on now in the US, I would have scoffed and said it was unreal, impossible.  But it is possible: we are seeing it unfold in real time.

Perhaps I should title this “An UnAmerican Tragedy,” for this is what it really is.

Credit: zedge


This information is important: Please share broadly.

The Washington Post has secured an internal FBI memo that had been released the day before the violence in the Capitol:

“The Post said the memo described how people had been sharing maps of the Capitol’s tunnels and discussing rallying points to meet up to travel to Washington. The newspaper reported that the document detailed posts calling for violence, including that ‘Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Antifa slave soldiers being spilled.’”



There are significant points to be noted – I would say conclusions to be drawn – from this report:  

The first and perhaps most important: According to the FBI memo these posts discussing violence went out before Trump had addressed the crowd. Thus, it was NOT – could not have been — incitement from the President that precipitated the riot.  It had been planned.

And then, it alludes to Black Lives Matter and Antifa.  Those eager to vilify Trump are unwilling to acknowledge what is going on here, for that would destroy their narrative.  They will not concede the very real possibility that radical elements are working to weaken America.

And here I repeat the words of then Attorney General Barr last August (emphasis added):

“…[the left] represents a revolutionary Rousseauian party that believes in tearing down the systemThey’re interested in complete political victory. They’re not interested in compromise…They view their political opponents… as evil because we stand in the way of their progressive utopia that they’re trying to reach…”


Are members of Congress oblivious to all of this?  You think, really?


The Washington Post report also said (emphasis added):

“…the warning was issued internally by the FBI’s field office in Norfolk, Virginia.

“…The warning directly contradicted statements from the Justice Department and FBI officials that they had no intelligence to suggest a storming of the Capitol.

“…It wasn’t clear if other law enforcement agencies were aware of the report, but an unnamed FBI official was quoted saying that officials at the bureau’s Washington field office were briefed on it.”

The report described what was referred to as “raw information” that was not “finally evaluated intelligence.” Thus, advised the report, action was not to be taken without coordination with the FBI. There seems to have been concern that action aimed at stopping anticipated violence might interfere with “activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.”

I get that.  The First Amendment says:  

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It is appropriate to step very carefully with regard to taking action against groups before they have become violent.

HOWEVER, significantly bolstering of security forces in anticipation of the possibility of violence at the Capitol is not interfering with activities protected by the First Amendment.  Once people are violent, their right to assemble and petition the government is no longer protected.  The amendment does say “peacefully.”

And so: Why wasn’t security significantly bolstered in light of this report??

We see from the report that the Washington field office of the FBI had information that indicated a possibility of violence.  Already, in my last posting I had asked questions about charges that the rioters had found it easy to enter the Capitol because security forces were insufficient.

And so, we really need to take a hard look at what the hell was going on.     

Credit: symbols-n- emoticons


In light of the fact that he was going to be present at the Capitol, and had called large numbers of supporters to join him, President Trump had a right to know what might be coming down.  

Why was he not informed?  

In fact, there is a strong case to be made that because of the risk of violence there was an obligation to not only inform him, but to consider actions to protect him as might be necessary.

None of this happened.


But let us continue…

Mark Levin, referring both to the Washington Post story and other sources, had a great deal to report about this situation in his “Mark Levin Audio Rewind” program of January 14.

Credit: Fox News


Steven Sund, who was chief of Capitol Police at the time of the riots, but has since resigned, was alarmed – not by reports of plans to commit violence (there is no indication that he knew of the FBI report), but by the prospect of a crowd coming to Washington that was going to be much larger than had been anticipated.  He appealed to both head of security for the House and for the Senate to put the Washington National Guard on stand-by.   

Sund (pictured below) was turned down in his request by the two heads of security – the sergeants at arms – each of whom had apparently relayed the request up the ladder.  The reason for the denial was “optics,” i.e., it won’t look good.  

Credit: Rollcall

These heads of security answer directly to Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority leader.  Levin asks the question, what did Pelosi and McConnell know?

Finally, after 5 PM, when things had already gotten bad, backup arrived.


And then, lastly, Levin provides this timeline:

The attack began with an approach to the perimeter of the Capitol at 12:40 PM. Trump’s speech to his supporters ended at 1:11 PM.  They then had a 45 minute walk from where they were gathered to the Capitol, which means they arrived at 1:56 PM.


So what did President Trump say to those gathered?

Remember, he was hoping for Congressional procedures that might turn the vote around, and was counting on the presence of tens of thousands outside the Capitol to buoy the individuals working on his behalf within.  And so, he said things like:

“We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”

But this does not remotely constitute incitement to violence.  He never said they should storm the Capitol or otherwise riot or attack anyone.  

And before they began the walk to the Capitol, he said:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”



Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor of Law, says that Trump’s words were “fully protected by the First Amendment. Nothing the president said constituted unprotected ‘incitement,’ as narrowly defined by the Supreme Court over nearly a century of decisions.”

Trump’s words, wrote Dershowitz, “plainly fell on the side of political ‘advocacy,’ which is protected speech.”

And, concluded Dershowitz (emphasis added):

So the article of impeachment Democrats introduced in Congress—which focuses on President Trump’s speech that urged listeners to go to the Capitol—is unconstitutional. Impeaching President Trump on grounds that violate both the First Amendment and the impeachment clause would do more serious and enduring harm to our Constitution than the unlawful rioters did when they temporarily took over the Capitol building. These rioters did grave harm to the rule of law, but at the end of a long and difficult day, the rule of law prevailed…”


Credit: Todd Heisler/NY Times



I do not intend to belabor here the vile machinations of the Democrats and a handful of Republicans in Congress with regard to action to impeach President Trump when he has less than a week to go in the White House.  It is beyond despicable.

Not only does it weaken the Constitution, it divides the nation.  Apparently the Democrats do not care. They might have settled for a Joint Resolution that censured Trump for volatile speech, and then reached out to everyone in a spirit of reconciliation.  But no…

Trump is correct when he calls this a witch-hunt.  All that seems to matter to the Democrats is shaming him and pursuing matters sufficiently so that he will never be politically active again. “Incitement of insurrection” is the ludicrous charge.  As the trial will not proceed to completion before inauguration, they have some insane notion that they can continue to prosecute the impeachment after he is out of office. I don’t think they will manage this, but the mere fact that would try brings the nation down.


If the Democrats imagine that the 75 million Americans who voted for Trump will accept these ugly and vindictive actions without protest, they can think again.  

The majority of these Americans is still with Trump and would vote for him again.  This is precisely why the Democrats so badly want to destroy the President now.

Pro-Trump Americans understood that the election indeed was stolen. See:


Says Democracy Institute founder Patrick Basham, “Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%. No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his [total] votes

“…the amount of fraud that took place in the 2020 presidential election alone, was nothing short of monstrous.

“Why, then, has one court after another refused to even listen to testimony regarding these many abominations? In some cases, of course, the courts are controlled by hardline leftists firmly committed to ignoring any evidence that might call Joe Biden’s ‘victory’ into question. But in many other cases, fear has played a major role…

“Mark Levin observes: ‘[T]he judiciary has collapsed. They saw the [Black Lives Matter & Antifa] riots, they saw the threats against individual senators. They saw how these violent mobsters would find your home, harass your children, and they want none of it. They want none of it. And so they’d just as soon burn their copy of the Constitution, and that’s what they did.”

What we need is widespread and vigorous political action: pushback against the leftists who are set on running the country.  If it is not too late.


The FBI is reporting that there are threats of violence to be unleashed in all 50 capitals on inauguration day.  I believe that radicals, intent on weakening the nation, are providing the impetus for this. But I cannot say that there might not be some very aggrieved Trump supporters, feeling disenfranchised, who would consider joining them.  But it would NOT be because of Trump incitement.


As soon as violence broke out in Congress, President Trump told his supporters, “Go home. We are for peace.”  He has delivered similar messages of peace since, as inauguration day approaches.  He has made it clear, again and again, that violence is not acceptable.  This week he put out an additional statement:

In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for. I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers. Thank You.”


I want to ask, Where did America go???  But the truth is that this has been coming for some time.

Writes John Perazzo (emphasis added):  “Black Lives Matter is not merely a support group of the Democratic Party. It is part-and-parcel of the party. For seven years, BLM’s ugly record of violence, racism, and Marxism has been on full display for all the world to see. And yet, the most prominent Democrats in America have done nothing but sing its praises — even as BLM’s foot soldiers have burned and pillaged scores of U.S. cities. In light of these facts, Americans don’t need any phony lectures from Democrats about the evils of ‘inciting’ violence or ‘insurrection.’ 

“…On September 16, 2015, President Obama invited three BLM leaders to the White House, where he exhorted them to ‘Keep speaking truth to power.’

“In December 2015, Obama lauded BLM for shining sunlight onto the dark underbelly of American racism, and for doing so much to make America a fair, more just, healthier society.”

Last June, Senator Kamala Harris, speaking about the on-going riots sparked by BLM, said: “But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware.”

Subsequently, Harris, praised BLM for leading “a moral reckoning with racism and systemic injustice that has brought a new coalition of conscience to the streets of our country, demanding change.”

In August 2020, in an article in Vanity Fair magazine that celebrated the founders of Black Lives Matter, “Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called it ‘profoundly exciting’ that the Marxist/anarchist revolutionaries of BLM were ‘discovering their own power’ and ‘educating others’ by way of their activism. In that same feature, Rep. Rashida Tlaib gushed: ‘When I see this movement on the street—that’s where transformative change really starts and it’s hitting us right here in the halls of Congress. It’s been powerful to watch it happen.’”



 © Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.