January 6

No, Antifa Wasn't Behind the Capitol Riot

The people who smashed windows and stormed the building were sincere pro-Trump protesters.


In the wake Wednesday's mob assault on the U.S. Capitol, some conservatives are trying to shift blame from the dozens of pro-Trump protesters who stormed the building to a fictitious antifa boogeyman.

"Those who stormed the capitol yesterday were not Trump supporters," claimed Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. "They have been confirmed to be Antifa. Violence is not the answer."

Paxton's sentiments were echoed by other pro-Trump figures, including Rep. Matt Gaetz (R–Fla.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R–Ala.), and the conspiracist attorney L. Lin Wood, who touted "indisputable photographic evidence that antifa violently broke into Congress today." This assertion, like Wood's previous claims that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is part of a pedophile cabal and that Vice President Mike Pence will face execution by firing squad, is wrong, as are all other claims that antifa was responsible for the Capitol riot.

For one thing, this isn't antifa's m.o. Antifa protesters typically use "black bloc" tactics: They dress in black and conceal their faces with masks and hoods. Individuals will quickly smash windows and set fires, then blend back into a crowd of similarly dressed people. They don't aim to get caught.

The people who stormed the Capitol, by contrast, were captured in numerous photos and videos. Their faces are easily identifiable. Many are obviously sincere Trump supporters associated with the far right. Several of them, including "groyper" leaders Nick Fuentes and Baked Alaska, are well-known to the media by now. The woman who was sadly killed by police under circumstances that require further investigation was genuinely pro-Trump. The guy who sat in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's chair and stole her mail is definitely not antifa, nor is the half-naked fur-and-horns guy. This latter individual is named Jake Angeli, and he is a conspiracy theorist—the self-stylized "Q Shaman"—who has appeared at multiple Trump rallies.

I covered the unrest at the Capitol, and it's simply not possible that these acts of violence and property destruction were carried out by undercover antifa agents. The people smashing windows, climbing walls, and knocking down police barriers were often the leaders of the crowds; they were known to the other protesters. For these activists to be secret agents of the left would have required a covert operation far beyond antifa's capabilities, and at odds with antifa's typical behavior.

Andy Ngo, a writer with a record of harshly criticizing antifa, agrees.

"The people occupying the Capitol building do not look like antifa people dressed in Trump gear or Trump costumes," he told The Washington Examiner. "I have seen no evidence that they are able to coordinate a mass infiltration on this scale before, so I'm really skeptical that they would have been able to do it here without any of that information leaking out."

An article in The Washington Times claimed that a "facial recognition firm" had confirmed antifa's involvement in the attack. That article was debunked, and it has since been deleted.

Thousands of people were at the Capitol on Wednesday, and many of them caused trouble. It's possible that someone, somewhere, was trying to falsely pin a crime on a Trump supporter. But the many acts of violence and intimidation that transpired in the halls of Congress yesterday were overwhelmingly and provably committed by the president's most fervent supporters.

NEXT: Don't Give the Capitol Rioters Power Over Tech and Policing Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well, before I didn't think it was Antifa but now I'm not so sure...

    1. You can't spell Antifa without at least some letters from Robby Soave, I presume.

        1. ROFL

          1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Makings money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its ABC earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can du this to and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page.....work92/7 online

            1. Already getting 2 grand from joe. Why work?

              1. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet.Amr Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions
                COPY This Website OPEN HERE..... Visit Here

    2. I'm certain Jussie Smollett's attackers were in the crowd.

      1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…[ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Makings money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this to and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= USA ONLINE JOBS

    3. Psshhh. Who still thinks antifa is real?

      Anti-Fa was killed in gitmo in 2016, and HRC's body double has been running the anti-fa website ever since.

      1. Bro, the Ku Klux Klan is just an idea!

        1. I like that!

      2. Fuck off sarcasmic

    4. If they can prove it wasn't antifa, then Reason doesn't have to account for their hypocrisy in coverage between Riots this year and yesterday.

    5. So there is this with real reporting...

      Heidi Hatch
      KUTV has confirmed a Utah man involved in violent protests in Utah this Spring was in D.C & stormed the Capitol amid violent protests. @JimSpiewak spoke to him. The story on 2 News at 10. His most often used hashtags: #blm #antifa #burn #fuckthesystem #abolishthepolice #fucktrump

      So yes. People were there to cause shit. No they weren't the sole cause of shit.

      1. And he was at the forefront where the woman was killed.


        Again, for the idiots. Antifa was there. They were not the only cause of the violence. They are also not the sweet nothing angels the media is trying to discredit now.

      2. And since we are debunking conspiracies today...

        Hope robbie tackles the media narrative of capitol police working to instill martial law for trump yesterday.

        Curtis Houck
        Replying to @CurtisHouck
        Michael Beschloss goes onto predict that Trump could try enact martial law, "start unnecessary wars," and possibly use nuclear weapons all within the next two weeks before leaving office.

        Or are we only looking at certain conspiracy theories after yesterday?

      3. No, actually, he was there to document what happened, not to support it, and he confirmed that he was there on his own, not with any sort of group.


        1. He claimed he was there for that, but videos published of his actions there contradict that claim.
          He was there to incite and facilitate, and he was not the only one. They do the same thing at BLM marches.
          Of course there were some Qanon crazies, and other people just caught up in the scene.
          They obviously did not have a plan, they mostly just wandered around and gawked at stuff. There were over 100K people at the rally. If they wanted to take and hold the capital, the could have done so.
          When the shooting at the BLM march in Provo occurred, Sullivan was right there "facilitating". I have said for a long time that rural folks and African-Americans seeking justice need to get together and go after the reds who are trying to make life harder for everyone. It would be a good bonding experience.

    6. I need notarized membership cards!

      1. Where do i send them

    7. Hey, the right gets to have tantrums sometimes too. And if yesterday is the worst of it (which has yet to be seen, but I suspect will be the case), it's time to get over it. Somehow we survived leftist rioters harassing and attacking elected officials.

    8. Robbie, you are usually right on the money but not on this one! Any 8 year old can do a YouTube search of 'Antifa at Capitol'. You will easily find lots of live amateur video showing the black outfits, Antifa tattoos, and weapons make it pretty obvious who was there. Almost forgot the gas masks that are not standard MAGA issue. But the convincing part is where the photos of the Capitol were compared to the Antifa website. They were clearly the same individuals; their names are shown.

      Google is taking down the anti-Antifa videos faster than they can be put back up so may have to check back if they disappear.

      1. I saw a ton of what looked like violence to me over the whole summer. I’m an independent but I really hate people denying the obvious when we all saw it night after night for 3 months. Then Biden told them to stop and they suddenly did.

    9. Not ONE more word [lie] about how 'violent' the liberals/democrats are. NOT ONE.

      1. Who are you? The censor?

    10. The acronym you need is QANON. The dead woman was Q. She also made all of them complicit and responsible for her death in the commission of a felony.

      1. Ignorance runs deep in you

    11. It doesn’t seem obvious to me. In fact it looks as credible as anything else I’ve viewed. Taken together with several videos from more credible sources it’s highly likely

    12. Why does anyone think that Antifa MUST wear "black bloc"? That's just preposterous. When there is extremely HIGH VALUE to donning your opponent's garb, and they make it simple, and absurdly easy to look just like them (their gear is cheap and everywhere), it's not at all a stretch to realize that demonstrators, who are willing to employ aggressive tactics, would be glad to don apparel of those they detest. Your argument is weak beyond measure. Please don't claim to be a great "investigator", because this is not the mindset of one.

  2. Why did the DC mayor tell the police to stand down?

    Why did the police let the protesters through the barrier?

    Why did Congresswoman Cori Bush write a resolution targeting the "domestic terror attack" the day before it happened?

    Even if none of the protesters are proven to be Antifa, there are still signs that the authorities did everything they could to make it happen. Why?

    Because of what they stand to gain.

    1. Republicans must feel real dumb for walking into the Democrats trap then.

      1. They should feel dumb, as a rule. Not just for that.

        1. Third partei coming!

      2. Yes, Republicans and Trump have been real dumb when it comes to politics and propaganda. What's your point?

      3. Republicans must feel real dumb for walking into the Democrats trap then.

        Well, they are called the Stupid Party for a reason.

        Guess which one is called the Evil Party.

    2. No, silly, it's because they are all a part of the Soros-Epstein-Roberts grand pedophile conspiracy!

      1. If I said anything that was incorrect, feel free to point it out. Or just randomly accuse me of being a Q supporter, that is more in line with your intellectual ability.

        1. Your very first question is predicated upon a lie.

          The DC mayor did not tell the police to "stand down". That is just what The Federalist wants you to believe with their misleading headline.

          "The Federalist: DC Mayor Told Federal Law Enforcement To Stand Down Day Before Violent US Capitol Riot"

          But what actually happened was that the DC Mayor did not request additional backup in advance from federal law enforcement agencies BEYOND the help she was already getting from the Secret Service, Park Service, and Capitol Police. In hindsight she probably should have. But not requesting backup is not the same as telling the police to "stand down".

          Furthermore, what ACTUALLY happened was that the DC Mayor requested additional support from the DC National Guard.


          Now with downtown D.C. businesses boarding up their windows, Mayor Muriel Bowser has requested a limited National Guard deployment to help bolster the Metropolitan Police Department. During a press conference on Monday, Bowser asked that local area residents stay away from downtown D.C., and avoid confrontations with anyone who is “looking for a fight.” But, she warned, “we will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents or cause destruction in our city.”

          According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Tuesday to Thursday to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor. Congress is meeting this week to certify the Electoral College results, and Trump has refused to concede while whipping up support for protests.

          Some 340 D.C. National Guard members will be activated, with about 115 on duty in the streets at any given time, said the defense official, who provided details on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. The official said Guard members will be used to set up traffic control points around the city and to stand with district police officers at all the city’s Metro stops. Contee said Guard troops will also be used for some crowd management.

          So, unlike the narrative that The Federalist seems intent to be pushing, the DC Mayor did not tell anyone to "stand down".

          So you are demanding the answer to a question that is based on a lie, and then getting upset when your question isn't taken at face value? The Federalist is lying to you. They are pushing a narrative that is plainly false in order to generate outrage and clicks. This is just a microcosm of the entire problem here.

          Why didn't you have a moment's worth of thought to check on these allegations to see if they were true before demanding answers predicated upon a lie? It took just a few minutes' worth of searching to find the information here. Why didn't you do that?

          1. "But what actually happened"


          2. According to a U.S. defense official

            So a fake person then.

          3. "Why didn’t you have a moment’s worth of thought to check on these allegations"

            How do you know she didn't and just disagreed with you about some anonymous asshole that may not exist being a useful or credible source.

          4. I too beleive anonymous sources and tout their claims as gospel when they say things I want to be true and ignore them when they don't!

            1. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/04/politics/muriel-bowser-dc-national-guard-protests/index.html

              Washington (CNN)Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller on Monday approved a request from the mayor of Washington to deploy DC National Guard forces to the city to support local authorities during pro-Trump demonstrations scheduled in the city this week, a defense official told CNN.

              Mayor Muriel Bowser made the request Thursday in a letter addressed to Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the DC National Guard, in which she referenced protests in the city in November and December that "resulted in a large influx of participants, violence and criminal activity."

              1. I too pretend one person is the same as a totally different anonymous person!

                1. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/01/04/national-guard-deploy-dc-streets-congress-meets-affirm-bidens-victory.html

                  Soldiers and airmen from the District of Columbia National Guard will be on the city's streets this week as Washington braces for protests when Congress meets to officially confirm President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the Nov. 3 presidential election.

                  D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser requested the Guard to have personnel on the streets Jan. 5-7 to help control traffic and perform other duties during expected protests.

                  "At the request of Mayor Muriel Bowser, District of Columbia National Guard is in a support role to the Metropolitan Police Department, which will enable them to provide a safe environment for our fellow citizens to exercise their First Amendment right to demonstrate," Maj. Gen. William Walker, commander of the D.C. Guard, said in a statement Monday.

                  Now do you believe that this actually happened?

                  1. I too attempt to change the subject after my attempts to equate 2 different people fail totally and I'm left looking like a moron!

              2. That has nothing to do with this though

                "According to a U.S. defense official, Bowser put in a request on New Year’s Eve to have Guard members on the streets from Tuesday to Thursday to help with the protests. The official said the additional forces will be used for traffic control and other assistance but they will not be armed or wearing body armor. Congress is meeting this week to certify the Electoral College results, and Trump has refused to concede while whipping up support for protests"

                You're obviously trying to act like that is the same person and request when simply reading shows that it isn't.

                Why are you always such a dishonest piece of shit?

                1. Because he doesn’t have valid points and is obsessed with defending bad people. So when they do bad things he has to lie or source third party lies.

                  Basically, Tubby is a dishonest prog sack of crap.

          5. And all this discussion about whether Muriel Bowser did or did not call out the National Guard in advance, is obscuring the larger point here:

            lap83's initial claim that the DC mayor told the police to "stand down" was a lie.

            It was a lie perpetuated by right-wing media, in this case The Federalist, in order to serve a narrative.

            It did not take much effort at all to see that this was a lie, and yet these claims get repeated as if they are truth. If you want people to take your questions seriously, please make sure they are grounded in fact.

            1. I too insist things are lies when I've totally failed to show that!

            2. Nothing you say is ever grounded in fact. It’s laughable that you would even attempt to lecture anyone about honesty. As you an intrinsically dishonest person.

          6. Authorization for the National Guard in DC has to come from the FEDERAL level. Trump was mute as the mob laid siege to the WH. THIS is why Pence had to authorize the National Guard to come in, which is borderline 'soft 25th amendment' invocation. DC and the WH have different rules that are not governed by mayors or governors.

            Orders from Trump would have superseded any requests for additional personnel, setting perimeters, use of force levels, etc.

        2. So, lap83, you said "If I said anything that was incorrect, feel free to point it out." I did. Why don't you acknowledge this?

      2. That sounds like something someone would say who's been on the Lolita Express....

      3. Oh please...

    3. Why did Congresswoman Cori Bush write a resolution targeting the “domestic terror attack” the day before it happened?

      Same reason, newspapers have pre-written obituaries for Tom Hanks. Or the same reason the Pentagon has a plan to invade Canada. Because someday you're definitely going to need it.

      1. Can't tell if serious. She specifically mentioned the details of the event, which happens only once every 4 years.

        1. I don't know either, anymore. The world we live in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      2. If you are referring to her resolution condemning lawmakers she blamed for inciting the incident, that resolution hasnt been introduced yet, and news about it came out today. Where do you get that it was written before the incident?

    4. Because jackbooted thugs in the police are sympatico with Trump supporters?


      Police were hesitant to use force against a crowd that the president had just fucking invited there?


      A huge conspiracy to make Trump supporters look bad, by letting them do what they wanted to do.

      Gee, what could it be? They all seem so equally plausible.

      C'mon now. You can't actually think like this.

      1. That's why on first instinct they killed a white woman who entered through a window?

        And yet you were upset over delayed arrests in unmarked vans (even though the officers had department and badge ID on their uniforms).

        Weird how your values change like so many copslay libertarians.

        1. She was warned, she and others smashed the window, she was the first one through, she charged police in spite of numerous repeated commands to stop, and they shot her in the commission of a felony. She was affiliated with QAnon.


          Now, all her companions are complicit felon codefendants conceivably chargeable with her death. Go figure.

          1. And then the bonehead asshole CapPolice shot into a hallway that had cops in it, as well as more targets ...er... citizens. You think the cops were warned to duck, or did no one expect some twitchy Barney would shoot into a crowd with no assured clearance behind the woman he meant to destroy?

            Love the excuses, BTW.

      2. I know, right? It's not like the entire nation has been having a discussion over the past year or so about the proper amounts of police force that ought to be deployed, particularly when faced with large mobs. But suddenly, when the police doesn't instantly use overwhelming force, all that goes out the window and it becomes a conspiracy of "the police were trying to make the protestors look bad!!!"

        1. "But suddenly, when the police doesn’t instantly use overwhelming force"

          I too think getting shot in the face for trespassing on property my taxes paid for is the apropriate level of force!

          1. I unironically approve of the government protecting my property from lost souls bent on vandalizing our house so they can take selfies at podiums. Rosenbaum found out, and now so has she.

            1. How is this even controversial. She was also breaking into the area where the representatives had all fled to. It was a pretty clear cut case of meeting the criteria for the rules of engagement, and getting engaged. In other words, she fucked around, and then found out.

              1. So how many times does Floyd get to punch and kick cops trying to make a lawful arrest before they can sit on him to subdue him based this 'rules of engagement' you have established? Or is that different because reasons?

                1. This must be the ultimate non sequitur.

                  George Floyd did not hit or kick police. That is on the record. They accuse him of intentionally falling and going limp to resist arrest. That's it.

                  If you can't see how kneeling on a cuffed man's neck for 8 minutes is different than shooting a member of a massive mob that far outnumbered the police breaking into an area that is holding the entirety of the nation's elected representatives, then I don't know what to tell you.

                  1. It is on video dumbass

          2. It's burglary with vandalism as the crime committed for entering or remaining in a structure with the intent to commit a crime. And that inconvenient death that occurred...complicates things when you are there smiling for the cameras climbing through the windows you broke and hanging from balconies.

        2. I don't think a conspiracy is necessary to explain what happened. The Capitol guards aren't riot police. They probably weren't expecting anything to happen and likely had orders not to escalate things if they did, as police in other cities where their have been protests have received similar orders.

          From their perspective, there was an absolutely massive crowd. Shooting at people would have surely resulted in members of the crowd who were not people storming the capitol being shot.

          At the end of the day it's better then they didnt respond with more force. If lots of protestors had died it would have been a rallying cry for the trump cult, as it is it's been an embarassment to their cause.

    5. Great, another brain dead conspiritard.

      The DC mayor did *not* tell police to stand down.
      Police did nothing to stop the protestors because they're bosses told them not to and their bosses are hopeless fuck-ups.
      I'm sure the claims about Cori Bush are fabricated.
      The police authorities are a bunch of fuck-ups but then that's been true since the dawn of time.

      1. Line personnel don't determine how many people are deployed for any given event. They don't make the call how far back to set perimeters either. They follow orders and so do their supervisors/police chiefs/mayors/governors. In DC, orders from people like Trump.

    6. The actual reason is because she didn't. She did propose legislation holding police accountable for their actions, specifically mentioning Breanna Taylor. Perhaps your sources are mixing this up?

      I looked and could find no reference to what you are referring to. Link?

  3. I would encourage us all to think of the MAGA protestors storming the capitol as terrorists, like middle eastern terrorists.

    Sure, flying a plane into a building full of thousands of people is usually bad, but we all have to look at ourselves and the policies of the USA and think about how they have led to it. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, as they say. Blowback is an expected reaction to the US and its overreaching policies, no matter how legal they may be.

    There is no terrorist threat.

    1. https://reason.com/2017/02/03/trump-terrorism-and-liberty/

      "Your odds of dying from a lightning strike are about 10 times higher than your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack. "

      What are your odds of dying from a Trumpista terrorist attack?

      1. So far, the only people dying in such attacks have been Trumpistas themselves.

        1. The officers weren't even injured yesterday. Far cry from any given BLM riot.

          1. Capitol Police Chief says 50 officers were injured and some hospitalized. He would know. He was there.

      2. What are your odds of dying from a Trumpista terrorist attack?

        I haven't run the numbers but it seems like they only go up if you're one of the 'attackers'.

        Worst Stormtroopers ever.

      3. 100% they destroyed all of dc

    2. "Some people did something."

  4. If I point out how both sides are borrowing from the same book of blaming the other side for what their side is doing, I'm I engaging in both sidism?

    1. If you're sarcasmic you refuse to condemn both sides, ignore your own hypocrisy, and claim only one side is bad.

      1. Except for the multiple times I've said that property destruction and violence for political ends is unacceptable no matter who does it. But you conveniently brush over that like the dishonest fucktard that you are.

        1. No we just know you don't actually think that and have years of you proving as much.

        2. Yet you refuse to condemn antifa. And always condemn anyone who supports Trump.

  5. It's about fucking time. Leftists have been jabbing conservatives with sticks of various kinds for years. They were setting cars on fire and swinging bike locks while Trump was being inaugurated.
    The DNC paid for a work of fiction and presented it as evidence of Russian Collusion. Democrat politicians have been exhorting their followers to get in the faces of Trump supporters. Media journolister hacks have been calling anyone in a MAGA hat a white supremacist (see: Sandmann, Nick). They've also spent at least a decade fearmongering about right-wingers gathering anywhere for any sort of protest, be it Tea Party protests to the 2A supporters in VA last year, while at the same time hand-waving away antifa/BLM 'protestors' burning buildings, looting businesses, ripping down statues, and violently clashing with not only police, but with anyone who doesn't fully toe their line.

    They've cornered an animal and are just shocked and appalled that it's gone on the offensive.

    1. And if conservatives complain about it online, media companies are now taking their posts down, while being cheered on by leftist sycophants. Then they go "Oh noes, right-wingers are flocking to Gab/Parler/other places to speak their naughty-talk!!!"

      1. Of course. What did they expect was going to happen?

  6. "The woman who was sadly killed by police under circumstances that require further investigation was genuinely pro-Trump."

    I haven't seen any reports saying she was armed. Her name was Ashli Babbitt, a 14-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force. She reportedly had a U.S. flag around her neck when she was shot. She certainly doesn't sound like your typical news fodder anti-government extremist. She just comes across as a patriotic American, which may be even worse than an anti-government extremist in the news media today.

    I've read that the video of her shooting and death is out there on the internet, but I sure as hell don't want to see it.

    The capitol cop who killed her is on administrative leave. I'm trying to think of a legitimate reason to shoot an unarmed protester and the only thing I can come up with is if the cop was ordered to shoot.

    There needs to be a full investigation.

    1. What is there to investigate? It was captured on video from 5 feet away. The whole thing happened entirely in frame, you can see exactly who shot her, when, how and why.

      1. This statement will come in handy as a yellow card to pull out when discussing other incidents.

      2. Fuck off sarcasmic

      3. Did the cop aim at her? Or did he shoot her by accident? Or was it a ricochet?

        1. He shot her center mass through the doorway, when the hallway behind her was crowded with demonstrators and other cops (!). If that shot missed he, someone’s head would have been blasted open - maybe one of the other cops.

          A really, really bad shoot from a panicked desk jockey.

    2. "There needs to be a full investigation."

      Sure, they'll get on that right after they investigate the fraud.

    3. I saw the video. She was trying to climb though a window into a protected area, going around a barricaded door. Having an American flag, or being a veteran does not give one a pass on storming the capital and threatening those who work there. It was a fully justified shooting.

      1. What makes you believe she was threatening anybody?

      2. "Having an American flag, or being a veteran does not give one a pass on storming the capital and threatening those who work there."

        Who said it did?

        I said it suggests she's probably not an anti-government extremist.

        And did you see her threatening people who work there on the video? Or are you editorializing?

        Because if you're reporting the actual contents of the video, you should refrain from editorializing about its contents in the same statement.

        1. She was trying to break into a protected area. That alone makes it justified. No difference then if someone tried to break into the West Wing. She died a traitor.

          1. I've been in the Capitol building.

            I've been in the gallery.

            What protected area are you talking about?

            1. Any area that is closed to the public and guarded by police is a protected area of the Capital. Where that is will change depending on what is going on, but in all cases unauthorized violent people trying to get past are far game for acute lead poisoning.

              1. "unauthorized violent people"

                What violence did she commit?

                1. That's called "begging the question".

                  We know she was violent because she was in an unauthorized area and had to be shot.

                  1. She was forcing herself into a protected area.

                    1. We don't give people the death penalty for trespassing.

                    2. Now do the Federal Courthouse in Portland. Machine guns and claymores for all the “traitors”?

                      Wow, this really flushes out the a certain libertarian (?) regard for the person over the state.

                      Do you consider yourself a libertarian, Molly? Or have you found a new love, all dressed in blue?

              2. I think you're making shit up to justify the shooting.

                I think you've decided to justify the shooting, so you're making shit up and throwing it on the wall to see if it sticks.

                That's called rationalizing, and it's not persuasive.

                Anything can be rationalized. Because a serial killer was abused by his mother doesn't justify murdering women, and randomly listing defenses that might rationalize your position isn't a persuasive argument.

                1. I saw the video. It was clear what she was up to. Fully justified.

                  1. Fuck off sarcasmic

                  2. It’s good that you show us all what an evil partisan Marxist you really are.

                  3. The cop shot through a door, into a crowd including other cops. If she hadn’t died, someone else would have. Were those other cops traitors such that their lives were expendable because of rationalized panic? Or did you manage not to notice the crowd?

                  4. Yes, it was every bit as justified as the shooting of Michael Brown.

              3. they should have used a shot gun and shot through the door. thats what Biden said to do when people are outside

                1. Full-auto. It’s the only way to be sure.

          2. Excuse me, but I think you meant that the shooting is justified because she's a white conservative.

            1. Pretty much this. The rest is just this cunt's way of rationalizing away their bloodlust and murder boner for a person who plays on the wrong team. Fucking pathetic. This is why I hate people.

      3. I can point to a dozen riots this year that were much more damning for the person that died. We had riots for people killed by cops who shot at the cops first.

        You really are ignorant.

        1. She was attacking our elected representatives by breaking into the Capital. Fully justified shooting.

          1. Breaking and entering is Assault and Battery now?

          2. I guess we should just wheel out the machine guns for the next Antifa rally that involves arson to a federal building.

            1. Now you’re working up my murder boner!

          3. that only applies when breaking into your home not a public place

            1. They went out of their way not to shoot anti-fa protesters for breaking into the federal building in Portland and setting fires.


              There appears to be a number of double-standards at work here.

              1. I remembering people wishing that there were arrests made in Portland for attacks on the FedCourthouse, but I just don’t recall many calls of “traitor” and “deserves to be shot” from people at that moment. Maybe I didn’t swim in those circles, but how are those circles here, now?

      4. Please continue to make protesting a death penalty offense. You don't sound evil at all.

      5. So climbing through a window is grounds to use deadly force?

        Yeah Molly, you really are prog trash. It’s a shame a good American was killed, and not a Marxist traitor like you.

    4. I try to maintain consistent moral standards. I try. I have no doubt that I fail from time to time, but I pride myself in at least exploring why I feel the way I do about a particular incident, and why I may feel differently about a similar incident with altered points of narrative.

      I don't know much about the details of the shooting, but based on my understanding (and I'm more than happy to be corrected) is you had an angry mob attempting to break a barricade, of which she was one. She was ordered to back off, she didn't. A cop cannot realistically assess who's armed when standing in front of a tightly packed crowd of angry... prooootestersss... with arms flailing. It is understandable that a cop tasked with protecting a barricade may be legitimately scared for his life when staring down several hundred, unhinged and angry people. The shooting... to me... seems justified under the totality of the circumstances.

      But so are many... many other shootings which the media (and in various cases, Reason) have declared 'unjustified'-- again, where critical narrative points differed: Race etc.

      In addition, we are also often told that we are not allowed to consider the background of the person shot-- that it's irrelevant. So if I'm not allowed to point out that the guy-- who calmly walked away from multiple police officers ordering him to stop, circled his vehicle and began rummaging in the center console-- has a history of criminal violence, some of it against police officers, then her upstanding history of being an Air Force vet is also irrelevant.

      I too would like to see the incident investigated, but I don't expect much to come of it.

      1. When I was talking about her background, I was saying that it plays against the standard way such people are typically portrayed in the media--not about whether she should have been shot. Shooting an unarmed protester should be avoided regardless of the protester's background anyway.

        Self-defense or defense of property are legitimate reasons to shoot. If neither justification fits this situation, then what other justifications are we taking about? It's okay to shoot an unarmed protester when they're trespassing? I don't think we're talking about castle doctrine here.

        1. She violently intruded on property she was not welcome at. I'd prefer that she not get shot, but play stupid games win stupid prizes. This isn't simply trespassing, it's breaking and entering which shows a propensity for violence that you can't assume a simple trespasser has.

          If I can shoot an unarmed intruder to my home because I fear what they MIGHT do if I don't act first (I can in my state), so can these guards. If you wait until they do something really dangerous or aggressive that may be too late. Particularly when dealing with a large mob of people and a small number of guards, showing that you're afraid to use the force equalizer encourages the mob to use their numbers to their advantage. I bet that gunshot made the next guy in line think twice about coming on in.

          1. "it’s breaking and entering which shows a propensity for violence"

            Against doors maybe.

            1. Did she break in?, or was she one of those who came in after the doors were opened? After the angry masked young people broke the windows, lots of people sort of wandered in to look around. Even some really feeble-looking old people.

          2. Fuck off Molly you evil piece of trash.

            1. Go fuck yourself, I'm no sock and if you had any experience here you'd know that.

              1. Fuck off Molly.

          3. "She violently intruded on property she was not welcome at."

            She climbed through a broken window.

            1. The translation is that she dissented against Progtopia after engaging in wrongthink.

            2. Protected by her white privilege
              And now she sucks her thumb and wonders
              By the bank of the river Styx

          4. I would agree with you Fat Mike but tell that to teh several people who defended their homes from Antifa/BLM invaders they are now all facing charges. consistancy is the goal but for some reason some people are being charged while others are not and that inconsitancy is part of what led to yesterday protest

            1. Consistency is why I posted that. You can either shoot people who break in or you can't, the crowd around here has always (rightfully) been pro-shooting-the-intruder, or at least in favor of having the right to do it.

              As much as I dislike much of our government, and many of the people who choose to work there, I don't think they have limited rights compared to the rest of us. Self defense is self defense, if this woman had done this on private property in the middle of a riot and a homeowner or shopowner had shot her we'd all be saying "good shoot".

              1. There is a difference between a private home and a public building that ought to be a reason to treat the instances differently. Did you not know that?

          5. Property damage and trespassing isn't violence. Stop being an imbecile.

            1. I think people have a right to use deadly force to protect their property from looters, but if it goes to trial after they shoot somebody, they should probably need to persuade at least one of twelve jurors that the person in question posed a legitimate threat to their property. If she were a looter or trying to set the building on fire, that would be one thing. But I haven't read anyone accusing the woman who died of that.

              She climbed through a broken window.

              And there needs to be an investigation. I haven't even said the cop is guilty--but there needs to at least be an investigation.

            2. And yet libertarians have consistently advocated that violence is an acceptable response to people damaging your property. See all the BLM riots this summer, lots of commentary here about how shop owners would be justified in shooting the looters.

              Why is this one different?

              1. Because it's public property so she owns at least part of it. Something that is also a very Libertarian stance.

                And which, if you're honest, demolishes your point. She was breaking into a building she was part owner of.


                1. My rule of thumb: if you can't sell something, then you don't really own it. There is no "public property", just government property.
                  It's a nice idea that the people own the government. But I don't see any standard by which that can be seen to be true in reality.

                  1. "The bureau said it did not remove the monolith, citing the structure as private property."


                    There's certainly more to it than there is when it's just on private land, and this wouldn't be the first time people have claimed the right to protest on public property.

                    1. Sure. People should have the right to protest on public/government property. I was just quibbling with the ownership claim as I am feeling extra cynical today.

                    2. Uh... public property is explicitly the place where people can _always_ protest, aside from their own property or property on which they have specific permission to remain. Obviously there are degrees of “public”, but the sidewalk is the quintessential public protest location.

                      What the fuck is being discussed here?

                    3. The nature of government and ownership.

                2. So of I own shares in General Motors, I should be free to break into one of their factories, at the head of an angry mob of GM shareholders? Cool.

              2. Was this woman in the process of destroying property or setting fires?

                1. Is that a requirement?

                  DC probably doesn't have castle doctrine or an equivalent, so perhaps none of the legal rationale applies there. The moral rationale does though.

                  Am I required to wait for someone to set my house on fire before I shoot them? Not where I live, and I hope not where you live. I only have to believe they're there to commit some crime other than the initial trespassing/breaking and entering. If I think they intend to vandalize or steal even 1 cent of my property, I'm legally entitled to shoot them. I don't know that I would shoot in that situation, but I do know I wouldn't blame anyone else for doing it. I don't ascribe positive motivation to people who break and enter, they are not there to sell you Girl Scout cookies or tell you the good news about your Lord and Savior.

                  These guards do not have the luxury of individually assessing what ever member of a rioting mob is doing at any given moment. They do know that other members of the riotous mob have been violent, which I believe was all the rationale many here needed for the police to start indiscriminately applying violence to everyone involved in the riot when BLM was doing it.

                  The dissonance between the commentary here about BLM riots and Trump riots really is something.

                  1. "And yet libertarians have consistently advocated that violence is an acceptable response to people damaging your property."

                    You make the observation that plenty of libertarians argued that violence is an appropriate response to looters and arsonists.

                    I point out that this dead woman doesn't appear to have been damaging anything or setting fire to anything.

                    Yes, if you want to argue that we're being hypocritical here, you need to show the hypocrisy. If all this woman did was enter through a broken window, then she was trespassing.

                    Where's the hypocrisy?

                    Again, it seems like you're rationalizing rather than reasoning.

                    You've picked this position, because you don't like Trump or Republicans or for some other reason, and how you're rationalizing reality away in order to defend it. This isn't a Freshman critical writing class where you're randomly assigned a position to defend. There either should be an investigation or there shouldn't--based on the facts and reason. We look at the facts and the reason first, and then we come to a conclusion. It's what separates us from the Shrikes, the Tony's, the ChemJeff's, and the animals.

                  2. The window, and that chamber didn’t belong to the cop who fired his weapon. Ownership rights are not relevant here.

              3. This was a public building, not private property. Significant difference. And there was no looting.

                1. And it didn’t belong to the cop anyway, so ownership property protection is irrelevant to that poor woman being dead.

          6. Except she did not violenty enter the capitol. The police removed the barriers, let them him, and led them to the areas they end up at. There are videos of the whole thing, even cops taking selfies with the protestors.

          7. She violently intruded on property she was not welcome at.

            So property damage *is* violence after all.

        2. Correct Ken and has Reason told us when a group of people went to Hawlys(sp?) house and banked on teh door when only his wife was that a crowd is not a reason to fear.

      2. there were literally about 3-6 police in body armor with AR-15's standing directly behind her, not but 2 feet away from her when she was shot. they seemed completely stunned that she was shot.

        How much of a threat could she be with a group of armed officers with ar-15's standing right behind and next to her?

        1. “Directly behind her” means that the cop who fired did so without a sight picture of the background, and thus (definitionally) discharged his weapon negligently.

    5. She got shot after getting halfway through a window from about 2 feet away. She had no weapon on her.

      1. People have rioted over less.

        1. Yea, this. Had this been a BLM 'protest' and the person shot and killed was black, they would be deified and the outrage machine would be cranked up to 11.

          1. Is it okay to shoot patriotic Americans that wander off the game preserve for some reason?

            They ought to at least make 'em buy a license to show the game warden!

        2. For months, even.

      2. Thank you, I haven't seen any video... but I still like to be careful about determining armed vs unarmed. As Doug Marcada says, weapons are to be felt, not seen.

        FYI, none of what I'm saying is to construe that I think she *might* have been armed, but just that the cop had to make a decision in the moment.

        I was nearly attacked by a homeless dude a couple weekends ago... there was nothing in his hands, however, I still considered the possibility that he was armed, as he could have reached into his back pocket in a flash and drawn a knife.

        1. When you are attacking the Capital and trying to climb though a window to get around a police barricade that is protecting members of Congress then it does not matter if you are armed or not.

          1. Climbing in a window gets the death penalty now?

            Lotta homeboys gonna be mad bout dat.

          2. "When you are attacking the Capital . . .

            Just for the record, "capital" in this context, refers to the city. Washington DC is the capital of the United States, and the capital of California is Sacramento. The building in which the legislature meets in the capital is referred to as the "capitol". There is a capitol building in Sacramento, the capital of California, and in our nation's capital of Washington DC, congress meets in the capitol.

          3. So you’re saying the feds should have killed all those antifa scum who attacked the federal building in Portland?

            1. Claymores and defilade fire from machine guns. Oh, wait - that’s the Democrats’ solution.

    6. She just comes across as a patriotic American, which may be even worse than an anti-government extremist in the news media today.

      I'm pretty sure "patriotic American" and "anti-government extremist" are synonyms as far as the media is concerned. Or at least they will be in a couple of weeks.

      1. Goddamn, gotta update the sed scripts for the newspeak translator again. Is “freedom” —> “slavery” yet? I have to keep up...

  7. Yeah it`s Possible...Anybody can earn 250$+ daily... You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job...It's easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish... It's a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  8. Antifa protesters typically use "black bloc" tactics

    Tactics so clearly defined in a singular manuscript that you use quotes and lower-case to describe them.

    "We know it wasn't Antifa because Antifa doesn't like to get caught." ROFLMAO, that explains all the video footage and high profile overtures by public officials to secure Antifa-rioters release.

    Goddamn it would be funny if it weren't so "Hong Kong-protests" sad.

    1. they also like to use pipe bombs and molotov cocktails, which were found lying around at the scene...and of course attributed to the Trump protesters who, afaik, didn't actually hurt anyone.

      1. afaik, didn’t actually hurt anyone

        Government officials and people who worship the steady drum beat of election pageantry were scared. What worse violence could there possibly be?

        1. Some of them appeared to be scared, others were taking pictures with their phones

  9. So Antifa successfully morphed themselves into known MAGA bros who livestream themselves on a near daily basis? I guess at this point there's no ceiling on how brazen the lies can get.

    1. I guess at this point there’s no ceiling on how brazen the lies can get.

      Welcome to 2020.

      1. Hell, welcome to 1998 for that matter.

      2. Welcome to 20201

        Something tells me 2020 was just the warmup round.

  10. The narrative of this being antifa has already taken hold. The lie will not die. However, those some people who claim to think it was antifa still can not bring themselves to denounce the actions.

    1. I'm not blaming Antifa. I'm blaming the cops who let them through the barricade and the DC mayor for telling the cops to do so.

      1. It was either that or shoot them all. The police really did not have many options.

        1. If we don't shoot one of them, then we have to shoot them all may be the king, lord, and god of all false dichotomies.

          Congratulations on your accomplishment.

          There was another option--the one where they don't shoot unarmed protesters at all.

          Even if Eichmann was just following orders, that's not necessarily an excuse. Sometimes you're supposed to disobey orders!

          1. Ken speak: it’s ok for patriotic white peoples to disobey orders. Such a sad man, but delicious tears.

            1. Ooo look, commie shitheel! Crawl away, commie shitheel.

        2. So, you're saying that the police had to shoot someone... one person... that particular person... or their only other option was to shoot everyone?

          Why is it not possible to have roughly the same outcome without shooting anyone again? She was that dangerous?

          1. She had to destroy the village in order to save it. Democrats are fucking evergreen!

  11. Incidentally, there is a difference between speculation until the news comes out, on the one hand, and an outrageous conspiracy theory. Jesse Walker might tell us to look at what the conspiracy theory in question tells us about the people who believe it, and the same probably goes for legitimate speculation, as well.

    What this speculation about anti-fa tells us about the people who believe it is that this kind of behavior is considered more typical of anti-fa and BLM. We've seen anti-fa and BLM do this kind of thing all over the country all summer. Seeing this come from the right is atypical given recent history.

    That being said, the general rule that oppression breeds revolt doesn't break down because the oppressed are Republicans, and I think these protesters were probably ahead of the curve--a preview of what's to come if and when we see the Supreme Court stacked, the Green New Deal enacted, Medicare for All instituted, and our gun rights assaulted during Joe Biden's first 100 days in office.

    The progressives, the social justice warriors, and the media have spent the last 12 years telling the white, blue collar, middle class how much they hate them--and they weren't kidding. They fully intend to pursue policies steeped in that hatred to the best of their ability. I maintain that most of this isn't about Trump. It's about Biden's and the Democrats' agenda.

    And considering that agenda, the people who stormed the capitol yesterday are not wrong to believe that the Democrats are out to get them.

    1. And considering that agenda, the people who stormed the capitol yesterday are not wrong to believe that the Democrats are out to get them.

      Weren't we told explicitly by the Democrats that there would be a national cleansing of anyone who supported Donald Trump?

      1. Absolutely.

        And, I maintain, that most of this wouldn't be happening if the Republicans had won in Georgia.

        It isn't about Trump per se.

        It's about the Democrats, their unacceptable agenda, and the lack of limits on their power.

        1. I’m all for striking back against the ongoing treason and oppression of the democrats. Breaking into a public building isn’t productive.

          The democrats must be destroyed. They are an existential threat to this country and every American. We need to come together to rid ourselves of their them. We need coordination, and a plan.

          1. Storm the building they are congragating in and hang them sounds like a good plan.

        2. No Ken

          Trump lost the election for the Georgia republicans.

          1. What you said and what he said can both be true. Or did you not realize this?

    2. What this speculation about anti-fa tells us about the people who believe it is that this kind of behavior is considered more typical of anti-fa and BLM. We’ve seen anti-fa and BLM do this kind of thing all over the country all summer. Seeing this come from the right is atypical given recent history.

      I'm sure that's part of it. I also think that a lot of people don't want to believe that "their side" are violent retards, only "the other side." That's why we saw some instances this summer of people claiming that some of the violence at antifa/ BLM riots, er, I mean "fiery but peaceful protests" was the result of right wing agent provocateurs. They want desperately to believe that they are the "good guys" and it's those other people who are the "bad guys" when in reality there's people willing to commit violence to get what they want across the political spectrum.

      Usually things are, for the most part, exactly what they appear to be. If a bunch of black bloc retards start rioting and burning shit at an antifa "protest" then they're probably far left antifa red guard cosplayers. If a bunch of what appear to be Trump supporters start rioting at a protest over the election, then they're probably Trump supporters.

      1. ^^^ this..... if your side does something wrong and you want to believe it was actually the other side..... you are probably wrong.....

        1. There are violent retards, and the there is the Most Triumphant Antlerman! The funniest thing I’ve seen in quite some time.

    3. Jeez Ken you are clutching at straws here. You are often logical even when we disagree. You sound desperate now.

      They have already identified some of these people and will get the rest. They will be charged and go to court.

      These people are not upset about the green new deal or any of that crap you listed as an excuse. They believe that Trump won the election and dozens of conspiracy theories and unproven allegations to prove it all backed by the president. That is all nonsense.

      The Republican Party is fractured beyond repair Ken. You know who is responsible for that? You are. You personally.

      These people were wrong Ken. You backed the wrong horse.

      Now we are stuck with the consequences. Great job there.

      1. How the fuck do you know what they believe?

        1. Have you been following what Trump and his followers have been saying since he lost the election? Have you read or heard his speech? Don’t you know what the whole thing was about?

          There has never been such a rally for a deposed president in our history. The assault on the Capitol while the senate was in session to announce the election over. This is the first time in our history this has happened. Was the timing just a coincidence?


          Solve for a.

          1. So, you know because mind reading? Or was it phrenology?

          2. The value of “a” depends on the numerical radix. Your assumptions are quaint.

  12. Not many people ever thought it was Antifa. That was just a trial balloon narrative floated by the right in case the public was repulsed by storming the Capitol.

    But it turns out, nobody gives a shit either way, so no need to find a scapegoat. Besides, BLM gave them precedent to do shit like that.

    1. But it is also the balloon the media has latched on to to declare all supporters of Trump as racist conspiracy nuts. Just like Q-Anon.

  13. How many people died from protests that happened at the Capitol in the past? Sincere question

    1. This was not a protest, it was an attack.

      1. Who was attacked?

      2. I'm seeing a lot of feelings from you that seem to be independent of associated facts.

      3. Fuck off sarcasmic

      4. Your progtardery is an attack on the constitution and all Americans. Therefore you should approve of the use of lethal force to neutralize the threat you pose. As well as most progressives.


      5. The best you got is desecration of a corpse, because the Constitution was already attacked & killed on Nov 3.

    2. Well, Puerto Rican terrorists (really!) slipped into the House gallery while in session, and opened fire with handguns. Four (five?) Representatives were wounded, 1956.

      I’m not sure if this was a demonstration, but it should put today’s “assault on Democracy” flatulence in perspective, though.

  14. But Biden told us Antifa is just an idea, not actual people.

    Also, kudos Robby for using "mob assault". Your MSM masters are happy to see you pushing the new narrative. Burning down police stations and cities, totally is "mostly peaceful protesting", but a few broken windows, that is WAY TOO FAR!!!

  15. Just so you know... I've pretty much spent most of my life listening to the left in both Fiction and Non-fiction describe opposition infiltrators getting into their movements and 'pushing them towards violence' to 'discredit them'.

    The fact that someone on the right stands up and floats this idea doesn't even wiggle the controversy needle.

    1. The fact that someone on the right stands up and floats this idea doesn’t shouldn't even wiggle the controversy needle but will.

    1. A bunch of fine, sane, upstanding citizens they are, yup!

      1. Still waiting for Stephen Colbert to start a bail fund.

        1. I'll be shocked if the radio talking heads like Hannity and Beck don't start a legal defense fund for these poor, maligned patriots.

          1. All bail is racist, you racist.

          2. A hundred dollars says neither Beck nor Hannity do it. Or maybe you'd like to give me odds?

    2. Nards, which one is you?

      1. Do you find it "whataboutism" to point out that just yesterday you stated you refused to denounce the BLM riots because not every protestor was a rioter.. yet here you are blaming the entire protest crowd on the actions of an estimated 3 dozen people who entered the building.


        Almost like you're a proven hypocrite.

        1. He doesn't have to condemn every crime you dredge up from your ass in order to condemn the one that happened yesterday, bootlicker.

          BLM has absolutely nothing to do with this.

          1. Me telling him that property destruction and violence for political ends is wrong no matter who does it isn't good enough for him. And you're right. If I give in then there's no end to the things he'll say I "silently support." I'm not going to play his stupid game.

            1. The disingenuous of the attempted distraction is obvious. It's so obvious I can only conclude that they haven't got their full marching orders from Tucker yet.

              Someone else committing a crime doesn't excuse your own crime. Someone else being a hypocrite is not worse than committing terrorism.

              They want these easy moral distinctions confused. All part of the power play.

              1. Someone else committing a crime doesn’t excuse your own crime

                Now all tou have to do is find a person actually making that argument and you'll be golden.

                1. Literally everyone.

                  Why is Antifa even being talked about?

                  1. Everyone?

                    So me?

                    Some quotes should be easy to find then.

                    But I think you're lying. So you'll pop off a bitchy reply and then run away.

                    1. Talk to all the people who keep bringing up Antifa then. I'm tired of dealing with it.

                      Can't have a conversation about yesterday's terrorist attack without people bringing up irrelevant shit.

                    2. So you were lying that it was "literally everyone" got it.

                    3. You weren’t wrong about it’s bitchy reply, though. Heh.

          2. He's not asking you to "condemn every crime[he] dredge[s] up from [his] ass". He's asking you to condemn the most obvious parallel from recent times to prove you're not the kind of whore who switches positions depending on whose ox is getting gored

        2. Except I didn't blame the entire crowd.

          One of these days you'll argue against something I actually said.

          1. No, you lie and deny when we do that too.

            1. No. I don't say anything and then you start arguing with the voices in your head and claim they are me. You're delusional and need professional help. Or you're a dishonest prick. Yeah, I'm going with door number two.

              1. Do try to keep up drunk, you've been caught lying many times. With your actual words.

                1. Only if you're so stupid (or dishonest) that you think (or disingenuously claim) intentional hyperbole, usually accompanied with exclamation points to emphasize that I'm not serious, is me being absolutely serious.

                  1. I'm sorry that youve been caught many times and now are known to everyone as a liar.

                    And yes we are all familiar with your "clown nose on clown nose off" bit. No one buys it.

    3. The headline seems a bit over the top. But yeah. not exactly a bunch of real winners. Sort of the Antifa of the right in appearance at least.

  16. You know the Trumplicans regret their actions when they desperately try to blame Antifa.

    Cameras don't lie. I know grizzle when I see it. Them were some grizzled motherfuckers.

    1. Tony and I are once again in agreement. There was testosterone in that crowd. If they were antifa, it would have been a band of gender neutral twinks breaking through the barricades. And the woman who was shot would have weighed somewhere around 300 lbs.

      1. There was methamphetamine in that crowd.

        1. Well, if they were homeless Trump supporters (and believe me, I've seen a few), then this may have been an effective way to get 'em off the street.

      2. There was testosterone in that crowd. If they were antifa, it would have been a band of gender neutral twinks breaking through the barricades. And the woman who was shot would have weighed somewhere around 300 lbs.

        That's probably the most damning evidence against the anitfa infiltrators conspiracy theory.

    2. You know the Trumplicans Antifas regret their actions when they desperately try to blame Antifa Trumplicans.

      Cameras don’t lie. I know grizzle when I see it. Them were some grizzled motherfuckers.

  17. Oh, is it just me, or are media "fact checks" becoming the most laughable form of journalism in the history of stupid journalism?

    While googling something earlier, I saw a Reuters "fact check" that Kamala Harris supported 'protesters', not rioters. Jesus fucking H Christ on a tapdancing cracker. That's the fucking goddamned point. You point to a bunch of people attempting to murder (in some cases successfully), burn down, destroy, intimidate, smash, then call them 'protesters'. Voila! You don't support rioters, you support "protesters".

    1. People are pushing back on the evil rightwing propaganda that attempts to kill the civil rights of black people, and the associated movements, by equating them all with terrorists.

      Guess what you fuckers don't get to do anymore? Your people stormed the US capitol during the electoral college count. BLM has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this. You're being a poodle of the Nazis. You're embarrassing yourself.

      1. I give up: what don't they get to do anymore?

        Are you going to start demanding consistency now?

        1. They don't get to pretend that the only violent ones are the left.

          It was always a lie. Now it's a ridiculous lie.

          1. I'm sorry, Tony, but I don't really want to do both sides on this one, especially seeing as it's very inconvenient. I pull that out only at opportune moments.

            1. There's nothing to both sides. Antifa is no more relevant to the terrorist act yesterday than the emperor of Japan.

              If you're going to spread pro-terrorist propaganda, I'm going to call you a terrible person.

              1. I agree, there's no both sides.

                The Capitol has a great impact on MAGAheads. Capitol has a great impact on everyone, and frequently fucks everyone over. I understand why it's a target.

                On the other hand, why the hell does BLM and Antifa burn down the businesses and homes of peaceful people because the cops beat and kill people? That doesn't make sense at all. It just creates more victims.

                They're completely different.

                1. On 9/11 did you say "But whatabout the IRA??"

                  That's what you sound like right now.

                  1. You seem really desperate to take the light off your side's violence by losing your shit over trespassing.

                  2. Yeah, except 911 was a huge tragedy and crime and yesterday's events were a bunch of losers barging into a government building and no one got killed or seriously injured except one of them.

                    1. One of the cops got killed too. He died yesterday from injuries sustained when a mostly peaceful protester threw a fire extinguisher at his head.

    2. It's Pravda at this point. It sounds like state propaganda from a communist dictatorship. In many cases it probably is, quite literally.

  18. Funny thing is I remember a few months ago some left leaning commentators claiming, baselessly, that the violence at BLM/ Antifa riots was also some kind of elaborate false flag operation by proud boys and other "right wing extremists."

    Seems like there's a lot of partisan dipshits on both sides who just can't come to grips with the fact that some people on their side are more than willing to commit violence over a political feud. Despite the fact that many people have said in their own words that they're willing to commit political violence if they don't get their way. There was a poll sometime last year that showed that something like ~20% of both registered Republicans and registered Democrats believed violence would justified if the wrong team won the 2020 election. Also, many people have posted on social media and various websites their intention to riot and commit political violence if their side doesn't get their way. Then when it turns out that in some cases it's not just faux internet "tuff gai" posturing the dipshits want to pretend to be shocked and appalled and claim that it's some elaborate false flag by "those other people."

    Really this is all exhibit A in why the federal government's power, size, and scope needs to be severely reduced. If not eliminated altogether. Just dissolve the union and let the 50 states go their separate ways. I think we'll be better off in the long run.

    1. Any other terrorists you want to take time out of your day to defend?

      1. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so they say.

        1. Nobody calls Nazis freedom fighters, except Nazis.

          Also Nazi-like: absolute moral flexibility.

          I remember when the right were panicked about the left doing away with morality. It's almost like that was code for white power the whole time.

          1. One man's Nazi is another man's freedom fighter.

          2. Nobody calls Islamic jihad freedom fighting except extreme Muslims.

            That doesn't mean you don't try to understand them, and trying to understand isn't moral flexibility. If you really want to solve problems, you have to understand, and demonizing doesn't count.

            That reminds me of a story: I have a friend who grew up in Martha's Vineyard. She'd only known democrats her whole life. She thought conservatives were mean and nasty, but she'd never met one.

            Then she met some, and she realized that they weren't mean and nasty. And then noticed that her new conservative friends never demonized anyone, while her old democrat friends did it all the time, as if it was their favorite past time.

            She says this was the first election she voted for a republican.

            You keep being you, Tony.

            1. Yet it was Republicans who stormed the US capitol in an attempt to overturn the election of the president.

              1. At least no one was hurt except one of their own. Can't say the same for democrats.

                1. And the inconvenient fact that the property damange and loss of life was 1/1000000th of what we saw over the summer and to this day in Portand.

                  1. One burning tire and all of a sudden nobody gets to protest for black civil rights anymore.

                    People storm the US capitol in an attempt to overthrow the government, and you find moral ambiguity.

                    How early do you people jack yourselves into Newsmax for this bullshit?

                    1. Perhaps you are confused. I have never supported violence of any kind. I do not support political violence. Some is more justifiable than others, but I don't feel like gettin that technical.

                      I'm too busy with the fact that the president incited his supporters to storm the US capitol, and you licking every fucking boot you can get your lying hands on.

                    2. "I’m too busy with the fact that the president incited his supporters to storm the US capitol, and you licking every fucking boot you can get your lying hands on."

                      Did you expect something different?

                    3. ". I have never supported violence of any kind"

                      Demonstrably untrue, you vote Democrat.

                    4. You're using the term "war" only escalates the situation. It's a lie that presents them as worse than they are, for no other reason then to justify the escalation of the violent response.

                      Stop lying and stop making it worse.

                    5. Calling unarmed black teenagers 'burning tires' feels pretty racist to me.

                    6. “overthrow the government” hahahahaha hahahahaha

              2. Oh, come on! That was nothing compared to what BLM did! There couldn't have been any consequences for the entire country had the Trump mob succeeded in their goal! Besides, it was only a few bad apples! Unlike the BLM marches where literally everyone was a rioter (if you don't stop the rioters then you're a rioter, unless you're a Republican)!

                What's the big deal?

                1. Weird how you think your silence on BLM and vociferousness on this is a point in your favor and not a tacit admssion of your political biases.

                  You cant seem to shut the fuck up about THIS, but we aren't supposed to think your silence on BLM/antifa riots means anything at all.

                  1. The irony here is that while the Trumpistas are saying that it was a few bad apples that broke windows and stormed the building while
                    the crowd outside bears no blame, anyone who says the same thing about the BLM marches is skewered as a communist sympathizer.

                    Try some intellectual honesty for once.

                    1. And still you run your ducksucker about THIS then expect people to beleive your silence on BLM/antifa means nothing.

        2. I believe given the narrative we've been steadily fed by the Blue Checkmarks is one man's terrorist is another man's peaceful protester bravely standing up for justice.

          1. Trumpers broke into and occupied the US capitol building during a joint session of Congress while it was formalizing the election of the next president.

            1. It's their building.

              1. They're all going to prison.

                1. Realized you couldn't refute me did you?

      2. Read the whole comment asshole, I wasn't "defending terrorists," you fucking asshat. I was stating that both the far left and far right have committed political violence and in both cases attempted to blame the violence their side committed on agent provocateurs from the other.

        Are even capable of understanding English? Jesus fucking Christ, if you aren't the dumbest motherfucker on the planet you've got to be in the top ten. People like you are why I hate humanity.

      3. They weren't fucking terrorists, they were LARPers. Nothing happened except a vote got delayed and a few windows broken.

      4. Any other terrorists you want to take time out of your day to defend?

        Wow. He criticizes both sides for being unwilling to believe that there are people on their own side who will use violence (which he implicitly denounces) in support their own side, and you claim that tlmeans he is defending terrorists.

  19. I also find it "cute" that all of a sudden the media is willing to call riots what they are instead of "fiery but mostly peaceful protests." God dammit these assholes are fucking pathetic.

    1. I'm skeptical that you people are the prim diction police you spend all your time pretending to be.

      BLM was mostly peaceful protests. There was some property destruction, all of it condemned by BLM. If there were some anarchists on the left who didn't condemn it, OK, but your attempt to make everyone responsible for the fringe, while at the same time breathlessly making excuses for fucking terrorists who stormed the US capitol, that makes you a bootlicker.

      1. The narrative is that if you don't condemn every protester as a rioter, call every protest a riot, and say BLM encouraged the violence, then you're just as bad as the rioters.

        Like you said, it's a disingenuous power play.

        1. I think it's more that you are obviously silent when it's people you agree with politically, and then you try to pretend your silence wasn't calculated.

          And it's obviously bothering you that people are noticing that about you.

          1. When I don't say something, you and your Trumpista friends demand I respond to stuff you make up about what you think I really think. Know what that's called? Attacking a straw man.

            1. Hey man you can keep trying but it should be clear at this point that it isn't working and no one believes you, and that really bothers you.

      2. I just wish you would treat capitol protest terrorists with the same consideration you give middle eastern terrorists.

        1. I'm for due process for all of them and always have been.

          The constitution even gives traitors a couple extra protections.

          1. So your problem is that you don't know the definition of treason.

            1. US citizens committed an act of war against the US government. I know it just fine.

              Keep defending them. Knock yourself out.

              1. Fuck off Molly

              2. So you don't know the definition of war either.

                If you care so much about the rule of law, you should try reading it once and a while.

                1. Occupying a national capitol with the intent to overthrow its government isn't an act of war?

                  Republicans have really fucked you idiots up, haven't they? I'm sorry.

                    1. "It's OK as long as it's not an act of war!"

                      Your trollish bullshit is more Nazi than an actual commitment to killing leftists. Orwell wrote about you if you're not familiar with the concept.

                    2. Tony
                      January.7.2021 at 3:22 pm
                      Occupying a national capitol with the intent to overthrow its government isn’t an act of war?

                      January.7.2021 at 3:32 pm
                      “It’s OK as long as it’s not an act of war!”

                      I love watching you admit you were wrong.

                    3. It is an act of war against the United States.

                      Even if it weren't, it's still bad.

                      You'd understand if it were BLM instead of Trumpers.

                      Your lack of a morality is your problem. Until you make it mine, of course.

                    4. You’re using the term “war” only escalates the situation. It’s a lie that presents them as worse than they are, for no other reason then to justify the escalation of the violent response.

                      Stop lying and stop making it worse.

                    5. Escalate? They attacked and occupied the US capitol while Congress was picking the next president.

                      What could it escalate to? Them winning?

                    6. “Escalate” like shooting somebody, you colossal moron.

                  1. Please explain how occupying the Caputol, even if they'd beensuccessful, would have resulted in the overthrow of the government. Realistically the most that would have happened is that the electoral vote count would have resumed later and maybe in a different location.

                    If you want to overthrow the government, you arrest the leaders of that government, you get the army on your side, you suspend the constitution and declare martial law, and you institute media censorship. You don't just conduct a sit-in in the legislative chamber.

          2. Protesting is a Constitutionally protected right.

            1. If they overthrow the US government, there isn't a constitution anymore.

              1. Protesting will overthrow the US government go with that.

                1. No I'm talking about the attempt to overthrow the US government that happened yesterday.

                  1. Yes I know you're talking about the protest, I said as much.

                    1. I do not have time to educate grown adults about the difference between protest and sedition.

                      Or protests and looting.

                      Or leftists and Nazis.

                      But here's some easy advice: If you find yourself defending Nazis, stop.

                    2. "I do not have time to educate grown adults"

                      Yes we can see you don't have time to educate yourself.

                    3. This is actually pathetic. Is Reason so bad now that shitheels like this are aligned with the idiot writers? Shame that the writers themselves don’t see the terrible people who agree with them - or do they, and that’s part of a crafty salary bonus scheme?

      3. BLM Trump rallies were mostly peaceful.. There was some property destruction, all of it condemned by Trump. If there were some anarchists on the right who didn’t condemn it, OK, but your attempt to make everyone responsible for the fringe, while at the same time breathlessly making excuses for fucking terrorists who stormed the US capitol set fire to federal buildings in Portland, that makes you a bootlicker.

        1. Your apologetics for terrorists is revolting.

          1. Fuck off Molly

          2. I should be ashamed of myself, shouldn't I?

          3. How is what he has there not accurate? Yesterday there was a largely peaceful protest at the Capitol. A small group of people did something bad. Considerably less bad in intent and effect than the small groups at BLM protests who tried to set fire to occupied buildings while barricading the entrances, I would say. And I'm not saying that justifies or excuses anyone else. But it's hardly a uniquely disturbing event in the context of the past year.

  20. WTF

    Soave - you are a mendacious little shit-stirring sociopath. This isn't a story for a journalist which I guess is ok because you've just proven that you're not one.

  21. Two known Antifa members posed as pro-Trump to infiltrate Capitol riot: sources


    1. "At least two known Antifa members were spotted among the throngs of pro-Trump protesters at the Capitol on Wednesday, a law enforcement source told The Post.

      The Antifa members disguised themselves with pro-Trump clothing to join in the DC rioting, said the sources, who spotted the infiltrators while monitoring video coverage from the Capitol."

      Wow, rock solid that is. I guess all the pro-Trump terrorists are innocent now.

      1. It was fine sourcing for Jeff upthread and you aren't whining about it there.

        1. Some cop said he recognized two antifa people... and what? All the Trump supporters are mindless zombies who can't control their actions?

          That I believe. Just not the part where they're in thrall to Antifa.

          1. Take it up with Jeff it's his standard of proof.

      2. You've trotted out the "right wing agitator" defense for Antifa and BLM. Don't go pretending it's bad now.

        1. What bothers me most is the fact that you know you're being a slimy lying shit. I hate liars. I hate liars too much.

          BLM and Antifa didn't do anything yesterday. The president incited his own supporters to vandalize and occupy the US capitol building while Congress was present electing the next president.

          That's what happened. Any mention of any other crime or political movement is you defending that act of war against my country.

          When people come on my property and try to steal from me I get to shoot them. I learned it here.

          1. That’s what happened. Any mention of any other crime or political movement is you defending that act of war against my country.

            We have to deal with events in the complexity of the society they take place in and the circumstances involved. Events don't happen in isolation, and it's somewhat telling that you insist on such a simplistic view of the world, as long as it helps you demonize one group while ignoring your own.

            I don't mind if you have republicans and love democrats. Just don't pretend it's based on some consistently applied principle.

            How about saying "I don't mind when BLM and Antifa burn cities down over police brutality because I hate police brutality. I do mind when republicans storm the capitol because I hate them and it makes them look bad and I like pointing it out."

            it's not hard.

            1. BLM and Antifa didn't burn any cities down. Trump supporters did storm the US capitol in a feckless attempt to overturn the official democratic will of the people.

              One is terrorism and treason, the other is nothing, because it's a lie.

              Your invoking of scary blacks burning down cities, which is a lie, is part of the terrorist package. You are being them.

              Stop lying and supporting fascists.

              Life is complicated. It just so happens that "Should I keep defending rightwing terrorists?" is the easiest moral question in the world.

              Nazis are bad. I'm a cynical leftist who thinks the US does many evil things, and even I'm comfortable with that level of moral clarity.

              I'll be happy to explain to you why Nazis are bad, specifically, if you don't already know.

              1. Republicans aren't Nazis. You're lying.

                1. Many of the people who broke into the US capitol in an attempt to subvert American democracy were.

                  The people who you keep defending for some reason.

                  1. And yet you keep calling the all Nazis, because you are dishonest. And a shitheel.

                  2. Many of the people who broke into the US capitol in an attempt to subvert American democracy were.

                    When public employee union members and their supporters occupied the Wisconsin Capitol a few years ago, was that an attempt to subvert democracy in Wisconsin? Then neither was this.

              2. BLM and Antifa didn’t burn any cities down.



                1. Which cities are no more?

                  Do you even have a concept of burning and cities in your head, or are the words and emotions enough?

                  Can we tax you motherfuckers to pay for the depgrogramming you need?

                  1. Since you don’t actually pay any tax, we’re paying for everything anyway. So eat shit.

              3. Stop lying and supporting fascists.

                Take your own advice.

                Your invoking of scary blacks burning down cities

                BLM isn't "scary blacks", it's ignorant, privileged, leftist whites, like you, Tony.

                1. I picture mottled and grey, and an “it”.

  22. “The madness of mobs or the insolence of soldiers, or both, when too near to each other, occasion some mischief.”

    Benjamin Franklin

    "The law does not oblige us to stand still with such a number of people threatening our lives, until we are disabled to defend ourselves."

    John Adams

    “From that moment we may date the severance of the British Empire.”

    Daniel Webster

    “They stood with their pieces before them to defend themselves. A party, about 12 in number with sticks in their hands, who stood in the middle of the street gave three cheers and immediately surrounded the soldiers and struck upon their guns with their sticks and passed along the front of the soldiers toward Royal Exchange Lane striking soldiers’ guns as they passed. Numbers were continually coming down the street.”

    An eyewitness to the Boston Massacre

  23. So all of the liberals who went into the capital and the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings should be shot? I can agree with that

    1. Or took over police stations, took over legislatures in different states, burned down property, toppled statues, terrorized Washington in the summer....

      The hypocrisy is STAGGERING.

      The corruption profound.

  24. Not buying it, Robbie. Trump's supporters have no history of property destruction like breaking windows, whereas antifa have been throwing routine kristallnacht tantrums for months.


    1. He was there you weren't.

      And yes they have caused property damage in the past.

      These aren't good republicans. They are a rampaging mob.

      Trump lost. Because of these yahoos who probably didn't even vote and the damage caused by Trump's inability to see the truth of his loss we also lost the Senate.

      Enjoy the next years under democrats. That is what was wrought.

      1. Lol. Rampaging mob.

        1. Fortunately there are no rampaging mobs in Canada.

          1. Nope. Locked down under the threat of law if you dare be around others. Authorities harassing citizens in their homes. Much much better, almost Chinese as it were.

  25. What about carnivorous plants? Where is the article about how they aren't responsible for the riots?

    Or aliens? Or Elvis impersonators? Or jihadis? Or French surrender monkeys? Tons of possible articles that could possibly point the finger at people who are not responsible.

    Or are they? Maybe the real story here is not just that every one of these groups is potentially not responsible - but that they are all known to be potentially not responsible - at the same moment in time and place. And as everyone knows, this is the beginnings of any good conspiracy.

    1. You didn’t say anything about Japanese snow macaques. Are you saying they’re responsible? Oh my god, no! Not the kawaii macaque! No....!


    1. No it was rioting and looting.

      You guys were supposed to be eagle-eyed about that sort of thing.

      Wonder white the difference is this time.

  27. Listen to Robert Barnes explain what transpired.

  28. Robby saying its not true only makes me believe otherwise.

  29. The guy who sat in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's chair and stole her mail is definitely not antifa,

    "We marched down there. They start tear-gassing us. They start roughing up our people. It pissed some people off," Barnett said. "They went to the front door, and they started demanding to be let inside. I wasn't even up there at that point. I was climbing the steps to see what was going on. When I got to the top, they had breached the doors and were trying to get in." Barnett says he was pushed inside the Capitol when protestors broke through the doors and found Pelosi's office sometime later.

    Real revolutionary there.

    nor is the half-naked fur-and-horns guy. This latter individual is named Jake Angieli, and he is a conspiracy theorist—the self-stylized "Q Shaman"—who has appeared at multiple Trump rallies.

    True. He's a 32 year old performance artist and actor, apparently instigating this whole thing.

    So, the actions of these people have to do with Trump... what exactly?

    1. Well, all three of them will soon be in jail. That's a good start.

      1. Copsucker says what?

        1. Wow, that was an amazing retort. Ima put that one in my little book for later use.

    2. Someone else inside the capitol: John Sullivan; he actually filmed the shooting of Babbit. In his own words:

      John Sullivan , 28, the founder of Insurgence USA, a group for racial justice and police reform. Sullivan , one of the few black men organizing for racial justice in Utah.

      He is with BLM Utah and called for "ripping Trump from the White House" in August 2020. Yeah, a real Trump supporter there. /sarc.

    3. "o, the actions of these people have to do with Trump… what exactly?"

      I dunno. maybe the part where he told them to do it?

      This is one of those times where I feel 100% confident in saying that a POTUS should know better. Parsing every word he said one at a time not necessary. He told people to be there, on that day and at a time when he knew exactly what was going on. He showed up in person, he told them to go down to the capitol. He even told them who to be mad at.

      I think too many people are talking right wing vs. Antifa when they should all be talking about the actions of Donald J. Trump.

      1. He literally used the phrase- "I know everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building. To peacefully, patriotically make your voices heard.”

        He literally instructed them to be peaceful.

        Trump has issues, and always will. But it is hard to not notice that people reporting on him frequently feel the need to embellish or misrepresent what he has actually done and said.

        One line that stuck with me while watching the news a couple of months ago was that the reporter stated that "Trump made the false claim today that Covid vaccines would be ready before the end of 2020". Not only was the statement in error, but at some point all the reporters switched over to labeling everything Trump says as "false", or a "debunked conspiracy theory". They used to say "Trump claimed without evidence that.....".

        1. Oh, come on. Surely you know that when Trump tells people to act peacefully and patriotically, that's just code for "burn the motherfucker down." And if he had said "Burn the motherfucker down," that would have been code for "Burn the morherfucker down." Literally every word out of his mouth is a call to violence if not violence itself. When Garland Merrick has him tried for sedition, insurrection, incitement to riot, and treason, the government will just present evidence that Trump spoke. That's all a D.C. jury should need to convict and impose the death penalty.

  30. There were the same percentage of ANTIFA supporters at the MAGA "riot" as there were MAGA supporters at the ANTIFA "peaceful" protests.

    It is interesting that there has been far more damage that occurred this past year during each of the ANTIFA "peaceful" protests than at the MAGA "riot" yesterday.

    Violence is violence unless the violence is sanctioned by the Corporate Media. If the Corporate Media sanctions the violence then it's simply a reaction to injustice and therefore warranted. Never mind that this Corporate Media sanction violence is against innocent bystanders and property owners.

    Of course if the MAGA crowd starts to edge toward the tactics of ANTIFA, even if just a handful, then the entire MAGA crowd are treasonous and by implication should be executed. Somehow Chuck Schumer is deemed as a kinder gentler senator by the Corporate Media.

    Don't get me wrong, I find fault with both sides and am calling out their hypocrisy. Neither Biden nor Trump are suited to be President and we have exchanged a narcissist for a warmongering disaster. The only difference will be in the tone of the Corporate Media who will change from attack mode to sycophantic lapdogs.

    Politicians are corrupt and despicable, but the Corporate Media are diabolical and at the root of the polarization and promote conflict.

    Trump is neither the Devil nor Saint, however the Corporate Media deserves to burn in...

    1. It is a distraction, a false dichotomy to bring up BLM. I can’t stand those thugs who rioted and destroyed property and hurt people there is no excuse for that. Look up the history of riots in America this is nothing new.

      We are not talking about that. There is no excuse for this. None.

      1. And what is "this"? A bunch off people were unarmed and pushed there way into the building and wanted to shout at senators. You know, like happens fairly regularly. Some of them were Antifa or actors. Some were pushed by the crowd.

        1. “Happens fairly regularly.”

          Yup. What happened at the Capitol happens fairly regularly

          1. People stormed into the Capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings and disrupted the proceedings, for example.

        2. “Happens fairly regularly.”

          Just thought you might want to reconsider that.

          When you have evidence that some were Antifa let me know. Everyone who entered that building is already either identified or soon will be.

          “Pushed by the crowd.”

          Umm past a barricade and police line to get to that place? Those fuckers are dangerous. One of them killed somebody.


          I doubt that Antifa was working with these particular goons. Actors? Actors hire stunt doubles for the danger parts.

          1. When you have evidence that some were Antifa let me know.

            John Sullivan; he even went on CNN from the Capitol and stated explicitly that he was anti-Trump.

  31. The two groups do have a few things in common, namely that the average member of each is a tattooed moron. Might not be as many repeat sex offenders in the MAGA crowd but I'm sure some of them have forceful sodomy in their rap sheets.

  32. Of course antifa was not behind this. This is just a conspiracy theory of Trump voters with TDS (Trump Discksucking Disorder). It's over, all over. Trump is done and he can't even tweet about it.

    Stand by for more!

    1. Syndrome not Disorder. But disorder fits too.

    2. Yes, it's over for Trump. It's been since the votes were certified weeks ago.

      Now, how about some facts and analysis from you? Why was John Sullivan standing over Babbit as she was dying? What is the political history of Jake Angieli, a performance artist and actor?

      1. Unfortunately, I have no facts. I had no idea who any of these people were before Wednesday. If I did, I would be more than happy to tell you. But what I did see is that Babbitt woman trying to jump through the window that was busted out so she could get to the chamber floor. One of the cops told her to stop, but she felt she had the right to break in like all of the others. The cop shot and killed her for braking in. That's the facts that I know so far. But I suppose that you have a lot more fake facts that you would like to share with the group. Maybe one of those facts is that all of the protesters causing damage were actually antifa? is that your facts?

  33. "An article in The Washington Times claimed that a "facial recognition firm" had confirmed antifa's involvement in the attack."

    If that is true, than Facial Recognition is a much bigger issue than this riot

    1. They ended up retracting the story. One journalist present at the Capitol Hill gatherings tweeted he encountered antifa there.


      1. Yes, but two others were identified on photos. John Sullivan even gave a CNN interview from inside the Capitol.

  34. Robby Soave should talk to an actual journalist who encountered antifa at Capitol Hill yesterday. He may actually learn something.


    1. For quality journalism, go to Gateway Pundit! LOL

      1. Better journalism than here.

      2. Look at the tweets at the link. Also, Andy Ngo and Tayler Hansen have positively identified antifa thugs at the scene. You can read about it at their Twitter pages.

  35. According to Andy Ngo, John Earle Sullivan, an "extreme BLM activist", was part of the siege of the Capitol building.

  36. Ya know, Robby, it's not an either/or, it's a both/and. Both Antifa or BLM/Antifa styled agitators/false-flag types AND Trump supporters. No one has claimed anything else, at least that I've seen.

    And simply because you work for Reason doesn't mean your statements, your assertions, carry some added weight. In fact, that's the purpose of wanting to reason with others, rather than making stark, unbending assertions, as if from on high, such as "Antifa wasn't behind the capitol riot".

  37. Next month in main-stream media, "Trump's loyal terrorist's last month destroyed the capitol......"

    What did Trump do to deserve all this media-hate???? He deregulated the federal government, cut taxes, tried to block federal theft and "commie-money" hand-outs, decided to actual tax china for their subsidies and um..... I don't know; what else you faithful anti-Trump-er but UN-based name-calling crowd?

    1. "What did Trump do to deserve all this media-hate????
      I dunno, maybe calling them an enemy of the people, threatening to "expand the libel laws," using an inordinate amount of his time to attack people on Twitter, talking about maybe using the military for an election "do-over", I dunno

      1. So the consensus is true --- "mean tweets"! Holy cow society is emotionally fragile.

      2. I'm not sure how you think he should have reacted to accusations of Russian collusion and constant being described as an illegitimate president. The same school teachers who like North Korean apparatchiks led children to recite paeans to Barack Obama spent the last four years leading the next cohort of youngsters in regular two minute hate sessions of the Donald.

        Also, when exactly did Trump talk "about maybe using the military..." to do anything like "an election “do-over”,"? Was it before or after he suggested injecting bleach for the wuflu. Or maybe when he called white supremacists fine people. Oh, right, he didn't do any of those things either.

  38. Typically Anti-Fa doesn't wear Q-Anon T-shirts and march around with Confederate flags.

    1. Well, I imagine they most certainly would if they were trying to infiltrate a Trump riot err rally. 🙂

      The thing I can't see is them resisting the temptation to break into and loot a private business.

      That's the reason I don't think Antifa was involved. The Trump rioters limited their property damage to a government owned building and the violence against persons to agents of the state.

  39. So, Reason, now, is too ignorantly clueless to recognize a possible Reichstag Fire scenario when it's waved before their noses?

    I'm not claiming it is -- I'm saying, that's the way to BET.



    The GOP, who found their efforts to initiate a rejection of the electoral count aborted?

    Or the Left, who has demonstrated, TIME AND AGAIN, their willingness to engage in violent actions in the pursuit of their agenda?

    Which one benefited most from the events at the Capitol?

    }}} Typically Anti-Fa doesn’t wear Q-Anon T-shirts and march around with Confederate flags.

    Yes, Lester, it's SOOOOO hard for anyone wanting to Fake It to even THINK to obtain those things, much less actually DO it.

  40. Another fake article...antifa was responsible for the riots...this is their mo to add fuel to the fire and place the blame on the other side because antifa is so cowardly.

  41. Where was the Reason rag during the "summer of love"? Where you this upset when police stations, businesses, and Federal building were looted a burnt? Or was the Reason rag upset when shop owners were beaten and MURDERED by communists (Antifa/BLM) for trying to protect their businesses? Of course not, they were "peaceful protestors" exercising their rights.

  42. ahhh ....... more payment for soave from the chinajoe masters in beijing

  43. I don't know about anyone else but I find it noteworthy that no private businesses or properties were damaged and that the only people threatened were agents of the state and not private citizens.

    This was an attack on the State and that is generally not consistent with Antifa tactics. But then maybe the Antifa agents provocateurs were super disciplined and understood the mentality of the dedicated Trumpistas.

    FWIW, I think the spearhead that committed the violent entry was made up of various right wing extremists that included so-called sovereign citizens and a few dyed in the wool white supremacists who in spite of Trump's vocal denunciations continue to support him because they imagine they hear messages transmitted at dog whistle frequencies or that they think he is speaking in some kind of code that only they can decipher. The plain fact is that whereas these people might find it easier to live with a Trump administration, they would most certainly not have the kind of free pass that they expect.

    These two groups are a small but vocal part of Trump's base; together their votes don't really much matter (no one gets elected solely by the votes of his or her base [that was Hillary's mistake in 16 and possibly Donald's in 20]) but their enthusiasm and vocality do.

    Also, in spite of what the SPC and ADL say, sovereign citizens are not necessarily motivated by white supremacy and anti semitism, though some are.

    1. Sorry, SP[L]C as in Southern Poverty Law Center a scam that has made Morris Dees a rich man thanks to white liberal guilt.

    2. Also, while the spearhead smashed their way in according to some Trumpers I have seen interviewed many simply walked in through open or unlocked doors and wandered all over the building mostly unimpeded and in fact were not violent at all.

      I can readily believe this. As anyone who has been their, the Capitol is huge. It is quite possible that many of the protester/rioter/insurrectionists simply had no idea what was going on at the other end of the building.

  44. What the RSBN footage. The ones the broke the windows and doors down where not dressed in Trump barb and Trump supporters were trying to stop it. Obviously young elements of the Trump support might then join in. The police should cordoned off a large circle around the Capitol.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.