Four Hours at the Capitol
This new HBO documentary portrays the January 6 riot as more of a temper tantrum than an incipient coup.

Eduardo Nicolas Alvear Gonzalez, the dude in flag pants who was famously recorded smoking pot in the Capitol Rotunda on January 6, 2021, ended up pleading guilty to one nonviolent misdemeanor. In an HBO documentary about the Capitol riot, he explains that he became a Donald Trump supporter after learning that the president was battling a sinister cabal responsible for sexually enslaving 800,000 children a year.
Despite his wacky beliefs, Gonzalez counts as a voice of reason compared to many of the other Trump followers we see and hear in Four Hours at the Capitol. He comes across as a joyful, wonderstruck tourist rather than an angry rioter. He even takes credit for helping to calm things down by sharing his stash with other demonstrators.
This "insurrection" included lots of peaceful trespassers like Gonzalez as well as vandals and thugs who destroyed property, attacked police officers, and terrified legislators. Although former President Jimmy Carter recently claimed the invaders "almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power," they never came close to doing that. Even the most aggressive of them acted haphazardly, literally not knowing which way to turn, let alone what their ultimate goal was.
The outrageous but hapless assault on the Capitol was a humiliating spectacle for the United States, indisputable evidence of Trump's reckless self-absorption, and a fitting end to a ridiculous presidency. But this movie makes it look more like a temper tantrum than an incipient coup.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"....this movie makes it look more like a temper tantrum than an incipient coup."
Then it didn't cover the machinations of Trump and his political partners - including Congress members. Of course the rioters were not in on that. They were the cannon fodder and useful idiots. The writer should cease and desist on the attempt to trivialize the 1st time we have had a presidential loser refuse to partake in the peaceful transfer of power, a necessary ingredient for a democratic government (republics are sub sets of democracies, so cut that talking point).
Thank fuck someone else is saying it. The more we downplay this shit the worse it'll be the next time.
Yes, next time it might be Hillary claiming the election was stolen. Or the police might kill more than one person.
Heavens, it might even involve multiple Burn Loot Murder riots all spring and summer and fall, with mayors turning over sections of their cities to mostly peaceful civilians, removing police protection for the cowards who refuse to go along by turning over their private property.
Get real A. Hillary called Trump late the night of the election to concede and wish him well. Though she was not a government official and had no obligation to, she had the balls to show up at Trump's inauguration, in a further affirmation of the legitimacy of the process - he was not elected by the people, but the EC - and his presidency. In an interview years after the election she said accurately that Trump cheated with the Russians to win. Obama welcomed him the WH before and on the day of the inauguration and as is the tradition in the interests of all Americans, gave Trump's transition team access early on. Here's Al Gore - another person chosen by Americans to be president but not by the EC - in his concession speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5YdkYSyEE
Trump did not have the balls to do any of this, and as is typical for him, put his fragile ego ahead of the United States. The guy's a stone cold pussy who will do or say anything to make himself look good, and in this instance to avoid facing the fact that he's a loser. Anyone failing to get this has something wrong with them.
If I were to get Real, I'd be even more real than you ever could be. So there!
If you can't even understand that there were 50 popular votes, not one, you have no chance of ever getting real, let alone Real.
A, winner take all awarding of state electors is not in the constitution - two states don't follow that rule - but of course that is a side trip to the larger point that Hillary and Gore acted with responsibility to our constitution and democracy and Trump is a desperate loser who will sacrifice anything - including America - before he will admit it. That you don't grasp this is disturbing and I pity you.
You really need to read and comprehend the US Constitution. The popular vote doesn't decide the Presidential race. And stop the Russian collusion bullshit; thats a Dem talking point that was proven false.
See post above Rag and then read this (from the GOP controlled Senate Intel Comm Report v5 of 2020):
"The Committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Moscow's intent was to harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process. -WikiLeaks actively sought, and played, a key role in the Russian influen~ery likely knew it was assistin a Russian intelli ence influence effort. The Committee found si nificant indications tha At the time of the first WikiLeaks releases, the U.S. Government had not yet declared WikiLeaks a hostile organization and many treated itas a journalistic entity. (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those leaks to aid Trump's electoral prospects. Staff on the Trump Campaign sought advance notice about WikiLeaks releases, created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following thdr release, and encouraged further leaks. The Trump Campaign publicly undermined the attribution of the hack-and-leak campaign to Russia and was indifferent to whether it and WikiLeaks were furthering a Russian election interference effort. The Committee found no evidence that Campaign officials received an authoritative government notification that the hack was perpetrated by the Russian government before October 7, 2016, when the ODNI and DHS issued a joint statement to that effect. However, the Campaign was aware of the extensive media reporting and other private sector attribution of the hack to Russian actors prior to that point. (U) Trump and senior Campaign offici.als sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks's planned releases through Roger Stone. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign offictals on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming.
The Committe~ found evidence suggesting that it was the 'i~tent of the Campaign · participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, particularly Dortald Trump Jr., to receive derogatory information that would be of benefit to the Campaign from a soui:ce known, at least by Trump Jr.,. to have connections to the Russian government..... The Committee assesses that at least two participants in the June 9, 2016 meeting, Veselnitskaya and Rinat Akhmetshin, have significant connections to the Russian government, including the Russian intelligence services. ...
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intelligence.senate.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2Freport_volume5.pdf&clen=52433345&chunk=true
Wikileaks, builder of conservative empires. That doesn't sound as silly to you as it does to everyone else?
she had the balls to show up at Trump's inauguration, in a further affirmation of the legitimacy of the process
And the repeatedly said that Trump was not a legitimate president.
Stupid fuck.
Unicorn you moron, Hillary and the democrats acted responsibly and in the interests of both the US and the legitimacy of the Trump administration during the transition of power, the critical period between the election and the assumption of office by the new president. Trump actively tried to overturn the election, blocked Biden's transition team from access to the federal government, and instigated a riot which resulted in the loss of life of at least 5 people, and has sowed distrust in our now ancient democracy in stupid fucks like you apparently. I've given you the facts above. You're inability to recognize let alone respond to them indicates you are damaged. I pity you.
Going around claiming that Trump was illegitimate and was put into office by Putin. particularly when most of the evidence of that came from made-up stories that your own campaign paid for isn't on the same planet as acting responsibly.
Still waiting for Stacey Abrams to concede the governor's race in Georgia.
Any day now . . .
You mean Saint Stacey of the New South?
Al Gore?
"republics are sub sets of democracies"
Plato disagrees along with everyone else who understands what a republic is.
Really? So Trump was holed up in the Whitehouse with a machine gun on inauguration day?
Trump certainly didn't behave in a particularly statesmanlike manner at many points. But peaceful transfer of power happened when it had to. Jan 6 was a terrible stupid thing to have happen, but it in no way threatened the normal transfer of power to a new president. It wasn't good, but it also wasn't the threat to democracy itself that people are trying to make it. It was a protest that got out of hand. Which followed a year full of protests that got out of hand in even worse ways. Get a grip.
Let us be honest..Trump was the MOST entertaining presidency in history. The end was too much self-pity but hey no new wars, we could discuss positions not allowed by the neocons/neolibs for decades (like why are we in NATO anyway). Sure he didn't really do very much (I was hoping he would slash govt spending, stop deficit spending, maybe even shutting down the Fed and allow competing curriences..hell he didn't even shut down NPR or most of the "grifter" LBJ social programs). But he was entertaining and made a ton of money for CNN and MSNBC. If Covid didn't hit, I think he would have easily beat corn pop..
I didn't check but who are the writers? And directors? And who funded it? I find for the left, they have little diversity in documentaries...same background..Ivy League, NYC, wealthy kids..Dad works at Goldman and Mom was a democratic party activist and "Emily's List" VP
Raspberry Joe active today!
To be fair, Friday is his day.
"the machinations" lol
Hey, as long as the President is eating his pudding pop and commenting on Reason, he can't be doing anything too stupid, right?
Like many people have been saying for the past 14 months now. It was not nothing, but it also was not anywhere near the crisis the political elites wanted to make it out to be.
It was a poorly organized protest, in which a cop murdered an un-armed woman and got away with it.
Let's be clear: The asshole got away with murdering an un-armed woman who was no possible threat to anyone.
But that doesn't stop slimy piles le lefty shit from trying their best to justify it:
"JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”
Murder is acceptable as a preventative measure in cases where the victim might, sometime in the future, do something which this asshole could dislike!
Prosecute Trump:
"...But based on the already public evidence – and there’s undoubtedly lots more that’s not yet public – no vigilant prosecutor would be deterred by the difficulty of convincing a jury about Trump’s state of mind. Full speed ahead is now the only proper course.
The former president is vulnerable to charges of conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 USC §371, and obstructing a congressional proceeding, 18 USC §1512(c)(2).
Regarding §371’s intent requirement, the US supreme court has ruled that conspiracies to defraud the United States include plots entered “for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful functions of any department of Government” using “deceit, craft or trickery, or ... means that are dishonest”.
The mental state required for §1512 is a “corrupt” intent to obstruct, influence, or impede an official proceeding. In Arthur Andersen v United States, the supreme court said “corrupt” meant “dishonest” or “wrongful, immoral, depraved, or evil”.
The mountain of already public evidence would surely lead a DC jury to reject Trump’s defense that that he honestly believed his own “big lie” that widespread ballot fraud had deprived him of victory, and therefore that his intent was innocent.
First, Trump knew that the 60-plus court cases seeking to overturn the votes in contested states had failed.
Advertisement
Second, as the former Michigan US attorney Barbara McQuade has compellingly shown, five of Trump’s top officials told him unequivocally that all the fraud claims were false.
Third, Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, told Trump the same thing during the infamous recorded call in which Trump asked Raffensperger to “find” 11,780 votes, exactly one more than needed to overturn the state’s election.
That call alone screams “corrupt” intent. And the barely veiled way Trump threatened Raffensperger in that call reinforces Trump’s “evil” state of mind.
Fourth, Trump’s speech immediately preceding the Capitol attack included a provable, telling lie – that he would join the Capitol march with the crowd even though his pre-speech schedule showed no such plan and Trump did nothing of the sort. A properly instructed jury would likely conclude that this lie reflected Trump’s desire to remain far from the violence he had encouraged, giving him both physical safety and plausible deniability and further evidencing a “corrupt” state of mind.
Fifth, Trump’s failure for three hours to call off the siege after it began, notwithstanding violent televised images and entreaties from his children, advisers and allies – despite his undoubted duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” – was manifestly “depraved”.
Sixth, when Trump belatedly asked the insurrectionists to go home, he called them “patriots” who should “remember this day for ever”. A federal judge wrote in an 18 February opinion that “a reasonable observer could read that tweet as ratifying the violence and other illegal acts that took place that day”.
Seventh, “willful ignorance” of incriminating facts is equivalent to knowledge. Drug couriers cannot escape conviction by having chosen not to ask what was inside the heroin-containing package they were handsomely paid to import. In Trump’s case, his purported belief in election-changing voter fraud was at the very least willfully blind to the facts before him.
Finally, another of Trump’s anticipated “innocent intent” defenses – that he was relying on his lawyer John Eastman – would fail. Eastman has stated that it was on his advice that Trump sought to have Pence reject electoral votes for President Biden or to delay the entire vote.
Even if Trump and Eastman had the requisite attorney-client relationship, which is dubious as a matter of fact, the defense has a gaping hole: under the law, Trump’s reliance must have been “reasonable”.
Far from being reasonable, Eastman’s claim that that Pence was “the ultimate arbiter” of the electoral count was utter “nonsense”. Trump would be unable to produce any lawyer who supported that constitutionally absurd theory and could withstand even amateur cross-examination...."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/16/donald-trump-criminal-charges-january-6-capitol-attack
re: "....this movie makes it look more like a temper tantrum than an incipient coup."
That actually sounds like a pretty accurate description of the events.
It does. Oddly enough, though, all of the major news networks uniformly refer to it as an 'insurrection!' - Every single one of them, same terminology, consistently.
I think that has to be because they still think they might be able to disqualify people from office under the 14th amendment. Why else use that word in particular when it so poorly fits what happened?
Especially when not a single person was even charged, much less convicted, of insurrection. It's almost like the people still saying Rittenhouse murdered 3 unarmed black men.
Yeah, I had to correct my very progressive neighbor about that last night.
2 guys, both white, self-defense, 3rd guy shot was *after* he pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse, also white, not killed.
I have a neighbor who lost him mind with Trump. We never talked politics but after Trump can in he just went crazy. The guy is white as a ghost but has a Spanish last name (his DNA is about 30% Spanish and 70% Brit) and he started to sound like a BLM academic crazy. "White boys..." "White people..." and he constantly when I talked to him started to spew biotry against an immigrant group (which is my ancestry). I called him out on it and he said he was "educating" me on how it is to be "black" in a white bias society. He then accused me of being against him because of his last name. After a 4am email where in ranted on..I cut off all communication with him. He clearly lost his mind with Trump...
The outrageous but hapless assault on the Capitol was a humiliating spectacle for the United States
Cities being burned and looted in peaceful protests by leftists and communists affirmed America's commitment to its founding principles.
Not a bad take.
Now do a story on how the arrested protesters were quickly charged and tried and sentenced fairly and appropriately, in accordance with due process, and in relative fairness to other mass protests on public property that got out of hand. And maybe raising the libertarian/constitutional questions about why the government and the media didn't cover that angle for the past year.
I don't expect to see a story about the completely unconstitutional and illegal way they've been treating the arrested protesters here at Reason until Joe is out of office. Or the NYT covers it.
>>But this movie makes it look more like a temper tantrum than an incipient coup
If an HBO movie is your authority, is okay as long as you see the light.
Every word of that script was vetted through both twitter and facebook. What more do you want?
It was the Democrats' 9/11.
I think the reason they're really upset is no one died.
No one that they care about, anyway.
Exactly!
How about they release all the video and we can decide for ourselves what happened?
That's why they can't release it.
"...Although former President Jimmy Carter recently claimed the invaders "almost succeeded in preventing the democratic transfer of power," they never came close to doing that..."
Stupid sumbitch hasn't aged well, has he?
"...The outrageous but hapless assault on the Capitol was a humiliating spectacle for the United States, indisputable evidence of Trump's reckless self-absorption, and a fitting end to a ridiculous presidency..."
Stupid sumbitch hasn't aged well, has he?
Stuff your TDS up your ass, Sullum. Your head is begging for company.
Trump attempted a coup in the same way he attempted to run a casino and attempted to be president. This is not news to anyone.
Meanwhile the Republican party is going full fascist, declaring that voting for Democrats is inherently invalid, resurrecting Jim Crow, and passing laws that mean to purge gay and trans people from society.
It can happen here, fuckfaces. Be on the right side or burn in hell with the rest of the fascists.
Fascist.
I think that word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Call yourself whatever you want. The beauty of fascism is that it has no ideology but power. That's why it can compromise all language and logic with ease.
"no ideology but power."
"can compromise all language and logic with ease"
I cant decide if that describes a critical race theorist or democrat activist better. Though I mostly repeat myself.
As usual, iron law or woke projection.
it has no ideology but power
That literally describes the post modern critical theory view of the world that has been adopted by many on the left, BTW.
There's a strain of thought, exemplified by Foucault and such, that interrogates history with respect to power relations. It's all very interesting I'm sure. What do you want to do to postmodern philosophers? Line them up against a wall?
You're a fascist because you've been convinced that shadowy "bad thoughts" are controlling the minds of your faceless enemies. The only "leftism" I'm interest in is increasing the quality and quantity of individual rights.
He is probably so many levels into post modern BS circular reasoning that he doesn't realize he just own-goaled.
Did it ever occur to you to read a book on postmodern thought, or are you content with treating it as a vague and undefined threat to your precious bodily fluids?
FTR, I reject postmodernism as obscurantist and basically consider it a joke.
It actually gives me a pain in my spleen area watching you silly uncultured FOX News addicts discover concepts as if they were just invented. If only it led you to read books.
I guarantee you have spent about 100x more time watching Fox news than I, and I have read a significant amount more about postmodernism and critical theory. We both probably consume these things for the same reason: we think they are existential threats to society and you have to know what your enemy is up to.
Im frankly of the opinion that both Fox news and postmodernism are cancer to society (one worse than the other). You assuming that everyone here loves fox news is as naive as Laursen thinking everyone here has a shrine to Trump and idolizes the man. Its why you are utterly incapable of holding your own in any arguments because once your "BUT TRUMP! But TUCKER!!" argument is gone, there is nothing else left. Other than accusing everyone of the fascism which is infinitely more rampant among your own ranks
Postmodernism has never been been a dominant strain in philosophy and it certainly isn't now. It's been criticized since inception by rationalists and others. I think of it as an extension of modernism, and furthermore I question the value of "-isms" in the first place. Especially when they obscure reality and make people into morons shouting -isms at each other.
That said, I do like a few buildings said to be designed in a postmodern style, but again, I think of them as modernist anyway. The term is next to meaningless. What I'm absolutely certain of is that when Jordan Peterson talks about it, he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.
I don't actually think Jordan Peterson knows he's a Nazi, but that's a testament to the cancerous nature of fascism. But his entire worldview is warmed-over Mein Kampf, as anyone can see. All social conservatives, after all, are practicing fascism-lite. Their primary motivation is preserving the culture they happened to be born into, from threats real and imagined.
Postmodernism is one of those imagined threats, and as to protecting your culture, I'd recommend simply adopting multiculturalism as your culture. Knock your blood pressure down a bit. Academics having ideas is not going to hurt you. Fascists using academics as scapegoats are going to hurt you.
I'm constantly called a "fox news addict" yet the most I watch of fox news is an occasional clip on youtube. Strangest addiction ever. If every addiction was this strong the world would be a happier place.
Get out of here with that Jim Crow crap. I was a kid in the south during the death throes of the Jim Crow era and I observed it firsthand. Whatever you think of the changes that Republican legislatures are making (notice there are never a lot of details in the stories?) it bears absolutely no resemblance to Jim Crow.
When you spout that garbage you serve to diminish the extent to which the actual victims of actual Jim Crow suffered. But fuck those people because you've got political points to make, right?
"Get out of here with that Jim Crow crap."
Ya thats the new game. If you oppose telling white kids they are racist scum you are LITERALLY ushering in Jim Crow 2.0. If you are against Lia Thomas stomping the life out of young girls athletic careers with ease you are LITERALLY trying to commit violence against trans people and/or GENOCIDE of trans people.
What was Tony saying above?
"can compromise all language and logic with ease"
As always, iron law of woke projection
"But fuck those people because you've got political points to make, right?"
Oh ya, missed that part.
Tony: "no ideology but power"
Again, if you want to figure out what a prog is up to, just listen out for what they are accusing others of.
I want the right people to have power, same as everyone else on earth, except I want them to advance my values of peace, liberty, and justice.
Fascists want power because they get erections when they think about committing genocide.
Your values have nothing to do with those concepts you bootlicking, authoritarian, fascist fuck.
(You are an actual fascist as you believe the government should control the economy but not necessarily own the means of production.)
No resemblance whatsoever?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/us/politics/texas-primary-ballot-rejections.html
No resemblance whatsoever.
If you lived in Texas and watched the news repo you would know that the vast majority of the problem relates to the fact that the new law requires that mail in votes include an identification number on the outside of the envelope. Part of the social, drivers license, something. A high number of people, most of them older either didn’t understand the requirement or were hesitant to do that out of habit.
Nothing racial. The state president of the League of Women Voters was pretty sanguine about it. Basically “confusion over a new system that we’ll be able to clean up by the general election”. I would hope that neither you or the NYT would consider the League of Women Voters to be a fascist organization, but I can’t be sure since it seems you think everyone is.
Don’t get your news from a partisan purveyor of narrative and you’ll be better informed.
I live in South Carolina and just months ago Biden came to one of our HBUCs and said the voting suppression seeing from the republicans is worse than anything that happened under Jim Crow. And Jim Clyburn, my representative who is over 80 and grew up here, nodded his head in agreement.
Hey look, Tony showed up to misuse the words coup and fascists. Again. Quelle surprise.
Just because they suck at insurrection, doesn't mean it wasn't an attempted insurrection. Praise Jeebus the Trump cult is dumb as fuck, they'd be dangerous otherwise.
Just because you're a lying a lying pile of shit does mean you're an imbecile besides.
Stuff your TDS up your ass, fuckface; your head wants company.
i.e. "Just because it was in no way an insurrection doesn't mean the Nazi's can't just keep pretending in Nazi land..."
Ya know; Kinda like sexless people, global warming (oh whoops, changing?), and pretending legislation about skin color is Anti-Racist.
Yeah; we know where you leftards live... In your own imaginary world of utopia where *FREE* lunch falls from the clouds.