[reddozen]

> Instead they were led thru the halls of the Capitol (by the police!) ... but the premise that they intended to overthrow the govt

You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo and left it there. Or any of the Jack Smith findings. There was a coordinated top-down plan to violate the Electoral Count Act, its not even hidden. Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time

[throwawayq3423]

His account was created four days ago and he's exclusively posting January 6th denialism. Neither of us should have taken the time to feed the troll.

[pdt409231]

> You could have just said you didn't read the John Eastman memo

Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?

Spoiler: It doesn't. So it's actually you who hasn't read the memos. If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.

> Jack Smith findings

You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts? And another that he closed himself? In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing. You are innocent until proven guilty, and ultimately he proved nothing.

Just say you have no clue what you're talking about next time.

[throwawayq3423]

> Show me where exactly in the Eastman memo, the so called "coup plot", it calls for a group of protesters to go into the Capitol?

Really cynical stuff. The Eastman memo was the blueprint on how to actually stop Biden's certification. That was the paperwork, the legal attack. January 6th was the kinetic attack.

Just because both actions were not detailed in the same piece of paper does not mean they weren't both part of a clearly coordinated action (of which the special counsel agreed).

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2021/images/09/20/eastman.memo.pdf

> You mean the cases that were thrown out by the courts?

Wrong again. His findings were not thrown out. He ended the case himself because he knew Trump would shut him down anyway once back in office.

Look, I get it. This is a narrative that is very important to you. You can't believe that your side are the violent ones or your president is the lawless one. So much of this is a waste of time.

Just know that this is your narrative and it has no connection to reality.

[reddozen]

> If anything, it shows Trump sought to remain president by legal means, a gray area at worst, but nothing to do with the "violent insurrection" claimed.

You do realize John Eastman himself literally says he would lose 9-0 [1] when heard in the supreme court, admitting he is illegally violating the ECA with no sound legal argument. And he was literally disbarred for this behavior. [2] How do you reconcile with this cognitive dissonance?

> In other words, they had 4 years and found nothing.

So you just admit you have never heard the Jack Smith report. Just say that next time, why lie?

[1] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/eastman-admitted-bid-to-... [2] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/17/california-court-jo...