Never, I suspect. Note that this was a video of Trump talking, not him typing words into a post.
My guess is that his Twitter password was changed by his staff during the suspension, effectively locking him out of the account. They are doing all they can to contain his communication to try and mitigate the chances of a successful impeachment.
Business Insider reporting that the film that was released was done after he realised the possible legal consequences. It's possible that his temporary moderation on Twitter was down to similar reasons (he appears to be back on form since).
Yahoo has a video of the Trump family partying in between Trump addressing the crowd and the Capitol building being mobbed.
I take Business Insider reporting with a fair pinch of salt.
"Mr. Trump initially resisted taping the video, agreeing to do it only after aides pressed him and he appeared to suddenly realize he could face legal risk for prodding the mob, coming shortly after the chief federal prosecutor for Washington left open the possibility of investigating the president for illegally inciting the attack by telling supporters to march on the Capitol and show strength."
You've got a weird concept of war, NP. Killing of enemy soldiers is usually considered an important element, whether they're advancing or retreating. What were you expecting, mass hugging?
Killing enemy soldiers in war is a means to an end, and is not even the most important means: the main means of victory in war is and always has been getting the enemy to lose morale so that they stop fighting.
"Getting the enemy to lose morale" isn't a means, it's an effect that can be achieved by (among other things) killing enemy soldiers.
Killing the enemy while they're advancing or holding position helps with that goal. Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
It seems a hell of a lot more useful than letting the enemy get away unharmed - pretty demoralizing, too.
I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that it's frowned upon. By whom, exactly?
You've got a weird concept of war, NP. Killing of enemy soldiers is usually considered an important element, whether they're advancing or retreating. What were you expecting, mass hugging?
And in any case, he wasn't specifically talking about the "retreating" Iraqi army. He was describing the general plan for the ground offensive before it had started ("Our strategy to go after this army is very, very simple. First, we're going to cut it off, and then we're going to kill it.") The Iraqi army hadn't had time to start retreating yet.
Exactly when in the sequence of events his statement was made, it's still a problem: casual discussion of slaughter. That's the problem. It showed something of the man's character. Scary asshole.
OK, so the problem is now talking about killing enemy soldiers? (And it wasn't a casual discussion, it was presentation in an hour-long briefing.)
To the point that Barnabas made: half the GOP supporters approved of what happened. Fact: The GOP makes up roughly 30% of the population. Half of that is 15%.
I am thinking as more information comes out, that percentage will diminish more.
Trump is now saying he will not attend the inauguration. I would not want him there anyway.
I think the one person that is going to be hung out to dry will be Guiliani. He was the one who encouraged the mob to be prepared for trial by combat.
I find it difficult to keep straight on which threads certain points were made...
@la vie en rouge (I think) was wondering about the nuclear codes, and I mentioned that in Nixon's last days, it was Kissinger and Haig in concert who had the ultimate approval. More currently, from the WaPo live updates that Nancy Pelosi has spoken to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley about keeping "an unstable president" from accessing the codes. In a related non-development, she and Schumer have yet to hear from Pence regarding the 25th Amendment, and she has renewed the threat to go with a second impeachment.
Nancy Pelosi has talked to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff about ignoring the order to launch by an unstable president. The Pentagon will not confirm that, but previously the Chairman has said he will resist any illegal order.
Wow - that info is public. There was a time when people might have expected the USSR to be keen to pounce if there was the sense that the nuclear chain of command was tangled up. It's perhaps a good job this is not 1974.
Concerning 45's boycotting the inauguration: I can just see his MAGAts saying, "Boy he sure showed them! He's still in charge by gum!"
Sadly, I think this is more or less right. It would be better for the country if Trump did attend, just as it would be better if he actually conceded the election and publicly referred to Biden as President-elect.
Concerning 45's boycotting the inauguration: I can just see his MAGAts saying, "Boy he sure showed them! He's still in charge by gum!"
Sadly, I think this is more or less right. It would be better for the country if Trump did attend, just as it would be better if he actually conceded the election and publicly referred to Biden as President-elect.
I could see Trump running up to the mic and screaming, "It's all a FRAUD ... !!! ... I won and everybody knows it ... !!!
Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.
Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.
Yes ... The situation was chaotic and violent and the cops were outnumbered ...
and one terrorist was shot, and she later died ...
Killing the enemy while they're retreating is of limited military use and is often frowned upon.
Not always, because retreating is not the same as being "out of combat". Troops that are falling back toward defensive positions are still very much viable targets, and if you wait for them to turn and fight again before you attack them then you may be putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
I'll accept that there is a distinction between troops falling back in good order and troops that are just leaving the combat zone as fast as they can.
I doubt that armies care much about that distinction when deciding whether or not to pursue the attack.
Yes ... The situation was chaotic and violent and the cops were outnumbered ...
and one terrorist was shot, and she later died ...
The Parler app just got banned from the Apple app store and Google Play (for Android).
Meanwhile Trump's been on a sock puppeting rampage on Twitter. After his main account got banned for 'glorification of violence' he's tried using three other accounts so far and keeps getting caught and deleted. The 'very stable genius' strikes again...
The Parler app just got banned from the Apple app store and Google Play (for Android).
Meanwhile Trump's been on a sock puppeting rampage on Twitter. After his main account got banned for 'glorification of violence' he's tried using three other accounts so far and keeps getting caught and deleted. The 'very stable genius' strikes again...
He is a life-long psychopath who is (in psych terms) de-compensating ...
This could go on any thread, but since stupidity is most at home on this one, I'll put it here.
In the WaPo article on the FBI investigating those who invaded the Capitol, and firms firing employees who are discovered to have been insurrectionists, there is the case of Paul Davis, a lawyer FFS for an insurance firm, who live streamed from outside, saying that he wanted to get into the Capitol. A lawyer. Live streaming. Expressing his desire to enter federal property unlawfully. Darwin in action.
I think it's just as well T doesn't attend the inauguration. In perfect better world--well, in a better world, T never would've been president, or he wouldn't be saddled with any of the damage that makes him massively unfit for the job, or both.
In this world, though: If he attended Biden's inauguration in person, I would be waiting for the moment he jumped up and went for Biden's throat, or pulled out a gun, or some such. If he knows the phrase, he might shout "Sic semper tyrannis" * afterwards, then trying to swing from something on his way out. Hopefully, he wouldn't manage more than missing Biden, falling down hard, and being hogtied by the Secret Service.
But I'd rather everyone avoided that.
*"Thus always to tyrants"--what John Wilkes Booth reportedly shouted after killing Pres. Lincoln, as he swung down from the theater balcony.
He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
'By breaking into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday and disrupting the electoral vote count, every single person involved in the attack has committed a federal felony, seditious conspiracy, and faces up to 20 years in a federal prison.
The elements of this crime are simple: “If two or more persons ... conspire to ... by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ... they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”'
He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.
I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".
And bombs don't count because . . . ?
Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.
Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?
There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.
Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.
From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.
I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.
I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".
And bombs don't count because . . . ?
Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.
Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?
There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.
Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.
From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.
I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.
The thugs were not just out on a spontaneous *lark* ...
It was planned out ahead of time ... With the dark web document trail, they will be found to have conspired, another Federal crime ...
There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers. One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies. Look at the faces of the congresspersons hiding under their desks. Those were faces of terror.
There is the story of one man who had a TAZER in his pants pocket that went off as he was ripping down the picture of Tip O' Neil. He ended up dying of a heart attack,
There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers.
Well, Trump did go on Twitter while his mob was storming the Capitol and told them Pence was the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Not in those words of course, because Trump doesn't read and literary references are beyond him, but the idea was there. He tried to have a mob murder his own vice president in front of the man's family.
One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies.
Zip-tie guy has been identified as retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr. His statement on the matter is as shameless as it is transparent.
In an interview, Brock confirmed that he was the man in the photos and videos. He denied that he held racist views and echoed Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, saying that he derived his understanding of the matter principally from social media. He told me that he had gone to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate peacefully. “The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” he said. Brock added that he did not identify as part of any organized group and claimed that, despite the scenes of destruction that day, he had seen no violence. When he arrived at the Capitol, he said, he assumed he was welcome to enter the building.
Brock denied that he had entered Pelosi’s office suite, saying that he “stopped five to ten feet ahead of the sign” bearing her title that insurrectionists later tore down and brandished. However, in the ITV video, he appears to emerge from the suite. Brock said that he had worn tactical gear because “I didn’t want to get stabbed or hurt,” citing “B.L.M. and Antifa” as potential aggressors. He claimed that he had found the zip-tie handcuffs on the floor. “I wish I had not picked those up,” he told me. “My thought process there was I would pick them up and give them to an officer when I see one. . . . I didn’t do that because I had put them in my coat, and I honestly forgot about them.” He also said that he was opposed to vandalizing the building, and was dismayed when he learned of the extent of the destruction. “I know it looks menacing,” he told me. “That was not my intent.”
Some commenters with more knowledge of this matter than I have said that it's theoretically possible for the Air Force to recall Lt. Col. Brock to service for the sole purpose of court martialling him. I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is even more harsh on insurrection than civilian law is, but I am not a military lawyer.
There are recordings of people in the crowd shouting Hang Pence, Hang Pence, Hang Pence as they took over the Senate Chambers.
Well, Trump did go on Twitter while his mob was storming the Capitol and told them Pence was the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Not in those words of course, because Trump doesn't read and literary references are beyond him, but the idea was there. He tried to have a mob murder his own vice president in front of the man's family.
One guy was photographed with a bunch of zip ties in his had as he jumped down from one of the chamber balconies.
Zip-tie guy has been identified as retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr. His statement on the matter is as shameless as it is transparent.
In an interview, Brock confirmed that he was the man in the photos and videos. He denied that he held racist views and echoed Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud, saying that he derived his understanding of the matter principally from social media. He told me that he had gone to Washington, D.C., to demonstrate peacefully. “The President asked for his supporters to be there to attend, and I felt like it was important, because of how much I love this country, to actually be there,” he said. Brock added that he did not identify as part of any organized group and claimed that, despite the scenes of destruction that day, he had seen no violence. When he arrived at the Capitol, he said, he assumed he was welcome to enter the building.
Brock denied that he had entered Pelosi’s office suite, saying that he “stopped five to ten feet ahead of the sign” bearing her title that insurrectionists later tore down and brandished. However, in the ITV video, he appears to emerge from the suite. Brock said that he had worn tactical gear because “I didn’t want to get stabbed or hurt,” citing “B.L.M. and Antifa” as potential aggressors. He claimed that he had found the zip-tie handcuffs on the floor. “I wish I had not picked those up,” he told me. “My thought process there was I would pick them up and give them to an officer when I see one. . . . I didn’t do that because I had put them in my coat, and I honestly forgot about them.” He also said that he was opposed to vandalizing the building, and was dismayed when he learned of the extent of the destruction. “I know it looks menacing,” he told me. “That was not my intent.”
Some commenters with more knowledge of this matter than I have said that it's theoretically possible for the Air Force to recall Lt. Col. Brock to service for the sole purpose of court martialling him. I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is even more harsh on insurrection than civilian law is, but I am not a military lawyer.
The guy certainly knows how to dig the hole deeper.
I have a friend who used to work for HMRC (UK revenue and customs) who is super-compliant about all matters to do with tax. He really doesn't want to lose his pension. I find it odd that Lt.Col.Brock didn't have that conversation with himself.
The "I just picked them up" lie is so bald-faced, I'm surprised he could say it with a straight face. Court-martial is too good for this piece of shit.
The other zip-tie/flex-cuff guy is allegedly Eric Munchel.
Who attended the riot with his mom, apparently. Kind of sweet, in a way.
(Apropos of nothing, I was struck by one sentence in that article:
However, it seems like the FBI has its work cut out for them as internet sleuths have managed to track down the man as a bartender from Nashville, Tennessee.
I’ve never seen the idiom “to have one’s work cut out” used this way before. Makes me wonder what odd misapprehensions the reporter has been carrying around since first hearing that and guessing wrong about its meaning.)
Yeah, though you can see how you might guess wrong the first time you heard it if you didn't happen to really understand the situation it was being applied to.
He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.
IIRC, he used to use online aliases to comment on himself. (Along the lines of "Isn't The Donald great, and did you hear what those losers did to him?".) And, currently, a non-obvious pseudonym would at least feed his posting habit.
I hear people saying, "At least it wasn't an armed militia".
And bombs don't count because . . . ?
Open question, did any of the mob have open carry weapons? I can't actually see that they did. And there were no bombs at the Capitol either.
Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?
There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.
Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.
From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
Upon exiting the vehicle, the officers asked the male passenger if he had any weapons on his person, and he responded that he had a gun in his right front pants pocket. The officers then detained the male passenger — later confirmed to be Lonnie L. COFFMAN — and officers conducted a search of the right pocket which revealed a handgun, later fully identified as a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun with serial number LFN2577, and a set of GMC vehicle keys. After securing the 9mm Smith & Wesson, officers conducted a further search of COFFMAN and recovered a 22 caliber derringer style handgun from his front left pocket along with another set of GMC vehicle keys.
I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.
I'm specially pleading nothing. They weren't in the Capitol. Hopefully having a truckload of napalm 'near', in the environs of, within 2-400m, is a major felony. 200 (no typo) years in a maximum security prison.
He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
I don’t think the Twitter accounts of the presidency or the Trump organization really count as sock puppets or aliases. They’re clearly identifiable as him, which is why he tried to use them. A pseudonym that isn’t obviously him would be useless.
IIRC, he used to use online aliases to comment on himself. (Along the lines of "Isn't The Donald great, and did you hear what those losers did to him?".) And, currently, a non-obvious pseudonym would at least feed his posting habit.
I don't see how. Nobody will be following if they don't know it's him.
But part of his addiction is simply the act of tweeting, etc. And he can talk about himself, as someone else. As mentioned, he has a history of that. Not as satisfying for him as posting as himself and having so many social media followers; but it can be a way for him to vent a bit, get a little attention, and do the physical act of posting.
Comments
It is based on the NYT article they link to:
"Mr. Trump initially resisted taping the video, agreeing to do it only after aides pressed him and he appeared to suddenly realize he could face legal risk for prodding the mob, coming shortly after the chief federal prosecutor for Washington left open the possibility of investigating the president for illegally inciting the attack by telling supporters to march on the Capitol and show strength."
I'd be interested to know where you get the idea that it's frowned upon. By whom, exactly?
Good.
I am thinking as more information comes out, that percentage will diminish more.
Trump is now saying he will not attend the inauguration. I would not want him there anyway.
I think the one person that is going to be hung out to dry will be Guiliani. He was the one who encouraged the mob to be prepared for trial by combat.
@la vie en rouge (I think) was wondering about the nuclear codes, and I mentioned that in Nixon's last days, it was Kissinger and Haig in concert who had the ultimate approval. More currently, from the WaPo live updates that Nancy Pelosi has spoken to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley about keeping "an unstable president" from accessing the codes. In a related non-development, she and Schumer have yet to hear from Pence regarding the 25th Amendment, and she has renewed the threat to go with a second impeachment.
Twitter has now banned him PERMANENTLY ...
I could see Trump running up to the mic and screaming, "It's all a FRAUD ... !!! ... I won and everybody knows it ... !!!
Yes ... The situation was chaotic and violent and the cops were outnumbered ...
and one terrorist was shot, and she later died ...
Meanwhile Trump's been on a sock puppeting rampage on Twitter. After his main account got banned for 'glorification of violence' he's tried using three other accounts so far and keeps getting caught and deleted. The 'very stable genius' strikes again...
He is a life-long psychopath who is (in psych terms) de-compensating ...
In the WaPo article on the FBI investigating those who invaded the Capitol, and firms firing employees who are discovered to have been insurrectionists, there is the case of Paul Davis, a lawyer FFS for an insurance firm, who live streamed from outside, saying that he wanted to get into the Capitol. A lawyer. Live streaming. Expressing his desire to enter federal property unlawfully. Darwin in action.
Wait, so bombs don't count when they're at different buildings?
There were pipe bombs aimed at both the Democrat headquarters and the Republican headquarters. If that's not insurrection, I don't know what is.
In this world, though: If he attended Biden's inauguration in person, I would be waiting for the moment he jumped up and went for Biden's throat, or pulled out a gun, or some such. If he knows the phrase, he might shout "Sic semper tyrannis" * afterwards, then trying to swing from something on his way out. Hopefully, he wouldn't manage more than missing Biden, falling down hard, and being hogtied by the Secret Service.
But I'd rather everyone avoided that.
*"Thus always to tyrants"--what John Wilkes Booth reportedly shouted after killing Pres. Lincoln, as he swung down from the theater balcony.
He might be using new ones, but using sock-puppeting/aliases is nothing new for him. He's known to have used certain names in the past. I think one was Michael something.
"The Capitol Riot Is Over. But the Search for Booby Traps Could Take Weeks. " (The Daily Beast).
Because it's not. It's terrorism. There is no evidence of guns or bombs in the mob allowed to take over the Capitol.
Even so:
'By breaking into the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday and disrupting the electoral vote count, every single person involved in the attack has committed a federal felony, seditious conspiracy, and faces up to 20 years in a federal prison.
The elements of this crime are simple: “If two or more persons ... conspire to ... by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States ... they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”'
Amen.
That thought occurred to someone else.
Yes, there were thugs carrying guns and Molotov cocktails ...
From the affadavit [PDF] supporting the charges against Lonnie Coffman, a.k.a. the guy with the truckload of Molotov cocktails.
I suppose you could argue that Coffman and his arsenal (he had other weapons that weren't on his person) was a complete anomaly, but that seems like an awful lot of special pleading and fine parsing.
The thugs were not just out on a spontaneous *lark* ...
It was planned out ahead of time ... With the dark web document trail, they will be found to have conspired, another Federal crime ...
There is the story of one man who had a TAZER in his pants pocket that went off as he was ripping down the picture of Tip O' Neil. He ended up dying of a heart attack,
Well, Trump did go on Twitter while his mob was storming the Capitol and told them Pence was the new Emmanuel Goldstein. Not in those words of course, because Trump doesn't read and literary references are beyond him, but the idea was there. He tried to have a mob murder his own vice president in front of the man's family.
Zip-tie guy has been identified as retired Lieutenant Colonel Larry Rendall Brock, Jr. His statement on the matter is as shameless as it is transparent.
Some commenters with more knowledge of this matter than I have said that it's theoretically possible for the Air Force to recall Lt. Col. Brock to service for the sole purpose of court martialling him. I'm pretty sure the Uniform Code of Military Justice is even more harsh on insurrection than civilian law is, but I am not a military lawyer.
The guy certainly knows how to dig the hole deeper.
(I imagine Biden/Harris will move to pass a law banning capital punishment in due time.)
(Apropos of nothing, I was struck by one sentence in that article: I’ve never seen the idiom “to have one’s work cut out” used this way before. Makes me wonder what odd misapprehensions the reporter has been carrying around since first hearing that and guessing wrong about its meaning.)
IIRC, he used to use online aliases to comment on himself. (Along the lines of "Isn't The Donald great, and did you hear what those losers did to him?".) And, currently, a non-obvious pseudonym would at least feed his posting habit.
I'm specially pleading nothing. They weren't in the Capitol. Hopefully having a truckload of napalm 'near', in the environs of, within 2-400m, is a major felony. 200 (no typo) years in a maximum security prison.