They may have buried it in the “local” and “legal” section of the paper but the Washington Post shocked Democrats when they reported that President Donald Trump did not incite the riot at the Capitol on January 6th.
The authors of the report even point out the misinformation about “incitement” surrounding the President the last two weeks.
From the Washington Post (we archived the report in case they try and change it):
“Self-styled militia members from Virginia, Ohio and other states made plans to storm the U.S. Capitol days in advance of the Jan. 6 attack, and then communicated in real time as they breached the building on opposite sides and talked about hunting for lawmakers, according to court documents filed Tuesday.
“While authorities have charged more than 100 individuals in the riots, details in the new allegations against three U.S. military veterans offer a disturbing look at what they allegedly said to each other before, during and after the attack — statements that indicate a degree of preparation and determination to rush deep into the halls and tunnels of Congress to make “citizens’ arrests” of elected officials.”
So the riot was planned days in advance and according to court documents and the reporting by the Washington Post was originally planned to take place BEFORE the January 6th rally.
The latest revelation from the Washington Post is going to throw a wrench into DC’s Attorney General who is determined to criminally charge President Trump.
“Clearly the crowd was hyped up, juiced up, focused on the Capitol and rather than calm them down or at least emphasize the peaceful nature of what protests need to be, they really did encourage these folks and riled them up,” DC AG KarlRacine told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, referring specifically to Trump’s comments last Wednesday to his supporters that, “you’ll never take back our country with weakness.”
“Whether that comes to a legal complaint, I think we’ve got to really dig in and get all of the facts. I know I’m looking at a charge under the D.C. Code of inciting violence, and that would apply where there’s a clear recognition that one’s incitement could lead to foreseeable violence.”
Good luck with that Racine because “facts” say otherwise.