January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to La… (2025)

.

January 6:
How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest
to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right

by Julie Kelly
(Forword by Lee Smith, over 500 pages & pub. in 2022).

.

The book has 12 chapters & an introduction:
the cognitive divide in America (intro),
what really happened on January 6th (1),
the armed insurrection myth
[perpetrated by the Dems and their propaganda media] (2),
the white supremacist myth (3),
the Dem's domestic war on terror (4),
the cop Brian Sicknick [not killed by rioters, died of natural causes] (5),

the role of the capital police (6),
Ashli Babbitt [unarmed protester shot by cops] (7),
FBI involvement (8),
where is the video footage (9),
the jailed "deplorables" (10),
the possibility of a fair trial (11),
show trials and 2022 (12).

Book Blurb: Americans were shocked and outraged to see chaos unfold at the Capitol on January 6, 2021...

Democrats, the news media, and many leading Republicans immediately blamed the roughly four-hour disturbance on President Trump. The president “incited an insurrection,” the American pubic was told. It prompted a second impeachment trial of Donald Trump after he left office.

But one year later, the original narrative of what happened that day has crumbled while hundreds of Americans have been swept up in an unprecedented investigation led by Joe Biden’s Justice Department to punish them for their involvement in the January 6th protest. The public has been misled—and flat-out lied to—about a number of aspects related to that day. This book exposes them all

.

Extraordinary. All the details you'll never hear from the Democrats and CNN, etc. This is an ongoing campaign to perpetually blame and punish Trump voters, the republicans and conservatives - and it seems to be working despite exposés like this one.

..

.

This book is well-researched, so it is disappointing that she makes such giant leaps and presents them as facts. She downplays what happened on January 6, downplays the white supremacy of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and Three Percenters, and seriously misrepresents the meaning of 'insurrection." An insurrection is a revolt against a government seat. She claims an insurrection must involve an attempt to completely overthrow a government. This is just part of the hair splitting she does to try to make the actions of thousands on that day not very serious. And there is NO way you can convince me that if the tables were turned and Trump won, with Biden stoking Antifa to show up to try and halt the certification, breaching the Capitol, hurting police officers and gaining entry into the chambers, that she wouldn't be writing THAT book. And make no mistake, she hates Antifa and the George Floyd protests; she referred to Floyd as a felon and a drug addict. True statements, but like most things in this book, used as a cudgel to support her arguments, and, really, after what happened to him, it's a sad, disrespectful way to refer to the man and was glimpse into her heart. She, like others on the right, claims that the government has rounded up the agitators and is throwing the book at them. In some ways she is right. One judge went as far as to say a defendant needed to be made an example of. But when you read what they were charged with or pled to, breaching the Capitol and interfering with government processes, yeah, that's kind of a big deal in American history. That's kind of the thing that could've gotten you executed at one time. Kelly also says that law enforcement is to blame for what happened, having viciously attacked unarmed people. This ... doesn't even need to be responded to. It is baffling. She waffles between saying the hammer came down way too hard on the "protestors" but then outlines the MISDEMEANORS they were charged with. She admits that Trump egged them on, which is to her credit: "Donald Trump himself clearly bears some responsibility for fueling unsatisfied outrage about the 2020 election." Some sections are not holding up well after what has come out so far in the hearings, too. "It was even feared that Trump would exploit the opportunity to suspend the Constitution..." Well Ms. Kelly, all that is about to be proven, with multiple members of his own administration providing the evidence. This book helped me understand the right's response to the hearings that are currently underway and what to expect. "They weren't armed, it was law enforcement's fault, they weren't white supremacists, the only person who was killed was one of them, Trump isn't to blame, hey whattabout the Floyd protests, nothing was organized in advance, and it is being used as a gateway to full scale government suppression of the right and its ideology and groups." Yet, no one can deny what they can see with their own two eyes. Perhaps that's why Fox News refused to air the hearings.

January 6 by Julie Kelly

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...

As a lived experience, the January 6 incident seemed anti-climactic. Americans had spent an entire year watching the Left burn down blocks of cities, police stations, buildings, attacking federal courts, looting stores, and murdering people. During the summer of 2020, antifa rioters had spent weeks attacking the White House. They sent scores of Secret Service agents to the hospital. They burned down a historic church on the other side of Lafayette Park. I read reports from the Portland police that lasted for months about how antifa rioters were blocking the escape doors of the downtown police station while trying to set the building on fire.

This was not excusable hijinks. It was an attempted mass murder.

The media explained that all of this was not worth discussing because the riots were mostly peaceful.

But, then, Trump supporters, took a leaf from a year of leftist rioting and spent a few hours doing far less than what antifa had done for a year and suddenly it became fashionable to talk about insurrection...without acknowledging what had been going on for a year.

Worse still, we were required to say what we were commanded to say by the Democrats and their media allies. We had to agree that January 6 was an "insurrection" and an attack on "Our Democracy." We had to ignore the videos of peaceful protesters lined up to enter the side doors or walking peacefully through the ropes in the entry chamber. We had to accept that Brian Sicknick was killed by a fire extinguisher until that claim was debunked and then we had to pretend that there had been no "disinformation."

So, all this left me with a question, what really happened?

Julie Kelly's book is a useful step in answering the question. Kelly's reporting addresses the stinking fish in the punchbowl, e.g., it was an "unarmed insurrection" in that no one was arrested with a firearm within the Capitol. "Fact checkers" attempt to debunk this by pointing out that there were arrests "on Capital grounds" or in "secured areas" of people with guns, but they don't acknowledge the shell game being played with these terms. "Capital grounds" are the large open areas OUTSIDE the Capitol. These grounds had always been open to protests previously. They were declared "secured areas" for January 6, 2021. So, when a media figure talks in generalities about secured areas, pay attention. Kelly explains:

"Christopher Alberts of Maryland was arrested around the same time on the evening of January 6. Alberts was on Capitol grounds near the visitor’s center when a Metropolitan Police officer found a 9mm handgun in his pocket while searching people in violation of Bowser’s curfew. He originally was indicted on three weapons charges and one count of trespassing.26 In May, after law enforcement officials publicly admitted no firearms were recovered in the building during the protest, Alberts was hit with a superseding indictment, which added six more counts including civil disorders. The filing generated a new round of headlines even though Alberts’ gun possession charge was old news.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 86). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Kelly exhaustively details the indictments for weapon charges, and they almost entirely ad hoc weapons of opportunity, like the mythical fire extinguisher imagined to have been used to attack Sicknick.

Today (October 24, 2022), I was doing research on the claim that Trump supporters "smeared" feces on the Capitol walls. This could have happened, people being people, but the reports were all on the first days, along with the claim that Sicknick was killed by a fire extinguisher and that there were bullet holes in the building, both of which are disinformation in light of the absence of weapons and the truth about Sicknick's sad passing. Kelly classifies the excrement charge as a myth:

"The long-winded diatribe repeated a number of falsehoods and exaggerations about January 6, including the suggestion Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of the protest; that the building was “desecrated” by regular Americans, and how workers had to “wipe away blood, and clean feces off the walls” after the protest.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 375). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Truth is the first fatality of war. January 6 has been turned into a weapon of war. Skepticism - putting claimants to the test of their claim - is the best policy. How hard can it be to provide proof - the Capitol must be the most photographed building in the world. If it is true, there are photos.

Speaking of costs, Kelly notes the following:

"It started to look like USCP couldn’t tell the truth about anything related to January 6. The Architect of the Capitol, technically a member of the USCP department, floated the idea that protesters caused $30 million in damages including “broken glass, broken doors, and graffiti,” J. Brett Blanton told a congressional committee in February. “Statues, murals, historic benches and original shutters all suffered varying degrees of damage, primarily from pepper spray accretions and residue from chemical irritants and fire extinguishers. This damage to our precious artwork and statues will require expert cleaning and conservation.”81 Blanton’s estimate made big headlines. “Capitol Riot Costs Will Exceed $30 Million, Official Tells Congress,” the New York Times reported on February 24. An NPR headline screamed, “Architect Of The Capitol Outlines $30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot,” on the same day. That wasn’t true, either. In seeking restitution from January 6 defendants, the Justice Department admitted the building only sustained about $1.5 million in damages. It is unknown how much of that was actually caused by police officers using chemical sprays inside the building.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 233). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Far worse than January 6 has been the damage done to civil liberties, accompanied by the silence of former civil libertarians as lives and careers are ruined simply because Trump supporters traveled to Washington DC on January 6, 2021. Kelly describes the excessive reaction and the hideous conditions that January 6 defendants are kept in. During a time when violent criminals were released on the public because of concern about Covid, the Biden administration has taken people with no criminal record - who are guilty of a misdemeanor at most - and locked them up, where they have been abused by presumably Democrat guards, held in solitary confinement, forced to undergo reeducation and confess their ideological correction, and, then, ultimately, convicted of a misdemeanor before a heavily Democrat Washington DC jury pool.

This is not due process. We would not have subjected Communists to this treatment, and they were agents of the Soviet Union.

This is an important book to read. I would like to read other books on the subject. I would like to see a debate on the subject so that the truth claims of both sides can be tested. But as it is, we are likely only to be told what we must believe and then smeared as a threat to democracy if we don't go along with the canards.

3.0/ My journey into learning about January 6, 2021 began when I encountered the homonymous book at my father’s house. It was clear by the subtitle there would be a right-leaning bias, so I looked into other perspectives after I completed the book - ideally protestors’ points of views and/or a member of Congress involved in the event. I found Ben Hamilton’s “‘Sorry Guys, We Stormed the Capitol’: Eye-Witness Accounts of January 6” and Jamie Raskin’s “Unthinkable: Trauma, Truth, and the Trials of American Democracy.” The official report won’t be out for 3 months, so here is a layman’s best effort to make sense of the chaos (on vacation, no less!) as I review Ms. Kelly’s approach and assertions:

Ms. Kelly provides a very fair portrayal of the events of 1/6/21. She goes out of her way to be very thorough, although her contextual descriptions and interpretations are often guided by significant confirmation bias. Nevertheless, she is exhaustive in the topics she chooses to include. She goes out of her way to see Trump supporters and rallies through a reverential or celebratory lens, and any critics (even within the Republican Party) acquire a much more critical tone.

I agree with her that “Like any battle scene, the facts that emerge after the dust settles often tell a more nuanced story - the line between the bad guys and good guys can blur.” I agree the vast majority of people who attended the presidential rally were patriotic Americans participating in a peaceful protest. I agree “it is true that Trump at times unwisely chose to focus on far fetched, hard-to-prove election fraud claims rather than provable violations of election law in key states.” I agree “it is indisputable that some police officers sustained grave injuries and numerous people committed serious crimes. Protesters who attacked police officers attempting to do their job should and will be held accountable.” I agree 1/6/21 will be remembered as one of the darkest days in America’s history (because of the attempts to disrupt the transfer of power and the hundreds of people injured/imprisoned, not as a pretext for the government to target the political right). I agree “Reasonable people can agree that the events of January 6 should not have taken place. Things got out of hand, and those who intentionally broke the law clearly deserve to be punished.” I agree with her summary of FBI Director Christopher Wray there were three groups (inverted pyramid): 1) peaceful, maybe rowdy protestors, who didn’t violate the law; 2) people swept up by emotion into low-level criminal behavior (trespassing); and 3) the small group who breached the Capitol grounds, who engaged in violence against law enforcement, and attempted to disrupt the members of Congress in the conduct of the constitutional responsibilities. Wray went on to say, “And some of those people clearly came to Washington … with plans and intentions to engage in the worst kind of violence we would consider domestic terrorism” (a point Ms. Kelly clearly would not support).

Ms. Kelly leaves her position vague, but sympathizes with protesters. In one of her more insightful passages, she says that the “refusal of the courts, the main stream press, and establishment politicians to take their concerns seriously… inflamed their sense that some kind of grand conspiracy was taking place. So, it’s no wonder that so many … believed a literal coup had occurred and that Biden was an illegitimate president. To people in this state of mind, rebellious actions are not only permitted, but may be required. The same logic had earlier applied to the anti-Trump resistance, and to the violent aspects of the George Floyd protests that summer.” (56) So many times I wondered if she could gain some perspective or solidarity across the great ideological divide - on this point, or later concerns about the application of police force, prison conditions, or mass imprisonment (in this case, of Capitol protestors). No such luck.

Another trend is an inversion of facts that I cannot reconcile. She is quick to imply a Biden-endorsed “coup” above, but can’t imagine that Trump’s efforts to reverse the popular election results could possibly be a “self coup” (an illegal attempt to retain power) even if the results were upheld by every court he challenged (62 cases!), swing state GOP legislators, his own VP, Senate Majority Leader, Attorney General, daughter and son-in-law. Never does she consider that the courts and bipartisan “establishment politicians” are the checks and balances that define our democracy, and solidarity among all these often opposing groups against a single man trying to maintain power may suggest serious errors in her logic.

Ms. Kelly focuses on small points or creative interpretations to minimize the aspects of the protest that don’t fit her narrative. Here are a few examples:
1. Armed insurrection: The event was not an “insurrection” because it was not organized and coordinated, not armed (with guns), and, most importantly, there was no plan of action once the group seized the reins of power (88). Let’s take this apart:

A) Organization - It is clear the most violent paramilitary element planned the attack on the Capitol in advance, and executed using walkie-talkies and ear pieces during the protest. She admits the head of the Oath Keepers vowed an insurrection the day after Biden was declared winner, and they were prepared to use weapons stored in a Virginia hotels if summoned by the President. She admits the Proud Boys spent months planning, funding, and coordinating their response. Yet somehow the riot was spontaneous. [Of note, Hamilton provided some interesting insight on the “lack of coordination” supposition: “The crowd used a flanking maneuver on the police to get into the building, i.e., they forced the police to concentrate into one area, then quickly moved their assault to a different, less defended area…. It shows the crowd was unusually organized and it was focused specifically on getting inside the building. That’s not what one might expect from a spontaneous riot of people wearing silly costumes.”]

B) Arms - Apparently bear mace, batons, pipes, bats, tasers, hockey sticks, pitchforks (and various other flag-bearing weapons) did not count as “arms” (forget 1 million people chanting outside). [What “patriot” mounts a flag on a large pitchfork?]

C) No plan of action once inside - Yes, it is clear the protestors had no idea what to do once inside or how to seize the “reins of power”, but there were clear plans to “take the Capitol” to disrupt Congress. To me this represents a failed plan, not a lack of effort to intimidate (oooops, I meant “encourage”) legislators and disrupt the vote. As noted below, the pressure on legislators had a clear strategic goal (according to Raskin) - to force a 12th Amendment “contingent election” - whether the protestors knew the implications or not. Trump’s tweet during the riot “All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN” has new insight through this lens. While it seems far fetched on the surface, Raskin makes a compelling argument that most Senators and Representatives (including Mitch McConnell) felt was factually correct.

By my logic, acknowledging there was some level of clear planning and coordination to occupy the Capitol, this is still a failed unarmed insurrection at minimum. She admits several hundred of the protestors’ front lines violently engaged police immediately and entered the Capitol by force even before Trump began his speech. They were by no means “peaceful.” While these points seem petty, they block her from analysis of all the substance of the impeachment trial where no one doubted this was a failed insurrection. The coup d’état failure she mentions assumes the grand plan was for the protestors to take over power. However, as Raskin successfully argued in the House, and 57 of 100 Senators supported, the real goal was a “self coup” where the election was forced into a “contingent election” in the House that mathematically would have made Trump the winner. Read Raskin for details.

2. White supremacist militia groups - She is upset with the “white supremacist” description of the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters because there were no racial slurs or angles. I am not sure how she would know about racial slurs this through photos and sporadic smartphone video. Many of these groups actively recruit military personnel and openly offer to serve in a militia capacity. Her emphasis to refute the “white supremacy” description is irrelevant when their paramilitary skills are the main concern. [Of note, Raskin noted African American Officer Dunn reported hearing the N-word dozens of times during the riot: “I got called the N-word fifteen times today… I sat down with one of my buddies, another Black guy, and tears just started streaming down my face. [And] I said, ‘What the [f—-], man? Is this America?” (331)]. Not a “great” America, that is for sure.

3. Obstruction of Congress - She disagrees the Oath Keepers intended to disrupt Congress because Congress was in recess at the time they stormed the building. She was well aware the recess was caused by rioters actively breaking into the Capitol chambers with Congressmen still inside, but that apparently was a moot point. “Indeed, it appears that far from acting as a paramilitary force trying to storm and occupy the US Capitol, the Oath Keepers were LARP-ing, i.e. ‘live action role playing,’ enacting a scene designed to look meaningful when, in fact, it accomplished nothing.”(87) Hmmm - that sounds like a reach. The “role playing” bought many of them prison terms.

4. The aggressors - She feels the riot was spontaneous demonstration that turned ugly, provoked by police overreaction and shadowy FBI informants in the crowd. She blames the police “overreaction” to one million people descending on the Capitol as the main problem, not the well orchestrated battle plan by front-line protestors, or the crowds’ polar response to Pence’s lack of support to Trump’s claims. [Of note, security used the same techniques on the June 2020 Washington BLM and Lafayette Square protests, and neither of them disintegrated into large scale mob violence.] I believe Ben Hamilton summarized my confusion on the aggression point: “… in what strange, upside-down world does that make sense? I’m pretty sure the team trespassing in the halls of Congress, with Congress in session, is the one playing offense, lady. They’re the aggressive team, moving forward into places they aren’t supposed to be. The blue team is playing defense, they’re not aggressive. Their job is literally to defend this place and push back intruders or, you know shoot them. The reason these cops even have guns is for situations like this, but they aren’t using them, and you’re lecturing them about being nicer to you? You’re the ones breaking in!” (68)

5. Ominous instigators - As mentioned previously, Kelly blames “shadowy FBI informants” or various left-wing forces for tipping the peaceful protest into an ugly riot. Because the front line of “protestors” immediately attacked the police (unprovoked), they point the finger at “shadowy” leftists as the trigger and catalysts for the treasonous behavior. It is unlikely any law abiding peaceful protestor would dismantle barriers and attack a police force the size of Dallas’s because someone whispered something in their ear. I believe Ben Hamilton captured the changing tone of the protestors as the day went on: “It belatedly dawns on everyone that you get in trouble when you do this kind of thing, so they chuck the QAnon Shaman in the trash, decide he is no longer part of ‘us’, and try to pin all the blame on him. MAGA couldn’t bear the thought that their own people had gotten them in trouble, so they needed a scapegoat who was an outsider.”

6. “But what about”: She uses the classic “but what about” distractions to justify some of the Capitol violence: “Some police were indeed injured to various degrees in the fighting. But it is also worth noting that nothing that occurred at the Capitol protest in terms of either physical or verbal abuse was not also done to cops all over the country during the BLM/Antifa riots the previous summer.” For sure there are many parallels worth exploring, and some are features of angry mobs (especially when antagonized by opposing extremists). However, saying “other groups did bad things, too” does not legitimize the violence on January 6.

7. She believes the death of Officer Sidenick - to the extent chemical irritants were involved - is more likely due to “friendly fire” than the protestors spraying bear mace at him. I am sure the immense stress of the day contributed to his demise as well, even if he did not die of blunt trauma (as implied in early analysis).

One common ploy used was what I call the “denominator defense”. Apparently, because the vast majority of people were nonviolent, patriotic Trump supporters simply supporting the President, we should dilute the magnitude of the attack on the Capitol. Examples [my emphasis]:

- “The incursion into the Capitol itself was not organized and planned by highly trained white supremacist militia groups - it was LARGELY a spontaneous event.”

- “Quite to the contrary of the Democrats’ narrative, the COLLECTIVE GOAL of hundreds fo thousands of Trump supporters at the Ellipse and later on Capitol Hill was not to stop the democratic process but to encourage Republican legislators to approve a plan to examine the election in key states.”

- “The VAST MAJORITY of those who attended Trump’s rally were there simply to support the President.”

- “Apart form some improvised weapons brought LARGELY for the purpose of resisting violent Antifa members, the crowd was not armed.”

- “Indeed, the idea that the brief disturbance at the Capitol - a chaotic political protest that had POCKETS of violence and featured MORE clownish behavior THAN criminal misconduct - rose to the level of an ‘insurrection’ or attempted coup d’état was absurd and overblown from the start.”

- “But the OVERWHELMING NUMBER of people involved in January 6 do not fit the media’s narrative of treasonous insurrectionists who wanted to hang Mike Pence or kidnap Democratic lawmakers with zip ties.”

How many highly trained “treasonous insurrectionists” do you need to stop Congress, injure security or legislators? 140 officers were injured, so we have to acknowledge they were there. Using her logic, if only 865 of over 1 million protestors were charged with crimes (less than 0.09%), what is there to talk about? When the denominator is 1 million people, what number of criminals is relevant? At no time does she show concern that a mob broke into the room where Pence and Pelosi were supposed to be standing chanting “Hang Mike Pence!”/“String ‘em up!” and saying “We were looking for Nancy to shoot her in the friggin’ brain, but we didn’t find her.” (There were people carrying nooses, and a gallows was erected outside the Capitol. Which “peaceful protestor” brought the full-sized gallows?!)

Ms. Kelly cannot figure out why Capitol protests are different than BLM or other social protests. This is because an attack on the Capitol with Congress in session has many more laws attached, moments of transfer of power are especially vulnerable to a democracy, and the top three legislators in line of presidential succession were actively pursued by the most violent of the mob. According to Hamilton, “fomenting insurrection and/or rebellion is specifically named into its own category of next-level punishments by Title 18, Section 2383 of the US criminal code.”

I agree with Ms. Kelly that it is sad the fallout for any nonviolent protestors labelled “insurrectionists” or imprisoned for multiple trespassing-related misdemeanors (Wray tier 2). Many of them were outcast at home and lost their jobs. As Ben Hamilton summarized: “At that moment, standing there with the people shouting about restoring democracy, it felt like the downtrodden were standing up to a corrupt government; that’s what they thought they were doing, even if it wasn’t true. And despite their many flaws and mistakes, I felt respect for that part of what they did.” It is true many protestors felt they were working on behalf of the President to protect democracy, so anything they did was righteous. However, it is hard for me to believe they did not notice the Capitol was off limits that day without appropriate security clearances. I am most concerned for the children of the 865 protesters thus far charged with crimes on January 6, as they may not see their parent(s) during their time in prison.

In conclusion, this book is an apology perspective. While I celebrate the extent of her depth and research on a number of topics, I struggle with the consistency of her logic. She spends so much of the book dwelling on the Wray Tier 1 (patriotic Trump supporters that broke no laws) and Tier 2 (low level law breakers = trespassers) while trying to minimize, average out or ignore the implications of Tier 3 (violent extremists that injured 140 police officers and overtly threatened the lives of legislators - most notably the top three in the presidential line of succession). I am not sure how she can say the event was a “spontaneous” riot when the depth of planning and coordination of paramilitary forces, and clear political timing and purpose were undeniable. One million people from 50 states do not spontaneously show up at the Capitol on the exact day and at the exact time they were counting the electors with no baseline speeches or any organized peaceful program. Perhaps Ben Hamilton summarized this point most eloquently: “Are they still protestors at this point? Were they ever?” Sadly, if she could not yield that even the most aggressive protestors were insurrectionists (“armed” or not), she couldn’t even approach the most frightening data and topics Jamie Raskin showed Congress during the 2nd impeachment trial. Read that book for a true thriller. I couldn’t help but wonder that if a Biden speech or BLM protest lead the day and every other detail of the day was the same (minus slogans, of course), would she invert her conclusions? Would this be an obvious insurrection and/or coup attempt? Would she be so hard on law enforcement? Would police be violence instigators or heroes defending the Capitol?

Of note, a tremendously interesting but unexpected and unmistakable theme arose across all these three books: how similar the protest-level populist left and populist right are in their concerns about force delivered by police, the conditions and degree of mass imprisonment of their representative subsets, and concern that they are ignored by “establishment politicians” and the courts. How much violence could be avoided if these two passionate but “polar opposite” subgroups could work together to productively address these challenges? Food for thought.

Postscript:
If you would like the most honest and comprehensive view of protestors’ mindsets and actions on January 6, read Ben Hamilton’s book. He is very funny and has no ideological skin in the game. He takes the time to challenge protestors on some of their premises, and his reflections show significant insight into the challenges of the day.

As mentioned above, Jamie Raskin’s “Unthinkable” is beautifully written and incredibly well thought out. His discussion about Trump’s goals to trigger a “contingent election” in the House is very interesting, and sheds important light on the events of the day. The parallels he drew to the storming of the Michigan State Capitol are very frightening, but make for a compelling thriller.

2 Stars because the book is well written and appears to be well researched, but there are so many problems with this book that it is hard to know where to start...

Title - Let's start with the title...
This is the second conservative book that I've read lately with a title that is designed to get people to pick up the book...which is fine...but it is frustrating when the title of the book is not addressed in any way in the actual text of the book. There are a few claims that Democrats are using the January 6 protests to launch a war on terror but they don't appear until the very end of the book and there is absolutely nothing in the book about How the Democrats are doing that.

War on Terror
While we are talking about a war on terror, however briefly, isn't this the natural conclusion of the GOP passed Patriot Act? I don't understand how you can complain about weaponizing a law that was obviously designed to be weaponized when it is used as a weapon. Now I don't think, that is what is happening here, and there is no evidence in the book that this is happening, there is only complaints that it is happening and that it isn't fair. Any thinking person, assumed it would happen as soon as the laws were passed in 2001. The only remarkable thing is that we haven't lost more freedoms.

Not Same-Same
The most appalling thing in this book is the repeated comparison of January 6 with the BLM protests that occurred the summer before. The author repeatedly complains that the there is a double standard between the BLM protests (no punishment) and the capital riots (lots of. unnecessary punishment). First, all protesters risk punishment for their protests. That is a given throughout history and some protesters are punished in ways that we later come to see as incredibly unfair (Nelson Mandela, John Lewis, etc.). These protests are willing to be punished or killed in order to see change come about. Societies however, often see the protests as the start to meaningful change or as great moments of liminality. Only by societies grace do some protesters not receive punishment. Second, while the visuals of the BLM protests and the January 6 protest/riot can look similar they are incredibly different...in fact they can't be more different. The BLM protests were general protests over a societal inequality and injustice against an entire, easily identifiable, class of people (BIPOC). These protests occurred for many reasons but largely because they had no other options available to them. Contrast this with the January 6 protest, which was specifically targeted (not necessarily planned in advance as the author argues effectively) at stopping the peaceful transition of power. They were spurred on and absolutely not stopped by a sitting president who was attempting to hold on to power. This group of protesters turned into a mob of seditionists when they entered the capital building attempting to stop this transfer of power. This is incredibly different, even if the people didn't realize they were committing acts of sedition, they absolutely were. You can't complain that you weren't trying to commit sedition and get away free. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME!

The author makes several remarks about insurrections requiring people to take up arms to over throw governments. I would argue that the threat of violence and the use of information is as dangerous as traditional arms. Finally, if arms were required to over-through a government then the author is perfectly ok with Hitler taking the Czech Republic at the start of WWII. I would argue that the peaceful overthrow of what is now the Czech Republic was illegal AND morally wrong.

All of this creates a difficult judicial place for the justice department (which is largely non-partisan) because it is forced to handle the aftermath of a political revolt. The clear application of justice comes with massive political implications. There is no easy answer to what to do with the protesters. Punishment needs to be applied as a deterrent to future attempts to overthrow the government. Lenience here, risks normalizing the behavior which is unacceptable.

I'd suggest that anyone looking at this issue reverse the roles and have the democrats attempt to overthrow the capital in the same way and evaluate what the punish should be. This is a hard problem without easy answers.

I documented my concerns with the unfulfilled expectations of the title earlier in this review, but the timeline and the research that Ms. Kelly pulls together here actually did the opposite of what she intended. As she put together the timeline, she has fully convinced me of the guilt of the participants and the severity of their actions. Her recounting of the facts of the case creates a damning case against the participants. I don't believe that is what she intended to do but if you must pick this book up the timeline of facts is definitely worth reading.

Let's end on two strange and disturbing trends I see among conservative authors:
1. Titles - as mentioned in the beginning of this piece, why are conservatives unable to meet the fairly low bar set by their own titles? This title does nothing to prove that the democrats are behind the arrest and detainment of January 6th Rioters. In fact the Democrats weren't even in charge when the event occurred. In my review earlier this year of Mr. Hannity's book "Live Free or Die: America on the Brink". There was no evidence presented on why change needed to occur to live free or evidence on why we would die if we didn't do this. This seems like an unbelievably low bar to clear when writing and titling a book and it is frankly discouraging that conservatives can't get there.
2. Name Calling - I notice much more from conservatives that their books are filled with name calling or superfluous adjectives that describe their liberal counter-parts in a negative way. This is very disturbing because it dehumanizes the other side. I don't see this from liberals nearly as much. Why do conservatives feel entitled to use these nicknames in their books? I'm not coming at this from a "woke" view I'm coming at it from the perspective of the damage it can do to their audience and from how it cheapens their argument. Why is there a need for Ad Hominem attacks?

If you are interested in reading a journalist view of the January 6 events, then this book is worth your time. It is based on information available during 2021, it does not include the Government’s evidence, which was withheld from the public and the defendants. It shows the draconian tactics that the FBI used to arrest the protestors and the FBI’s infiltration, via informants, as part of the riots on January 6. It makes me ashamed to have ever considered joining the FBI in the 1970s. It also shows the deplorable, torturous, and solitary confinement conditions in the political prisons the defendants were held in. Compared to the 230 people arrested in D.C. on January 20, 2017, while the protesting Trump’s inauguration, which turned violent. Or the attack of the US Courthouse in Portland, Oregon, where Laura Appleton of Willamette University stated, is it worth using our limited time and energy to prosecute each-and-every of these federal misdemeanors” In that case at least one third of the cases were dropped, including those accused of assaulting federal officers.
I waited until the committee’s report was officially published, but found out it was 13,000 pages, so I decided to look elsewhere.

I decided to read this book, Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor, and Cassidy Hutchinson’s Enough, to view the event from three different perspectives. An Insurrection and seditious attack, how irresponsible can they be!! While Congress was still hiding safely in their bunkers, not knowing what was going on outside of that room, in a knee jerk reaction they were calling it an insurrection, what idiots. Why, to take political advantage of a situation that they may have helped create. Whipping up the hype in the media, their motto is to never pass up a political opportunity no matter how minor an incident is. Followed up by the ridiculous fencing in of Capitol Hill for weeks after January 6. Fear by itself does not create a crime, and that is exactly what Congress was reacting to FEAR and possibly revenge.

If the Capitol Police understood January 6 to be a normal day, then why had some officers shown up in riot squad uniforms with their name plated blackened? It is sickening when the Thin Blue Line provided an opportunity for them to band together to protect one another, rather than bringing forth the truth so that justice may prevail? Where is the honor in that behavior.

The January 6 event was nowhere as crazy as the May/June 2020 attacks on the White House and threats toward President Trump. Let alone the destruction of property, ruining businesses, and killing innocent Americans across the country at that time by BLM and ANTIFA, which were described by the media as justifiable protests and encourage by Senator Kamala Harris. So, who died: four of Trump supporters and one Capitol Police officer, however, the officer was pepper sprayed but told his brother he was fine, but later he was taken to a hospital where they discovered he had developed a blood clot and suffered a stroke before he died on Thursday January 7.

The Justice Department was entering into McCarthyism phase II. Attaching Americans for their beliefs rather than for actions of trespassing and or destruction of property. Under the guise of terrorist, without justification. Just as Dick Cheney over-reacted in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the Joseph McCarthy witch hunts, these unorthodox legal steps will linger for years.