The January 6th Committee Hearings have brought the embarrassing and ignoble last days of the Trump administration – and the accompanying chaos and drama – back into the limelight.
How much of this current political process is mere theater for the purposes of cementing public perception and how much of it is genuinely aimed at uncovering the ‘truth’ is unclear. Possibly a mixture of both: along with an aim of establishing some kind of definitive record of those events for posterity or to act as a warning for the future.
Certainly, Washington looks like it’s undergoing some kind of trauma therapy: while also trying to publicly exorcise demons that were conjured up in the Trump era, culminating in the events of January 6th 2021.
It’s all a rather remarkable spectacle.
In the early months of last year, I’d spent a few weeks really trying to dig into the confused narrative surrounding and permeating the Jan.6th Capitol Riot or ‘Insurrection’: and came to certain conclusions about what was really going on behind the scenes between the divisive 2020 election and the dramatic events of January 6th.
Some of those conclusions are unlikely to be shared by the January 6th committee or its present inquiries.
Certainly, there were elements I presented in that article that I haven’t seen presented anywhere else.
And this might be partly because there are only two types of coverage (or ‘analysis’) when it comes to the January 6th debacle (and, for that matter, when it comes to Trump and MAGA in general): there are those who (justifiably) despite Trump and everything he represents and there are those who worship Trump and everything he represents.
Some of the elements, therefore, that I objectively included in my analysis were things that neither of those sides would want to acknowledge or explore: because it doesn’t service either of those partisan agendas or worldviews.
The hypothesis, if I can call it that, was laid out in this in-depth article here from March. Instead of re-posting that entire article here again, I’ll instead just include the link to it – and encourage anyone interested to visit (or revisit) the original article.
Crucially, although some things in this article are in agreement with some conclusions reached by the investigations and hearings (i.e: there was no substantial election fraud – Trump was just trying to stay in power), there are other things here (key things) that the official hearings and inquests are highly unlikely to examine or even acknowledge.
In essence, although the main drive of the current process in Washington DC is to prosecute those perceived as being guilty of ‘insurrection’ on January 6th, as well as to prove the previous President’s culpability in trying to stage a ‘coup’ or a violation of the democratic process, there are still things that are probably *not* going to be revealed or scrutinised: especially where it involves elements of the military or involves military-linked psychological operations.
In other words, as necessary as these hearings probably are (for posterity or for closure), they appear more focused on political objectives being met: meaning that some areas are simply not going to be looked into and a cover-up of sorts will still be maintained – possibly for the sake of perceived national security or even just for the sake of America’s sense of stability.
The article linked to here makes the case for the following; that (1) the ‘Storming of the Capitol’ may have been merely the visible part of a broader plot that may have involved elements of the military and a planned coup; (2) that this broader plot was abandoned at the last minute, leaving the rioters at the Capitol as the fall guys to take all the blame for the so-called ‘insurrection’; (3) that the Q-Anon Psy-Op was being run by Psychological Operations specialists for political purposes, including an eventual subversion of democratic processes; (4) that the Nashville bombing on Christmas Day was connected to a planned coup or military-linked intervention to block the peaceful transfer of power, and (5) that all of it might link back to Fort Bragg.
The original article of course fully illustrates why I’m making that case and provides various items of supporting evidence.
What was Trump’s plan – and the plan of those around him – and how close might it have come to actually working? And, just as relevant, did Pelosi and others know what was going to happen and deliberately facilitate it?
At the heart of it is the question: how close did the United States actually come to either a coup or to the inciting incident of either a Civil War or a move into dictatorship?
These questions – and examining some largely unexplored elements of the lead-in to the events of January 6th – are significant: because this is a story or a timeline that might not be finished yet. With the feasible possibility of Trump running for re-election, all of these issues and problems could reemerge: and next time the outcome might be different.