Originally Posted by
boozehound
I do think that the very direct role that the President played in this whole thing shouldn't get lost in the shuffle though.
This wasn't just a riot. The President of the United States attempted to orchestrate a coup. He lost the election and then attempted to have it overturned. Repeatedly and brazenly. During all this he kept telling his supporters, without credible evidence, that the election was 'stolen'. For the most part, only the truly stupid believed him, but a lot of other people went along with it. Then it escalated. A few more people spoke out, but mostly people went along with it.
I'm all for personal responsibility for the individuals directly involved, but let's not kid ourselves that this was 100% incited by the sitting President and enabled (sorry smails) by a whole lot of people who sat quietly and just kind of hoped it would go away. A lot of people listen to the President. It's why who the President is, and what he says, matters.
Do we honestly think this would have happened if he is just conceded the election?
There should be universal support to put him on trial for treason. There should be serious consequences for the people involved, but there should be even more serious consequences for the person at the top. When you are the leader, you are held to a higher standard of conduct because people look to you for cues on how to act. Anybody who has led a large organization knows that.