Insurrectile Dysfunction Or Revoltus Interruptus?

There is a principle one should apply to all kinds of claims and narratives.
This principle applies especially to the claim that President Trump incited an insurrection.

The principle: The best way to determine if any given scenario is plausible, is to think it through.

By thinking a scenario through one discovers often quickly whether it is possible, plausible or highly unlikely.
Unfortunately, many people just repeat what they hear without the slightest examination.
That’s a pity because if they would do a minimal examination they could distinguish lies from truth very quickly.

So, let’s consider the following scenario:
“On January 6, 2021 President Trump incited an insurrection in order to prevent the legitimate transfer of power from happening by giving an instigating speech.”

Thinking this scenario through does not require us to determine whether Joe Biden stole the election from Donald Trump or not.
In order to keep our scenario simple we will not deal with this question.
Assuming that Donald Trump‘s objective was preventing the transfer of power, the first thing we will do is to look at alternative ways to achieve that objective.
The reason for this is a very simple one. If Donald Trump could achieve the same objective through other means more easily or if other scenarios were promising more success then our scenario would be less plausible and less likely.

The alternative scenarios:

  1. The „classic banana republic scenario“.
    Donald Trump uses the military to maintain power.
    This scenario was virtually impossible.
    Given that some very senior active and former members of the military opposed even the legitimate use of the military against riots of BLM/antifa and looters, there was almost zero chance that they would follow orders.
  2. Donald Trump uses the Insurrection act to maintain power.
    This scenario had practically zero chance of success for the same reasons scenario #1 did.
  3. The use of paramilitary units or extremist militias to maintain power.
    This scenario would have pitted such units against the regular military and law enforcement.
    Love him or hate him but we know how Donald Trump reveres the US armed forces and law enforcement.
    There was no way in hell he could ever do this.
  4. Use of terorism to maintain power.
    Never mind that the chances of success were practically zero, this scenario was no option for Donal Trump for the same reasons scenario #3 wasn‘t.
  5. Use political pressure to cause Repuplicans in Congress and Vice President Pence to do everything constitutionally possible in order to correct the outcome of fraudulent election results from key states.

On January 6, 2021 only scenario #5 was even remotely likely to succeed even though the chances of success were extremely slim.
How does this scenario compare to the Trump-incited-an-insurrection scenario?
What could Donald Trump possibly hope to achieve?
That the insurrectionists would force the congress to decide in his favor?
How would they do that? Threaten the congressmen with violence?
Hold hostages? Cause mayhem and chaos?
Only a nutjob would believe that a decision in Trump‘s favor taken under the threat of a violent mob would stand longer than one hour.
As soon as the mob would leave the Capitol such a decision would be declared instantly null and void.
Eventually the mob would be taken care of by law enforcement or the national guard or the military.
Such an insurrection had exactly zero chance of success.
All those who accuse Trump of inciting an insurrection have failed to state clearly what the plausible endgame of such an insurrection would be.
They have failed to show convincingly how Donald Trump or the Republican party would benefit from an insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be bad for the country, for Trump, for the Republicans and all conservatives, putting them in a very bad light. The current attempt to paint all Trump voters as potential terrorists is only one example of the bad consequences that would follow a real insurrection.
Any kind of insurrection would be doomed to failure and would only shift the focus away from illegitimate election results to the insurrection, thus putting Trump and the Republican party on the defensive.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that the Capitol riot was planned several days in advance. Therefore, the riot could not have been incited by Trump‘s speech. Never mind that President Trump told his supporters to march peacefully and patriotically.
Knowing that the DC riot was planned in advance, it is theoretically possible that the rioters were just waiting for a signal to start it.
Even though theoretically possible, such kind of planning and coordiination would require communications between the Trump administration and the violent, professional rioters who started the riot.
There is zero evidence for that. Not even a hint.
Furthermore, there were diverse groups from opposing ends of the political spectrum who planned and led the riots. Coordinating such diverse groups would be pretty tough. One would expect that an insurrection that was planned days if not weeks in advance would have a clearly defined focus and a clearly defined plan with a clearly defined goal. Instead we saw rioters acting aimlessly, committing random acts of violence, taking selfies and acting like a bunch of yahoos. The whole thing looked very chaotic.
All this makes the whole „signal“ scenario laughable.

Having considered the alternative scenarios, #5 remains the only plausible one. No matter how slim its chances, this was the best that Donald Trump could hope for. Tens or hundreds of thousands of protesters nonviolently making a big stink and a lot of noise outside of the Capitol, thus encouraging the Republicans to act in his favor.

The question then remains: What exactly was this riot? Was it an attempt of an insurrection but it failed because of incompetence or impotence? A case of insurrectile dysfunction, if you will.
Or was it a case of revoltus interruptus? The case of a false insurrection where the participants go all the way but at the last moment they deliberately withdraw from the final execution of the revolt.
I believe that this was a case of revoltus interruptus by some of the professional rioters..
This was combined with a bunch of other professional rioters who didn’t have a real viable plan and who were as clueless as the ones who followed them.