The protestors were the agents, not beneficiaries, of the coup, and the path that was sought was intimidating sufficient members of Congress (counting the VP as such) into action associated with, or making sufficient intransigent members unavailable for, the completion of the electoral count to have Trump declared the winner.
> Using the word "insurrection" also portions people for activating the"Insurrection Act" and using military for policing.
If one wanted to use the assault on the Capitol overtly targeting legislators including the Vice President to justify using the military for policing, there’s no reason to use the Insurrection Act, one would simply cite the provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970 regarding “Congressional, Cabinet, and Supreme Court assassination, kidnapping, and assault” (18 USC Sec. 351; which includes attempts) and “Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault” (18 USC Sec. 1751; which includes in its scope both attempts, and completed and attempted acts against the VP); both of which include explicit authority for assistance in enforcement from “from any Federal, State, or local agency, including the Army, Navy, and Air Force, any statute, rule, or regulation to the contrary notwithstanding.” The Insurrection Act is actually much more narrow in the purposes and manner in which the military can be employed.
> Trump supporters had absolutely nothing to gain from storming the capitol
I tend to agree, actually; while it clearly was an attempted self-coup it was a mind-bogglingly ill-conceived attempt.
But they clearly thought they had something to gain, and many of them (including Trump himself on inciting them, framing it as giving courage to members of Congress who he portrayed as secretly supportive in the attempt to detail the count but cowardly without reinforcement from the mob) made very clear what it was: assuring that Biden’s election was overturned and Trump retained power.
To disagree in this moment is to demonstrate that necessity, really.
Also, while the scope of these actions is new at the federal level, this is not really that unprecedented. Protesters have stormed capitals before, including recently (Oregan, Michigan, etc). We have even seen protesters in years past disrupt congressional hearings (Kavanaugh confirmation, etc).
Government employees/representatives should not be afraid of their people either.
Breakdowns in trust are a vicious cycle. Just ask the Catholics in Britain and Ireland after Guy Fawkes tried to blow up parliament.
Patriot Act 2.0 incoming.
Quite.
The main legislative response I've seen floated from the people party that will soon control the political branches of government is transferring command of the D.C. Guard under normal circumstances to the chief executive of the District (the Mayor until and unless D.C. becomes a State, with the power a State Governor would have over the Guard, but also making D.C. a State.
Aside from that, while it hasn't spawned any legislative proposals, the President-Elect, VP-Elect, and a number of members of Congress have highlighted racial disparities in policing being evident in the event, which seems to suggest (whether legislative or merely administrative approaches) that racism in and extremist infiltration of law enforcement agencies may be recognized as a governmental security concern rather than “merely” a civil rights concern. This was obviously already going to get more attention in a Biden Administration than in the Trump Administration, but this potentially escalates that.
