Do Reports That Militia Members Planned to Storm the Capitol ‘Undermine’ the Case for Impeachment?
No.
| 27 | 15 |
An article from PJ Media claims that “the Washington Post Admits Trump Did Not Incite the Capitol Riot” and that reports that some rioters planned their attack in advance “completely undermine[s] the entire case Democrats made for impeaching Trump.” As evidence, the article links to a recent Washington Post piece about the storming of the Capitol that reports there was some pre-planning of the Capitol riot.
The Washington Post article in question is titled “Self-styled militia members planned on storming the U.S. Capitol days in advance of Jan. 6 attack, court documents say.” The article outlines how some of those who stormed the Capitol had organized in order to carry out the attack on Congress, showing that “the riot was not an entirely impulsive outburst of violence but an event instigated or exploited by organized groups.”
PJ Media claims this information shows that Trump “did not incite the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6 with his speech” that day. However, while the article of impeachment against Trump does mention his speech on January 6, it also cites his behavior leading up to the day, stating: “In the months preceding the Joint Session [at which the electoral college results were certified by Congress], President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.” The article of impeachment also says that “President Trump's conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.”
PJ Media is incorrect to claim that the Washington Post “admitted” Trump didn’t incite the storming of the Capitol or that news of pre-planning “undermines” the case for impeachment. There’s nothing in the article that supports this claim, either explicitly or implicitly.
If you have a claim you would like to see us fact check, please send us an email at factcheck@thedispatch.com. If you would like to suggest a correction to this piece or any other Dispatch article, please email corrections@thedispatch.com.
Hmmmm...ok I had to re-read this.
I first thought, “sounds a bit opinionish”, but re-read the critique from PJ Media, WAPO article, and then glanced at the impeachment sent over by the house and this is a factual statement/claim.
The only thing that maybe throws that off is the last paragraph, the “PJ Media is incorrect to claim that the Washington Post “admitted” Trump didn’t incite the storming of the Capitol or that news of pre-planning “undermines” the case for impeachment. There’s nothing in the article that supports this claim, either explicitly or implicitly.”
So in short (may be wrong here), my first glance was opinion(ish) but my second reading is factual on this fact check. Just that last paragraph, the “undermining” claim might be a little iffy. But that just might be me feeling it reads differently than what the texts states.
Feelings over facts?! Kidding.
Thanks for the fact check.
I know it’s early, but do you think in the future there might be a fact check somehow on the National Guard being booted into garages etc.? Hundreds of them have tested positive from Covid and it would be good to figure who brought about the mess.
Thanks as always Alec.