Are there any updates to this? I feel like it's the most brazen challenge to the federal government so far, but it's going under the radar.
"Yeah this dude tried to kill federal law enforcement, yeah the case is open and shut, but we're just not gonna punish him, or anyone who tries to kill federal law enforcement because we don't like the president."
How is that not worthy of the insurrection act?
This is not an isolated case, but rather a nationwide issue.
"
Man Acquitted of Shining a Laser at Marine One With Trump Aboard" - Jury deliberated for only 35 minutes and acquitted.
"
Jurors Find Sandwich Hurler Not Guilty of Assault" - Guy was caught on video, jury still acquitted.
"
Jury finds Chicago man not guilty of circulating $10K bounty on life of top Border Patrol leader Bovino" - The press conveniently does not mention that the "Chicago man" was openly repping the Latin Kings gang. Less than four hours deliberation, acquitted.
I plan on posting a very, very long writeup in a thread in Deep Thoughts one day about this (still researching and drafting), but I've been coming to the conclusion that we have begun to see a disorganized insurgency forming in the country.
US Marines counterinsurgency doctrine explains that an insurgency isn't just "a bunch of people with guns", but rather a multi-layered movement of which the people committing overt action are just at the top of. You have the "guerillas" - these are the actual provocateurs. But below them are the "auxiliaries" and "underground", and they're just as important if not more so to the lifeblood of a violent "resistance" movement.
Consider this. For every person who does something violent, there is a funded lawyer there to represent him.
The ACLU recently forced a university to rehire a professor fired for saying Charlie Kirk had "swift and ironic" karma coming to him and give him a fat settlement check to boot. There is a journalist covering for them, covering up the "uncomfortable facts" and trying to paint them in a sympathetic light. These people are
actively supporting the provocateurs. We may call them the "auxiliaries". The idea behind the auxiliary is that for every insurgent with a gun, there are people ready and willing to hide them, feed them and give them information they otherwise would not know about. These institutions, the lawyers and journalists and others, serve as the modern-day equivalent to this. Then, you have the "underground", the passive supporters - people who would go onto a jury and acquit an obviously guilty man. The people who celebrated Charlie Kirk's death and called for more. The people who go "I don't condone violence,
but..." (like the professor above). If there wasn't a sizable amount of these people within the population, this court nonsense simply could not happen.
If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, he has to do it right and break the backs of the auxiliaries and the underground decisively. No half-measures. Otherwise, we will just accelerate straight into "armed insurgency", and things will become a lot worse than they currently are.
