Propublica has produced a timeline anthology of videos posted on the alt-Twitter Parler during the riots/demonstrations/insurrection (call it what you will) on the day of the certification of the US presidential elections at the Capitol in Washington.
I find it fascinating and potentially a great resource for any contemplation of what is involved when what used to be called a “mob” um, mobilises. You could book-end it with, say, a reading of Barnaby Rudge – probably Dickens’ worst novel, dealing with the Gordon Riots.
One thing which strikes me is the amount of sheer milling-about that was involved. Another is the mix of people with varying motivations and attitudes. If it weren’t for the fact that this was occurring at a critical juncture for the conclusion of the election process, you might take many of the participants to be unruly tourists – wandering about with their mobile phones aloft. I reckon many of them thought of themselves participating in a demonstration rather than an insurrection.
In real-time, it must have been hard for many who were there to know what was going on. Watching the videos (and I haven’t watched them all) made me appreciate more the common characterisation of mobs as “unruly.”
At around 2.44 pm inside the Capitol (you can filter the videos by “Around D.C.”, “Near Capitol” or “Inside Capitol”) you can hear some shots. Could one of those be when Ashli Babbitt was shot? No-one seems to flinch much when you hear the shots, so maybe not – and, to repeat myself, how could anyone not right there know what was going on? There were rubber bullets so there presumably was other gunfire.
As far as I can make out, this was a group (generalising here despite my earlier point about a mix of people) certain of the righteousness of their cause and the force of numbers. Otherwise you’d think that in the USA there could easily have been firearms borne (though apparently one participant died after tasering himself). I recall reading that participants were urged not to bring firearms. It could be (though hard to work out how) there were physical checkpoints further away from the Capitol which precluded that, but a desire to avoid more lethal retaliation from security forces and possibly to minimise legal risk for organisers probably played a part in any case.
The address by Trump kicked things off. He set his audience on their way [afternote: though some were already at the Capitol and making ready to storm it before his speech concluded – see comment on another blog here] then went back to the White House leaving them to it. That’s a pretty blatant form of would-be plausible deniability of responsibility for whatever might ensue. To my mind it also shows why it’s fitting that he be impeached for inciting what then proceeded in his name.








