Do Reports That Militia Members Planned to Storm the Capitol ‘Undermine’ the Case for Impeachment?

No.

By
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.

15
By
Comments (15)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    I agree with the point. In fact, I think groups planning this in advance further damns Trump’s speech at the Capitol.

    However, this strikes me as an opinion vs a fact check. I’m sure the Post did not intend to imply that Trump is off the hook but however clear that is, the Post’s motive is up to the participants of the article.

    Collapse
  2. Tom Duell

    Really - the whole argument hinges on the definition of the word "peaceful" as in "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." To make any more of this is willfully disingenuous.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Xsearnold

      I think that’s an oversimplification and hair-splitting. Trump has cultivated a reputation for “fighting” (recall his telling those at his campaign rallies during the 2016 cycle that he would pay their legal expenses). To argue that Trump did not intend or expect the violence to occur is to refute the arguments typically spouted about Trump playing 3-dimensional chess with his negotiation skills.

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Alvin Mast

    I'm not a journalist so maybe this is standard policy and acceptable, but it looks like the opening question followed by the definitive negative answer conflicts in a meaningful way with the last paragraph. The headline and answer expresses opinion that confirms the position of the Dispatch, and the defense against those who express objection is the last paragraph where it is asserted that the fact check is only concerned with a narrow issue of whether WAPO "admitted" something. Misleading at best. Fact checks don't feel like fact checks when they are used to express an opinion.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    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.

    Collapse
    1. Joe1776

      Your first impression is correct. This is an opinion check not a fact check. If trump gave no speech that day there would be no impeachment. The fact that the impeachment document is vague and fails to specify specific facts that justify impeachment doesn’t mean this evidence severely undercuts the case. Whether it does or not is a matter of opinion not a matter of fact.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Xsearnold

        I think the impeachment would not have been pursued if the protest had actually been peaceful. If those who gathered had stayed behind the barricades and waved signs and yelled their opinions it would have resembled the protests that are rather commonplace in DC. Once the violence erupted, it was natural to work backwards to hold someone accountable for instigating it.

        Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    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.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Matmos

    I would really recommend this be moved out of the Fact Check column. It doesn’t feel like a Fact Check, it feels like an interpretation of the political moment. We need fact checks now more than ever, and we need them to be trustable by people who don’t have the same interpretations, which including this might bring into question.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Alec Dent

      Respectfully, I disagree. The fact check was meant to address PJ Media's claim that the Washington Post admitted Trump did not incite the violence that occurred on January 6 and presented evidence that contradicted the article of impeachment against Trump. PJM didn't simply present an opinion: the article made specific claims that distorted and misrepresented what WaPo reported and what was included in the article of impeachment.

      The intention of the fact check isn't to argue that PJM is wrong because Trump did incite violence, but to accurately represent what WaPo reported and what was charged in the article of impeachment. I'm unsure how I could have presented the information contained in the fact check (all of which I consider relevant and necessary) in any other way. I am curious as to which part of this fact check you felt dips into opinion, and do appreciate your feedback on the matter.

      Collapse
      1. Counterpoint

        I had the same impression Matmos did when I looked at just the title and answer of “no” on the homepage. The article is clear about what you are fact checking (the PJM assertion about the WP article), but it doesn’t connect perfectly to the title. I would say the assertion that advance planning by militia groups undermines the case for impeachment is a very weak argument, but it doesn’t quite seem to hit the fact check bar of being demonstrably false to me.

        However, what you presented in the text did seem to me to be a pure fact check. As much as I love your simple catch phrase “No”, this may have been one time where a little more nuance would have helped.

        Thanks for all the work you do, and for your willingness to engage with your audience!

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Matmos

        Thanks for the clarification, Alec. The feeling I had in reading the fact check was first, that this was along the lines of many of the specious arguments we have heard (e.g. “could not have been incitement because Trump used the word peaceably”) and has to do with your interpretation of the term incitement. There also seems to be the unfortunately fairly typical partisan news media hyperbole involved. For example, yesterday I read an article from AP about Trump’s departure that said “Trump struck an ominous note, saying ‘we will be back in some form’”- well, the ominousness of that is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I understand your argument here that here were two specific falsehoods, one being the “admit” claim and the other about the scope of the impeachment articles, but I am not convinced that adjudicating internecine fights between media outlets about what one of them intended is a factual enough feeling fact check. It would get you a lot of job security though!

        By the way, thank you for your work.

        Collapse
  7. ABW

    I don’t mind what you have here but you didn’t go far enough in commenting further about those who came prepared to cause havoc with pipe bombs, M. Cocktails, clubs, etc. Wasn’t someone responsible for that prior planning, besides Trump?

    Collapse
  8. Daniel

    I like your fact checks - but we are starting to cross into opinion here.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Err ... I really think this kind of claim that is primarily an issue of Opinion should not have been fact checked in the first place. It's different from a statement such as "it was a false flag Antifa op" because there is plenty of FACTUAL evidence to debunk that.

    But this claim that "Trump didn't directly incite the Insurrection with his speech" is very similar to "Trump didn't pressure Zelensky with that phone call". In both cases the Trump defense focused on a narrow slice of the picture, and also hints at a defense that what Trump did wasn't *illegal* so shouldn't be impeachable.

    But as far as I recall there was no TDFC aiming to debunk the "it's ludicrous to impeach the President over a phone call" defense. So I don't think (unless FC standards have changed) that this kind of claim is FCable.

    Collapse