What that Harvard "study" about January 6th really showed --- Probably, there was no attempted "insurrection" on January 6th.....

 

Last week the MSM was all over themselves saying that a Harvard study of what really was going on at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was basically this:

---  "In Harvard study of Jan. 6 rioters, top motivation is clear: Trump --  The study, which was shared with NBC News ahead of its publication, logged and analyzed the motives of 417 Capitol rioters, all of whom have been charged in relation to Jan. 6"
---  "New study shows Trump, election claims were main motivator"
---  "Why Did Trump Supporters Storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6? Because of Trump, New Harvard Study Finds"

BUT  ---  IS THAT WHAT THE HARVARD STUDY REALLY SHOWED ???  

---  OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY  ---  WHAT ELSE DID THAT HARVARD STUDY SHOW ????? 

 

MAYBE  ---  IT SHOWED SOMETHING MORE IN LINE WITH THIS:

---  "Harvard Study:  Only 8% of Capitol Rioters Wanted ‘Insurrection’ "

OR THIS:

---  "Jonathan Turley says:  Harvard Report Suggests January 6th Protesters Were Defending Democracy, Not Trying to Overthrow It"

The comprehensive study by Harvard University of the motivations of those who participated in the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol found that only 8% wanted to start an insurrection or civil war — contrary to some claims and most of the conclusions by members and some observers of the House Investigative January 6 Committee.

This is how GW University Law Professor Jonathan Turley interpreted the Harvard Study results:  "....  Harvard has completed what it calls the most comprehensive study of the motivations of those involved in the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. Many will not be surprised to learn that most participated out of loyalty to former President Donald Trump. However, the study also found that only eight percent harbored 'a desire to start a civil war.' That is inconsistent with the virtual mantra out of the J6 Committee and many in Congress that this was an insurrection rather than a riot. Some of us (including many in the public) have previously questioned that characterization. Yet, it reflects the relatively small number of seditious conspiracy charges brought by the Justice Department...."

Turley also said this  ---  "....  There is no question that there were people who came prepared for [ ] a riot, including some who are extremists who likely would have welcomed a civil war. Yet, the vast majority of people on that day were clearly present to protest the certification and wanted Republicans to join those planning to challenge the election....  One of the key reasons for the resulting damage was the collapse of security at the Hill. The J6 Committee steadfastly refused to address the myriad of questions of why the Congress was not better prepared despite the obvious dangers of a riot (including warnings before January 6th)....  [T]here has been an unrelenting effort to make “insurrection” a litmus test for anyone speaking about January 6th. If one does not use that term (and, worse yet, expresses doubts about its accuracy), you run the risk of immediate condemnation as someone excusing or supporting insurrection. This framing also reduces the need to address the question of how this riot was allowed to spiral out of control...."

TURLEY'S CONCLUSION

Most important, is how Professor Turley concluded his analysis of the Harvard Study.....  "....   The effort to mandate 'insurrection' as the only acceptable description prevents the country from speaking with a unified voice. It clearly serves political purposes but only makes a national resolution more difficult as we approach a new presidential election."