You are arguing that it was not violent and not against the government?

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion. — NOS4A2

Are you sure, it wasn't LOL

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2


What was his intended purpose?

You are arguing that it was not violent and not against the government?

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion. — NOS4A2

Looks violent to me.


And they sought to overturn the election, so not only were they against the government but against the will of the people.

Irrational of course, but then recently the lawyer for Sidney Powell, one of the most prominent instigators of the BIG LIE, stated in court recently that “No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact.”

Also, many of the rioters have been charged with conspiracy, so not just people getting carried away in the moment.

People rioted outside Trump's inauguration. People rioted outside the Whitehouse. People overtook entire blocks of some cities. Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you?

Sidney Powell — praxis

...and the voting machine companies are suing the lawyers and FOX for defamations associated with Dumper Trumper's lie.

I forgot to add that a donatoer wants his 2 million back and is suing for his donation...Trump dupped him... .

Trump plays games with peoples lives. Thankfully the majority of Americans saw through it. He wants to be percieved as a victom rather than a loser so he can raise money. Another fraudulent scheme-- much like the defunct Trump University, the bankrupt Casino's, racist convictions of his rental props, and other shady deals, ad nauseum...

We saw through it, thank God!

Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you? — NOS4A2

What were their intented purpose?

The actions of those who broke into the capitol, the definition of insurrection, legal precedent and history. What occurred simply doesn't resemble an insurrection.
— NOS4A2

The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event.
— NOS4A2

I'm arguing it isn't an uprising or rebellion.
__NOS4A2


Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you?
— NOS4A2



What was his intended purpose?

People rioted outside Trump's inauguration. People rioted outside the Whitehouse. People overtook entire blocks of some cities. Since they were violent and were aimed at government, were these insurrections to you? — NOS4A2

I suppose the difference is that they were violent protests with the aim of making a statement or venting frustrations, whereas those who stormed the capital sought to force congress to reelect Trump. For instance, none of the rioters that you refer to were charged with conspiracy, were they?

I wish he had led the nutters in because then he would now be where he belongs, behind bars with horn guy. — praxis

One added letter, a “y” right after “horn”, would have made this a perfect post, Mr. Praxis.

Let's remember that Trump was in charge of the executive branch and the commander of the military, hence this would have been a self-coup. — ssu

Not really. Though technically speaking he was still all those things, his command was about to be removed by the swearing-in of his replacement. By forcing his ratification as the next president he would have guaranteed that he kept the command.

Donald Trump lives to be at heart a media personality, who absolutely enjoys the idol worship by his supporters. — ssu

And for four years he ran the American government like it was four seasons of the Apprentice!

Hence the Trump administration would had have to fire a lot of generals until they would have gotten military servicemen that thought that "protecting the constitution" would mean to halt the election process. — ssu

In my scenario the military are absent (as they were on Jan 6). Once he had been certified President Elect by the electoral ratification process, Trump would only have had to quell all and any anti-coup movements until Jan 21, after which he would remain commander-in-chief.

The ugliest thing is that the World would have adapted to the new situation — ssu

Yes. Had Trump succeeded in taking over the government, all the Bolsonaros and Putins and Xis would have been emboldened to do the same all around the world. The autocratic spirit in world politics that has been breathed fresh air over the last few decades would have ignited a general flame.

A lot of Americans would have just minded their own business — ssu

Yes: just go about day-to-day business, getting their kids to school, going to work, reclining to watch their favorite tv shows...like The Apprentice (!)

The real issue is that there does exist those, who could go through, if they would get into power. — ssu

It needs to be one of the blood-line. The blood of the prince has power over the ppl like nothing else. If his dad wasn’t bold enough, Donald Jr might be. What is he doing right now? Do you think he isn’t salivating over wet-dreams of 2024?


@"3017amen”

courage and leadership
— Todd Martin

Todd!

Can you elaborate on those concepts viz your thesis? — 3017amen

I think so: the courage to lead his mob/army into the Capitol in order to gain control of electoral ratification. That is what I meant.

force and fear
— Todd Martin

Can you (also) elaborate a bit more on those concepts viz your thesis? — 3017amen

By force I meant the entering of the Capitol accompanied by his Secret Service and backed by the mob. By fear I meant what Pence would have felt, and every Democrat and moderate Republican, whenever the gallery shouted its disapproval of the regularly listed electoral votes. In such a circumstance (literally), everyone against him would have feared for her life.

America did survive the insurrection for the simple reason there wasn’t one. — NOS4A2

There wasn’t one, rather, because it didn’t succeed. There can be no doubt about the intention of the insurrectionist: they were ready to hang Pence and Pelosi and any other politician who smelled of anti-Trumpism, including McConnell.


The division b/w those who see no coup attempt here, and those who do, is the difference b/w literal and subliminal message. Someone can insert a statement that is contrary to their overall message; but to take that statement as proof that their alleged intention is a fantasy, is itself the actual fantasy.

Three thoughts come to mind:

When a mob boss tells his crew "It would be a shame if something were to happen to Louie" I don't think he thinks that. Nevertheless, it was a shame what then happened to Louie, eh?

Second, just because certain charges are not brought does not mean the crime was not committed.

Third, the jury is still out (i.e. the prosecution is not done). That does not mean the crime was not committed.

There wasn’t one, rather, because it didn’t succeed. There can be no doubt about the intention of the insurrectionist: they were ready to hang Pence and Pelosi and any other politician who smelled of anti-Trumpism, including McConnell. — Todd Martin

Literally? You're insane. And what's happened to liberals, one of which I used to be, is a tragedy.

Super violent



This actually has a lot in here but still very sparse with anything close to violent. Barbaric, maybe, on account of the property destruction. These people, walking at the police, need to be arrested, convicted, tortured and lynched on the spot, obviously.

The division b/w those who see no coup attempt here, and those who do, is the difference b/w literal and subliminal message. Someone can insert a statement that is contrary to their overall message; but to take that statement as proof that their alleged intention is a fantasy, is itself the actual fantasy — Todd Martin

Woops wrong protest. That one was peaceful, with gunshots of peace in the background.

Carrying doubt about the insurrection is not the equivalent of rejecting it. If you feel so then your view on the topic is too simplistic. Perhaps you should hold literal messages the same amount of doubt you hold subliminal messages.

very sparse with anything close to violent — FlaccidDoor

Another Kool-Aid guzzler, I guess.

The Capitol assault resulted in one of the worst days of injuries for law enforcement in the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. At least 138 officers — 73 from the Capitol Police and 65 from the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington — were injured, the departments have said. They ranged from bruises and lacerations to more serious damage such as concussions, rib fractures, burns and even a mild heart attack.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html

the courage to lead his mob/army into the Capitol in order to gain control of electoral ratification. That is what I meant. — Todd Martin

Todd!

Of course, you are not an advocate of 'Presidential Leadership' skills that encourage domestic violence and law breaking and disorder, in order to perpetuate a falsehood/lie. (The lie being he can't admit he lost so he fakes people out/tries to convince them, and cries foul making them think it was rigged so he can raise money and live for another day.)

And if somehow one is dupped, for emotional/partisan reasons to, in this case, think the election(s) are/was rigged, how does one square the republican victories in same (states/electoral victories, etc.)?

How does one reconcile those kinds of belief systems, I wonder? Is it all emotion? Is it power? Is it greed? Don't mean to sound naive. I mean, common sense say's 'this is a guy who is out for himself, needs power and has a larger personal agenda/problem, and justifies his words/actions through partisan politics'. In other words, the public saw through it; the experiment failed. If the reader is unclear, just rewind the GOP primary tapes from 2016; many of his GOP opponents called him "a Fake" among other things. If you want names I can provide (Ted Cruise, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, etc..).

Bottom line I suppose is that if one can provide for any legal argument to support 'the lie', it would have made the scenario more likely than not. Gotta give the majority of American's credit, they saw through the bull$$it. Dumper Trumper's Bull$$it.

I would say Trump was unsuccessful in carrying out this take-over because he underestimated the wisdom of the masses. Frankly, he was not perceptive or smart enough to know people's expectation levels for such a high office, carrying such a higher responsibility to serve the republic and its citizens. (Not to mention our wonderful system of checks and balances... .) Like you said, he thought it was just a reality show or one of his private sector failed businesses. (Okay to be fair he's had 'some' success, but you gotta wonder how... .)

If nothing else, it was a lesson of how not to get re-elected. We demand a little bit more from our leaders, and words, character and integrity do matter. It's a shame, cause he did do 'some' good things... .

He's his own worst enemy. Kinda like Tony Montana in Scareface :)

I'd hate to think my postulating would lead anyone to believe "this couldn't happen" but I think 1/6/21, and many other scenarios were "gamed out", in detail, clear back in the 60s, deep in the bowels of Fort Bragg. And I'm not talking merely about gun fighters. I'm talking about the men and women who, as part of their intellectual growth and training, are steeped in and then capable of making arguments for the enemy better than the enemy himself. The risk we take in this exposure to doctrine is small due to the screening process, and due to the intellectual righteousness of Liberal and Radical Democratic Theory (please don't get thrown by those terms if you don't know what they mean in historical context).

This insurgency work was built upon previous, less focused work.

So loyal to our system are these people that they would stand back, stand down and do nothing if Americans failed to exercise the franchise, or if Trump had indeed won. They are not going to jump in if the system they have sworn to uphold wants to shit on itself.

Anyway, I hate to use the term "Deep State" because, while it actually exists, it is not the nefarious, anti-democratic, plutocratic, un-American beast that some people think it is. It is a giant, relatively lethargic and disinterested professional bureaucracy and cadre of civil servants and military folks who aren't going to turn the ship on a dime no matter what happens up in the wheelhouse. They are not homogeneous in thought, either. But they keep their oath instead of saying they are oath keepers; much as the predator lives in grace with his pray, rather than simply saying grace before he eats.

Suffice it to say, there was some "wall-to-wall counseling" going on behind the scenes. If Trump himself had not been schooled (it may not work on a delusional narcissist), it was well known in advance to folks like Flynn, et al. who may have had asperations to take a bite. The one thing Flynn and his ilk knew, however, is that when one striketh the King, strike not to wound. They had to roll their eyes at the chumps who had taken the objective and then walked out. DOH! But the fact Flynn and crew were not there is a testament to their intelligence. They knew the best they could do would be to wound, and then they would die for naught. No martyrs or true believers in his bunch. They knew the gray men would have killed them because they were told as much.

In regards to the false equivalence of 1/6/21 to the civil unrest the previous summer, I'd just like to know what the 1/6/21 folks would like to have seen in response had their opposition tried to take the Capital. That, I think, should be their fate. From belt-fed, crew-served automatic weapons, to a round-up and public execution of traitors? Naw, I guess not. It was good to let them blow their wad, see what a loser they were backing, and go home defeated. On the other hand, they did strike the king, so . . .? Then again, the left is nothing if not magnanimous in victory.

In other words, the public saw through it — 3017amen

Gotta give the majority of American's credit, they saw through the bull — 3017amen

I would say Trump was unsuccessful in carrying out this take-over because he underestimated the wisdom of the masses — 3017amen

Was it by wisdom that the masses voted him in in the first place? We let the wolf in the door...and he wasn’t even dressed in sheep’s clothing! We all knew what he was when, through our wisdom, we voted for him in 2016. Why then did we vote for him?

It’s, of course, complicated...very very complicated, and I haven’t the time to go into it all right now. I only want to make the point that, if we were so wise to resist the take-over attempt, yet we weren’t so wise to put that man in power who would inspire it.

But they keep their oath instead of saying they are oath keepers; much as the predator lives in grace with his pray, rather than simply saying grace before he eats. — James Riley

Clever; accolades from me...and especially for the spelling “pray” rather than the expected and proper “prey”...even if unintended...but especially if intended.

Not to mention our wonderful system of checks and balances. — 3017amen

So wonderful was it, that it was a wonder anyone wondered why Trump put Bill Barr in as Attorney General; that wonder wonderfully dissipated as soon as Barr gave his public summary of the Russia Collusion Investigation.

Of course, you are not an advocate of 'Presidential Leadership' skills that encourage domestic violence and law breaking and disorder, — 3017amen

I am not an advocate of either side here. As @NOS4A2, @fishfry and @FlaccidDoor might agree, “domestic violence and lawbreaking and disorder” might apply also to last year’s racial riots.

All I am saying is that Trump was in a position, on January 6, that he could have led his army, instead of just trusting in them to do it all for him, to the Capitol, put all his chips in, and, not just gambled (which activity I suppose he is familiar with, especially on the golf-course) in the contest, but participated in it...and not just participated, but could have been the main character, the chief, the general, THE MAN...and either won or lost his cause, to remain perpetual leader of the greatest country in the world, by his own merits...

...but he didn’t have the balls to do what was needed to insure that bet. By withdrawing, he insured his safety at the cost of the cause. He still hoped the cause would be achieved, but because he valued his own personal safety more, he risked less, and, though hoping for more, nevertheless got exactly what he risked.

I think he thought he had to hole it in from the fairway, so he wasn’t willing to bet on it...

...but maybe he just had to sink a 15 foot putt.

...like Tiger would have done.

.even if unintended...but especially if intended. — Todd Martin

HA! I have to confess it was not intentional. Damn!

In the unimaginable event that Trump had a successful coup d'état on January 6th, I wonder if he would have made horn guy the Secretary of Agriculture. I assume he has penchant for animal husbandry.

Was it by wisdom that the masses voted him in in the first place? We let the wolf in the door...and he wasn’t even dressed in sheep’s clothing! We all knew what he was when, through our wisdom, we voted for him in 2016. Why then did we vote for him? — Todd Martin

Actually it was the opposite. It was a lack of wisdom, through ignorance, and naivety. Many thought he was the holy Grail The outsider businessman who could save the day. As it turned out not only couldn't he drain the swamp, he was the swamp.

And of course much like this election, 2016 was a protest vote against Hillary. Moderate's on both sides didn't want the guy in there. That combined with the numbers from the extreme left tipped the scales. The GOP of course needs to redefine itself... .

wonderful was it, that it was a wonder anyone wondered why Trump put Bill Barr in as Attorney General; that wonder wonderfully dissipated as soon as Barr gave his public summary of the Russia Collusion Investigation. — Todd Martin

It certainly backfired on Trump that's for sure.

All I am saying is that Trump was in a position, on January 6, that he could have led his army, instead of just trusting in them to do it all for him, to the Capitol, put all his chips in, and, not just gambled (which activity I suppose he is familiar with, especially on the golf-course) in the contest, but participated in it...and not just participated, but could have been the main character, the chief, the general, THE MAN...and either won or lost his cause, to remain perpetual leader of the greatest country in the world, by his own merits... — Todd Martin

The problem is he was a coward not to lead his supporters and put boots on the ground with them, nor did he have enough merits to support his cause on a broader scale.

but he didn’t have the balls to do what was needed to insure that bet. By withdrawing, he insured his safety at the cost of the cause. He still hoped the cause would be achieved, but because he valued his own personal safety more, he risked less, and, though hoping for more, nevertheless got exactly what he risked.

I think he thought he had to hole it in from the fairway, so he wasn’t willing to bet on it...

...but maybe he just had to sink a 15 foot putt. — Todd Martin

Yep. He miscalculated. This is what happens when you focus solely on yourself. Not very perceptive at all and certainly not a virtuous characteristic of leadership.

I have to confess it was not intentional — James Riley

I appreciate your honesty, James, and it says a lot about your character that you confess the truth. But I already suspected it was unintentional judging by other occasional misspellings you made in your posts.

You seem, however, to be a rather sharp intellect. My advice to you is to be more careful about details, like spelling: though one’s misspellings almost always become clear through context, nevertheless, as the saying goes, “the devil is in the details” (and the angel too maybe).

In the unimaginable event that Trump had a successful coup d'état on January 6th, I wonder if he would have made horn guy the Secretary of Agriculture. I assume he has penchant for animal husbandry. — praxis

I think Trump should have (secretly, of course) recommended horny guy to Melania, to satisfy her mid-life urgings. I doubt Donald can or does still satisfy them.

Actually it was the opposite. It was a lack of wisdom — 3017amen

That’s my point, Mr. Amen: how do we extol the wisdom of a ppl in rejecting an unfit president when it was the same ppl who voted him in in the first place? Did the American ppl suddenly become wise after four years? If we were truly wise, would we have elected him to start with? Isn’t wisdom a permanent and timeless virtue? As I pointed out, he was a wolf in wolf’s clothing, so we weren’t fooled that way; for some reason we thought it better to let a wolf in than another milquetoast politician. What virtue, then, of a wolf, were we seeking as the primary quality in a leader?

It certainly backfired on Trump that's for sure — 3017amen

Au contraire, Mr. Amen: Barr stuck by his client (he was really Trump’s attorney, wasn’t he?) to (almost) the very end, helping him navigate two impeachment’s. He only got fired after he had to admit that the election was lost...

...which dove-tails into my thesis: that the election was not lost until the electorate had been ratified. Barr was jettisoned after his usefulness ran out, but he had been very useful up until that point...

...I just wonder—and maybe your superior knowledge might shed light on this—if Trump failed to properly groom/purge the military for the coming insurrection. In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him?

As one poster has already noted,

The obvious obstacle was the military — ssu

Yes. In a coup one must have the support of the military above all else. But the top brass weren’t with him, so I begin to doubt my thesis: I think, on Jan 6, the critical moment, Trump had to hole it out from the fairway were he to succeed in leading the insurrection to its logical conclusion, a precarious (literally) scenario, rather than just sink a medium-range putt.

In a coup one must have the support of the military above all else. But the top brass weren’t with him, — Todd Martin

Another consideration is, the "top brass" aren't as on top as they might like to think. And the troops aren't inclined to follow all orders. There is a limit. That limit would be found had the top brass followed Tump. But again, it's all academic, because the top brass wouldn't do that.

Another Kool-Aid guzzler, I guess. — praxis

Y E S

My point was that the integrity of news sources are to be questioned, and holding skepticism in said news sources' claims are not the same as rejecting said claims. As in taking headlines like, "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out" with a grain of salt, is not the same as saying the insurrection did not happen.

What gives me doubts that the insurrection isn't as impressive as it's made out to be is that, while being made out to sound like the most terrible thing in modern history, no one on the law enforcement side was killed. As I mentioned before, 1 officer was purported to be killed by blunt trauma but now it might've just been bear spray exposure, which both rioters and the police had. The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters.

That’s my point, Mr. Amen: how do we extol the wisdom of a ppl in rejecting an unfit president when it was the same ppl who voted him in in the first place? — Todd Martin

Todd!

Through elections occurring every 4 years. In this case the masses determined he should be fired, and of course, he was fired. In other words, he lost.

Did the American ppl suddenly become wise after four years? — Todd Martin

Yes.

If we were truly wise, would we have elected him to start with? — Todd Martin

Take a look at Jimmy Carter, or any other one term President's, they all were one hit wonders, as well.

Isn’t wisdom a permanent and timeless virtue? — Todd Martin

Wisdom much like logic, is a priori and a posteriori. With respect to the latter wisdom changes based on empirical analysis.

What virtue, then, of a wolf, were we seeking as the primary quality in a leader? — Todd Martin

The masses were looking for someone who could improve some of the political paradigms (among other things). Unfortunately his approach didn't work on many levels. For instance, his communication skills proved to be his downfall.

He only got fired after he had to admit that the election was lost... — Todd Martin

And that speaks to his narcissistic tendencies.

Barr was jettisoned after his usefulness ran out, but he had been very useful up until that point... — Todd Martin

Useful to the narcissism, or should I say fascism...

In other words, might he had fired and hired top brass so as to install his minions, in the wake of the coup attempt, so that, after it had succeeded, he could trust in them to support him? — Todd Martin

Our democracy of checks and balances would have precluded that from happening.

Todd, just an observation, your thesis reminds me of the book from OJ Simpson, 'If I Did It"; dishonorable, discreditable and unscrupulous, to say the least.

My recommendation would to take this same intellectual energy and focus on something more virtuous (vs. violence, selfishness and greed) , also to say the least... .

which both rioters and the police had — FlaccidDoor

I don't think the police had bear spray. I have bear spray. It's called "Counter Assault" and it will knock a charging Kodiak Coastal Brown Bear for a loop. It says right on the bottle that it is not to be used on humans. It shoots a cloud about four feet wide and thirty feet long. If you are down wind of your own spray, it will f you up. I've sprayed several bears and on one occasion, spraying two bears on my porch, my son, sleeping with two walls between him and the spray, woke up coughing with sore eyes.

I have never been able to understand for the life of me, how any of those unmasked traitors or cops could function in that mess at all! I once sprayed a big aggressive dog with it and he spent the next day hiding under an RV crying and spewing a metric shit ton of snot and slobber and tears all over the ground.

When I was in boot camp, I went through "the gas chamber" and actually got to the point where I could function in the chamber. I also know what self defense spray is (the kind cops use). Bear spray is on a whole 'nother level. If you have asthma, allergy or any pre-existing condition, it could kill you. And, as we used to say in the law, you take your victim as you find him. You don't get defend yourself on the basis that you didn't know your victim couldn't handle whatever it is you did to him if you shouldn't have been doing it.

As in taking headlines like, "Insurrection by orange man almost wipes America out" with a grain of salt, is not the same as saying the insurrection did not happen. — FlaccidDoor

The New York Times and their ridiculously hyperbolic headlines, whaddya gonna do. :brow:

The only confirmed murders were by the police to the rioters. — FlaccidDoor

In the Trumpian value system they would be classified as losers and suckers.

Naw, I guess not. It was good to let them blow their wad, see what a loser they were backing, and go home defeated. On the other hand, they did strike the king, so . . .? Then again, the left is nothing if not magnanimous in victory. — James Riley

I wonder if this will pass for an answer to a question of mine, unasked because no one to ask it of. During the 6jan21 capitol invasion, far as I know, one shot was fired and one person was killed by that shot. Question: why did not the police have lines which if crossed meant they would start shooting, and having started, not stopped until control re-established? It may be argued they do, and they weren't crossed, but I'm under the impression that the risks to members of Congress were at times very high. And the risk to officers on duty was clearly very high.

Winston Churchill wrote this: "In War, Resolution; In Defeat, Defiance; In Victory, Magnanimity; and in Peace, Good Will." In my opinion something like this may have been at work at at the capitol, but entirely lacking Churchill's comprehension of the topic. He at least understood that victory comes before magnanimity and good will.

My own view is that in sum, likely @James Riley, above, is exactly right. At the same time, I should like to be reassured that at some line of penetration of the capitol, those charged with defending it will actually defend it.

I have no idea what the established protocols were, if they were implemented, or not. My greatest fear is this: Some of the defenders wanted to implement the protocols, but some didn't. Those who did may have sufferer from hesitancy due to peer pressure from those who did not want to implement the protocols. Those guys still work together. That is scary, to me.

I think that is why the old maxim about striking the king is important. If you strike, and you fail, and you are not brought to your knees in humble defeat, having the defiance (Churchill) forever removed from your soul, then you will grow stronger. You will fester. And your peers, seeing nothing happen to you, will think their inclinations, hesitant or not, were and are not worth defending.

Imagine being the only guy to implement a protocol, shoot and kill a traitor. On the other hand, had the defenders opened up on the traitors, we'd have a pile of martyrs on the floor. As it is, they are all home licking their wounds, getting called Antifa, and the world is moving on. That is a good thing.

But I can't help but wonder why the Capital is held to a lower standard than the White House. You know damn well their would have been a blood bath had the left or the right tried to invade it. Maybe "the People's House" gets to be a punching bag because, well, it's the people's house.

All this is just speculation. I don't know the truth of anything.

Those who did may have sufferer from hesitancy due to peer pressure from those who did not want to implement the protocols. — James Riley

Maybe a difference between policeman and soldiers. I think of police as being necessarily more autonomous, which of course in the case of bad or ill-trained policemen is a catastrophe waiting.

I can hope the justice department will apply the right correctives.