The "Insurrection" Illusory Truth Effect

No one from January 6th has ever been charged with insurrection. Yet, many people still believe an insurrection took place. Could the illusory truth effect be to blame?

Sources for every claim are always linked on QuickConservative.com.

SOCIAL MEDIA

Facebook: @QuickConservative
Instagram: @QuickConservative
YouTube: @QuickConservative
Twitter: @QuickConserv

Transcript

A 2021 study found that how truthful people perceived a statement to be increased with every time that statement was repeated, with increases wearing out around the ninth time. This finding supports earlier research on the illusory truth effect, which is the tendency to perceive claims as truer if we’ve been exposed to them before. 

My name is Jessica and you’re listening to Quick Conservative.

Now, we’ve all heard the term “insurrection” repeated many times in reference to January 6th. And yet, out of the 10,000 people present on that day, not a single person has ever even been charged with insurrection, defined by Title 18 U.S. Code Section 2383. The best prosecutors could get is 13 people, out of 10,000, for seditious conspiracy, which is different from actually engaging in an insurrection. 

Now, none of this is a secret. In fact, after impeaching Trump under “incitement of insurrection” charges, the government very publicly spent half a year interviewing over 70 witnesses and writing an 845-page report. In addition to finding Trump innocent, none of their research led to a single insurrection conviction.

If something about that statement feels wrong, blame the illusory truth effect. According to the Television News Archives, mentions of the term “insurrection” skyrocketed after January 6th.

Why does it matter? Could the illusory truth effect really blur rational thought?

Well, take the recent Colorado verdict, ruling Trump can’t appear on the state’s Republican primary ballot. That case started as a simple petition brought by local voters to revoke Trump’s eligibility. The Court stated it was their opinion that Trump had engaged in an insurrection, so he should be removed - even though, as one of the judges writes:

“There was no fair trial [..] experts opined about some of the facts surrounding the January 6 incident and theorized about the law [...] I have been involved in the justice system for thirty-three years now, and what took place here doesn’t resemble anything I’ve seen in a courtroom.”

To put everything in context, let’s take a look back on the events of January 6th. 

In addition to the term “insurrection,” the media often repeats the word “deadly” when discussing the Capitol riot. However, rioters did not kill a single person. In fact, the only person killed on January 6th was Ashli Babbit, a protestor and United States Veteran, who was shot by Capitol Police. 

Three other deaths took place that day, but they’re not what most people think. Two people had a heart attack: Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips (both ruled natural causes) and one, Roseanne Boyland, died from a drug overdose (which was ruled an accident). 

Note: All references in this podcast refer to official medical examiner determinations. In other words, these are the official “on the record” causes of death. 

Another buried point?

Not a single police officer died on January 6th. When the media talks about fallen officers, they’re referring to four suicides and one stroke that took place in the days and months following the riot, including:

Brian Sicknick: Stroke (January 7)

Howard Liebengood: Suicide (January 9)

Jeffrey Smith: Suicide (January 15)

Kyle DeFreytag: Suicide (July 10)

Gunther Hashida: Suicide (July 29)

Note: DeFreytag wasn’t even present during the riot; he was deployed later that night to enforce curfew. And even The Washington Post reports "authorities drew no connection between the riot and [Hashida]’s death."

This insight brings us back to present day, and the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling on December 19, 2023, that bars Trump from appearing on the state’s Republican primary ballot. In a decision lawyers are already preparing to appeal to the Supreme Court, Colorado ruled that Trump should be removed from the ballot because, in their opinion, Trump had “engaged in insurrection” and was therefore disqualified under Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, the media has - rightfully - focused on the Court’s wild interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the fact that Trump has never been convicted of insurrection), but here’s the super scary part that no one’s talking about: 

The First Amendment doesn’t protect “true threats” as free speech. Colorado ruled that Trump’s speech on January 6th wasn’t protected by the First Amendment for this reason - but to arrive at that conclusion, they didn’t just look at Trump’s speech. They literally pulled statements from all over the place, including eight years prior, and even included a sociology professor at Chapman University’s testimony on what he thought other people thought when Trump said certain words. 

When Trump’s lawyers pointed out that this logic would allow First Amendment considerations to factor in “any speech ever uttered by [President Trump]" the judges wrote: "Of course, there are limits. But we need not define [them] here."

If your first instinct is to rewind that last sentence and ask, “Wait, what?!”, you’re not alone.

As crazy as it sounds, constitutional scholars confirm: the present verdict  "lacks any limiting principles." Translation? If this verdict is upheld, courts can take anything you say and, by piecing together statements like a puzzle - of anything you said before or after - decide that your free speech is not protected because - even if what you said specifically wasn’t a “true threat” - in the Court’s opinion, the bigger picture suggests it was.

Could it be that the illusory truth effect was employed to make acceptance of this type of Constitutional blurring easier to swallow? If so, it wouldn’t be the first time in history a claim was repeated until the masses believed it was true.

Thank you for listening to Quick Conservative. Looking for sources for today’s podcast? Visit QuickConservative.com. You can also find us on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter.