The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: msquared on May 21, 2021, 01:05:51 PM

Title: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 21, 2021, 01:05:51 PM
So the Republicans, some of who were partly responsible for the Jan 6 insurrection, wanted to negotiate a down the middle split for the commission. The Dems gave in, gave the Republicans all they asked for, and now the Republicans in the Senate are going to vote against the group they said they wanted.

What a bunch of spineless cowards.   Of course they know that if the commission were to really do its job, they would look like the traitors they are.

This is not the Party I grew up with. This group is a bunch of Trump cowards.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on May 21, 2021, 01:56:24 PM
Please tell me there's a place where you can by a qanon shaman hat and mail it to those Senators. We need to investigate Benghazi 8 times, but no need for an attack on the capitol.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on May 21, 2021, 07:48:15 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 22, 2021, 10:05:29 AM
Elequent as always TheDemon.  ::)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 28, 2021, 12:40:25 PM
Well the Party of Trump has blocked the forming of the Jan 6 Commission, even though the Dems give in to all of the Republicans demands.

Of course they do not want an investigation.  They were either actually involved or complicit (many of them).  And they still are with the spreading of the big lie.

Bunch of gutless spineless cowards.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2021, 09:14:22 AM
Being the senate, I’m surprised Heels Up Harris didn’t “work it” for a few political favors and get this deal done. Historically, she’s been pretty adept at that sort of thing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on May 29, 2021, 09:15:03 AM
Please tell me there's a place where you can by a qanon shaman hat and mail it to those Senators.

This will be my halloween costume this year.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 29, 2021, 09:37:23 AM
Crunch that is disgusting.  I mean the comment about Harris.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on June 01, 2021, 01:35:32 AM
The Republican attacks a woman for having sex, how utterly surprising.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on June 01, 2021, 03:14:28 AM
::)

Oh yeah, and now this.

Benghazi needed a dozen or so congressional investigations but the Dems want to look into just what exactly happened on Jan 6th and who supported it and now it's all eye rolling and comments about political attacks. F outta here with that nonsense.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2021, 10:13:17 PM
Benghazi needed a dozen or so congressional investigations but the Dems want to look into just what exactly happened on Jan 6th and who supported it and now it's all eye rolling and comments about political attacks. F outta here with that nonsense.

Benghazi had an obvious coverup attempt from the start. Remember the attempt to blame the Embassy attacks on an obscure youtube video?

What coverup exactly happened in regard to January 6th?

Besides the one where Trump's speech is being twisted, taken out of context, and oh, evidence indicates that your Capital Hill attackers were already at work even before Trump spoke.

Also, there was no hours long firefight happening at Capital Hill while top Administration officials elsewhere in Washington twiddled their thumbs. We also never did find out where Obama was or what he was doing as I recall. And in any case, final authority for security on Capital Hill rests on Capital Hill, not the White House.

So not sure what you think a congressional investigation into this is going to achieve that other processes currently underway won't be able to address. Besides, nothing says they cannot conduct a congressional inquiry depending on what the other investigations, reviews, and even prosecutions uncover. There are only several hundred people waiting to spend their time in front of a judge for January 6th.

Compared to how many legal processes happening for Benghazi?

They're apples and oranges. Nothing brought forward to date supports doing what the Democrats want to do, at least as an immediate action item.

This is something we're likely to see get hashed out in the courts hundreds of times over the coming years. You're going to be sick of it before that process completes as it is, you really need more?

Also, as I recall, I was rather lukewarm on the additional Benghazi investigations at best. So when I'm seeing another investigation being ramped up that just looks like it's going to be another round of political theater that goes nowhere and spends tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.. I'm supposed to jump and down and cheer for more of the same?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2021, 11:02:55 PM
I'm sure the courts will spend a lot of figuring out exactly what the failures were that lead to the Capitol being breached. Along with guilty verdicts I'm sure they'll provide recommendations about how to stop it from happening again.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 01, 2021, 11:40:34 PM
I'm sure the courts will spend a lot of figuring out exactly what the failures were that lead to the Capitol being breached. Along with guilty verdicts I'm sure they'll provide recommendations about how to stop it from happening again.

It's almost like the Capital Hill Police are incapable of doing an internal review, or asking other federal agencies to provide assistance in such a review into what their failings were.

What exactly is a Congressional Review going to accomplish that the CHP, DOJ, DOD, and other parts of the alphabet soup couldn't do already?

I guess they might unearth some vast conspiracy that the CHP is hiding to protect pro-Trump Republican lawmakers? Information hidden so well that the FBI and other federal agencies are unable to find this evidence as they assist? Or maybe all of the Federal Agencies are in on the pro-Trump coverup of what happened on January 6th and only a Congressional Review is going to be able to get to the bottom of things?

A year ago, deep state conspiracy theories were the domain of Right-wingers. Now they're evidently the bread and butter of the Democratic Party.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 01, 2021, 11:57:13 PM
You could say the same thing about Benghazi or any other government failure. Every part of the government is equipped with the capability for self-evaluation. That doesn't mean there isn't room for Congress to investigate further.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2021, 12:20:52 AM
So the Republicans, some of who were partly responsible for the Jan 6 insurrection,

What Insurrection?  Don't tell you believe in that myth.  What happened at the capital in no way qualifies as an insurrection, now what happened in Seattle?  That did qualify.

Quote
...wanted to negotiate a down the middle split for the commission. The Dems gave in, gave the Republicans all they asked for, and now the Republicans in the Senate are going to vote against the group they said they wanted.

Wow, what a concession by the Dems.  They agreed to pay lip service to bipartisanship so their commission to investigate the non-insurrection would not be immediately dismissed.

Quote
What a bunch of spineless cowards.   Of course they know that if the commission were to really do its job, they would look like the traitors they are.

If the commission really "did it's job" it would have to decisively conclude that charges of insurrection and treachery are nothing by hyperbole spread for partisan political advantage.

Quote
This is not the Party I grew up with. This group is a bunch of Trump cowards.

The only party that isn't what you grew up with is the Democrats.  They've completely abandoned reason, science and civil rights in pursuit of neo-facism and totalitarianism.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2021, 12:22:29 AM
Please tell me there's a place where you can by a qanon shaman hat and mail it to those Senators. We need to investigate Benghazi 8 times, but no need for an attack on the capitol.

So you missed the multiple ongoing investigations and hundreds of charges?  Or it's not politically convenient to acknowledge that the "attack" on the capital has already been overinvestigated, overcharged and overpoliticized?  What exactly are the ever so fair Congress people going to add?  Zip, Zilch and Nothing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 02, 2021, 12:24:49 AM
I'm sure the courts will spend a lot of figuring out exactly what the failures were that lead to the Capitol being breached. Along with guilty verdicts I'm sure they'll provide recommendations about how to stop it from happening again.

Guilty of  what?  My prediction, they get no actual verdicts only guilty pleas (in exchange for massive deals).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 02, 2021, 03:33:13 AM
I'm sure the courts will spend a lot of figuring out exactly what the failures were that lead to the Capitol being breached. Along with guilty verdicts I'm sure they'll provide recommendations about how to stop it from happening again.

Guilty of  what?  My prediction, they get no actual verdicts only guilty pleas (in exchange for massive deals).

And also on that note, it should be mentioned that the idea that members of Congress were active conspirators in the January 6th Capital riot really needs a reality check.

I imagine there are plenty of investigators and federal prosecutors salivating at the possibility of finding someone, anyone, who is willing to testify to exactly that. And would be more than willing to work out immunity deals/reduced charges for anyone who did so.

That they seem to only be able to provide evidence that some rioters were given tours of Capital Hill shortly beforehand, and that's all they have? It says there is a giant nothing-burger there.

Unless of course you want to go for "deep state conspiracy" theories and proclaim the deep state is now covering for the pro-Trump crowd in a massive way.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 02, 2021, 08:33:09 AM
The gaslighting is strong here. Go back and watch video from the day and say that was not an insurrection. The armed crowd was trying to stop the Congress from confirming Biden as the winner of the election.

The Republican Party has changed and for the worse. I made no comment on the Dems. This Whataboutulism needs to stop.

What were the root causes of Jan 6 and the Seattle riots?  In Seattle people were protesting the murder of an unarmed black man by a cop.  Mainly peaceful protests until dark when unknown masked people started rioting and allowed the Police to crack down.  I think there were hundreds of arrests made so during the night.  Most of them were later released, since the arrest were mainly blanket actions. There is much evidence of outside agitators starting the violence.

Jan 6 was a group, acting on a false narrative promoted by Trump and his allies, that the election was stolen. In broad daylight they stormed the Capitol trying to stop the democratic process. This was not done by masked Antifa agitators, but by sign carrying, flag waving Trump supporters. No sign of outside agitators starting the violence.  Just Trump supporters.

Of course the Republican's are scared of the commission.  It would show that  many of them were complicit, either in true belief (Hawley, Bobbert, MTG, Ghomert etc) or cynically using the crowd (Cruz, etc).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 02, 2021, 09:03:18 AM
Guilty of  what?  My prediction, they get no actual verdicts only guilty pleas (in exchange for massive deals).

People were caught on camera breaking into the Capitol and you're asking what they're guilty of? But I'm sure they're just pleading out because they're afraid of the massive left-wing machine out to persecute god fearing patriots. No real laws were broken, it's all just a conspiracy to keep Trump out of power.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 02, 2021, 12:24:44 PM
Quote
The four new defendants are charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress’s confirmation of the 2020 presidential election in joint session on Jan. 6. They are accused of forcing entry through the Capitol’s East Rotunda doors after marching single-file up the steps wearing camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection and Oath Keepers insignia.

Trespass? Battery? Vandalism? Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Most of the codefendants from Oath Keepers are pleading not guilty, so it does seem we will find out if they can be convicted without "massive" plea deals for testimony.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 02:19:07 PM
For two straight months leading up to Jan 6th you had numerous Congressmen running right along with Trump in his Big Lie. The election was rigged, it was stolen, Dominion, etc. Ted "I guess my wife IS ugly" Cruz was right there up front.

Were Congressmen making secret plans to lynch Pence with people on the scene that day? Probably not. Is it a generally accepted legal precedent that you don't get to yell fire in a crowded theatre and try to duck out on responsibility for the trampling deaths? Yep.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on June 02, 2021, 02:25:39 PM
It's funny because I remember comparing the two transitions with my work colleagues, UK residents. In 2017 I was super proud, was like, "Look at this a massive pile of *censored* is now president but the leader of the opposition is giving him a ride in his limo, treating him with respect. Peaceful transition of power, the best example the US can hope to give the world."

Then 2021 happened and I was like..."Look, even the Republicans aren't going to cover for this. They love this country too."

And now here we are!
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 04, 2021, 11:53:54 AM
Quote
The four new defendants are charged with conspiring to obstruct Congress’s confirmation of the 2020 presidential election in joint session on Jan. 6. They are accused of forcing entry through the Capitol’s East Rotunda doors after marching single-file up the steps wearing camouflaged combat uniforms, tactical vests with plates, helmets, eye protection and Oath Keepers insignia.

Trespass? Battery? Vandalism? Seems pretty cut and dried to me. Most of the codefendants from Oath Keepers are pleading not guilty, so it does seem we will find out if they can be convicted without "massive" plea deals for testimony.

Interesting that the House leader denied accepting security help when offered, then we saw videos of police opening up barricades and ushering people into the "People's House." We also now have confirmation that many of the recorded "invaders" were not Trump people at all, rather AntiFa false-flag activists dressed in MAGA hats.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 04, 2021, 12:03:19 PM
Wm

Give links to examples of non Trump supporters (or antifa as you say). How about the hundreds of Trump supporters who were there?    How about the videos of Trump supporters breaking in to the Capitol? Breaking down doors and windows? 

And police letting them through the barriers does not change the fact of what they did to get inside the building and what they were trying to do while inside, which was to stop the election of Biden.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 04, 2021, 01:27:26 PM
As someone pointed out, if Republicans are so utterly sure that much of the destruction at the 1/6 insurrection was done by Antifa, why did they block a bipartisan Congressional investigation where they could prove it to the entire nation? ;)

Answer: because they know it is just another lie that they could never prove in a setting where you have to lay out your proof and have it scrutinized by everyone.  Just like they were never able to prove that the election results were false in any court of law. :)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2021, 06:46:19 PM
How about the videos of Trump supporters breaking in to the Capitol? Breaking down doors and windows?

Have all of those people been positively identified? Because I also seem to recall video clips of Trump supporters also trying to stop many of those people from breaking windows and destroying parts of the building.

You're the one asserting they're Trump supporters here. Prove it. And don't just cop out by saying they were present at a Trump Rally, or that "because the media says so." Show me the reported arrests and supporting information that has been made public.

Quote
And police letting them through the barriers does not change the fact of what they did to get inside the building and what they were trying to do while inside, which was to stop the election of Biden.

You seem to believe the Capitol Building grounds are smaller than they actually are. You seem to assume the property destruction and violence was happened at all entrances into the capitol building. That wasn't the case.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2021, 06:47:57 PM
As someone pointed out, if Republicans are so utterly sure that much of the destruction at the 1/6 insurrection was done by Antifa, why did they block a bipartisan Congressional investigation where they could prove it to the entire nation? ;)

Answer: because they know it is just another lie that they could never prove in a setting where you have to lay out your proof and have it scrutinized by everyone.  Just like they were never able to prove that the election results were false in any court of law. :)

Answer: Because they don't need a congressional investigation for that. They need only await the criminal prosecutions of the persons who committed the act and look into the backgrounds of those people. Those offenders will be a matter of public record after all, so it won't be hard for Journalists and others to follow up on that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 04, 2021, 07:00:00 PM
I am not the one claiming. It is the FBI.  It is their own posts, while it happened, on Facebook and other social media platforms? What do you want me to go list every arrest that has been made and show they are a Trump supporter?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 04, 2021, 07:00:44 PM
Well, so far the people who have been identified and are being prosecuted are all Trump supporters, from what I've heard.  It will be interesting to see how many of the most violent attackers are not eventually caught and charged.  So I don't think we need to wait until everyone is caught before we can conclude that Trump supporters were actively involved in the violence.

And while arrests and prosecutions can identify and punish the guilty, such investigations cannot go into exactly why those who tried to stop the working of Congress did so.  How much were they influenced by others, especially government officials?  Who may have helped them before the incident?  Who may have incited them?  These and other issues, necessary to understand to help prevent any future incidents, are beyond the purview of the justice system, but not of a Congressional investigation.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 04, 2021, 07:12:30 PM
And while arrests and prosecutions can identify and punish the guilty, such investigations cannot go into exactly why those who tried to stop the working of Congress did so.  How much were they influenced by others, especially government officials?
I'm pretty sure there are laws which could be applied to this, which means Justice can investigate.

Quote
Who may have helped them before the incident?

Relevant to possible Conspiracy charges, and possibly others. So again, inside the remit of Justice investigating the event.

Quote
Who may have incited them?
Basically a repeat of your first point, but with this phrasing, definitely in the remit of Justice to investigate.

Quote
These and other issues, necessary to understand to help prevent any future incidents, are beyond the purview of the justice system, but not of a Congressional investigation.

No, they are in the purview of the Justice Department to investigate as it relates to potential charges being filed. They're also in the Purview of the Capital Hill Police(and DoD) as part of their security posture reviews in regard to how they're going to approach security on Capital Hill in the future. They don't need new authority, they already have authority to do this.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 04, 2021, 09:52:27 PM
Besides the Q-Anon Shaman, who we have all heard about how about this lady.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/florida-opera-singer-criminally-charged-203355874.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 05, 2021, 02:06:11 PM
Another Q-Anon person, and therefore Trump supporter,  who was convicted of staturoy rape 10 years ago is now charged in the Jan 6 insurrection.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/accused-capitol-rioter-yelled-police-145625551.html

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 05, 2021, 03:04:41 PM
And did I ever deny that Trump supporters were involved in the riot on Capital Hill?

I'm pretty sure I've been saying from day one that there were going to be Trump Supporters involved.

What I'm challenging is the claim that all of the property damage that happened while it was going on was done at the hands of Trump supporters.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 05, 2021, 03:57:03 PM
You sure set a high level. All?  Ok how about 99.99%?   Or 99.9999% was done by Trump supporters?

Why not give me an example of someone who was not a Trump supporter who caused damage?

Also I do not remember saying all damage was done by Trump supporters. I personally think it was all done by Trump supporters but I am willing to enterain evidence that that might not be true.

Let's see some.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 07, 2021, 04:16:18 PM
I would be most interested in seeing those who were not just not Trump supporters, but who were actual Trump opponents, who were arrested and charged in the Jan. 6 insurrection.  After all, that's what a false flag person really is, as I've heard there were participating.

Let's see their names and the proof that they were opponents.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 08, 2021, 12:27:45 PM
...
Why not give me an example of someone who was not a Trump supporter who caused damage?
...

This.

Every single person I've seen information about has been proud boys, oath keepers, and/or Trump supporter. If you want to make a claim that a significant portion of the riot was a false flag operation then could you should be able to find at least a couple people at this point. Are there types of people who are drawn to crowds to cause chaos and violence? Yes. Were people like that the significant drivers of the violence at the capital that day? Evidence doesn't support that assertion.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 08, 2021, 12:36:20 PM
Just like the elections they do not need proof. In fact the lack of people who fit this description is just proof of how far this conspiracy goes. Soros has deep pockets.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 08, 2021, 04:35:17 PM
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories#database (https://www.npr.org/2021/02/09/965472049/the-capitol-siege-the-arrested-and-their-stories#database)

NPR has a database of people arrested so far for anyone who wants to try to find false flaggers in the Trump crowd.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 08, 2021, 04:54:32 PM
Quote
According to court documents, Mellis later wrote on Facebook, "Don't you dare try to tell that people are blaming this on antifa and BLM. We proudly take responsibility for storming the Castle."

Jonathan Gennaro Mellis

Forcibly Assault, Resist, Oppose, Impede, Intimidate, or Interfere with Officers and Aiding and Abetting; Civil Disorder; Restricted Building or Grounds; Violent Entry or Disorderly Conduct, Obstruct or Impede Passage and engage in Physical Violence on Capitol Grounds; Obstruction of Justice/Congress
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 08, 2021, 05:47:06 PM
I have no proof but it is obvious that he is a deep plant, paid off by Soros decades ago. The left plays the long game.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 08, 2021, 06:30:26 PM
Sometimes crazies are going to be crazy, and do crazy stupid stuff. The Right-wing echo chamber is every bit as bad as the left wing one.

Trump did unwittingly provide the right-wing whackies enough of a pretext to think they might be pulling off a 21st century version of Bastille Day. But a bunch of people with dubious connections to reality c/o their chosen echo chamber acting out in a given way does not make a grand conspiracy on the part of Trump, or most Trump officials to actually see, or facilitate, anything violent happening on January 6th.

"But they should have seen such an outcome was possible" is still an argument made from hindsight. So far as Trump and his immediate circle were concerned, the likelihood of such a thing was likely viewed as either being very remote, or false flagged.

They underestimated their own crazies. But it seems Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnel made the same mistake with the security of Capitol Hill for that day.

For the worst of the bad actors that day, I'd still expect to find that Trump's presence at the rally on the 6th had nothing to do with what they were getting up to. They were going to do it regardless of what Trump said. Obviously so with the pipe bomber, given he deployed them the night before if I'm remembering the reporting right.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 08, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
TheDeamon

You say Trump unwittingly provide right with whackies pretext. What make you think it was unwitting?  Listening to his speach, and that of others at the rally it seems to me then knew exactly what they were doing The KNOWINGLY prvoided the whackies pretext.

IF you tell your nut job neighbor who has a gun that the guy down the street is eyeing his wife and that he had better do something about it and then he goes and shoots the guy down the street, you incited him.  You did not unwittingly provide him a pretext. You knowingly gave him a pretext.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 08, 2021, 09:37:03 PM
Quote
They were going to do it regardless of what Trump said. Obviously so with the pipe bomber, given he deployed them the night before if I'm remembering the reporting right.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 08, 2021, 10:03:21 PM
Because Trump said nothing about the election until Jan 6th.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 09, 2021, 10:19:11 AM
Because Trump said nothing about the election until Jan 6th.

This. Trump and his lawyers lied for months about election fraud. Trump pressured election officials to invalidate election results in his favor. Trump repeatedly told his supporters the election and their country was being stolen from them. Trump then lied about Pence's ability to appoint Trump to a second term. Trump then called for a rally at the capital on the day that congress was meeting to finalize the electoral college results. Trump then told that rally that they should march to the capital and fight like hell because they were losing their country.

And then people did just that and it was a shock to everyone in the Trump camp ::). In the words of Mitch McConnel Trump is practically and morally responsible for the violence at the capital on Jan 6.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2021, 02:22:52 AM
 ::)

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

Quote
And Rudy, you did a great job. He's got guts. You know what? He's got guts, unlike a lot of people in the Republican Party. He's got guts. He fights, he fights.

Nope, that's not it.

Quote
For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and weak Republicans. And that's what they are. There's so many weak Republicans. And we have great ones. Jim Jordan and some of these guys, they're out there fighting. The House guys are fighting. But it's, it's incredible.

Nope, that's not it.

Quote
And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.

That's definitely not the quote you're looking for.

Quote
Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder.

That's not it.

Quote
But we've done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we're out here fighting. I said to somebody, I was going to take a few days and relax after our big electoral victory. 10 o'clock it was over. But I was going to take a few days.

That's not it.

Quote
The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument.

Now what they do is they go silent. It's called suppression and that's what happens in a communist country. That's what they do, they suppress. You don't fight with them anymore. Unless it's a bad story. They have a little bad story about me, they make it 10 times worse and it's a major headline.

That's not it.

Quote
But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There's never been a movement like that.

That's not it.

Quote
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Ah there it is. But it doesn't seem to mean what you're wanting it to mean. given the context of every other time he used the word "fight" in that same speech. It's clear as day he's being figurative in his use of the term. And the conclusion of his speech where he states what the objective of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capital Hill? That kind of actively rules out violence. Beside he'd already spelled out what the recourse was for the Republicans that "didn't fight for him in Congress" should they fail to do so back near the start of the speech:

Quote
And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: oldbrian on June 10, 2021, 09:25:05 AM
But what specifically was up for a vote, on Jan 6th, in the capital building, that the right-minded but weak-willed republicans needed to be encouraged to fight against?  He was telling people to march on the capital and encourage their republican leaders to 'do the right thing'.  Which right thing would that be?

I will even stipulate that he meant non-violently.  That they were simply to provide silent proof that the republican members did not stand alone.

But again - stand against what?  What did the senators have to do on that day that the crowd need to provide gentle encouragement for?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 10, 2021, 09:57:39 AM
Can anyone say with a straight face that Trump could not have prevented Jan 6 violence if he had chosen not to be pugilistic, petulant, and petty? Did he CAUSE it? Don't know. But it never happens if he were a better man.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 10, 2021, 10:26:41 AM
Quote
Did he CAUSE it? Don't know. But it never happens if he were a better man.
That statement feels like a contradiction.

Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition
Cause: a principle, aim, or movement that, because of a deep commitment, one is prepared to defend or advocate.

So you/we sort of do know the CAUSE. The argument is when a person that participates in CAUSE is accountable or not accountable for the effect? Morally, legally?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2021, 10:48:23 AM
Quote
And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.
...

Ah there it is. But it doesn't seem to mean what you're wanting it to mean. given the context of every other time he used the word "fight" in that same speech. It's clear as day he's being figurative in his use of the term. And the conclusion of his speech where he states what the objective of marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to Capital Hill? That kind of actively rules out violence. Beside he'd already spelled out what the recourse was for the Republicans that "didn't fight for him in Congress" should they fail to do so back near the start of the speech:

How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

What would your opinion be if a BLM leader got up in front of an emotional crowd, said black people were being gunned down in the streets, that police were carrying out a genocide against blacks, then told them to march down to a police station and fight like hell. If that crowd went and burned down a police station killing a police officer and getting multiple protesters killed would you call for their arrest for incitement? Would you let them skate on the fact they used fight non literally in other points or their speech or at one point in the speech said to march peacefully? Speaking to a large emotional crowd you have to be mindful of the most emotionally evocative parts of the speech.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 11, 2021, 01:54:11 AM
Can anyone say with a straight face that Trump could not have prevented Jan 6 violence if he had chosen not to be pugilistic, petulant, and petty? Did he CAUSE it? Don't know. But it never happens if he were a better man.

Trump undeniably created the environment for what happened.

But I do not believe Trump knowingly did anything to make it happen, and it is very likely he did not believe that anything like what happened on the January 6th was even likely to take place.

So if you're trying to pass judgement based on intent then the case is dead. As to liability? That's a very different rabbit hole, and one that is best buried as deeply as possible. That's not somewhere Democrats really want to go, the MSM and certain social media outlets played major roles "in creating the environment" which allowed Trump to do what he did, after all. Both in 2020, and way back in 2016.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 11, 2021, 09:40:38 AM
I'm sure Trump wanted something to happen that would let him remain President. Though if he said the things he did without an awareness of what could happen, it doesn't speak very well of him.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 11, 2021, 12:16:34 PM
Quote
But I do not believe Trump knowingly did anything to make it happen

When, after all the things Trump had done but didn't mean to do, do we hold him accountable and stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Its time to stop thinking of Trump as dumb - he knows exactly what he's doing and how to do it so that people aren't quite sure.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 11, 2021, 02:46:36 PM
Trump made it clear that he was complicit when he sat on his hands and wallowed in the chaotic violence. He attacked pence in a tweet while Pence was being evacuated. It took fifteen more minutes for him to call for people to stay peaceful. Please note he did not tell everyone to go home. Not until two more hours of chaos had persisted. If he DIDN'T intend for those things to happen, why wouldn't he have tried to stop it?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 11, 2021, 09:47:52 PM
The gaslighting is strong here. Go back and watch video from the day and say that was not an insurrection.

It was not an insurrection.  There is no element of what happened that is even remotely consistent with an insurrection.  And you know what?  You know that too.  You are just overly invested in the real Big Lie:  that if you call it an insurrection over and over and over no one will ever ask for proof of that.

Quote
The armed crowd was trying to stop the Congress from confirming Biden as the winner of the election.

Armed crowd?  What percentage?  As far as the actual "evidence" on the crowd being armed, less than 3 dozen of the 300 charged (out of tens of thousands) are facing weapons charges.  That includes charges for weapons that weren't at the rally, and the vast majority are charged with having weapons they picked up at the scene - in large part police batons.  Some stun guns, some pepper spray.  Hard to explain - in reality - why a group that has a large percentage of gun owners didn't bring any of their weapons to their "insurrection" to overthrow the US government by disrupting a ceremony with a fake significance.

Care to explain why the "insurrectionists" were less armed than the average "peaceful" protesters from the left?

Quote
The Republican Party has changed and for the worse. I made no comment on the Dems. This Whataboutulism needs to stop.

Nah.  The claims that something is "whataboutism" need to stop.  Violence in politics is fundamentally about the left using and accepting the use of violence to pursue their own goals.

Quote
What were the root causes of Jan 6 and the Seattle riots?  In Seattle people were protesting the murder of an unarmed black man by a cop.  Mainly peaceful protests until dark when unknown masked people started rioting and allowed the Police to crack down.  I think there were hundreds of arrests made so during the night.  Most of them were later released, since the arrest were mainly blanket actions. There is much evidence of outside agitators starting the violence.

This is why the country is in trouble.  You bought a Big Lie.  The protests in Seattle are tolerated because they are about destablizing Seattle, they create "emergencies" that can be used to change local, state and national government to provide power to the left that is not remotely consistent with our form of government.  In some cases there were hundreds of arrests, but virtually no charges, specifically because the prosecutors are political activists on the left.  The police do their jobs, the activists violate their oaths of office and refuse to do theirs.  Ask yourself why there are hundreds of charges in the capital riot, when the videos show that the leftist riots are generally even more violent (and frequently demostrate clear evidence of pre-planning and criminal intent).  Simple answer, the  prosecutors are political activists on the left.  It suits their politics to bring those charges, but any neutral application of the law would reverse those outcomes.

Leftist prosecutors have flat out announced they wouldn't file charges against leftist insurrectionists, leftist mayors flat out ordered their police not to interfere with leftist rioters and even looters, leftist media openly cover up how bad the situations really are when its leftist and use the chaos to cast stones at the people on the right.  Anyone with a functional IQ should be able to see that its ridiculous logic to claim that Republicans are responsible for the violence of the people on the left and those on the right and Democrats are not - particularly when its always Democrats in government that openly encourage the violence, cover it up, protect it in court and lie about it.

Quote
Jan 6 was a group, acting on a false narrative promoted by Trump and his allies, that the election was stolen.

Were they?  What percentage of the votes cast have you positively traced from the voter to the ballot that would allow you to make that claim?

Zero percent.  Yet somehow you feel entitled to spread your own Big Lie.

Fact is there's compelling evidence that the election was stolen.   There's evidence of fraudulent voting (though not "enough" in our framework where its virtually impossible to catch), there's certainty of modifications to voting laws that manipulated the election and were unconstitutional.  There was blatant media and social media manipulation of the truth, including out right suppression of legitimate stories and even deliberate media lies.  I mean you guys threw a four year tantrum over media lies about the impact a minor Russian social media spend on the 2016 election, and don't bat an eye about the Billions of dollars of free media manipulation and social media manipulation in 2020.

Quote
In broad daylight they stormed the Capitol trying to stop the democratic process.

In what way would this have stopped the democratic process?  By all accounts, the riot is quite probably the only thing that stopped Congress from forcing votes on certifying certain questionable results.  Of course, no one things those votes would have carried (ie they would have voted to accept the results anyway).

You should just tell the truth, instead of spread false stories about what other people believed.  In "broad daylight" they stormed the capital because they believed they were trying to save the democratic process.  Which if you're looking at their intent is clearly the case.  If you can't admit that then you are not in fact facing reality. 

Without looking at their "intent" you can even make your case.  Why?  Because in "reality" their actions had no chance of overturning the election.  Whether or not the Congressional vote occurred makes no difference, it's fake, its ceremonial, and if did reject state votes it would almost certainly be overturned immediately in court.  Ergo, you have to be concluding that their belief they could have an impact was relevant, and yet then you'd have to consider their belief that they were protecting Democracy.  Hard to explain why you get to pretend reality doesn't exist when you look at what they were trying to "accomplish" but then ignore that belief when you look at what they did.

Quote
This was not done by masked Antifa agitators, but by sign carrying, flag waving Trump supporters. No sign of outside agitators starting the violence.  Just Trump supporters.

That may or may not be the case.  All I know for a fact is that one antifa was caught real time.  It seems unlikely that only 1 would have been there.  But that doesn't mean they were actively pushing anarchy, cause really when does antifa ever do that?  There's no question that the crowd was made up of a large number of Trump supporters, any more than there is that a crowd that burns down a police station or court house is not made up of Trump supporters.

Quote
Of course the Republican's are scared of the commission.  It would show that  many of them were complicit, either in true belief (Hawley, Bobbert, MTG, Ghomert etc) or cynically using the crowd (Cruz, etc).

Nah, it'd just be fatally stupid to give the Democrats more cover for telling the lies they want pushed.  There's zero chance, and I really mean zero chance, and that is not hyperbole, that the Democrats in Congress are looking for the truth.  They're looking to pin their narrative into the public conscious.  They know it wasn't an insurrection, but they also know that selling that Big Lie helps them stay in power and use "whataboutism" to draw attention away from the thousands of politically violent riots they've used to expand their power.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 11, 2021, 09:54:58 PM
Guilty of  what?  My prediction, they get no actual verdicts only guilty pleas (in exchange for massive deals).

People were caught on camera breaking into the Capitol and you're asking what they're guilty of? But I'm sure they're just pleading out because they're afraid of the massive left-wing machine out to persecute god fearing patriots. No real laws were broken, it's all just a conspiracy to keep Trump out of power.

If all they're being charged with are "crimes" like trespass and disorderly conduct then this is a political persecution of the highest order.  Those "crimes" are routinely ignored when it's a leftist riot.  I mean heck, the left ignores breaking into stores for the express purpose of looting them, they ignore throwing molotov cocktails at federal court buildings, they ignore occupations of police districts that are looted and burned down. 

The prosecutors here don't have a real case for insurrection but that isn't going to stop them.  With charges on 300 people they're going to play the game where the suborn perjury from hundreds to get them to lie about the remainder.  They're going to amp the pressure up and up and up till they get "confessions" in plea deals to crimes that didn't occur.  I mean we don't even have to question that, they do it over and over and over again.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 11, 2021, 10:02:20 PM
As someone pointed out, if Republicans are so utterly sure that much of the destruction at the 1/6 insurrection was done by Antifa, why did they block a bipartisan Congressional investigation where they could prove it to the entire nation? ;)

Answer: because they know it is just another lie that they could never prove in a setting where you have to lay out your proof and have it scrutinized by everyone.  Just like they were never able to prove that the election results were false in any court of law. :)

In some funny way you demonstrated exactly why the Commission would have been a mistake.  The courts overwhelmingly failed in this last election.  They let overt election interference occur.  They failed to establish any credible review of votes on any scale, heck in most cases they let the very people that would be going to jail if the election was manipulated retain control of every single bit of the evidence that would demonstrate guilt.

There is no question at all that if Trump had been declared winner with the extent of irregularities that are known to have occurred that not one single person on the left would have accepted it.  Not one of you on this board would have the same position, every one of you would cite to ever single affadavit that you pretend means nothing as if it sufficient proof, the media would still be playing "stolen" election 24 hours a day and your outrage would still be fever pitch.

And that's sad.  I've seen nothing that convinces me that any of you want an honest look at what occurred in the election despite having next to zero actual information, yet it's somehow a travesty that a Congress that hasn't done anything on a non-partisan basis in a decade won't pretend that they are generating a non-partisan report about a law enforcement matter.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 11, 2021, 10:03:32 PM
Serati you have bought into Trump's big lie.

One comment.  You ask how many votes have been traced back to the voter.  You say 0 percent. Of course it is 0 percent. Becuase we have a secrect ballot.  There is no way to trace any individual vote back to a partucular voter. Never has been. Ever. If you want that you want to destroy one of the fundamental freedoms of the US. Not surprising that you would want that.

What can be traced is that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted.

Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws. They were only arrested in broad sweeps.  Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol. Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

So Serati, answer the question. Will Trump be President by the end of Aug? Or is Trump delusional?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 11, 2021, 10:34:52 PM
Well, so far the people who have been identified and are being prosecuted are all Trump supporters, from what I've heard.

You've heard?  Still no questions though.  How about, if the FBI can use social media (without warrants) to obtain millions of records about anyone that talked about Trump or going to DC to track down "capital rioters" why can't they ever do that to track down rioters in Democratic cities?  Or why is it okay that they were violating the civil rights of Trump supporters before January 6th?  Or how about, why would you expect them to "find" antifas if they're using social media to track down Trump supporters?  Or how about, why would you think they don't know about antifas just because they haven't charged them when they're openly leftist and have no interest in charging antifas?  There have been numerous violent protests and riots in DC by leftists and the FBI doesn't use these tools to find them, the DOJ hasn't brought these charges - even when they caught them.  It's not because of the injuries - leftists have been more violent and caused more injuries - its because of politics.

There's no way the government got legitimate search warrants based on probable cause for all that social media traffic that rapidly.  It's literally not possible, which means they've once again ignored the civil rights of American citizens, and the proof is pretty much completely in the speed and numbers they've charged.  Yet again, you'll skip that obvious violation in pursuit of the political goal.

Quote
It will be interesting to see how many of the most violent attackers are not eventually caught and charged.  So I don't think we need to wait until everyone is caught before we can conclude that Trump supporters were actively involved in the violence.

And the Democrats in Congress agree, they didn't need to know anything before they reached that conclusion.  Ergo, the uselessness of a Commission.  It won't be allowed to conclude that the facts don't support your preconceived notion, which means NO MATTER WHAT it would produce a "majority report" (ie the report of the Democratic participants) that "validates" those preconceived notions, even if they have to lie about it.

Quote
And while arrests and prosecutions can identify and punish the guilty, such investigations cannot go into exactly why those who tried to stop the working of Congress did so.

Or arrests and prosecutions can be used by politically motivated prosecutors to make it appear that one side is guilty, just like the same side can pretend to be innocent when its politically motivate prosecutors refuse to prosecute, drop charges and release the guilty from jail.

Or given intent is relevant and they stole an enormous amount of social media explaining exactly why those people did what they did but they are only leaking tid bits that make them look guilty, it could be known but it wouldn't be helpful to the "story" to let them appear to be sympathetic or to have a moral point.  Kind of like how the left plays up the "moral" outrage of their own violent rioters while completely burying anything about the crimes, hatred and violence and that allows their acolytes to pretend they have a moral highground when they're in bed really dirty people.

Quote
How much were they influenced by others, especially government officials?

Yes, let's determine exactly how much "public officials" influence violent rioters in this country.  Let's vet that out in every single district and remove every such public official permanently from office.  I have to say I love what that would do if it were legitimately applied everywhere.

Quote
Who may have helped them before the incident?

Helped them with what exactly?  What exactly are you really getting at?  Are you implying that people should be facing criminal charges for organizing  a protest?  For driving people to the protest?  For making signs?  What exactly is the "help" you are looking to find?

Quote
Who may have incited them?

Yes, lets track down all the Democrats that were involved in rigging the election thereby inciting the rioters and throw them in jail.  Oh, sorry, not the autocrats you were looking for.

Quote
These and other issues, necessary to understand to help prevent any future incidents, are beyond the purview of the justice system, but not of a Congressional investigation.

They're beyond a partisan Congress.  Honestly, to stop future Republican invasions of the capital all it takes is for Democrats to stop cheating and the Capital police to make sure they have adequate forces on hand.  Democrats in Congress are never going to conclude anything but that what's "really" needed is to put more power in their own hands to act in arbitrary ways to punish their political opponents.  More partisan surveillance, more partisan suppression of speech, more partisan application of unequal justice.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 11, 2021, 11:15:19 PM
Serati you have bought into Trump's big lie.

No, the big lie is the one that the media repeats over and over and over without any proof.  Claiming Trump was telling a Big Lie is the Big Lie.  The media has never had any proof that there was no election fraud.  Where do they get such absolute certainty?  No where but in their politics.

There is almost absolutely no ability to catch fraud in our system.  That does not lead to a conclusion that fraud does not occur.

Quote
One comment.  You ask how many votes have been traced back to the voter.  You say 0 percent. Of course it is 0 percent. Becuase we have a secrect ballot.  There is no way to trace any individual vote back to a partucular voter. Never has been. Ever. If you want that you want to destroy one of the fundamental freedoms of the US. Not surprising that you would want that.

Do you hear yourself?  How is your and the media's endless repeated "lie" that fraud didn't occur any different than Trump's "lie" that it did?

All the media did was burden shift, they didn't fact check the election, they didn't investigate reality or even truth, all they did - and I mean all - is claim that Trump didn't do what they couldn't do and therefore everything Trump said is a lie.  That's a ridiculously bad logical argument and if you actually engage your brain you'd recognize it as a fallacy.  It is a great legal argument, because our legal system assigns a specific person with the burden of proof.  That "legal" argument is why Biden is the "legal" President, and also why it doesn't matter under our system if he cheated in every state to get there.  Our system is set up to protect a cheater's win.  Is that any shock?

Quote
What can be traced is that the number of ballots cast matches the number of voters who voted.

Do you hear yourself?  How do they determine the "number of voters who voted"?  By counting the ballots.  Especially for mailed ballots, there is NO chain of custody that ensures the correct voter voted or even how many voters voted.  That's why it was a Democratic priority to ensure that "every" voter got a ballot whether or not they requested it.  When every voter gets an unsolicited ballot the ONLY MEASURE of "who" voted is the ballots that come back.  And to make it worse, in many cases once you get the mailed ballot into the system you can't ever verify after the fact that it came from an actual voter.

Quote
Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws.

Maybe hippos flew out their rears.  That's a "know nothing" response on your part.  It's not even a question, it's contrary to fact to assert that.  You've "seen" the videos of the Portland riots where protestors are throwing molotov cocktails, you've seen the videos of rioters across the country looting stores, of police being hit with bricks.

I really can't tell if that was an honest response - which would be beyond scary at the level of propaganda that implies you are consuming - or some weird Big Lie attempt.

Quote
They were only arrested in broad sweeps.

Nope, most arrests these days for leftists are only for egregious transgressions on a small scale.  Prosecutors still left them off.  Heck, some of the prosecutors have announced before the riots that they wouldn't prosecute anyone for any number of crimes - for example, that they won't prosecute anyone for a property crime unless it involves harming a person.  Open violation of their duty and the oath of office, but everyone knows that's only a "problem" if the person doing it is a Republican (and then it's impeachable).

Quote
Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol.

You have your facts wrong.  They got arrested because they posted before Jan. 6 that they were going to the protest and believed the election was stolen.  The FBI swept up the social media posts of who knows how many people for whom they had no probable cause.

Quote
Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

Really?  How many said that out of the 300?  How did you hear it, perhaps in a leftist propaganda piece with no actual quotes to any of the people involved?  Or sourced to an anonymous leak of someone "close to the investigation"?  Ever going to start wondering why so much of this unsourced stuff turns out to be flat lies well after it helps to set in motion the public opinion?  Nope, you jump the way they want, get invested and then fight the truth when it gets revealed down the road.  And that is exactly why they keep doing it.

Quote
I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

No question this group rioted and pushed through the police in many cases, though again there's also fairly clear evidence that in other places the police let them pass.  And I do support the police, I'd bet you most of the "insurrectionists" support the police as well.

Quote
So Serati, answer the question. Will Trump be President by the end of Aug? Or is Trump delusional?

There is no fixing a stolen election in our system.  I can't see how the election is going to be overturned even if Trump can prove it was fraud that tipped the scale.  For one thing those invested in the Big Lies of the left will never accept reality if it doesn't match their expectations.

I mean seriously, at this point, the media has been caught in political lie after political lie and none of you has seemed to catch the hint that a bunch of stuff you believe is "rock solid truth" is just political lies.  What is it going to take before you start wondering why if your side are really the "good guys" you have to lie constantly about everything?

How exactly would it work to "remove" Biden?  Let's say it's overwhelming demonstrated that more than enough votes in GA and Arizona were fraudulent and for Biden to overturn the results.  Heck let's assume it's not even close, and that they find smoking guns from the social media of leftist poll workers (which the FBI will never even look for even though they'd do it in a heart beat if the targets were Republican) admitting to facilitating the illegal votes.  What happens next? 

That's not enough electoral votes on its face, even if finding such massive fraud implies that it would have occurred elsewhere.  Would you just assume that Trump really won if those 2 states were demonstrated to have only been won by massive fraud?  Doubtful.

Biden can only be removed by impeachment.  Is Pelosi really going to move to quickly impeach him?  Doubtful she'd impeach him at all, even if they proved he was connected.  Far more likely they push him to resign, and then push Kamala to resign, but let them appoint new vice presidents.  So "worst case" if they had to force Biden out they'd still not let Trump in.

Seriously play the scenario out for me yourself.  Even if massive fraud is proven, how would we ever get an election unwound?  And that's assuming that the deep state bureaucrats could be kept from sticking their own fingers on the scales.  I bet you, for example, the first thing the DOJ would do if massive fraud was proven in GA and Ariz is seize the votes in other disputed areas.  I have zero faith that they'd be honest brokers in looking for fraud in those seized records.  Assuming they even wanted to look honestly, they could still stall and footdrag for as long as they needed.  Heck they could appoint a special prosecutor and use that trick to look down the entire process for years preventing any further proof until Trump's whole term was expired.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2021, 12:29:00 AM
Maybe in the other protest around the country there are no charges becuase most of the people who were arrested did not violate any laws.

With the Portland rioters, Federal Charges have been dropped on many cases (under the Biden Admin) where people were charged, had video evidence, and in some cases even had confessions of wrong-doing.

Nothing to see here folks.

Quote
They were only arrested in broad sweeps.  Almost no one was arrested on Jan 6. But they were arrested after they posted on Facebook that they stormed the Capitol. Many of those arrested said before they rioted that they were looking for people to execute.

Quote
I thought you were pro police?  What did this group do that was so different. They attacke the capitol police.

And the people who attacked the capitol police should be charged, but that is a handful of the 300 people currently charged, and dozens if not hundreds more still awaiting charges. By virtue of simply being "in the vicinity" of where the officers were assaulted. And by "in the vicinity" we mean on the other side of the Capital building.

Meanwhile going back to the Portland riots? Nah, nobody there should be charged for anything. Those dozens of police injuries where they were blinded must have been by way of shining their own laser pointers into their eyes, and those other injuries that were reported on their end must have been from their being unusually clumsy. Not the fault of any protesters, and anybody who witnessed that happening and stuck around, did nothing, but did continue to protest should not charged in association with that.

It's almost like equality before the law has no meaning in this country anymore.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2021, 12:31:10 PM
Just for fun, need to add this throwback into the mix:

You know what most of that "lawless destruction and violence" is? 

Graffiti.

Quote
05/29/2020

Violent anarchists broke a front window at the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Overall, the cost of damages on federal property done by the violent mob this first night was estimated at $5,000.
05/30/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the BPA Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Edith Green-Wenell Wyatt Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied the 911 Federal Building.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied the Gus J. Solomon Courthouse.
06/01/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the Hatfield Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Pioneer Courthouse.
Violent anarchists graffitied The Gus J Solomon Courthouse.
06/02/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied the U.S. Custom House....

7/01/2020

Violent anarchists graffitied new plywood covering the windows at the Hatfield Courthouse and ripped down plywood on the other side of the building.
A group of over 200 violent anarchists blocked access to the building and proceeded to launch aerial fireworks at federal property...

07/15/2020

Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.

Notice they are all also "violent anarchists."  Apparently, painting graffiti is "violent."  Doxing is "violent."  Refusing to stay off federal property is "violent." Refusing to immediately comply with orders is "violent."

There are a couple of handfuls of actual violent acts cited.  But most of it wouldn't be considered "violent" in the usual sense--a direct physical threat to a person's body.

It is so heart-warming to see that our Department of Homeland Security--the agency tasked to defend our country against terrorists and such--are spending their precious time defending government buildings from taggers.  ;D  But, hey, we gotta keep our country safe from "violent anarchists."  ::)

Problem with the previously linked DHS statement is it leaves some ambiguity if activities on the morning of the 15th are part of the 14th, or 15th... But in any case:
Quote
07/14/2020
Violent anarchists set a container of liquid on fire at the Terry Schrunk Plaza.
Violent anarchists jumped a fence and attempted to breach the Edith Green Federal Building.
Violent anarchists assaulted federal law enforcement officers with cans and other hard objects while they attempted to unblock the entrance of the Edith Green Federal Building.
07/15/2020
Violent anarchists doxed members of federal law enforcement.
Violent anarchists attempted to damage the Hatfield Courthouse by throwing objects at it and spray painting it. Numerous fireworks were also lit.
Violent anarchists trespassed on federal property and destroyed a card reader at the Justice Center.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 14, 2021, 04:15:18 PM
Yes, it is instructive to look back at those "violent anarchists."

How many of the tens of thousands of BLM protesters actually threw rocks and hard objects at the police?

How many of them shot fireworks at police?

How many were arrested for trespassing because they walked on the lawn in front of a Federal building with no fence?  (Ans. at least one :) ).

Now how many were called "violent anarchists" because they trespassed?  Because they painted graffiti?  Because they did not immediately comply with orders from police officers?

Isn't this why some Republicans say that the Black Lives Matter movement is violent?

Now, how many of them threw fire extinguishers at police officers?  How many hit them with poles and shields?  How many of them struck them with fists and feet?

How many police officers were knocked down and surrounded by rioters?

How many of those rioters crawled through those broken windows and wandered the halls of the buildings?  How many of them were chanting that they wanted to hang government officials in those buildings?

How many broke into offices and looted them?  How many of them took over government chambers while they were being used?

And how many of them attacked the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., the seat and perhaps heart of our Federal government?

Some Republicans call these people "tourists" and refuse to acknowledge that it was an insurrection to violently stop the government from performing its duties.  They won't even call them "violent."  ::)

Yes, it is very instructive to compare the two, and see how some Republicans are a bunch of lying hypocrites who don't care how violent their supporters are, just as long as they continue to vote for them and don't primary they out of office.  And how Republicans still will support them.  >:(
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 14, 2021, 04:44:18 PM
Not really sure why we're thinking the FBI and DOJ didn't use social media to track down violent BLM protesters.

Quote
Agents from the FBI and ATF learned about the fire at Ember+Forge by watching videos posted on social media from the protests in Erie that night. “That’s where we got a lot of our information from,” said Deputy Police Chief Mike Nolan, “and the FBI also saw some of that activity and contacted us.”

The FBI asked the Erie police about a couple of incidents officials had seen on video that “met their criteria” and said the agency would be willing to consider taking on cases of arson and anything involving an incendiary device, Nolan said. He didn’t know what the FBI’s criteria were, noting that “it changes based on what their priorities are at that given time.” Nolan said that the Erie police had a “strong relationship” with their federal partners but that his department had no say in which cases federal prosecutors took on.

According to the criminal complaint against Barnett, Cuba, the FBI agent, matched the clothing and hair of the man seen lighting the fire in the Facebook Live video Kirby saw to other videos from that night posted on social media that allegedly show Barnett wearing the same clothes.

Not to mention most of the Jan 6 rioters weren't making private posts in the first place, plenty of them dumped the information out on twitter proudly for the entire world to see. A whole lot of this:

Quote
Lazo took a Phillipine Walis Tambo broom with him to the Capitol, posting on Facebook that he "swept the floor literally," according to federal charging documents. He posted multiple photos of himself in the outfit he planned to wear on Jan. 6. and then posted photos of himself inside the Capitol, which helped the FBI to locate him in surveillance footage.

There have been search warrants issued in many of these cases to obtain private Facebook messages. Are there any concrete examples of such that have been obtained illegally? I can't seem to find anything but I didn't search really hard for it.

There is pretty broad legal agreement that existing law doesn't protect information shared with a third party, and Facebook is a third party.

Quote
When one applies the third-party doctrine to social
media information, one finds that individuals do not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in social media data. As a
result, government agents can presumably gain access to
posted social media data without meeting any probable cause
requirements. As soon as one posts information on a social
platform, the poster discloses information to the third party
platform operator. 23 Moreover, for most social networking
posts, all of the members within a user's social network also
receive access to the published information. In "Wall-to-Wall"-
type conversations between two users,2 4 the rest of the users'
social network functions as third parties to whom the content
publisher and recipient have voluntarily disclosed information.

Yale article (https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1129&context=yjolt)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2021, 03:19:52 PM
Gotta support the blue. Unless you are one of the 21 republicans who refused to award the Congressional Gold Medal to officers who defended the capitol and their very lives.

Quote
Lauren Boebert of Colorado
John Rose of Tennessee
Andy Harris of Maryland
Thomas Massie of Kentucky
Bob Good of Virginia
Louie Gohmert of Texas
Barry Moore of Alabama
Ralph Norman of South Carolina
Matt Rosendale of Montana
Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia
Chip Roy of Texas
Paul Gosar of Arizona
Andy Biggs of Arizona
Warren Davidson of Ohio
Scott Perry of Pennsylvania
Matt Gaetz of Florida
Greg Steube of Florida
Andrew Clyde of Georgia
Jody Hice of Georgia
Mary Miller of Illinois
Michael Cloud of Texas

Quote
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger, who has been an outspoken critic of former President Donald Trump and his supporters that remain in the House, publicly criticized his 21 colleagues who voted against the legislation.
"How you can vote no to this is beyond me," Kinzinger tweeted after the vote. "Then again, denying an insurrection is as well. To the brave Capitol (and DC metro PD) thank you. To the 21: they will continue to defend your right to vote no anyway."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 17, 2021, 04:01:06 PM
One can't help but notice the Democrats aren't offering accolades to other police officers involved in riot control.

In fact, not only are they not offering accolades, they are instead offering prosecutions against police.

https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/06/officers-sergeants-with-portlands-rapid-response-team-resign-from-the-specialized-crowd-control-unit.html

"Officers who serve on the Portland Police Bureau’s specialized crowd control unit, known as the Rapid Response Team, voted to resign from the team during a meeting Wednesday night then alerted the chief’s office, a police lieutenant and the mayor’s office have confirmed.

The unprecedented move by about 50 officers, detectives and sergeants to disband their own team came a day after a team member, Officer Cody Budworth, was indicted, accused of fourth-degree assault stemming from a baton strike against a protester last summer."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 17, 2021, 04:39:05 PM
Are you saying, cherry, that Democrats should be praising Cody Budworth for bashing a woman's face with his baton after he had knocked her to the ground? (https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2021/06/grand-jury-indicts-portland-police-officer-on-assault-charge-stemming-from-use-of-baton-during-protest-last-summer.html)  That you believe that police should be commended for pushing women to the ground and then trying to break their noses, teeth and cheekbones in order to clear a crowd?  That this is the type of policing that you want to see in your town, and be subject to yourself?

Even more remarkable, are you comparing the actions of the Capitol Police, who where going hand-to-hand with rioters who were attacking them with poles and fire extinguishers and fists, but who held back and did not draw their guns, to those police who would hit a woman in the face with a club when she was down?

Wow.  Just wow.

It does illustrate one of biggest problems with policing in this country.  A vast majority of officers would never rain such punitive punishment on citizens, even when under extreme circumstances.  But they will defend those other officers who would with silence or even walking off their jobs.  Because protecting the crimes of their fellow officers is most important than protecting the people or upholding the law. :(
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 17, 2021, 05:07:29 PM
As opposed to commending the police for shooting to death an unarmed woman who was also an honorably discharged Air Force veteran?

Was that police officer aiming for her specifically or just shooting randomly into a crowd?

If prosecuting the riot control officer is such a noble move then why did the whole riot squad just quit the team?

I don't feel like defending the guy for hitting a woman in the face when she was already on the ground but the whataboutism is strong here because in one case an officer is getting prosecuted for hitting an unarmed woman while in another an officer is getting commended for shooting to death an unarmed woman.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 17, 2021, 05:16:47 PM
I don't feel like defending the guy for hitting a woman in the face when she was already on the ground but the whataboutism is strong here because in one case an officer is getting prosecuted for hitting an unarmed woman while in another an officer is getting commended for shooting to death an unarmed woman.

The unarmed woman was part of a group literally breaking through the doors onto the house floor that members were still evacuating. She was shot while attempting to go through a broken window onto the house floor. So the officer probably wasn't firing randomly into the crowd, he was firing at the person leading the charge into the room and people he was responsible to protect.

The equivalence would have been if the woman had been struck while part of a violent group trying to break through police lines.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 17, 2021, 06:40:08 PM
As opposed to commending the police for shooting to death an unarmed woman who was also an honorably discharged Air Force veteran?

Actually, I am surprised that murder charges weren't brought up against every single person who was breaking the windows in that hallway.

Because that's the way it always works with law enforcement.  If a police officer kills someone while engaging with people during the commission of a crime, the person who was committing the crime is held responsible.  And no one can say that breaking windows while a crowd is threatening Senators and Representatives is not a crime.

It's not whataboutism.  They are completely different circumstances.  One is an officer beating on a woman who isn't an immediate threat.  Another is an officer defending elected officials from a riotous crowd that was a definite threat. Even the most casual observer could attest to that.

Try as you might, cherry, there is no equivalence between officers beating on a crowd to disperse them and officers trying to disperse a riotous, violent crowd who are beating on the officers.  It took a lot more guts to stand up and fight off those Trump supporters to protect our Congressmen than it did to beat up on a woman on the ground.  It is shameful that you, and those who suggested to you that they were equivalent, somehow don't see the difference.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 17, 2021, 07:06:20 PM
I guess everything is just so politicized because I'm just not seeing how it was right to shoot that woman, how that wasn't an excessive use of force, and how less than lethal measures weren't more appropriate. We'll just have to see what happens with the civil suit. When an unarmed white Trump supporter protests apparently it's okay to shoot to kill but when the left protests even a baton is enough to get an officer prosecuted. And I don't remember, ever, that a police officer was granted anonymity in a deadly force case. I'm not necessarily against it as officers and their families are certainly put in danger when their names are plastered all over the news as they are vilified by the left before all the facts are even known but it's just interesting how that protection only applies when the victim is a white Trump supporting conservative woman.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 17, 2021, 07:13:32 PM
Circumstances matter. If you want to complain about differential treatment, you need a trump supporter being beaten in a street riot/protest or a left wing person being shot trying to storm the capital.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 18, 2021, 03:51:54 AM
If it was legal to shoot and kill her then it would have been legal to shoot to kill them all, just set up a 50 cal on a tripod in that hallway and mow them down like Kent State kids and that's perfectly fine, in fact give the cops some medals and Congressional applause.

And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on June 18, 2021, 03:57:56 AM
If it was legal to shoot and kill her then it would have been legal to shoot to kill them all, just set up a 50 cal on a tripod in that hallway and mow them down like Kent State kids and that's perfectly fine, in fact give the cops some medals and Congressional applause.

And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.

Most of them thought they'd been invited to the Capitol by their President. Sure their guest manners could have been more refined, but it seems like this got blown all out of proportion just for politics. And yes the violent ones who were attacking cops should get long sentences just like anyone who attacks a cop should although Democrats seem to think only some people who attack some cops, certain people and certain cops in certain times at certain places, should get prosecuted for it, but for the ones just trespassing to take selfies and post them on their Facebook pages we shouldn't go overboard.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: LetterRip on June 18, 2021, 10:24:24 AM
Quote
And now all of them are guilty of murder because a police officer shot and killed one unarmed woman? I'm just not understanding that.

Same as any other felony.  A death as a result of your actions results in felony murder charges.  Her death absolutely would not have happened if they hadn't stormed the capital.  She is dead ergo felony murder.

Get away drivers also are charged with felony murder for the same sort of thing.  This isn't new or unusual.

Quote
Most of them thought they'd been invited to the Capitol by their President.

I know you aren't a moron, please don't insult our intelligence with such BS.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 18, 2021, 10:53:04 AM
She was in the lead, that's why she got shot. Intent on killing Nancy Pelosi, as far as that officer has to assume. She wasn't just wandering around the lobby waving a Trump flag. She was just yards away from her potential targets.

If it had just been her, I'd consider it excessive and that non-lethal would be very much preferable. If there hadn't been lawmakers seconds away from her, same thing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 19, 2021, 02:00:46 PM
Yes.  Consider the circumstances.

A violent mob has just battered their way through a security window.  He's the only person between them and the legislators just down the hall.

He doesn't shoot the woman, because she's unarmed.  What about the next unarmed guy who goes through the window?  Does he shoot him?  What about the guy after that?  Or that guy after that? Or the guy after that?

Now this lone guy has five people to keep back from the legislators he's tasked to protect.  How is he going to stop them now?  He tries to shoot one of them, the others could easily overwhelm him, especially since more people are coming in.  And while they're beating him, others go and start beating, or worse, the legislators he was supposed to protect.

As TheDrake said, he was keeping everyone out.  She shouldn't have gone through first. :(
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on June 30, 2021, 04:53:34 PM
It's fascinating the sides you've taken on this one.  You should watch the videos again, because frankly Wayward your analysis is supporting a lie.  You can literally watch that window being broken by several men with a flag pole, a helmet and their fists - every one of whom as a greater threat than the clearly unarmed Ashli Babbot.  It wasn't a snap decision, the officer in question had his gun pointed at Babbot for a good 15 seconds, never once waivering to any of those actually threatening.  It's also a situation where there were officers all over the scene, in fact the window only got broken because the plain clothes officers standing in front of it for several minutes withdrew when tactical officers armed with rifles came onto the scene.  The same tactical officers that "appear" in the scene within less than 2 seconds from the time Babbot is shot.

The officer that chose to kill her, deliberately targetted the least threatening target at a time when the tactical squad called in specifically to control the situation was in his line of sight.  After he watched plain clothes officers that had been standing directly in front of those doors exposed in every way to that crowd calmly walk out of the way.  Was his threat behind a door and behind a makeshift barracade erected behind the door with a tactical squad standing feet away somehow greater than the plain clothes officers that were standing exposed to the crowd less than 10 seconds earlier?

And how do we know this?  The video I saw was taken by a self described liberal activist (yep, a liberal at the Trump rally) who can be plainly heard threatening the plain clothes officers in a way that seemed designed to get them to over react to the protesters.  It's not clear to me by the way that he wasn't standing in a group of such activists that also happened to be primarily responsible for attacking the door and yelling provocations but I'm guessing the DOJ is not going to "find" those persons.

Why is an a non-Trumper literally standing right at that point egging on violence by the police?

I've yet to hear how you think left wing violent protests can be legitimately broken up.  Why don't you walk through the exact level of violence that is "permitted" to stop a violent left wing protest.

A thousand to one, if an officer shot someone under the exact same circumstances at a left wing protest not only would there be charges brought against the officer, it'd be non-stop national news.  And you'd trip over yourself explaining a completely contrary position on why that instance is wrong.

Have consistent principles or quit pretending you have principles.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 30, 2021, 06:57:07 PM
Quote
You can literally watch that window being broken by several men with a flag pole, a helmet and their fists - every one of whom as a greater threat than the clearly unarmed Ashli Babbot. It wasn't a snap decision, the officer in question had his gun pointed at Babbot for a good 15 seconds, never once waivering to any of those actually threatening.

The officer was situated on the other side of the hall from the window that was smashed in, from what I saw, just behind the barricade of chairs.  His angle would not have allowed him to target anyone on the other side of the doors.  He could only target anyone who came through the window.  And Babbot was the only one who did.

It is a pity that she went through first, and not one of the people who broke the window and was therefore "more threatening."  But she decided to go through first. :(

Quote
It's also a situation where there were officers all over the scene, in fact the window only got broken because the plain clothes officers standing in front of it for several minutes withdrew when tactical officers armed with rifles came onto the scene.  The same tactical officers that "appear" in the scene within less than 2 seconds from the time Babbot is shot.

From the officer's vantage point, he would not have seen the tactical officer approaching.  He would, maybe, have only seen the one officer in front of the window withdrawing.  From what he knew, he was the only officer between the mob and the Congress people.

Quote
The officer that chose to kill her, deliberately targetted the least threatening target at a time when the tactical squad called in specifically to control the situation was in his line of sight.

As I said before, it wasn't that she was the most threatening person in that situation.  But his strategy was apparently to hold that pinch-point so that NO ONE could come through it.  Because once someone came through it, that person could distract him so that another could come through, and then another, and then another, until he was outnumbered and unable to stop them all.  So whoever came through would be shot, to stop anyone else from trying to come through.

So it didn't matter if there were more threatening people behind her.  He had to stop each person coming through, and she was the first.

Quote
The video I saw was taken by a self described liberal activist (yep, a liberal at the Trump rally) who can be plainly heard threatening the plain clothes officers in a way that seemed designed to get them to over react to the protesters.  It's not clear to me by the way that he wasn't standing in a group of such activists that also happened to be primarily responsible for attacking the door and yelling provocations but I'm guessing the DOJ is not going to "find" those persons.

I did not hear those threats, and it is not clear to me how you know that it was the "reporter" who said it and not some person next to him.

The only thing I heard was someone (I assume the "reporter") call out a warning, "He's got a gun."  Which doesn't sound like a provocation to me.

Quote
I've yet to hear how you think left wing violent protests can be legitimately broken up.  Why don't you walk through the exact level of violence that is "permitted" to stop a violent left wing protest.

Too much trouble.  I will say, however, that if a left-wing mob had been breaking windows at a doorway barricaded with chairs, protecting government officials on the other side, and they had broken through, that deadly force would have been justified.

Do you disagree? ;)

Quote
A thousand to one, if an officer shot someone under the exact same circumstances at a left wing protest not only would there be charges brought against the officer, it'd be non-stop national news.  And you'd trip over yourself explaining a completely contrary position on why that instance is wrong.

I'd take that bet.  :P  You've been listening to the right-wing media lies again, and it has warped your perceptions.

Quote
Have consistent principles or quit pretending you have principles.

Sorry.  Anyone who supports Trump, or has supported him and does not regret it, can no longer lecture me on principles.  American Conservatives and Republicans sold their principles year ago to a con man in the White House.  I doubt they would recognize actual principles anymore.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on July 20, 2021, 11:55:02 AM
Meanwhile, the first person is convicted of a felony for the Capitol insurrection. (https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/19/capitol-riot-first-felony-sentence-500149)  And Judge Randolph Moss pulled no punches.

Quote
“The symbolism of that act is unmistakable,” the judge said. “In that act, he captured the threat to democracy that we all witnessed that day. … People have to know that assaulting the United States Capitol and impeding the democratic process, even if you don’t come bearing arms, will have consequences.” ...

“I don’t think that any plausible argument can be made defending what happened in the Capitol as an exercise of First Amendment rights,” the judge declared. “There were people storming through the halls of the Capitol saying, ‘Where’s Nancy?’ People were threatening the lives of members of Congress. That is more than a simple riot.” ...

“The question I have for you is really whether the sentence you are seeking, no confinement at all, will really heal the country or will encourage others out there to think they can engage in this sort of conduct in the future,” Moss said to the defense lawyer. “If we allow people to storm the U.S. Capitol when they don’t like what the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives are doing, what are we doing to preserve our democracy in our country?”

Paul Hodgkins will now have 8 months in jail to consider the judge's words. :)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 21, 2021, 04:52:07 PM
The Conviction wasn't for insurrection though. Also, it was part of a plea deal, something we were expecting a lot of people to do.

Loss of points for Politico not bothering to use the proper legal term on what he was convicted of.

Also:
Quote
Prior to Monday, only two of the hundreds of defendants charged in federal court with crimes related to the Capitol riot had been sentenced, both after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

Indiana resident Anna Morgan-Lloyd was sentenced to three years probation for demonstrating in the Capitol rotunda, while Florida resident Michael Curzio was sentenced to six months imprisonment on a similar charge.

No insurrectionists yet.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 21, 2021, 04:54:48 PM
Also on a tangential note:
I'm surprised nobody has been pointed out all of the redacted CI's that seem to be popping up in the court documents surrounding Jan 6.

Or how the Gretchen Whitmer abduction plot is now getting a lot of press attention for having more CI's involved in the plot than actual genuine participants, which means a strong entrapment case is now being built by the defense.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on July 21, 2021, 06:07:32 PM
"CI" refers to Criminal Informant, correct?

Tell me you're not listening to that idiot, Tucker Carlson, are you?  The one who is labelling any unidentified "person" as a CI?  :o  Because I'm sure there are dozens, if not hundreds of informants who recognized these people from the pictures they posted on the Internet and dropped a dime on them, who the FBI would rather not mention in public.  Which, to Tucker, would automatically make them a "CI."  ;D

That is the only source that talks about CIs that I could find.  Perhaps you could refer me to a better one?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 21, 2021, 06:11:18 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on July 21, 2021, 06:21:11 PM
I can't get your link to open, The Drake.  Is this the one you are referring to? (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jessicagarrison/fbi-informants-in-michigan-kidnap-plot)

BTW, I was referring to the Jan. 6 insurrection, not the Whitmer kidnapping plot.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on July 21, 2021, 07:33:38 PM
"CI" refers to Criminal Informant, correct?


Sometimes confidential informant. But take that with a grain of salt, my criminal law lingo comes from TV.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 21, 2021, 08:09:21 PM
I see the url was wonky routing through Google. I chose the whitener one because deamon mentioned both and I suspect the Jan 6 stuff will be harder to find unless you use site:8chan or something. Since the quote talks about digging around in raw documents for redacted names. I don't like to speculate on sources, but it becomes necessary when sources aren't indicated by OP and there are no direct quotes, just paraphrasing.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 22, 2021, 04:10:21 AM
Buzzfeed is the source to the Michigan story, I've heard the claims from Carlson(via 3rd parties) on the Jan 6th records.

But if the Michigan story is anything to go by... I'm suspicious that some of the primary instigators for the more outrageous behaviors on January 6th are going to turn out to be Government agents working undercover, or Informants they(federal agencies) "brought in" to facilitate the investigation.

As Buzzfeed reports on the Whitmer sting:

Quote
For six months, the Iraq War vet had been wearing a wire, gathering hundreds of hours of recordings. He wasn’t the only one. A biker who had traveled from Wisconsin to join the group was another informant. The man who’d advised them on where to put the explosives — and offered to get them as much as the task would require — was an undercover FBI agent. So was a man in one of the other cars who said little and went by the name Mark.

So the investigators provided the expertise, and offered the material support. They even brought in additional manpower to help make it happen.

And it gets better as per Buzzfeed:

Quote
A longtime government informant from Wisconsin, for example, helped organize a series of meetings around the country where many of the alleged plotters first met one another and the earliest notions of a plan took root, some of those people say. The Wisconsin informant even paid for some hotel rooms and food as an incentive to get people to come.

So it seems many of the 12 guys who did get charged, probably never would have met each other if it wasn't for the Government Informant helping bring them all together... This doesn't seem to be a group that existed in any meaningful way until the Government decided to make it meaningful.

Quote
The Iraq War vet, for his part, became so deeply enmeshed in a Michigan militant group that he rose to become its second-in-command, encouraging members to collaborate with other potential suspects and paying for their transportation to meetings. He prodded the alleged mastermind of the kidnapping plot to advance his plan, then baited the trap that led to the arrest.

If the reporting from Buzzfeed is correct, the case of the alleged Abduction plot has major serious flaws. This sounds like someone probably posted something dumb online, and Government counter-terror/espionage picked up on it and turned a molehill into a proverbial mountain by giving the guy what he believe to be every resource he needed to try and make the attempt. But remove the government involvement, and you simply have some guy posting smack on the internet, talking about things he wished someone would do.  ::)

...And the problem with that counter-intel operation now, is that if it's been done once, it's probably been done, or was being done, in other groups at around the same time as well. Which leads us right into the runup for the conclusion of the Presidential election cycle, and January 6th.

Now what happens if we were to discover that Ashli Babbit traveled to Washington on a ticket purchased by a Government informant acting on instructions from a government agency? What if we learn dozens of their most serious offenders currently awaiting trial.... Wouldn't have even been there if not for Counter-Intelligence groups trying to "get their guy."

This is borderline tinfoil hat territory, I'd like to say it IS tin foil hat material with regards to January 6th... But using the Buzzfeed report on the Whitmer Abduction case as a launching point, I'm going to say something is very rotten here.

False-flag indeed, only it wasn't anti-fa, it looks like domestic law enforcement may have been pulling on several strings they shouldn't have been.

Maybe we do need that commission after all, too bad the Democrats aren't interested in anything that could exonerate a bunch of Trump supporters.

I'm now highly interested to see what legal defenses get brought forward by the ones that don't take a plea deal.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 22, 2021, 07:17:09 AM
Quote
Claiming government entrapment is a common strategy in domestic terrorism cases — in part because it is among the only available defenses if prosecutors have evidence from extensive surveillance. Such defenses usually fail, and most domestic terrorism defendants are convicted.

As you say, we'll see.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 22, 2021, 12:42:03 PM
Quote
Claiming government entrapment is a common strategy in domestic terrorism cases — in part because it is among the only available defenses if prosecutors have evidence from extensive surveillance. Such defenses usually fail, and most domestic terrorism defendants are convicted.

As you say, we'll see.

By the same token, it seems entrapment laws/definitions appear to need a revision to broaden their scope.

The government created most of the social network that was involved. (and provided the numbers to make the plan seem viable)
The government provided them with the training needed to make them think they could pull it off.
The government provided them with the funding needed for many of the conspirators to attend meetings.
The government had their agents promise the (special) material support they needed to make it sound viable.
The government had agents "inciting" the group into making statements/taking actions they likely wouldn't have absent the government agent provocateurs in their midst.

Yes, the government didn't make them do the things they did, but... Just wow.

By the standard of Trump "inciting an insurrection" by telling people they're going to need to "fight like hell" and instructing them to march to the Capital Building... These Government informants/agents seem to have crossed a great many lines as well.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 22, 2021, 03:22:08 PM
So far it is pretty one sided, defense has made a lot of claims about woe is us, we meant no real harm. None of these claims has yet been tested, therefore I say wait and see.

Would you feel as badly for them if it was a group of Muslims daydreaming about jihad? Because I'm willing to bet that an FBI agent offering to find explosives for them would hardly raise an eyebrow. What about an FBI agent offering them a plane ticket? What if they were the ones running drills?

Quote
They were very convincing in showing that Siraj would have committed the crime if given the adequate weaponry. His sympathy of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas gave him a strikingly dangerous set of role models that would have meant he could have become violent and committed a terrorist act at any time if given the right amount of pressure. When Eldawoody told him that he was part of a terrorist organization from his country and that he could produce the materials to build a subway bomb, Siraj jumped onto the idea, they claim. They dismissed any allegations that Siraj was duped into the crime, stating that he was trying to "play dumb" rather than admit to his actual intentions. The fiery statements he made regarding the United States and his anti-American sentiment made him a dangerous individual at best. Eldawoody testified that "The defendant said that if anyone did... [a rape or murder] to his family, he would do the same thing, meaning a suicide bomb."[11]

Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahawar_Matin_Siraj)

example - guilty, in depth (paywall) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/15/magazine/fbi-international-terrorism-informants.html)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 23, 2021, 01:08:21 AM
Would you feel as badly for them if it was a group of Muslims daydreaming about jihad? Because I'm willing to bet that an FBI agent offering to find explosives for them would hardly raise an eyebrow. What about an FBI agent offering them a plane ticket? What if they were the ones running drills?

Quote
They were very convincing in showing that Siraj would have committed the crime if given the adequate weaponry. His sympathy of terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas gave him a strikingly dangerous set of role models that would have meant he could have become violent and committed a terrorist act at any time if given the right amount of pressure. When Eldawoody told him that he was part of a terrorist organization from his country and that he could produce the materials to build a subway bomb, Siraj jumped onto the idea, they claim. They dismissed any allegations that Siraj was duped into the crime, stating that he was trying to "play dumb" rather than admit to his actual intentions. The fiery statements he made regarding the United States and his anti-American sentiment made him a dangerous individual at best. Eldawoody testified that "The defendant said that if anyone did... [a rape or murder] to his family, he would do the same thing, meaning a suicide bomb."[11]

Actually, yes, I would? I actually remember one of the Islamic terror plots that were disrupted being linked to overly aggressive undercover agents and being uneasy about it even then.

There is a "shades of grey" aspect to this, in relation to how likely it is that the parties involved would be able to "obtain the means" otherwise.

An undercover sting that has Agent A referring your to Agent B to arrange a hit on "your" ex-wife is one thing in my book.

Having Agent A refer me to Agent B to carry out the hit while Agent C is giving "you" the money needed to pay for the hit as Agent D eggs "you" on is another matter entirely.

At a certain level of government involvement in a chain of decisions being made, they've ceased being concerned about enforcing laws. But have instead become some kind of weird morality/thought police whose mission is to lure the impure into doing something illegal so they can be prosecuted by the glorious inquisition.

Which isn't even getting into the Psychology aspect of something on the scale of the Michigan case, where we can talk about group dynamics, group think, and social cohesion theory among other things. Nearly half of the people involved in that plot were either federal agents, or informants operating under federal instructions. Honestly, at that level of infiltration, I'd think the better use of government resources would be to de-escalate the group rather than further enrage them until they do something they can be prosecuted for.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 23, 2021, 02:09:31 PM
I actually thought about the deescalation aspect and I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective. On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now. Appreciate your consistent application of principle.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 25, 2021, 11:29:37 AM
I actually thought about the deescalation aspect and I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective. On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now. Appreciate your consistent application of principle.

Possibly? This gets back to the "group dynamics" part of it. Nearly half of the group were government actors knowing they had immunity from prosecution so long as they followed instructions. If those instructions were for the majority of them to encourage the rest of the group into taking "bolder actions," (ones that started to move into clearly illegal territory) then we're laying the foundation for "group think" to take hold and everyone else is going "Well, these guys seem to be very gung-ho about this, and nobody else is speaking out against them..."

It's one of the more annoying things about human nature, we tend to like to follow the herd. And in the Michigan case, half of the herd was working for the Government and the Government wanted them to do something illegal, and directed them in that direction..

You remove the "herd" of government agents, and in particular, you remove the government agents providing major material support and the others "egging them on" and the whole thing likely falls apart.

Quote
On the one hand, preventing the crime is the primary objective.

Thought crime isn't criminal in the Untied States, despite how much some people might wish it were. And I'm going to revisit that comment in a moment.

Quote
On the other hand, is it safe to let those folks build up to the point where they might have capabilities they don't have now.

So we need to identify everyone who is mentally unstable to the point they might commit a violent crime, and lock them away in an Asylum for the Criminally Insane in the name of public safety? How progressive of you.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 26, 2021, 12:46:13 PM
Planning an actual crime is most definitely illegal. Wanting to kill your spouse is a thought, and not illegal. Attempting to contact and hire a hitman who turns out to be an undercover is illegal. Even if it was unlikely that the individual could find a real hitman to carry out the act. It is absolutely worthwhile to start investigating him while he's just contemplating killing the spouse. The question remains if intervention to get him psychiatric care is preferable to locking him up for years.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 26, 2021, 01:30:55 PM
Planning an actual crime is most definitely illegal.

I want to know how a number of people in Hollywood haven't been arrested then.

Quote
Wanting to kill your spouse is a thought, and not illegal.

Agreed

Quote
Attempting to contact and hire a hitman who turns out to be an undercover is illegal.

Now you're ignoring context.

There is a "shades of grey" aspect to this, in relation to how likely it is that the parties involved would be able to "obtain the means" otherwise.

An undercover sting that has Agent A referring your to Agent B to arrange a hit on "your" ex-wife is one thing in my book.

Having Agent A refer me"you" to Agent B to carry out the hit while Agent C is giving "you" the money needed to pay for the hit as Agent D eggs "you" on is another matter entirely.

Even if it was unlikely that the individual could find a real hitman to carry out the act. It is absolutely worthwhile to start investigating him while he's just contemplating killing the spouse. The question remains if intervention to get him psychiatric care is preferable to locking him up for years.

In the case of the guy contemplating the killing of his wife, just having an undercover agent direct him to an undercover person posing as a hitman to carry out the hit is one thing. Prosecution in that case is something I'd fully support.

But once that morphs into two additional undercover operatives becoming involved where none of them are trying to de-escalate, and are instead actively working as a team to escalate him into deciding to have a hit put out on his spouse?

I'd sooner think the undercover agents need to brought up on conspiracy charges.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/conspiracy

Quote
An agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal act, along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal.  Most U.S. jurisdictions also require an overt act toward furthering the agreement.  An overt act is a statutory requirement, not a constitutional one. See Whitfield v. United States, 453 U.S. 209 (2005). The illegal act is the conspiracy's "target offense."


Conspiracy generally carries a penalty on its own.  In addition, conspiracies allow for derivative liability where conspirators can also be punished for the illegal acts carried out by other members, even if they were not directly involved.  Thus, where one or more members of the conspiracy committed illegal acts to further the conspiracy's goals, all members of the conspiracy may be held accountable for those acts. 

Where no one has actually committed a criminal act, the punishment varies.  Some conspiracy statutes assign the same punishment for conspiracy as for the target offense.  Others impose lesser penalties.

Conspiracy applies to both civil and criminal offenses. For example, you may conspire to commit murder, or conspire to commit fraud.

Where the conspiracy in question is to push a specified group of people into potentially committing illegal acts.

But they'll be safe from prosecution under the Biden Admin as the Michigan and Jan 6 people were wrong-thinkers.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on July 26, 2021, 01:55:43 PM
 "along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal."

Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

If you do not support the police in all things you must want them dead?  I mean Blue Lives Matter, right.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 26, 2021, 01:58:32 PM
"along with an intent to achieve the agreement's goal."

Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

If you do not support the police in all things you must want them dead?  I mean Blue Lives Matter, right.

They achieved their goal, an illegal act happened, people are being charged in connection with their work.

Unless you're saying nothing illegal did in fact happen, in which case, why are those people being charged?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on July 27, 2021, 11:23:09 AM
Do  you think the FBI people had the intent to kidnap the governor?  If they didn't then where is the conspiracy?

Assuming one was taking the discussion seriously that FBI agents could possibly go up on conspiracy charges, it's not necessary to assume it would be conspiracy to kidnap the governor. It could be any number of crimes that they were egging the others on to do. But that being said, guilty intent isn't the end-all of criminal cases. Maybe a lawyer would like to weigh in on where the border is, but doing all of the actions necessary to achieve a crime seems to me to qualify as criminal activity, even if in the back of your mind you had a different plan. For example:

I go out and buy explosives, attached under my wife's car, to explode when it starts. I also contract a hitman to shoot her should that fail.
However, as it happens, I also had planned to warn my wife at the last second and avoid the bomb, and had planned to call up the hitman on his cell at the last minute to call him off. So I didn't really intend to kill my wife, it's just that I set up the environment that looked like it on every level that usually matters. But even if somehow the jury could read my mind and know that I didn't really intend for her to die, I did arrange all the circumstances to make that happen, didn't I? So is this intent to murder, or not?

In the case of FBI agents, sure, you can say "well why would FBI agents want the governor kidnapped?" But that sounds like a prejudicial type of argument to me. Assuming they're innocent by default can't be considered as real evidence. And I suspect you'd have a hard time proving they were directly ordered to foment a terrorist plot. In fact I think these type of operations need an amount of deniability such that if (somehow) it actually got to court no superior would ever admit to having given the order for them to try to get people to kidnap the governor. There would be no official root to their actions to fall back on. Just the vague idea of 'oh, it must have been a legitimate FBI operation, nothing to see here.' But that should not qualify as a legal argument, right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on July 27, 2021, 12:02:55 PM
In this thread people are being very loose between the distinction between FBI agents and FBI informants. The first work for the government the latter may just have come across a plot and informed the FBI of it and the FBI let it proceed. So the fact that many of the people involved decided to contact the FBI when their compatriots deciding plotting crimes doesn't mean the FBI planned the attack.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on July 27, 2021, 05:29:28 PM
In this thread people are being very loose between the distinction between FBI agents and FBI informants. The first work for the government the latter may just have come across a plot and informed the FBI of it and the FBI let it proceed. So the fact that many of the people involved decided to contact the FBI when their compatriots deciding plotting crimes doesn't mean the FBI planned the attack.

Some of the informants involved in this case were brought in by the FBI agents. The only reason they were in the group was because the FBI asked for them to join.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on July 27, 2021, 07:13:35 PM
It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on July 27, 2021, 07:15:38 PM
It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.

If you think this would be a great story idea you should check out The Man Who Was Thursday, by Chesterton. Not saying it's the best novel ever, but it's fun.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on July 27, 2021, 07:23:52 PM
It'd be funny if there's a case kind of like this except the people the FBI are trying to convince to do something illegal have or get a conscience and report everyone to the FBI or local law enforcement so you eventually have everyone in the group working for the government until eventually someone figures out what's going on and they all have a really good laugh.

There's been at least one drug bust where both the sellers and buyers were cops.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on July 28, 2021, 07:43:23 AM
I wonder how George Soros got all of these crisis actors into the police force to give all of this fake testimony? I think it shows how long Soros has been planning this.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on July 28, 2021, 04:28:20 PM
You would have done it. You know you would.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on July 28, 2021, 04:41:36 PM
Done what? Rioted and tried to over throw the election results? Attacked police protecting the Capitol? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on August 23, 2021, 02:52:16 PM
How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

Well, the results are in:
Quote
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

As per usual, everything you've all been told about 1/6 is a lie. Russia hoax, pee tape, etc, etc. One lie after another.

Do you guys ever get tired of being lied to? I'm beginning to think you actually enjoy it. Seriously.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 23, 2021, 02:58:09 PM
OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on August 23, 2021, 03:31:26 PM
How many of the Jan 6th rioters do you want me to site that they believed they were doing what Trump asked them to do? According to the database NPR is keeping on the court records 50 defendants (10%) have used Trump to explain their action. 10% of the people arrested so far have basically admitted guilt by saying they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.

You can't tell people an election and their country is being stolen from them, point them to the capital, tell them to fight like hell, and then cop out that by "fight" you mean primary the people who don't try to overturn the election in 2 years.

Well, the results are in:
Quote
The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

As per usual, everything you've all been told about 1/6 is a lie. Russia hoax, pee tape, etc, etc. One lie after another.

Do you guys ever get tired of being lied to? I'm beginning to think you actually enjoy it. Seriously.

So now your contention is that almost no one showed up planning violence, attended a "peaceful" Trump rally then en masse decided to go storm the capital building during the certification of the electoral college vote. You aren't exactly making a strong case for Trump not being responsible for the violence that day.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on August 23, 2021, 03:35:38 PM
OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief?

There seems to be an inability by people on the left to understand the motivations here, so that is driving a lot of the definition games. You have to put yourself in the position of believing that corruption has enabled a false election result to be announced as a victory, and that the powers that be are going along with it. Just assume for the moment this is really what happened. What would you do? Sit at home, eating popcorn, and say oh well? Would you march on Washington? Participate in a riot if no one would listen? How far is it legitimate to go to oppose a quasi-coup taking place? The founders would probably have a different answer than a modern person, the latter of which tend to default to "what can I do about it anyhow" as a sort of apathetic resignation. To an extent it's actually good (in theory) if people truly would not tolerate corruption overriding the legitimate system of governance and elections. Many would argue that it's sheer cowardice to stay home and do nothing when a travesty of justice is afoot. Liberals in particular seem to be quite in favor of major demonstrations to oppose bad things.

The only thing missing from the equation here is the premise itself: was there or was there not a fake or corrupt result announced for the election? I think the entire matter rests on this point, and any evaluation of the rioters in the absence of this context is misleading at best. If they truly thought they were opposing a coup, then strictly speaking they were fighting for all of America (even if it was for their guy in particular in that instance). So why did they think that? It comes down, once again, to info wars. Information has become a game of narratives, not of facts. This has been a long time coming, WWII being the originator of the concept, the 24-hour new cycle bringing in the mentality, and the internet bringing in the tech. Now there is no curation of facts, only battles over who can be made to believe what. In a system like this, I can only blame the system itself for generating such stupid results as this. The people themselves almost can't be blamed (maybe a little) for believing what their 'news' stations tell them. No one needed to mastermind the riot; it was enough that the information was going around. Their caring about their own country led to the rest.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 23, 2021, 03:44:59 PM
So they bought the Big Lie and it was organized? I mean over 60 court cases, many before Trump appointed judges, and Trump looses all of them.  No evidence of large scale fraud, but Trump still says it happened, with no evidence.  One of Trumps biggest supporters, Mike Lindel, had a Cybe Symposium to show all the data and even his own experts called his evidence turds.

Ultimatly Trump is a poor looser who would rather burn down our democracy than admit he lost.  Notice how he is not spending any of his own money on the audits and the recounts? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on August 23, 2021, 03:48:49 PM
OK so it was not organized.  Was there still an attempt to overturn the results of the election? Did Trump and his cronies push this belief?
... The people themselves almost can't be blamed (maybe a little) for believing what their 'news' stations tell them. No one needed to mastermind the riot; it was enough that the information was going around. Their caring about their own country led to the rest.

The information was going around because Trump and his cronies were spreading it around. Therefore Trump can and should be held responsible.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 23, 2021, 03:58:07 PM
I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on August 23, 2021, 04:40:41 PM
The information was going around because Trump and his cronies were spreading it around. Therefore Trump can and should be held responsible.

What would have happened, do you suppose, if FOX news had (for example) been pushing the story of "the facts do not agree with President Trump, he is just making things up"? And what if all conservative media sources had likewise reported facts in opposition to Trump's tweets? Do you think everyone would have still done a potentially life-changing thing like a riot in Washington based purely on Trump's tweets, even though their own news networks told them it was hogwash?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on August 23, 2021, 05:17:32 PM
So, Fenring, you're saying that Fox News and these other conservative outlets that repeated the lies without question are also to blame?

I can live with that. :)

They are certainly not blameless, since there are counterexamples (all of the Democrats and all of the other news sources) who actually tried to dispel the lies.

What it all comes down to is that, although the insurrection itself was not organized in any top-down structure, being more of a riot with the intent to stop the government from performing its duties, it was the result of a group of people who roused up their followers using lies, with the specific intent of overturning an election that any reasonable person would know was legitimate and that they, most likely (unless they were idiots and therefore unfit to lead), knew was legitimate, as much as is humanly possible.

That their followers were gullible enough to believe and embrace those lies was the whole point of the exercise.  And, although they did not know specifically what those followers would do, the hope was that they would somehow be able to overturn the election.

None of this absolves Trump and his cronies from blame.  It just expands the circle of cronies to include Fox News and their ilk.  >:(
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on August 23, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
What would have happened, do you suppose, if FOX news had (for example) been pushing the story of "the facts do not agree with President Trump, he is just making things up"? And what if all conservative media sources had likewise reported facts in opposition to Trump's tweets? Do you think everyone would have still done a potentially life-changing thing like a riot in Washington based purely on Trump's tweets, even though their own news networks told them it was hogwash?

Quite possibly. 

I would care to bet that among the core group of Trump supporters that made up the people who attended the rallies and assaulted the Capitol, that they would have believed Cheetoh Jezzus over, I dunno, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.  Fox News producers knew it too, when they allowed them to say things they knew were bs.  They didn't want to lose ratings.  I don't know who in this case is the dog or the tail.

So there were plenty of individuals guilty of collaboration with the BS.  I don't think it absolves anyone.  They're all guilty in one way or another.  The Great 5th Grade Communicator.  The people at Fox News who let it go on.   The people who fell for the BS and basically attempted an insurrection without any plan. 

But it's good to see that people are trying to spread the blame out now.  It's a step in the right direction.  At least they're admitting now that the facts did not support the lies being spread. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on August 23, 2021, 05:57:24 PM
So, Fenring, you're saying that Fox News and these other conservative outlets that repeated the lies without question are also to blame?

I can live with that. :)

I would include any 'news' network that spreads propaganda and narrative-building in the mix. The fact that this time the bad event was right-wing is merely incidental. For-profit news is probably going to result in something like this kind of atmosphere, absent strict government regulation.

Quote
That their followers were gullible enough to believe and embrace those lies was the whole point of the exercise.  And, although they did not know specifically what those followers would do, the hope was that they would somehow be able to overturn the election.

I doubt they were anyone's "followers". They were just people who thought they needed to do something about a problem. You can argue that they were dupes about the nature of the problem, but they weren't some kind of goon squad assembled to go and sow dischord.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on August 23, 2021, 09:10:12 PM
I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on August 24, 2021, 06:32:33 AM
I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.

People keep saying that, but I haven't seen any evidence that prosecutors ignored or refused to charge individuals who threatened or committed bodily harm.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 24, 2021, 07:42:30 AM
TheDemon

Maybe becuase most of the people arrested during the BLM protest did not do anything wrong?

I seem to remember that during the BLM protests there were mass arrests and then people were released a day or two later when the police could not find evidence that those arrested had done anything wrong.  The police seemed to arrest the non violent protester and not the people causing the problems.

For the Jan 6 people I think almost no one was arrested that day. But the police and FBI investigated social media and video recordings and tracked people down.  So they only arrested people who they had evidence of commiting crimes. They may have been minor crimes, but crimes none the less.  I do not think any one who stayed outside the Capitol building has been arrested.  Peaceful protesters were in no danger.

I wonder why the difference in how the crowd was handled?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on August 24, 2021, 02:30:15 PM
I guess we can let all of the BLM protester off the hook as well, since they were protesting actual slavery and hundreds of years of racisim? I mean what would we expect them to do?  Hell, I am surprised they did not do more. The treatment of the black community for the past 200-300 years more than justifies their reaction, right?

Have any meaning number of BLM protesters actually been brought to court? Prosecutors seemed to be almost eager to let them walk.

People keep saying that, but I haven't seen any evidence that prosecutors ignored or refused to charge individuals who threatened or committed bodily harm.

Or committed crimes more serious than failing to disperse when the police instructed them. Looting, theft, assault are all being pursued (to my knowledge) when there is evidence to support those crimes.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on August 24, 2021, 03:16:39 PM
Or committed crimes more serious than failing to disperse when the police instructed them. Looting, theft, assault are all being pursued (to my knowledge) when there is evidence to support those crimes.

Ehhh.  My understanding is that until recently, California and Washington State was turning a blind eye and letting a bunch of stuff slide.  I don't know if that's right wing propaganda, but I'm willing to entertain that it might be true. 

That being said, I'm in favor of all criminal activities involved in riotous mobs should be pursued by law enforcement and prosecuted.  Regardless of being BLM or MAGA-Nutjob.   
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 24, 2021, 03:18:46 PM
I agree but if they were not part of a riotous mob, just peacefull protesters standing around yelling and chanting, they should not be charged or even arrested.  Just like the white people at the Capitol.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 27, 2021, 07:40:48 AM
Ok so the Capitol cop who shot Ashli Babbit finally gave an interview.  He talked about the chaos of the riot and hearing other officers on the radio talk about being attacked and maced.  How he feared for his life and the lives of the Congress people in the chamber behind him. How he warned the people breaking down the windows and doors and how he finally shot.

Let's see how the conservatives play this?  I mean he did not shoot her in the back as she ran away.  He only fired one shot not empty his clip into the crowd. He warned them time and time again to leave.   I think his only crime was being a black cop who shot a white woman.  I mean you have to have some standards.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 30, 2021, 09:07:33 AM
Oh and the story that BLM protesters were let off scott free is a myth as well.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/records-rebut-claims-unequal-treatment-095934209.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on August 30, 2021, 10:59:15 AM
Oh and the story that BLM protesters were let off scott free is a myth as well.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/records-rebut-claims-unequal-treatment-095934209.html

Quote
An Associated Press review of court documents in more than 300 federal cases stemming from the protests sparked by George Floyd’s death last year shows that dozens of people charged have been convicted of serious crimes and sent to prison.

The AP found that more than 120 defendants across the United States have pleaded guilty or were convicted at trial of federal crimes including rioting, arson and conspiracy. More than 70 defendants who've been sentenced so far have gotten an average of about 27 months behind bars. At least 10 received prison terms of five years or more.

Now this becomes a matte of scale. 600 people involved in the Jan 6th events as per reporting I've seen filter through here?

How many thousands of people involved in mayhem as it relates to "George Floyd protests?"
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on August 30, 2021, 11:23:54 AM
You see I do not think there has been any proof of thousands involved with mayhem at BLM rallies.  Just like the rally on Jan 6 was much larger then the number of people who actually invaded the Capitol, the BLM rallies were much larger since they were in several states.

There were more mass arrests during the BLM marches than there were at Jan 6. But as I said before most of those arrested were released when no evidence of them doing anything wrong was presented. The violent protesters and the looters were arrested and prosecuted.  Now did LE get every single one?  Of course not, but to say that the BLM people who were arrested were all set free and not prosecuted or convicted is ignoring the facts.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on August 30, 2021, 05:32:29 PM
How many thousands of people involved in mayhem as it relates to "George Floyd protests?"
I don't have that number readily to hand, but if memory serves, 93% of BLM protests (as reported at some point, presumably a still-changing number) have been entirely non-violent.  That's 93% of the entire protests, not merely 93% of the total number of protesters.  Whereas 100% of "trying to violently overturn the results of a democratic election, but somehow not an attempted coup, #becausereasons" resulted in five deaths.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2021, 04:00:52 PM
And now, Congressional Republicans are dabbling with obstruction of Congress:

Quote
“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/570275-mccarthy-says-gop-will-not-forget-if-companies-hand-record-to-jan-6-committee) they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,” McCarthy wrote.

McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request.

“If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republican majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law,” he said.
(Emphasis mine.)

Of course he doesn't quote any such law, because there isn't any such law that applies. :)  And he uses the nice little "we will not forget" threat, which doesn't exactly say what they will do, but is a pretty strong implicit threat.

But why be implicit?  Marjorie Taylor Greene makes it as explicit as you can. (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/marjorie-taylor-greene-threatens-telecoms-over-1-6-committee-request-if-they-go-along-with-this-they-will-be-shut-down/)

Quote
“Well, yeah!” Carlson replied to Greene. “I mean, demanding your text messages if they don’t like your politics? Now we’ve been tough on Kevin McCarthy for being weak. That statement is not weak. That statement is a flat out promise, threat, whatever you want to call it. If you do this, there are consequences.”

“These telecommunications companies, if they go along with this, they will be shut down,” Greene said. “And that’s a promise.

“Good,” Carlson replied. “I hope they’re afraid of you. They should be.”
(Emphasis mine.)

So the Republicans have made it explicit that, if any companies cooperate with a Congressional committee's requests, they will be shut down.  That is a mafia technique.  That is flat-out intimidation.  That is flat-out obstruction of Congress.

That is what the supposed "Law and Order" party has become.  A mafia with the American flag wrapped around them.  >:(

Makes you wonder what they are so scared of.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on September 01, 2021, 04:04:44 PM
As  long as it is their Law and Order.

The ones who support this have always said "What have you got to hide?". Now it seems like they have something to hide.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on September 01, 2021, 07:35:18 PM
McCarthy's "will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law".

Even before we get to the standard-issue Greene rule-by-decree authoritarianism, that's already a pretty grotesque flouting of the most basics tenets of separation of powers.  Not to mention, of retrospectivity.  If it were already against the law, it would merely need to be prosecuted.  If you're taking legislative action against something that was legal at the time, that's Act of Attainder type of stuff.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2021, 09:35:47 AM
Is powell still available to fight this illegal subpoena in court voting non existent law? If the biden administration wanted to, they could have pulled all this info using a national scoring letter, I think. Then we wouldn't even know about it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on September 02, 2021, 04:28:36 PM
And now, Congressional Republicans are dabbling with obstruction of Congress:

Actually, Congressional Democrats are engaged in an unConstitutional (and illegal) invasion of privacy.  Or can you provide the citation to Congresses authority here?

I note, the directive from the Congressional Democrats was to be prepared to provide the information secretly, and without subpeona and directed anyone who did not believe they could do so to contact the Democrats in Congress.  That is a violation of rights.

Quote
“If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/570275-mccarthy-says-gop-will-not-forget-if-companies-hand-record-to-jan-6-committee) they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States,” McCarthy wrote.


And you think that's incorrect?  Federal law prohibits turning over this information without a lawful subpeona.  Congresses ability to issue a subpeona is limited, and there hasn't even been lipservice to complying with that.  In any event, challenging an unlawful act of Congress to obtain your personal information is the right of every American.

Are you going on record that politicians now have the right to demand your personal information in secret and without any opportunity for you to challenge that in court?  The left has fallen very far indeed in their view of civil liberties.

Quote
McCarthy did not cite which law prohibits telecommunications companies from complying with the committee’s request.

So?  Are you suggesting that your own ignorance of law, or incompetence at research is somehow a problem of McCarthy's?

Quote
Of course he doesn't quote any such law, because there isn't any such law that applies. :)  And he uses the nice little "we will not forget" threat, which doesn't exactly say what they will do, but is a pretty strong implicit threat.

Okay.  Sure no such law applies, keep lying to yourself.

Quote
So the Republicans have made it explicit that, if any companies cooperate with a Congressional committee's requests, they will be shut down.  That is a mafia technique.  That is flat-out intimidation.  That is flat-out obstruction of Congress.

Republicans made it clear that if such companies give in to the mafia demands of the Democrats that they turn over your personal records in violation of law and your Constitutional rights those companies will be held to account in the future.  We all know they won't be held to account today because Fake President Biden's DOJ does not believe in neutral application of the law but only in outcome based (ie pro-Democrat) actions.

The ONLY REASON these companies would comply with committees unlawful requests to turn over information secretly without a court order is because of the mafia style techniques engaged in by the left, by the flat out intimidation of the left.  It's literally the rule of the left to threaten to impose sanctions on anyone that doesn't give them what they want whether or not the law supports them.

Quote
That is what the supposed "Law and Order" party has become.  A mafia with the American flag wrapped around them.  >:(

I wouldn't describe the Democrats as a Law and Order party, and they're they are the only ones that operate like the mafia so not sure how your claim works.

But keep on spreading misinformation and narrative, I'm sure it's not going to bite you in the rear at some point (again).

Quote
Makes you wonder what they are so scared of.  ;D

They're scared of living under a system where the government is synomous with a single party's illegal goals, and the Rule of Law is replaced with the Rule of Might.  Seems like you believe you'll be on the side of the mighty so you're cool with it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on September 02, 2021, 07:56:46 PM
Seriati, if you happen to know which law prohibits the Committee's request, it would behoove you cite that law, rather than imply that I should be able to find it.

Because I have it from a source I trust that no such law exists.  Thus, asking me to find that law is the equivalent to having me go on a snipe hunt.  ;D

So why don't you educate us as to which law McCarthy is referring to, rather than acting like one of those lying Republicans and saying I'm lying to myself.  :P
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on September 02, 2021, 10:56:39 PM
McCarthy's 'tell' is that he doesn't say "it's illegal, we'll see you in court" -- and as I understand it, they could argue they have standing on this under the Perlman doctrine, so at the very least they can see them in court to test whether they can see them in court.  Instead he blusters about a hypothetical future "Republican majority" -- it's a crude threat of reprisals, as I pointed out.  https://youtu.be/K_MIECLQ6vU?t=142

Seriati's 'tell' is the mindless name-calling at vast length, and repeatedly begging the question -- it's illegal because I keep saying it is, I have no need for mere specific statutes or articles!

Then again, that's pretty much why the pyramid of arguments is indeed a pyramid.  The lowest-quality tropes are also by far the most abundant.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on September 03, 2021, 04:35:49 PM
McCarthy's 'tell' is that he doesn't say "it's illegal, we'll see you in court" -- and as I understand it, they could argue they have standing on this under the Perlman doctrine, so at the very least they can see them in court to test whether they can see them in court.  Instead he blusters about a hypothetical future "Republican majority" -- it's a crude threat of reprisals, as I pointed out.  https://youtu.be/K_MIECLQ6vU?t=142

Seriati's 'tell' is the mindless name-calling at vast length, and repeatedly begging the question -- it's illegal because I keep saying it is, I have no need for mere specific statutes or articles!

Protection against "Unreasonable search and seizure" is a constitutional right. Although jurisprudence on material held by third parties makes that very grey.

Of course, there also is the possibility that a legal challenge against the request, as made by the Democrats, would fail on Constitutional grounds, should someone bother to challenge it in court.

Unconstitutional conduct on the part of the government is illegal conduct by the government, although it may not be criminal(because the government didn't see a reason to criminalize it).

But I could see people rallying around an effort to punish corporations that willingly aid and abet what they consider to be violations of their constitutional rights.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on September 03, 2021, 04:47:17 PM
"The other shoe" to be thrown around in that argument is some of those companies likely have TOS/Privacy policies that they'll potentially be violating by complying with the Commission's request, since they're not acting in a law enforcement capacity and their investigation is not criminal in nature.

That some of these same companies have previously gone up to bat to protect the privacy of their customers in the past, if they don't do so this time, they are making a political decision to comply rather than let the courts decides. Political solutions to political problems sounds about right.

And considering that one of the signs of fascism is when the private sector is moving in lock step with the political party in control of the government without challenging it, people really need to think hard about what they're witnessing here.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on October 18, 2021, 06:56:35 PM
Well Trump, the most transparent President in History (trademark pending) is fighting for Executive Privilege he does not really have since he is not the Executive any more. There is settled law that the current President gets to decide that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-files-lawsuit-block-release-205805309.html

I wonder what Trump is hiding as he fights all of these law suits.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 01, 2021, 11:43:02 AM
Well Trump, the most transparent President in History (trademark pending) is fighting for Executive Privilege he does not really have since he is not the Executive any more. There is settled law that the current President gets to decide that.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-files-lawsuit-block-release-205805309.html

I wonder what Trump is hiding as he fights all of these law suits.

This gets into weird legal Grey-zone stuff. Trump is still a potential 2024 presidential candidate, where it is "reasonable" to presume Joe Biden, or designated surrogate, would be running against Trump on that ticket.

Asking for some form of Arbitration in that kind of circumstance is justified.

The other problem is that traditionally the Federal Government tends to be rather "hands off" when it comes to prosecuting former presidents, at least until Trump. That's setting precedents that will be hard to roll back once set. There are no good answers to this situation, the best solution would have been to not have Trump in office in the first place, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 01, 2021, 11:58:17 AM
What grey zone?  It is settled law that the current Executive gets to decide this, not the previous one. This is a delay tactic. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 01, 2021, 12:01:36 PM
Personally, I don't think prosecution is the goal for most people - especially those in government. The goal, in my opinion, is to ensure that if Trump and his inner circle actively or passively supported the violence that they never are able to serve in government posts via popular opinion. Of course many of Trump's supporters wouldn't abandon him if he was recorded chanting "Hang Mike Pence". They'd shrug it off saying he was joking about it, or that it was just hyperbole, or that the paedophile Democrats must be destroyed at all costs. But the ones in the middle that switched their vote from Trump to Biden in 2020, those might care about what actually happened in the White House in the days leading up to 1/6.

It is an interesting idea to think about potential conflict of interest. In the worst case, the administration could cherry pick privilege to suppress any mitigation, like Trump expressing concern about potential violence or asking about preparedness. One would assume, however, that Trump and his team would have already made that available - and we know publicly that he sat and did nothing as it unfolded.

Knowing if he was watching his TV with glee at the actions of his unhinged supporters is most definitely in the public interest. Even more so if he took action to delay any response from law enforcement or others. The fact that this also helps any potential opponents in future elections does not outweigh that need.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on November 01, 2021, 12:12:51 PM
If we could agree that Trump is an egregiously bad President, then there wouldn't a problem of precedent. There is a point when we should be prosecuting former Presidents, or at least taking a long hard look at what they were up to.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 01, 2021, 03:29:28 PM
It would be easier to be harder on Trump if Biden wasn't such a total disaster. One protest that got out of hand and Trump should never be allowed to serve in office again as opposed to all the Democrats who fueled months of violent deadly riots during a pandemic which has turned into a police pullback and murder epidemic but that's fine and to be wholeheartedly supported because "racism", not to mention all of the Democrats' last minute voting shenanigans that called into question the integrity of our elections and against which peaceful protests are totally understandable.

"If we could agree that Trump is an egregiously bad President, then there wouldn't. be a problem of precedent."

And that's a big problem when you take a good look around and see our country sliding into oblivion, and not just our country but others as well first and foremost Afghanistan. With every day that Biden is in office, Trump starts to look better and better.

And that's just with what is actually happening right now, not even counting Biden and his string pullers' plans on so many other fronts to take this country down, from Supreme Court packing to wealth taxes, energy crisis and gas prices to inflation, crime, and the border with payments to illegals that are hundreds of thousands of dollars more than what the families of the Marines received after Biden got them killed while being routed by the Taliban out of Kabul.

You can almost hear echoes of Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi on the warm Florida wind but in Trump's voice, "Do you miss me yet?"

For much of America the answer is yes and as we sink deeper into the problems Biden is creating it's going to be yes for more and more.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on November 01, 2021, 03:50:38 PM
The rally on the 6th was legal. Proper documents and proper instructions by Trump to obey all legal niceties. Pelosi refused requests for beefed up security as documented. Security is on camera inviting protestors onto the grounds and through the doors. No invasion.

In all the investigations no usage of "insurrection" was ever used - yet the Democrats use it as a buzz word.

Compare it to the BLM uprisings. Zero violence and zero deaths - vs months of invasions, looting, murder, and destruction of federal buildings and properties. One is anathema to the Democrats for purely politically reasons - and 0ne they supported and were given license.

The Republicans recently called out by sleazy Democrats had nothing to do with the march, itself. They throw mud to see if it sticks. Media is sient.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 01, 2021, 03:59:18 PM
WmLambert

Zero violence?  Zero deaths?

How about Babbit?  Or all of the officers beaten by the crowds?

Or the breaking down of windows and doors.

Do not confuse Trumps rally with what happened at the Capital. Trumps rally was probably legal. What happened after (maybe after he incited them) was not .
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on November 01, 2021, 04:39:58 PM
Unarmed Babbit was shot by a Dem hireling, who has been protected and hidden away. Name an incident where police were attacked by GOP protestors. Yes, there were some Dem agitators identified in the crowd - but just without Tiki Torches so the lame brain media couldn't identify them to their satisfaction. Even the few protestors arrested and thrown in jail without a trial have never been charged with violence.

There are legal get out of jail free cards handed out when police invite crowds into the building as has been documented. No destruction of property. Not even ripping up papers like Pelosi did at the SOTU.

Shop owners were killed by Democrat-sponsored protestors. Where is your scales of justice? Name one report where the word "Insurrection" was used.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on November 11, 2021, 10:34:10 AM
Unarmed Babbit was shot by a Dem hireling, who has been protected and hidden away. Name an incident where police were attacked by GOP protestors. Yes, there were some Dem agitators identified in the crowd - but just without Tiki Torches so the lame brain media couldn't identify them to their satisfaction. Even the few protestors arrested and thrown in jail without a trial have never been charged with violence.
...

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054395264/capitol-rioter-hit-police-officer-3-years-prison-scott-fairlamb (https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054395264/capitol-rioter-hit-police-officer-3-years-prison-scott-fairlamb)

Quote
A New Jersey gym owner who punched a police officer during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has been sentenced to more than three years in prison. Scott Fairlamb's sentencing on Wednesday to 41 months in prison
...
Lamberth said Fairlamb's actions struck at "the heart of our democracy." He had pleaded guilty, avoiding a trial.

Quote
Over 650 people have been charged with federal crimes related to the Jan. 6 riot, including more than 100 accused of assaulting law enforcement officers. More than 120 defendants have pleaded guilty, mostly to misdemeanors that carry a maximum of six months imprisonment.

How do you feel now? A guilty plea for violence at the capital. Another 100 assault charges outstanding.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 11, 2021, 10:43:10 AM
Yossarian, that guy was a Antifa agitator, paid for by Soros. No true Trump supporter would ever do something like that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on November 12, 2021, 04:49:36 AM
"A New Jersey gym owner who punched a police officer during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has been sentenced to more than three years in prison. Scott Fairlamb's sentencing on Wednesday to 41 months in prison
...
Lamberth said Fairlamb's actions struck at "the heart of our democracy." He had pleaded guilty, avoiding a trial."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That's cool. People who punch police officers should get prison time, definitely. Over three years though?

Meanwhile... only 6 months, maybe even just in luxury home confinement, for stabbing an old man in the back of the head multiple times and so hard it fractures his skull. No word on the race of the victim. I wonder if that means anything.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"SANTA ANA, Calif. — The son of basketball legend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar was sentenced to six months in jail for stabbing a Southern California neighbor with a hunting knife during an argument over trash cans, prosecutors said Wednesday.

Adam Abdul-Jabbar, 29, was sentenced Tuesday after pleading guilty to three counts of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of carrying a dirk or dagger, with sentencing enhancements for inflicting great bodily injury, according to the Orange County district attorney's office.

Abdul-Jabbar accepted a plea deal from an Orange County judge. The sentence was stayed until Jan. 7 so that Abdul-Jabbar can apply for home confinement instead of incarceration, the DA's office said.

Probation officials will decide whether he will be permitted home confinement.

Prosecutors had sought a seven-year jail sentence and objected to the plea offer.

Abdul-Jabbar and his San Clemente neighbor share a driveway. Abdul-Jabbar stabbed the 60-year-old neighbor several times on June 9 of last year after the man confronted him about failing to take in trash cans for Abdul-Jabbar's elderly roommate, prosecutors said.

The 60-year-old, was stabbed in the back of the head, suffering a fractured skull and nearly died of blood loss after collapsing outside of the emergency room, prosecutors said.

"This slap on the wrist is an absolute miscarriage of justice," District Attorney Todd Spitzer said in a statement after the sentencing. "This man nearly bled to death in front of the emergency room doors after being stabbed so violently over and over that his skull was fractured."

"We believe the complete disregard for human life over a dispute over trashcans is so egregious it warranted prison time," Spitzer said."

----------------------------------------------

The important thing though is to send a message that questioning the integrity of our elections will not be tolerated. So for the guy who punched the police officer, he gets 6 months for that and then the rest is for thinking that there might be more voter fraud than is caught, also known as treason.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 08:42:23 AM
First off Fairlamb had an (extended) collapsible baton in his hand.  So he was looking at 20 years.  Secondly battery against a police officer tend to be enhanced sentences.  Battery against a police officer as part of an insurrection should absolutely receive a harsher than typical sentence.

I too am shocked and outraged at Adam Abdul-Jabbar's obscenely light sentence.  I think he should have received at least 5 years.  There appears to be no rational reason for such an incredibly light sentence and it is a clear miscarriage of justice.  I really think there should be investigation of the judge in this matter.

So I agree with you that Adam's sentence is wrongfully light, but Fairlamb's sentence seems entirely just.  Both are extremely serious crimes - with Fairlamb's being entirely within typical results, and Adam's being extremely atypical and something has gone quite wrong with the system in his case.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 08:50:42 AM
This judge (assuming this is the same judge) has done other absurdly unjust sentences,

Quote
In December 2012, Judge Johnson was admonished by the California Commission on Judicial Performance for violating his impartiality during a sexual assault case in 2008. After a jury found the defendant guilty on seven counts of rape and other violations, Johnson imposed a sentence of only six years in prison instead of the sixteen sought by the prosecutor. When the prosecutor questioned that decision, Johnson said,

“   If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down. The body will not permit that to happen unless a lot of damage is inflicted, and we heard nothing about that in this case.[5][6]   ”
The commission unanimously found that Johnson failed to act "in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," and that he "improperly relied on his own 'expert opinion'...rather than evidence before him." Johnson admitted that his comments were inappropriate, and he apologized.[5][7]

https://ballotpedia.org/Derek_Guy_Johnson
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on November 12, 2021, 09:05:43 AM
"A New Jersey gym owner who punched a police officer during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol has been sentenced to more than three years in prison. Scott Fairlamb's sentencing on Wednesday to 41 months in prison
...
Lamberth said Fairlamb's actions struck at "the heart of our democracy." He had pleaded guilty, avoiding a trial."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

That's cool. People who punch police officers should get prison time, definitely. Over three years though?

...

The important thing though is to send a message that questioning the integrity of our elections will not be tolerated. So for the guy who punched the police officer, he gets 6 months for that and then the rest is for thinking that there might be more voter fraud than is caught, also known as treason.

Wow you found a case where someone with money got a lighter sentence than deserved. I'm shocked, shocked, such a thing happens. I'm sure I can find a story of some black kid hitting  a cop and getting more than 3 years. Would that make this just? Address the issue, don't play what aboutism crap with any assault charge you can find.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 12, 2021, 09:11:14 AM
I really wonder what Trump is trying to hide.  His suite to block the info using Executive Privilege is doomed to failure.  If he has nothing to hide, if he and his  people did nothing wrong, why work so hard to hide the info?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: LetterRip on November 12, 2021, 09:14:16 AM
It is unclear how Adam's sentence could have happened,

judicial plea bargaining isn't allowed in California, and a prosecutor can appeal if a judge does a plea bargain,

Quote
The prosecutor appealed the sentence as being the result of judicial plea bargaining.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/indicated-sentence-and-illegal-plea-bargaining-by-a-judge.html

And the plea was not offered by the prosecutor who objected to it.

So it seems unlikely that this plea bargain will be allowed by an appeals court if in fact it was a plea bargain, as all news organization I've found are reporting it as.

It is possible that it wasn't a "plea bargain" or "plea deal" and is being misreported.  It could have been a "plea in the open", where a prosecutor refuses to offer a plea and there is a direct appeal to a judge,

Quote
[...] a defendant can plead “in the open” to the judge, allowing the judge to sentence him or her as the judge sees fitting to the facts.  Before exercising this option, it is wise to request that the judge indicate the sentence intended by asking for “an indicated sentence,” without accepting it.  This way, the defendant knows in advance if it is wiser to accept the prosecutor’s offer instead.

So hopefully it was an improper plea bargain rather than a plea in the open, and will be disallowed by an appeals court.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
Quote
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A Portland man has been sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree arson for starting a dumpster fire near the city’s North Precinct during a protest nearly a year ago.

Authorities say Gavaughn Streeter-Hillerich, 23, was recorded intentionally setting fire to a large dumpster near the exterior of the police precinct on June 26, 2020.

That was for damaging an inanimate object near an empty police precinct? I mean it was a real surprise to find that people there did get convicted, because I keep reading about how they all got away with everything and Portland refused to prosecute anyone.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 12, 2021, 04:09:17 PM
Shhhhhh. They mean all of the other of millions of rioters who got away with murdering everyone in the whole city.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 12, 2021, 04:24:53 PM
Bannon  has been indicted for contempt of Congress.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-trump-adviser-steve-bannon-205800607.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2021, 05:10:52 PM
Doesn't that mean that Bannon will simply exercise his fifth amendment rights?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 12, 2021, 08:10:10 PM
Quote
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A Portland man has been sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty to first-degree arson for starting a dumpster fire near the city’s North Precinct during a protest nearly a year ago.

Authorities say Gavaughn Streeter-Hillerich, 23, was recorded intentionally setting fire to a large dumpster near the exterior of the police precinct on June 26, 2020.

That was for damaging an inanimate object near an empty police precinct? I mean it was a real surprise to find that people there did get convicted, because I keep reading about how they all got away with everything and Portland refused to prosecute anyone.

I have to wonder if that was a plea to a "lesser charge" as during the Portland riots some rioters did try to block off the entrances of a police precinct building which still had a skeleton staff inside and set fire to it. Given how those kinds of things tend to work, the would be arsonist behind that probably was setting fires elsewhere nearby as well.

Trying to create an equivalence to that event and the DC riots on January 6th is a comparing actions happening at very different scales.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 12, 2021, 08:57:45 PM
Point being, this individual did not strike a cop, didn't hurt anyone and his sentence is heavier than the guy who did. You're claiming that it was inappropriate because of politics. But meanwhile you're complaining constantly about law and order, stiffer penalties, and not letting anyone get away with anything.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 13, 2021, 12:45:28 AM
Point being, this individual did not strike a cop, didn't hurt anyone and his sentence is heavier than the guy who did. You're claiming that it was inappropriate because of politics. But meanwhile you're complaining constantly about law and order, stiffer penalties, and not letting anyone get away with anything.

Blocking off the exits to an occupied building and trying to set it on fire isn't just attempted arson, it is attempted pre-meditated murder. That the people in the building are law enforcement just amplify it.

Now can you outline how punching a cop approaches attempted murder? (Assuming I am correct on what the "underlying charges" actually are, vs what was charged in court)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 13, 2021, 03:16:39 PM
Where did you get attempted murder? There was no such charge. The charge was arson. No exits were blocked off by this individual.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 15, 2021, 03:47:50 AM
Where did you get attempted murder? There was no such charge. The charge was arson. No exits were blocked off by this individual.

Did you see my comment about "lesser charge" and the matter of his being in close proximity to where that event took place. Depending on the evidence they had at hand, it was probably easier/cheaper to just get him to plead to the lesser charge and throw the book at him for that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2021, 09:33:03 AM
That's not remotely close to my understanding of plea bargains. The typical path is to indict someone on the scariest things imaginable and then change it when they accept guilt. Face it, you have no evidence to support any claim that attempted murder was on the table, or that any lives were endangered. As opposed to cracking someone in the head with a baton in the vanguard of a mob.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2021, 01:48:47 PM
I really wonder what Trump is trying to hide.  His suite to block the info using Executive Privilege is doomed to failure.  If he has nothing to hide, if he and his  people did nothing wrong, why work so hard to hide the info?

The whole goal is to delay until 2022 and hope Republicans win the house back and can bury everything for him.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on November 15, 2021, 02:15:56 PM
Point being, this individual did not strike a cop, didn't hurt anyone and his sentence is heavier than the guy who did. You're claiming that it was inappropriate because of politics. But meanwhile you're complaining constantly about law and order, stiffer penalties, and not letting anyone get away with anything.

Setting fires in a city during a chaotic situation is dangerous. I don't have a problem with either prison sentence.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 15, 2021, 02:20:55 PM
For the record, since I didn't state it, I also have no problem with either sentence. They follow guidelines and are appropriate.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on November 15, 2021, 06:29:27 PM
Doesn't that mean that Bannon will simply exercise his fifth amendment rights?

I think they can get around that by granting immunity. 

Regardless, he has to stand trial for Contempt of Congress first, and that's going to take forever.  It could take years. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 16, 2021, 09:46:45 AM
Doesn't that mean that Bannon will simply exercise his fifth amendment rights?

I think they can get around that by granting immunity. 

Regardless, he has to stand trial for Contempt of Congress first, and that's going to take forever.  It could take years.

It is an interesting question. No contempt of congress proceeding has gone to trial in over 50 years - hard to know how long it might take. Either way, the general result isn't to compel testimony but rather to punish for the affront, it appears.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on November 16, 2021, 12:48:10 PM

It is an interesting question. No contempt of congress proceeding has gone to trial in over 50 years - hard to know how long it might take. Either way, the general result isn't to compel testimony but rather to punish for the affront, it appears.

There are different options, from what I can tell.  There is Civil Contempt, where they try and get a federal judge to compel testimony or get hands on documents, like with Monsieur Attrapeur de Chats's tax returns.  There is Criminal Contempt, where they try and get the Justice Dept to take it to trial as a criminal case, what is going on with Ser Steve the Brave.  Then there is my favorite, Inherent Contempt, where they just have the Sergeant at Arms for Congress detain the individual until they comply. 

Personally, I would have loved to see William Walker just throw Ser Steve into some Congressional dungeon.  Probably would have involved extra jurisdictional problems, but it would have been fun.  Watch Lauren Boebert sneak in cigarettes and the blood of deported immigrants. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 17, 2021, 12:44:16 PM
And the Shaman gets 41 months. It is going to be interesting to watch that subset of people who declared this was all secret antifa somehow turn around and get upset at the sentences. After all, shouldn't they want all these secret antifa folks in prison?

Meanwhile, those who convince themselves that 41 months is too much for someone who committed no assault should ask themselves a question. What would they be saying if this was a member of BLM committing the same acts?

If BLM invaded the capitol building, we'd have all the defenders of the existing Jan 6 incident calling them traitors and wanting them thrown in prison with maximum sentences. If it had been a different group, the teams would switch sides. Then you'd have the other side insisting it was an insurrection, and the opposite scoffing at that characterization.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 17, 2021, 08:22:33 PM
And the Shaman gets 41 months. It is going to be interesting to watch that subset of people who declared this was all secret antifa somehow turn around and get upset at the sentences. After all, shouldn't they want all these secret antifa folks in prison?

Turns out it wasn't secret AntiFa, it was government informants and government agents among other assorted crazies.  ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2021, 11:35:23 AM
They are crazies all right. And yet that doesn't stop people from crying it is unfair for them to go to prison.

As for the government conspiracies, how many fbi informants put a flag on a spear and chanted about hanging Mike pence?

What about the millions of stop the steal people that wanted pence to shred the constitution?

We got no shortage of crazies, we just have to lock up the craziest.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 18, 2021, 01:22:02 PM
Trumps longest serving Chief of Staff talks about Trump.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-s-former-chief-staff-no-longer-holding-back-n1284048?fbclid=IwAR28q7JMuMj2YwCxO_5x7VPRTouUNyWquLcOMnWnhLvdw5w5p_kSNw2TEAc
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on November 18, 2021, 03:48:56 PM
They are crazies all right. And yet that doesn't stop people from crying it is unfair for them to go to prison.

As for the government conspiracies, how many fbi informants put a flag on a spear and chanted about hanging Mike pence?

What about the millions of stop the steal people that wanted pence to shred the constitution?

We got no shortage of crazies, we just have to lock up the craziest.

Narrative for many of the "stop the steal" crowd was they weren't asking for Pence to vote for Trump and shred the constitution. They were asking for him to refuse to certify the election for another week or so, to give the Trump team more time to find evidence of misconduct. (which they still haven't found sufficient amounts of)

Asking him to delay the process for a 7 to 10 days is not asking for him to make Trump the next PotUS by fiat.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 18, 2021, 03:49:52 PM
It was asking him to do something he had no right or power to do.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on November 18, 2021, 04:03:55 PM
Narrative for many of the "stop the steal" crowd was they weren't asking for Pence to vote for Trump and shred the constitution. They were asking for him to refuse to certify the election for another week or so, to give the Trump team more time to find evidence of misconduct. (which they still haven't found sufficient amounts of)

Maybe.  But that wasn't the plan advanced by Trump's own lawyers, and what they were asking for Pence to do. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on November 18, 2021, 05:16:35 PM
Certainly not very many. I suppose we might dig up one quote from somebody who only wanted to delay certification, but that wasn't any message promoted at the rally. I mean, they didn't call it "delay the steal".
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on November 18, 2021, 09:06:01 PM
Certainly not very many. I suppose we might dig up one quote from somebody who only wanted to delay certification, but that wasn't any message promoted at the rally. I mean, they didn't call it "delay the steal".

Delay was the way Ted Cruz and a few other republican politicians played it. They knew the fraud claims were BS. They just wanted to throw some meat to the base and maybe find some way to boot the vote to congress where the republicans held the edge if it came to voting that way. Delay, distract, maybe steal was the strategy.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 23, 2021, 09:33:57 PM
So it looks like the people organizing the Jan 6 rally used burner phones to get into contact with Trump's team.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jan-6-organizers-used-anonymous-011742108.html

Bought with cash and hard to trace. Popular with criminals because they are hard to trace.

I wonder what they were trying to hide or keep others from tracking?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on November 30, 2021, 07:58:52 PM
I wonder why Meadows decided to testify?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-former-chief-staff-mark-181710196.html

Now lets hear all of the calls that he was a never Trumper and a RINO.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on December 01, 2021, 12:58:13 AM
If people in the year 2021 were trying to organise a democratic overthrow and *weren't* using burner phones, *that* would be the story. We've all seen Breaking Bad, right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on December 01, 2021, 01:53:43 AM
If people in the year 2021 were trying to organise a democratic overthrow and *weren't* using burner phones, *that* would be the story. We've all seen Breaking Bad, right?

I still haven't watched it? But I've been familiar with the idea of burner phones since coverage into the investigation of the September 11th attacks 20 years ago.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: DJQuag on December 01, 2021, 06:21:04 AM
If people in the year 2021 were trying to organise a democratic overthrow and *weren't* using burner phones, *that* would be the story. We've all seen Breaking Bad, right?

I still haven't watched it? But I've been familiar with the idea of burner phones since coverage into the investigation of the September 11th attacks 20 years ago.

Two things.

1) Watch it.

2) When things get tough, you don't want a criminal attorney. You want a *criminal* attorney.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on December 01, 2021, 08:58:58 AM
If people in the year 2021 were trying to organise a democratic overthrow and *weren't* using burner phones, *that* would be the story. We've all seen Breaking Bad, right?

I dunno, their opsec was generally terrible. It's one of the things that made it clear they weren't antifa.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on December 01, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
I wonder why Meadows decided to testify?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-former-chief-staff-mark-181710196.html

Now lets hear all of the calls that he was a never Trumper and a RINO.

My guess would be Trump isn't going to pay his legal bills and he has no desire to join Steve Bannon in jail. Trump demands loyalty he doesn't give it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 01, 2021, 02:01:27 PM
Their naivete was mind boggling. Their plan consisted of:

1. Stop the certification vote
2. ???
3. Trump is president

That's why they were fine documenting themselves in social media, let alone any nonsense about burner phones.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 10, 2021, 06:01:44 PM
Well, one of the insurgents finally tells who made him do it.

Allen Hostetter said he was "manipulated into participating in the Capitol riot by Yale secret society “Skull and Bones” and other groups he said were covertly acting for the government." (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-09/militia-member-says-yale-secret-society-made-him-storm-capitol)

Quote
In addition to Skull and Bones, San Clemente, California, resident Hostetter said “specific religious denominations known for secrecy such as Scientology and Mormonism” also helped covertly entice him into joining the assault at the behest of the federal government. Hostetter said he was targeted starting in March 2020 because he began organizing anti-lockdown protests during the pandemic, and that government agents “fashioned the lure to be as attractive as possible.”

As “proof,” Hostetter claimed those groups had a long history of colluding with the government and said one of his co-defendants was a Mormon.

Well, that nails it, doesn't it?  ;D

Yep, it was a government conspiracy that made him attack the Capitol, aided by Scientology and the Church of Latter Day Saints!  And we all know who was the head of the government at that time, right?  So he must be the one who is ultimately responsible!

Except he is the one Hostetter was trying to defend when he stormed the Capitol, so...  ???

Maybe someone can explain this to me.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 10, 2021, 06:11:56 PM
One name explains it all.

Soros.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 14, 2021, 08:06:14 AM
Even Fox and his own son knew that Trump should have responded to the attacks on the Capitol earlier and told his supporters to go home.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/destroying-his-legacy-fox-news-hosts-urged-white-house-to-act-during-jan-6-riot-committee-reveals-012345866.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 14, 2021, 08:32:05 AM
Another Trump supporter from Jan 6 now realizes that Trump and his people lied to him about the stolen election.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-lied-capitol-rioter-robert-scott-palmer_n_61b7d6fae4b08ff579396d46
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on December 14, 2021, 03:05:14 PM
Even Fox and his own son knew that Trump should have responded to the attacks on the Capitol earlier and told his supporters to go home.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/destroying-his-legacy-fox-news-hosts-urged-white-house-to-act-during-jan-6-riot-committee-reveals-012345866.html

So basically, there wasn't a vast right-wing conspiracy to other-throw the government on January 6th. But instead there is a much smaller conspiracy to try to cover up how much of a goober Trump was being on the 6th of January.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 14, 2021, 03:09:39 PM
Except for the Power Point presentation about how to over throw the election.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 14, 2021, 05:29:02 PM
Facetiousness aside, however, the specific Jan 6th events were not a coordinated effort.

Quote
WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 14, 2021, 05:33:10 PM
Just because it wasn't coordinated doesn't mean it wasn't planned.  "Incite to riot" could have been the plan, with the expectation that the disruption would cause a delay which could be used to further the attempt to stop the transfer of power.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 14, 2021, 05:42:28 PM
There's also no evidence that any of the people involved in fomenting the crowd had a goal, expectation, or fear that they would break in the doors. That they were at a minimum indifferent to the potential for violence is quite clear, but that isn't a "conspiracy".

Do you really imagine a bunch of people sitting down in a conference room and saying, "what can we say that will get a whole bunch of people to break into the capitol and threaten Mike Pence's life?"
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 14, 2021, 07:29:49 PM
The only problem with what you said, Drake, is that what they said did inspire the crowd at the Capitol to chant "Hang Mike Pence" (or somesort), and for at least one person to construct a gallows for him.  ;D

So while breaking into the Capitol and taking Pence out may have been beyond their expectation, it was certainly not beyond their intent or what they actually accomplished by their words.

Perhaps all they wanted the crowd to do was bring the proceeding to a halt by any means possible, legal or illegal, they didn't care.  Any mayhem beyond that was just icing on the cake. ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 14, 2021, 09:56:43 PM
But inspiring the crowd with inflammatory language is a far cry from a conspiracy, which is the characterization under discussion. Otherwise we might hold all BLM leaders responsible as conspirators for destruction and mayhem that followed one of their speeches. We could call the leaders of the antiwar Vietnam movement responsible for a conspiracy to cause a riot. Any of these groups bear some measure of responsibility for not keeping their followers peaceful, but that doesn't make them conspirators.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on December 15, 2021, 09:03:59 AM
But inspiring the crowd with inflammatory language is a far cry from a conspiracy, which is the characterization under discussion. Otherwise we might hold all BLM leaders responsible as conspirators for destruction and mayhem that followed one of their speeches. We could call the leaders of the antiwar Vietnam movement responsible for a conspiracy to cause a riot. Any of these groups bear some measure of responsibility for not keeping their followers peaceful, but that doesn't make them conspirators.

Trump is an expert at toeing the line, maybe slipping over with plausible deniability.

All the lies about the election, telling people their country was being stolen, holding a rally on Jan 6 close to the capital, then telling people to "fight like hell" and that he would march with them to the capital and then sitting in the white house and watching the chaos happen. He has a lot of culpability.

Did he have secret meetings with the proud boys and other groups on how to breach the capital? No. Does any violence that happened that day happen without Trump? No.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2021, 11:06:51 AM
Quote
But inspiring the crowd with inflammatory language is a far cry from a conspiracy, which is the characterization under discussion.

Depends, Drake.  Did those who did so intend to inspire a riot?  Was it part of a plan that they had? 

If a group of people say to each other, "OK. We'll rouse up the crowd.  If we do it right, they will riot and stop Congress from certifying the election.  Then we can pressure Congressmen, with this threat to their lives from the rioters and other pressures, to declare some of the votes null and void.  Then we can declare Trump president," that is a far cry from "We will tell the people the truth as we see it." :)

Conspiracy requires a plan.  Not necessarily a good plan, a reasonable plan, or a plausible plan.  Just a plan.  An intention for somethings to happen to reach a goal.  And if one of those somethings was inspiring an uprising that would stop the U.S. government from performing its lawful functions, then you got yourself a real-life, full-blown conspiracy to undermine the U.S. government.

Don't make it sound less that it may have been.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on December 15, 2021, 12:02:44 PM
The only problem with what you said, Drake, is that what they said did inspire the crowd at the Capitol to chant "Hang Mike Pence" (or somesort), and for at least one person to construct a gallows for him.  ;D

I'm sorry, but I doubt anybody coming to a rally is going to just randomly happen to have everything they need on hand to build a gallows spontaneously.

That guy was probably going to build it regardless of what any speaker at the rally had to say. They were responding to things said and done well before the rally ever happened, and any relationship it had with most(or even all) of the speakers is likely to be tangential at best.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 15, 2021, 12:59:08 PM
So you're saying that the mood of the rally's participants was already set before the rally.  After weeks of propaganda, that is quite likely.

So the speakers probably had a good idea of that mood, and knew it wouldn't take very much to strengthen it and push it a bit further.

Which in no way precludes the planners from planning on inspiring the ralliers to disrupt Congress or even perhaps riot.

In fact, assuming Trump and his minions knew that the crowd might turn violent, it is significant that there were orders for the National Guard to step in to protect the crowd, and then did not show up when it was the crowd that became the threat.  It was as if he wanted to make sure that violence would only flow in a certain direction...  ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 15, 2021, 01:10:55 PM
To paraphrase the Bard, Will no one rid me of this troublesome Congress?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 15, 2021, 02:14:39 PM
Quote
That guy was probably going to build it regardless of what any speaker at the rally had to say.

Possibly. That, however does not absolve the speakers for their message, which was well known to the builder prior to the actual rally. As well as reinforcement of that message. What if the rally speakers DIDN'T encourage the crowd to march down to the capitol? Some would undoubtedly still gone there. But perhaps not enough to overwhelm security.

Quote
Don't make it sound less that it may have been.

A may have been is not good enough foundation for an accusation of that magnitude. Perhaps we will yet dig up some text messages expressing a desire to turn the crowd violent. Or other, you know, actual evidence. As the article I linked indicated, there is very little evidence that even far right groups had much of a plan. Even though certain individuals clearly had violence planned days in advance.

I think it is far more plausible that they wanted the presence of the crowd outside the capitol building to exert political pressure on members of congress to drag out objections and debate on every state they wanted to challenge. The actual violence instead seems to have accelerated the inevitable approvals.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on December 21, 2021, 11:00:14 PM
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

So, we had previous speculation on January 6th having potentially being led mainly by Federal CI's. Meet one of them, and further documentation about others.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on December 22, 2021, 03:38:24 AM
Sure enough...

The trick now would be finding out who was really behind it all, the puppet master pulling the strings at the highest level, the grand wizard behind the curtain. Pelosi? Hillary? Biden?

Trump was ostensibly in charge of the FBI but you can bet he knew nothing about any of this. So who did? Just some mid level bureaucrat? Not likely. The one thing we can be fairly confident about is that we will never know. If a journalist really did find that out and report it that would be Pulitzer Prize winning journalism right there, even Nobel prize worthy like Maria Ressa and Dmitri Muratov, two journalists awarded the Nobel Peace Prize who used their acceptance speeches to express alarm about the threats to democracies. None of our mainstream journalists will touch this and if they did it would be very dangerous to them especially if Hillary was behind it. The only chance this has of seeing the light of day is the way its being put together now, by crowdsourcing. All of the little people working together will hopefully be too hard to stop. But they'll try. Maybe a real January 6th Commission would be useful for something after all, if it could shed some light on these disturbing facts and allegations. You can bet it won't be any of the Democrats doing that though, not a single blessed one.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on December 22, 2021, 05:32:45 AM
To paraphrase the Bard, Will no one rid me of this troublesome Congress?
I believe that's real life you're paraphrasing there, not Shakespeare!

Or at least, not Will's paraphrase of it, as he didn't write a Henry II play.  Sadly the film written on him by William Goldman's big brother didn't cover the incident in question, but I wanted to slip that in lest he complain that it's the mention he missed!  And because I've not seen read any of the other fictionalised works on the topic...
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 22, 2021, 11:35:01 AM
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

So, we had previous speculation on January 6th having potentially being led mainly by Federal CI's. Meet one of them, and further documentation about others.

Wow. I guess Revolver News is up for a pulitzer. Who knew? I'm always impressed by bold print, they certainly have a damning amount of it. Seriously, if you just looked at that site and replaced all the text with lorem ipsum, Would you guess that it is serious news or an infomercial for nutritional supplements?


Epps is nothing (https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/nov/17/story-doesnt-confirm-trump-supporter-jan-6-riot-fb/), except to wildeyed conspiracy theorists.

Quote
"Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol," reads the Oct. 25 headline of a story on Revolver News, a right-leaning website run by a former Trump White House speechwriter. Other conservative sites cited the report with their own headlines like this one that gained traction on Facebook: "BOMBSHELL: Did Jan. 6 Riot and Ray Epps EXPOSE a Corrupt FBI?"

Short answer: No.

Epps, whose participation in the events at the Capitol became known shortly after Jan. 6, was seen in videos from Jan. 5 and 6 urging others to enter the Capitol "peacefully." Revolver’s article attempts to build a case that Epps’ comments, his association with unindicted Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, and the fact he wasn’t arrested prove that Epps is an FBI informant and that the federal government incited the riot.

The conclusion relies largely on speculation. It does not confirm Epps to be an FBI informant.

Revolver, run by Darren Beattie, a Trump speechwriter who was fired after he appeared on a panel with a white nationalist, has floated this unproven narrative before. Fox News host Tucker Carlson amplified the claim in his conspiratorial documentary series that attempted to recast the events of Jan. 6 and featured Beattie as a source.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on December 22, 2021, 11:45:13 AM
https://www.revolver.news/2021/12/damning-new-details-massive-web-unindicted-operators-january-6/

So, we had previous speculation on January 6th having potentially being led mainly by Federal CI's. Meet one of them, and further documentation about others.

Jezzis.  "Revolver News" huh?  With broken nonexistenial links to nonexistant Grey Hooker stories? 

Quote
The trick now would be finding out who was really behind it all, the puppet master pulling the strings at the highest level, the grand wizard behind the curtain. Pelosi? Hillary? Biden?

Why not Soros?  Or Rothschild?  Or Gates?  Or Chase Manhattan? 

Did you ever stop and ask yourself why "stories" like this don't ever get very far?  Beyond people like Tucker Carlson or right talk radio?  I mean, why are these stories not picked up by the Fox News news side like Brett Baier or Dana Perino?  How come this isn't picked up by National Review or the Daily Caller or even the Federalist?!  How about the Wall Street Journal?  Why don't you even hear about this from other Trumpist Republicans like Kevin McCarthy?  How come it doesn't get picked up by How did Pelosi or Hillary give instructions to FBI agents?  How many people were involved in this conspiracy?  How did they communicate?  Where and when did they plan this out?  What was the plan?  Why would they attempt to sabotage Biden being recognized as the winner of the election, particularly after Mike Pence said he wasn't going to do anything but count?

Then ask yourself why an ex speechwriter of Donald Trump who was fired for cozying up to White Supremacists would write something like that and make it all up.  Ask what credentials these people have that make you trust what they write implicitly without critical thought while everything else gets a fine toothed comb.  Who do you trust, why do you trust them, and should you be trusting them?   
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 22, 2021, 11:53:23 AM
And just remember that just like election fraud the lack of evidence is the evidence of the fraud and the coverup.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on December 22, 2021, 01:09:21 PM
Epps is nothing (https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/nov/17/story-doesnt-confirm-trump-supporter-jan-6-riot-fb/), except to wildeyed conspiracy theorists.

Quote
"Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears To Have Led The Very First 1/6 Attack On The U.S. Capitol," reads the Oct. 25 headline of a story on Revolver News, a right-leaning website run by a former Trump White House speechwriter. Other conservative sites cited the report with their own headlines like this one that gained traction on Facebook: "BOMBSHELL: Did Jan. 6 Riot and Ray Epps EXPOSE a Corrupt FBI?"

Short answer: No.

Epps, whose participation in the events at the Capitol became known shortly after Jan. 6, was seen in videos from Jan. 5 and 6 urging others to enter the Capitol "peacefully." Revolver’s article attempts to build a case that Epps’ comments, his association with unindicted Oath Keepers leader Stewart Rhodes, and the fact he wasn’t arrested prove that Epps is an FBI informant and that the federal government incited the riot.

Oh, well that makes everything better.

Quote
The conclusion relies largely on speculation. It does not confirm Epps to be an FBI informant.

That Epps did "trespass" and hasn't been charged would strongly suggest he is, given what the FBI has done in other cases. Precedents, you know.

Quote
Revolver, run by Darren Beattie, a Trump speechwriter who was fired after he appeared on a panel with a white nationalist, has floated this unproven narrative before. Fox News host Tucker Carlson amplified the claim in his conspiratorial documentary series that attempted to recast the events of Jan. 6 and featured Beattie as a source.

Okay, valid reason to question the narrative proposed by Revolver(I only became aware of the article, and even the site through a reasonably trusted third party site, the video evidence on its own does speak to some issues outstanding, even absent the narrative line Revolver took.

Even broken clocks can be right some of the time. The problem here is, as pointed out, lack of hard evidence to indicate one way or the other because the FBI is currently under no legal obligation to release what it knows to pretty much anyone on discovery grounds at this point in time. Because "oddly" the people who would be able to make those discovery claims, aren't being prosecuted.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 22, 2021, 01:34:57 PM
Now let's figure this convoluted logic. The FBI posts a picture seeking information. About one of their informants, who not only attended but masterminded the "breach"? They would have already been very familiar with their inside man. Then they get the information, and that's when they start the coverup?

A lot of hay gets made that he wasn't charged. 727 people have been charged. They all entered the Capitol building itself, AFAIK.

Quote
Epps never appears to have entered the Capitol or engaged in violence as many of the more than 600 others facing charges did. The investigation is ongoing.

What we have is Epps whispering something in a guys ear who then subsequently engages in violence. Epps might have been telling him to calm down, for all we know. Even if he DID instigate the violence there, it doesn't mean he wasn't exactly what he looked to be - A member of the Arizona Oathkeepers suckered in by the narrative that the election was stolen.

Another plausible explanation for the FBI seeking Epps and then removing his information is that he agreed to cooperate and give material information. Certainly more plausible than him being a secret FBI plant who went there to frame the good people of MAGA nation. Whose company is named "Patriot Holdings"

Is it really so hard to believe that Epps is exactly what he seems to be?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on December 22, 2021, 01:38:18 PM
Quote
Other conservative sites cited the report with their own headlines like this one that gained traction on Facebook: "BOMBSHELL: Did Jan. 6 Riot and Ray Epps EXPOSE a Corrupt FBI?"

Short answer: No.
Betteridge's law of headlines.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on December 24, 2021, 01:41:35 AM
Good question, TheDrake.  Why do you think this Epps guy had much more influence over the crowd than a certain man named Donald Trump?  ???
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 28, 2021, 07:40:38 AM
Nope, no plan at all to change the outcome of the election.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-advisor-peter-navarro-lays-031432176.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on December 28, 2021, 07:46:10 AM
An opinion piece on why Trump and his cronies are not conservatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/krull-call-trump-crowd-anything-110305096.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on December 28, 2021, 11:20:08 AM
Nope, no plan at all to change the outcome of the election.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-advisor-peter-navarro-lays-031432176.html

Oh, I think they've always freely admitted that they wanted to change the outcome via Mike Pence and the Republican legislators just tossing out all the votes illegally. And that they wanted to challenge as many states as possible in the Congress. Navarro also makes a good point that the violent actions dried up Senate support for dragging this out the way they had planned. I don't believe him when he says they didn't need protestors to be there, I think they wanted the news coverage of flapping Trump banners and Proud Boys mugging for the cameras with the capitol dome in the background. They might not have wanted Mike to be hung by the neck until dead.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on December 31, 2021, 04:04:00 AM
I don't believe him when he says they didn't need protestors to be there, I think they wanted the news coverage of flapping Trump banners and Proud Boys mugging for the cameras with the capitol dome in the background. They might not have wanted Mike to be hung by the neck until dead.
I doubt that was wanted as such (much less planned at any level other than the people currently on trial).  But reckless disregard certainly seems to be fairly general.

The overall pattern is...  dismaying.  These clowns stoked the violence in advance.  They sought to instrumentalise it while it was happening.  ("Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.")  They've downplayed it ever since.  If there are no legal -- or even more astonishingly, no political -- consequences to such violently authoritarian antics, there will inevitably be more such.  "Emboldened", as the Bush administration was fond of saying.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 04, 2022, 08:19:09 PM
Trump just cancelled his Jan 6 new conference.  Maybe someone told him how tone deaf he was.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 05, 2022, 06:03:52 AM
He's normally pretty deaf to being told he's tone deaf, too.  Maybe he had a prior appointment with a hamberder and a game of golf at someone else's expense.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 05, 2022, 03:04:13 PM
Trump just cancelled his Jan 6 new conference.  Maybe someone told him how tone deaf he was.

You mention Trump in almost every post. It's mental. Did you know he's not in the white house anymore? You know that, right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 05, 2022, 03:10:10 PM
Now let's figure this convoluted logic. The FBI posts a picture seeking information. About one of their informants, who not only attended but masterminded the "breach"? They would have already been very familiar with their inside man. Then they get the information, and that's when they start the coverup?

A lot of hay gets made that he wasn't charged. 727 people have been charged. They all entered the Capitol building itself, AFAIK.

Quote
Epps never appears to have entered the Capitol or engaged in violence as many of the more than 600 others facing charges did. The investigation is ongoing.

What we have is Epps whispering something in a guys ear who then subsequently engages in violence. Epps might have been telling him to calm down, for all we know. Even if he DID instigate the violence there, it doesn't mean he wasn't exactly what he looked to be - A member of the Arizona Oathkeepers suckered in by the narrative that the election was stolen.

Another plausible explanation for the FBI seeking Epps and then removing his information is that he agreed to cooperate and give material information. Certainly more plausible than him being a secret FBI plant who went there to frame the good people of MAGA nation. Whose company is named "Patriot Holdings"

Is it really so hard to believe that Epps is exactly what he seems to be?

They're creating a statue to commemorate the abject terror and unprecedented destruction of Jan 6th. I understand it will be a statue of Ray Epps, pointing directly at the capitol building, with George Floyd at his side.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 05, 2022, 03:39:22 PM
Crunch,

But by one story, he thinks he should still be there. And it looks like he wants to get back. If he would just shut up and go quietly into the night, I would ignore him. But he, and what he stands for, is too dangerous to let fester in the dark.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 05, 2022, 03:59:57 PM
You mention Trump in almost every post. It's mental.
Mentioning Trump in a Jan 6 Commission thread.  Oh, the temerity!  The audacity! The hurt feels!

What's the ratio of your own posts in which you seek to casually psychopathologise others?  I won't go quite so far as to say it's "almost every post".  There's a few different dustbin taxons that'd catch a tremendously large number, though.  Starting off the top of my head with "TDS", "random personal abuse", and "AM talk radio comedy sidekick wannabe".
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 05, 2022, 04:05:10 PM
Trump just cancelled his Jan 6 new conference.  Maybe someone told him how tone deaf he was.
UK's C4 News is suggesting it was Laura Ingraham (she of the "B&W xerox copy of Ann Coulter" lack of fame) on her TV show, and Lindsey Graham.  Far be it from me to question their journalism, but does he really listen to either of them?  Extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence!  (And no, "Lindsey says so" hardly cuts it.)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 06, 2022, 09:42:37 AM
Crunch,

But by one story, he thinks he should still be there. And it looks like he wants to get back. If he would just shut up and go quietly into the night, I would ignore him. But he, and what he stands for, is too dangerous to let fester in the dark.

Dude, seriously, stop watching MSNBC and CNN. They're doing a number on you.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 06, 2022, 09:47:52 AM
That was a non sequitur.  I do not watch either of those.

Which part of my statement is wrong?  Many Trump supporters still think he is the legitimate President. Are you saying Trump does not want to be President again?

Like I said if he shut up and went away, like most former Presidents do,  with only the occasional public comment, then I would forget him. But he is not doing that and I see Trump and his followers as an existential threat to democracy in the US.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 06, 2022, 09:57:29 AM
You mention Trump in almost every post. It's mental.
Mentioning Trump in a Jan 6 Commission thread.  Oh, the temerity!  The audacity! The hurt feels!

What's the ratio of your own posts in which you seek to casually psychopathologise others?  I won't go quite so far as to say it's "almost every post".  There's a few different dustbin taxons that'd catch a tremendously large number, though.  Starting off the top of my head with "TDS", "random personal abuse", and "AM talk radio comedy sidekick wannabe".

Not just this thread. Not by a long shot, nice deception, I bet you actually believe it ... almost.

It's very clear that a combination of the steady diet of lies from MSM and Democrats like Schiff/Pelosi/Nadler/AOC to create TDS and then the mass formation psychosis created by the pandemic response that some of you, perhaps most of you, have been deeply traumatized. I suspect a few of you may never truly recover from the abject terror that they created in you.

Let's look at that mass formation psychosis:
Quote
There are four basic conditions which need to be met in order for a society to be vulnerable to mass hypnosis. The first of which is a lack of societal bonding.
The lockdowns accomplished that as well as the anti-Trump rhetoric of the previous 4 years.

Quote
The second condition is met when the majority of people view their lives as being without purpose or meaning.
Depending on the study you look at, anywhere from 50%-90% of people believe there is no meaning to life. Check.

Quote
Free floating anxiety is the third condition for the rise of mass formation.
We got that here in spades, some of you probably need medication to handle the anxiety.

Quote
And the fourth condition is high levels of frustration and aggression, with no discernible cause.
From the riots that went all summer and back to the mass assassination attempt on Republican legislators, we see this over and over again. For that matter, you see it here daily.

Quote
This psychological phenomenon explains why so many have bought into a clearly illogical narrative, and why they are willing to participate in the prescribed strategy — “even if it’s utterly absurd,” Desmet says. “The reason they buy into the narrative is because it leads to this new social bond,” he explains. “Science, logic and correctness have nothing to do with it.” 

Humans crave community and long for social bonds. Now that these connections have been forged, they are nearly impossible to break. Hypnotized people are unable to question the narrative being fed to them.  Take vaccinations in children 5-11 for example. There is absolutely no emergency for children. None. Yet, the FDA approved an Emergency Use Authorization vaccine for this age group. There are zero long term safety studies. But the masses eagerly line up to vaccinate their children. This doesn’t make any sense. This is reckless. There is no science to back this need up. But our leaders say it is vital. So, it must be. 

And you see that play out here, in this forum, every day.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 06, 2022, 10:00:45 AM
That was a non sequitur.  I do not watch either of those.

Which part of my statement is wrong?  Many Trump supporters still think he is the legitimate President. Are you saying Trump does not want to be President again?

Like I said if he shut up and went away, like most former Presidents do,  with only the occasional public comment, then I would forget him. But he is not doing that and I see Trump and his followers as an existential threat to democracy in the US.
Whatever it is you're getting this from, it's not healthy. "Many Trump supporters"? Yeah, how many? More than those who thought Abrams was the governor?  Nobody in my family or social group ever talks about Trump, even when the conversation is politics. This is a part of your problem.

I don't know what Trump wants to do. The only time I actually think about Trump is when you get all het up. For most of us, he's simply not relevant anymore.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on January 06, 2022, 11:14:04 AM
Thinking about this, and I'm very much reminded of the Two Minutes Hate:

Quote
...the Two Minutes Hate is the daily, public period during which members of the Outer Party of Oceania must watch a film depicting the enemies of the state, specifically Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers, to openly and loudly express hatred for them.

The political purpose of the Two Minutes Hate is to allow the citizens of Oceania to vent their existential anguish and personal hatreds towards politically expedient enemies: Goldstein and the enemy superstate of the moment. In re-directing the members' subconscious feelings away from the Party's government of Oceania, and towards non-existent external enemies, the Party minimises thoughtcrime and the consequent, subversive behaviours of thoughtcriminals

This is a fictional story that is 100% true today. Some of you go on this forum or social media to engage in this "ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness" and do your two minutes daily. I see you, we all see you. Trump is your Emmanuel Goldstein. Literally.

Quote
A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
Right, where do you guys think you're going to end up with this? For example ... you mad at the unvaccinated? Of course you are. You've been told to direct your rage there during the 2 minutes hate. They're killing grandma or some nonsense. They're selfish, they're idiots that don't understand science, etc etc. Barely human, right? But Trump will always be the focus, your rage against this fictional threat is BlueAnon conspiracy theory.

You know what Jan 6 is now? The kick off to Hate Week:
Quote
Hate Week is a fictional event in George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. Hate Week is a psychological operation designed to increase the hatred of the population for the current enemy of the totalitarian Party, as much as possible, ....

So Merry Hate Week everyone!

I tend to think Aldous Huxley had the more accurate take on totalitarianism but it's clear you guys are veering hard into Orwell territory and embracing all the facets of 1984 in real life.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 06, 2022, 11:34:06 AM
The gaslighting is strong with this one.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 06, 2022, 11:48:15 AM
That was a non sequitur.  I do not watch either of those.
More specifically it was:  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Bulverism

Another useful trope to bear in mind when playing Crunch Bingo.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 06, 2022, 12:02:04 PM
The gaslighting is strong with this one.
And Projection

I can't remember who  was it that tweets and holds all those rally's that get thier follower riled up ins such a way that those he talks about might not experience as being loving.....
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on January 06, 2022, 12:37:09 PM
Actually, this could be good news.

Crunch pushing so hard that we should just forget about Trump (and the Jan 6 Commision) may mean that those he listens to are pushing that, too.  And why would they be so concerned about lib'rals thinking about Trump all the time?  ;)  Perhaps it is because they are afraid that we are getting close to proving something really juicy about him?  :)

Meanwhile, there are strong indications that Trump plans (at this time) to run for President again in 2024.  That alone means he is still newsworthy. 

Also, there are several civil and criminal investigations involving him.  Even the possibility of having an ex-President convicted of a crime, either before entering office or, worse, during his time in office, is very newsworthy. 

And let us not forget that the Donald still insists that he won the election that he clearly lost, and many people (including some on this board) believe so, too.  Repeating that lie lead to the insurrection on January 6, 2021, and could lead to even worse ones in the future.   That is newsworthy, too.

Threats to our democracy, and to those of us who support our democracy, are always newsworthy.  And ex-President Donald Trump is a prominent proponent of these threats and lies.  While he stills spouts his B.S., and while a significant number of people still believe them, and while the Republicans are still too afraid to dispute them, then he is going to continue to be newsworthy, whether Crunch thinks he is worth worrying about or not. :(
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 06, 2022, 02:41:48 PM
Quote
Is Orwell the new Godwin's Law in which online discussions eventually deteriorate to Hitler and Nazis? It's a little different because Orwell is being thrown out by conservatives without already being engaged in a discussion but it seems similar enough to discuss in our current political climate.

Quote
This was in The New York Times today - How ‘Orwellian’ Became an All-Purpose Insult. The article discusses Orwell as being highly misunderstood and misapplied. It seems pretty pseudointellectual as well, but we all know how erudite these folks are.

After the events of last week, one has to wonder whether Josh Hawley — for all of his prep school polish and Ivy League degrees — was fully cognizant of what he was doing. The Republican Senator from Missouri apparently assumed he could have it all: Hitch his star to Donald Trump’s, attempt to overturn November’s presidential election, and prove his down-home bona fides by giving the mob that later invaded the Capitol a raised-fist salute — while also presenting himself as a Very Serious Thinker who had written a book about the wisdom of Teddy Roosevelt and was about to publish another titled “The Tyranny of Big Tech.” What he got instead was mostly revulsion from his congressional peers and a canceled book contract.

An irate and incredulous Hawley took to Twitter, calling the publisher’s actions “a direct assault on the First Amendment.” In peddling specious claims of voter fraud, he said he had merely been doing his duty, “leading a debate on the Senate floor on voter integrity.” He insisted that his publisher was taking its cues from “the Left” and trying to silence him: “This could not be more Orwellian.”

DOn Jr. came out to say:

The next day, after Twitter permanently suspended the president’s account, his son Donald Trump Jr. announced (on Twitter) that “free speech no longer exists in America” and “we are living in Orwell’s 1984.”

Original Reddit Thread proposing this (https://www.reddit.com/r/FoxBrain/comments/kxidxn/is_orwell_the_new_godwins_law_in_which_online/)

Quote
“As we all remember, Orwell's ‘1984’ is about an old man who gets banned from a bird-themed social media site after regularly encouraging violence,” tweeted the progressive think tank Gravel Institute.

“Starting a Go Fund Me to buy conservatives some Orwell books,” wrote @ClueHeywood.

Quote
“Orwellian” is not just applicable to the fascists and communists of Orwell’s era, though. Ulin believes “1984” is relevant to a recent political moment. “There are aspects of the novel that are quite reminiscent, interestingly enough, of Trumpism, even though (Trump’s) right-wing,” Ulin says. “Things like the dissemination of false information, the use of information to obfuscate rather than illuminate.”

Alternative Facts are Orwellian. Being angry at people who won't acknowledge objective facts and calling them out on it is not Orwellian. Case in point, narratives about secret antifa being behind Jan 6.

#bookreportfail
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 06, 2022, 04:31:11 PM
Alternative Facts are Orwellian. Being angry at people who won't acknowledge objective facts and calling them out on it is not Orwellian.

You mean like the fact that Males can't have babies?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 06, 2022, 05:07:29 PM
By all means, have a go at trans people because that's the important takeaway. You're confusing fact with linguistics, opinion, and constructs. Language evolves (https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 06, 2022, 06:41:05 PM
C4 News reporting from the Capitol again.  Reporter is recounting asking a Qanon type if they thought Trump is going to run again.  "No, he won't need to, he'll be reinstated before then."

Kinda implies wanting not just to overturn one election, but to suspend another one(?).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on January 06, 2022, 08:24:24 PM
By all means, have a go at trans people because that's the important takeaway. You're confusing fact with linguistics, opinion, and constructs. Language evolves (https://ideas.ted.com/20-words-that-once-meant-something-very-different/).

I'm not having a go at trans people, I'm having a go at you.

"Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 06, 2022, 09:33:42 PM
I'm familiar with the book. I've read it, seen both films, and a play adaptation. Quoting it doesn't mean you're applying it properly. There's nothing simultaneous in coming to a new understanding of how we ought to use the word "male". Your limited definition is just that, limited. The world male itself didn't even show up until the 14th century. In 1895, it already had multiple meanings.

Quote
Male, matching female, applies to the whole sex among human beings and gender among animals, to the apparel of that sex, and, by figure, to certain things, as plants, rimes, cesuras, screws, joints. Masculine, matching feminine, applies to men and their attributes and to the first grammatical gender; a woman may wear male apparel and have a masculine walk, voice, manner, temperament. [Century Dictionary, 1895]

This is not unusual, nor is it Orwellian in nature. We have lots of words that have multiple meanings, that's why the dictionary lists them all. The fact that we add meanings over time is indisputable and not new.

By the way, she-male has really changed!

Quote
she-male (n.)
early 19c. U.S. colloquial, "a female, a woman," from she + male.

Davy Crockett's hand would be sure to shake if his iron was pointed within a hundred miles of a shemale. ["Treasury of American Folklore"]
This became obsolete, and by 1972 it had been recoined (disparagingly) for "masculine lesbian." The sense of "transsexual male" seems to date from c. 1984.

etymology is fun, and also a fact (https://www.etymonline.com/word/male)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 07, 2022, 01:24:22 AM
Quoting it doesn't mean you're applying it properly.
Given that Orwell was a died-in-the-wool socialist, quoting it in the case of many of the posters here may also be dangerous to the stability of the Earth's orbit, due to the drastically increased angular momentum of his ever-greater spinning in his grave.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 07, 2022, 03:35:04 AM
Listening to NPR gush on breathlessly about the January 6th "Insurrection", I had a very hard time believing that any of them really took the lunacy they were spouting seriously. They did seem like they were on their two minutes hate, but specifically as a bunch of Julias who endeavored to make up for with theatrics what they lacked in honest conviction.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2022, 09:08:00 AM
Listening to NPR gush on breathlessly about the January 6th "Insurrection", I had a very hard time believing that any of them really took the lunacy they were spouting seriously. They did seem like they were on their two minutes hate, but specifically as a bunch of Julias who endeavored to make up for with theatrics what they lacked in honest conviction.

Are you implying Hate = anyone talking about things you don't like?

I agree we need to stop talking about Jan 06. Better to look away from such things. Maybe we should take another look at Benghazi
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 07, 2022, 09:47:52 AM
I'm saying outright that a lot of people hate Trump. January 6 just gives them one more excuse to talk about how much they hate him. They hate Trump all day long, literally. I don't think anyone can claim these people don't hate Trump. The best spin on the depth of their hate and how much time they'll spend talking about it is they sincerely believe they have their reasons. After all, Trump is a according to them racist, sexist, and a homophobe, all much more reason to hate him than anything that happened on January 6, but apparently people brushed that off an voted for him anyway so since the people who voted for Trump consider themselves patriots so there's no better way to insult them and him than concoct this false narrative about sedition since calling them racist was becoming super ineffective. This is all a continuation of throwing everything at him and the deplorables and hoping something sticks.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 07, 2022, 09:50:08 AM
I mean they hate Trump no more than some conservatives hate Obama, right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 07, 2022, 09:58:53 AM
Is it inappropriate to hate the people who smeared feces in the halls of congress? Too over the top? Is it inappropriate to hate their apologists and people who deny who they were and why they were there? Do we get to talk about the right wing hate fests about immigrants, BLM, socialists, transgender, and Brandon?

You want to talk about NPR? Why not take a gander at ONN and see what real hate looks like.

Trump gets lumped in with them because he goaded them, let them run amok without even trying to get them to go home, and then failed to disavow them in the way the McConnel did (well, at least at the time).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 07, 2022, 09:59:51 AM
If you want a scientific measurement then conservatives do hate the policies of Obama with a sentiment equal to the mass of Jupiter whereas liberals' hate for Trump is as dense as a neutron star. With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 07, 2022, 10:11:12 AM
I mean they hate Trump no more than some conservatives hate Obama, right?
And with considerably more cause.

If you want a scientific measurement then conservatives do hate the policies of Obama with a sentiment equal to the mass of Jupiter whereas liberals' hate for Trump is as dense as a neutron star.
I didn't, but if I did want a scientific measurement, then I'd now want two, and that was the exact opposite of a measurement, and the most anti-scientific statement it's possible to make, and if not successfully contained, would have annihilated part of my existing supply.

Quote
With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.
Oh please.  It "shows" only to those viewing through their own heavy cognitive biases and preconceptions.  Birtherism?  The open racism, the constant snarling about "tyranny", protests with nooses, etc?  On what planet (or moon of Jupiter, as you prefer) is that "mostly professional"?

On the "Two-Minute Hate" wannabe memery:  cherry, honestly, please don't just start echoing Crunch's shock-jock catch phrases  They're bad enough the first time around, much less turned into mindless choruses.  And I kinda thought you were going for the "able to display some independence of thought" end of the right-wing market, as opposed to yet another of the Trump Devotion Syndrome drones.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 07, 2022, 10:13:14 AM
Cherry

I think you remember the hate for Obama wrong. They hate the man. Why else go after his birth records, smear him for things the pastor at his church said, or things he said growing up. You can say it was about policies but that would not be true for, I think, a majority of the people who wanted him gone and in many cases dead.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2022, 12:26:58 PM
If you want a scientific measurement then conservatives do hate the policies of Obama with a sentiment equal to the mass of Jupiter whereas liberals' hate for Trump is as dense as a neutron star. With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.

I can't know what's in another's heart as it concerns Hate.
As you note someone can hate what policies associated with a person (what they stand for) without hating the person (though the person that is directed against might experience it as personal)
I never like the idea that One can hate the sin but not the sinner. The sinner that does not believe it a sin is not going to note any nuance

What I don't understand is how you can only apply ability to your tribe as you paint with a very large brush that those who talk about Trump methods as dangerous, divisive and more like to create the what it fears as Hate.

Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 07, 2022, 01:31:28 PM
Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.
If people could do that, they wouldn't be in said "tribes" in the first place, would they?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 07, 2022, 02:42:51 PM
Its great that you are able to give your tribe the benefit of the doubt when it comes to Hate but you should really take a moment to wonder why you can't do the same for those who disagree with your tribe.
If people could do that, they wouldn't be in said "tribes" in the first place, would they?

Its the definition of Hate that being inferred that bothers me and the hypocrisy in its application that is creating the tribes.
So yes you have a point, the solution being a attempt to develop a level of self awareness and discernment necessary to end this foolish tribalism. 
But I agree We are not capable and so are destined to repeat history and create what we fear.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 07, 2022, 03:02:43 PM
Its the definition of Hate that being inferred that bothers me and the hypocrisy in its application that is creating the tribes.
So yes you have a point, the solution being a attempt to develop a level of self awareness and discernment necessary to end this foolish tribalism. 
But I agree We are not capable and so are destined to repeat history and create what we fear.
Yes, I agree that there's an extreme crudity underlying a lot of this "calling out" of supposed "hate".  Going back (on the right) at the very least to "Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder", "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and so on.  Of course the Soviet Union beat them to it, on psychopathologising opponents generally, and indeed well before that.  So when I see certain posters here trotting out "Trump broke you" and "you're permanently damaged after Covid", as well as being an especially low grade of rhetoric, it's a tiresomely unoriginal one.  Also, did we get progressively crazier each time?  Or does the trope presuppose bouts of recovery each time?  I suspect they didn't really think it through -- nor ever really intend to, come to that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 07, 2022, 04:09:32 PM
I'm saying outright that a lot of people hate Trump. January 6 just gives them one more excuse to talk about how much they hate him. They hate Trump all day long, literally. I don't think anyone can claim these people don't hate Trump. The best spin on the depth of their hate and how much time they'll spend talking about it is they sincerely believe they have their reasons.

Who are you talking about?  Who is "they"?  NPR?  Kevin Williamson?  Rachel Maddow?  Nancy Pelosi?  Me?

I thought I had already addressed my feelings on Lord Babyhands.  I don't think it really reaches hatred level.  Here it is:

Quote
I read a bunch of talk from some quarters on hatred for Trump, particularly as being responsible for his possible/probable loss.  I personally don't hate The Great 4th Grade Communicator.  I find him distasteful.  Like biting down and taking a big mouthful of turd sandwich.  I don't believe that's hatred.  There is far less emotion involved.  I'm not sure if I honestly hate anyone.  Bashar Al-Assad and his useful idiots might come closest.  Even then, I feel more of the same emotion you would feel when presented with a rabid dog that likes raiding chicken coops.

Even going back to Nov 2016, my general feeling was one of embarrassment, like if the guy in your 2nd grade class who farts the most and eats his boogers was just elected as class President, because he promised to get McDonalds brought in for lunch and have Burger King pay for it. 


Now, that was all before Jan 6.  After Jan 6, I would have to upgrade my feelings from strong distaste to outright disgust.  We're not just talking about a turd sandwich anymore.  We're basically talking about a turd sandwich that originated from the rectum of someone who did nothing but eat babies, aborted fetuses, cockroaches, and vomit from Alex Jones.   Jan 6 did not give me an excuse to not like the Great 4th Grade Communicator.  It simply allowed it to grow.  I don't see why it shouldn't.  The former president's tiny little hands are quite dirty from that incident. 

Quote
After all, Trump is a according to them racist, sexist, and a homophobe, all much more reason to hate him than anything that happened on January 6, but apparently people brushed that off an voted for him anyway so since the people who voted for Trump consider themselves patriots so there's no better way to insult them and him than concoct this false narrative about sedition since calling them racist was becoming super ineffective.

Personally, I never really bought into the whole racist, sexist, or homophobic arguments against Lord Cheetoh, which is why I never really addressed them.  I find plenty of other reasons to be disgusted by him.  I understand some people are hung up on that, so you must think that they are making stuff up about Jan 6.  But what about me? 

Quote
This is all a continuation of throwing everything at him and the deplorables and hoping something sticks.

What exactly is being made up now?  Sedition?  Sounds rather 18th century.  Do I believe that some of the *censored* insane lies he said led to his band of nutjob followers to assault the Capitol of the United States while it was confirming his replacement?  Yes.  Don't you?  Isn't that enough? 

Quote
With Obama it was mostly professional. With Trump it is deeply personal, and the difference shows.

LOL. What?

There was a huge billboard on I 10 in Mississippi that called Obama the Anti-Christ. 

But you do have a point.  My dislike of Obama was professional.  I didn't like his policies or politics, but I never doubted his character.  Whatever crazy *censored* he was up to or distaste I had for his policies never extended to distaste or disgust for the man personally.  Trump on the other hand is a completely different type of human being.  He is a disgusting and dangerous individual with power.  If you cannot tell the difference in character between Barrack Obama and Donald Trump, or if you just don't care and all you care about is policy, then I can't help you.  Where I come from, it is okay for people to have some differing values or disagree somewhat on how to solve a problem, but there are some things you just DO NOT DO.  Topping this list is the derangement to not accept your defeat and then actively planning to circumvent the law surrounding elections with the aid of some equally deranged and sycophantic lovers of power and finally calling forth a mob of even more deranged and sycophantic individuals to "protest" another branch of government doing its duty and then stand by and apparently do nothing of consequence when these deranged followers attempt to overthrow the same branch of government. 

But yeah, it must be my hatred flowing through me.  I still don't see any blue lightning coming from my fingertips, though. 

On the other hand, whatever it was that some people felt for Obama, 8 years of this feeling is basically what drove some of them them from the policies and character of George W Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, to embrace the Perfect Caller. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 07, 2022, 04:28:30 PM
LOL. What?

There was a huge billboard on I 10 in Mississippi that called Obama the Anti-Christ. 

But you do have a point.  My dislike of Obama was professional.  I didn't like his policies or politics, but I never doubted his character.  Whatever crazy *censored* he was up to or distaste I had for his policies never extended to distaste or disgust for the man personally.
I suppose to try to join the dots between your observations (which seem to be of this planet), and cherry's (which seem to be experiencing some sort of revolutionary breach of perceptual continuity), one can get there if one lets their "mostly" do almost all the work.  If I were an unhappy (but not radically disillusioned) Romney voter, I might have thought, "I have perfectly cordial reasons to dislike this presidency, so do m'colleagues Grant, cherry, etc -- we're representative of Most of the people that voted against him, the people with the nooses and hoods, etc, are a few fringe crazies."  Then just flip that around for Trump:  equate any criticism of him at all with its most unhinged expression, and suddenly one can call 51.3% of the population Fallen to the Dark Side.

I think it's maybe a little like whatever the fancy name is for the cognitive bias that underlies road-rage.  If I make some...  expedient if less than best-practice maneuver, it's for all the most practical and justifiable reasons.  If I see someone else doing so, they're a monster with the most demonic of motivations, and their family should be wiped out, even unto the seventh generation.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 07, 2022, 04:31:44 PM
There are two types of people on the highway with me. Those idiots going faster and those dumb ass jerks going slower.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 08, 2022, 12:22:08 AM
Quoting it doesn't mean you're applying it properly.
Given that Orwell was a died-in-the-wool socialist, quoting it in the case of many of the posters here may also be dangerous to the stability of the Earth's orbit, due to the drastically increased angular momentum of his ever-greater spinning in his grave.

Although oddly, by Orwell's own words, he backed the socialists because he was certain it would be the capitalists who would ban his books.

I guess he would have done well to spend a year or two traveling in 1940's America rather than never venturing outside of either the British Empire or Europe. Of course, I guess there is McCarthy to consider, but the Americans ultimately took care of that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 08, 2022, 12:24:57 AM
Listening to NPR gush on breathlessly about the January 6th "Insurrection", I had a very hard time believing that any of them really took the lunacy they were spouting seriously. They did seem like they were on their two minutes hate, but specifically as a bunch of Julias who endeavored to make up for with theatrics what they lacked in honest conviction.

Are you implying Hate = anyone talking about things you don't like?

I agree we need to stop talking about Jan 06. Better to look away from such things. Maybe we should take another look at Benghazi

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 08, 2022, 12:42:39 AM
Yup. When the Democrats lose then the months of violent and deadly protests in the streets during a pandemic that makes it worse will, again, be breathlessly celebrated by this same media and the Democrats with whom they collude as fighting an election that was stolen by Russian collusion, voter suppression, gerrymandering, hanging chads, or whatever the talking point of the day comes up with. They won't frame it though as whataboutism so much as highlight how "mostly peaceful" the violent terrorist (by the same definition used for the January 6 riot) riots are but most importantly how they reflect a groundswell of grassroots democracy championing opposition by the people against an illegitimate Republican politicians who stole another election.

Democrats win = system is working great and questioning it is treason that undermines our entire form of government and civilization itself.

Republicans win = the election was stolen and the thieves are illegitimate rulers who must be opposed by any means necessary.

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Maxine Waters,  U.S. representative for California's 43rd congressional district since 1991, still in office today.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 08, 2022, 08:51:19 AM

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."

That's a bold play, Cotton.  So at this point, what I'm reading, is a tu quoque accusing Democrats of hypocrisy because they WILL, IN THE FUTURE, DO THINGS JUST AS BAD OR WORSE AS JAN 6, AND NOT CARE ABOUT IT.  I mean, that's next level whatabout.  That should be a bet you can place in Vegas.  I mean, first you need a "Red Wave" to even happen. 

"This is horrible"
"But whatabout what you are going to do tomorrow?"
"Wut?"
"Exactly!"

It's a bold move Cotton, lets see how it plays out. 

Personally, I feel that the best way to prevent these predicted future democratic riots in DC is to make a clear point what the consequences of such actions are by publicly hanging those convicted for their actions on Jan 6 on the steps of the capitol building, and letting their bodies stay out until they rot.  I feel this would send a clear message for Democrats who would want to riot.  The key point here is to prevent future assaults, rather than use past ones as a political football. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 08, 2022, 12:09:22 PM

No, I'm starting to seriously think that the breathless reporting on the January 6th "insurrection" at this point is setting the stage for a massive "what-aboutism" play once they get hit by the Red Wave and the people that brought all of those nice cheery "mostly peaceful protests" with all of those bonfires in Washington DC go back into the streets and set a new standard for what a insurrection in Washington DC looks like.

"But the Republicans did this first."

That's a bold play, Cotton.  So at this point, what I'm reading, is a tu quoque accusing Democrats of hypocrisy because they WILL, IN THE FUTURE, DO THINGS JUST AS BAD OR WORSE AS JAN 6, AND NOT CARE ABOUT IT.  I mean, that's next level whatabout.  That should be a bet you can place in Vegas.  I mean, first you need a "Red Wave" to even happen.

Not that bold, January 6th was an extreme outlier for any kind of Republican/Conservative centered event. What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

But that's part of the Overton Window game being played here. What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

But the constant media refrain about "insurrection" moves the public perception on what actually happened there. Which grants a kind of tacit permission for "whataboutism" to strike once a left-wing group decides they have reason to attempt to riot inside Capitol Hill... Which is likely to be met with a far more forceful response due to January 6th, and the media will be playing that up.

Quote
It's a bold move Cotton, lets see how it plays out.

If Republicans gain control of the House and Senate in the 2022 elections, I would be amazed if there isn't wide spread rioting in multiple cities, including Washington D.C. by the time that January has rolled around. We shall see if they try to assault Capitol Hill in the process(although it may not be in session at the time).   

Quote
Personally, I feel that the best way to prevent these predicted future democratic riots in DC is to make a clear point what the consequences of such actions are by publicly hanging those convicted for their actions on Jan 6 on the steps of the capitol building, and letting their bodies stay out until they rot.  I feel this would send a clear message for Democrats who would want to riot.  The key point here is to prevent future assaults, rather than use past ones as a political football.

What the justice system does to the January 6th rioters will make little meaningful difference to what such a prospective future group may try to do. The only real "proactive deterrence" path that might conceivably exist to the purpose you suggest doesn't exist in the US legal system. And even then it is questionable.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 08, 2022, 01:11:06 PM
Not that bold, January 6th was an extreme outlier for any kind of Republican/Conservative centered event.

It's an extreme outlier for ANY political event in the United States, depending on how you frame it.  It was extreme outlier for a riot with people carrying Jesus signs, being armed with automatic weapons and zip ties, Confederate Flags, Trump Flags, American Flags, Buffalo Horns, being started by a POTUS, and breaking into the US Capitol. 

These differences are what DEFINES the action.  What defines something is what makes it different or sets it apart from everything else.  Some people would like you to focus on RIOT, and show that there are many more riots by people who vote for Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or Dolly Parton.  But the whole idea is that it is a different kind of riot and the counter argument ignores the uniqueness of it. 

Quote
What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

Hmmm.  Yes.  Just like that.  That is how you do it. 

Yes.  I imagine that Democrats have been involved in more riots since 1968, but the whole point is that the specific location, which you seem to want to paint as insignificant, makes that particular riot unique. 

I'd also like to point out that the conservatives that have not rioted in the past 50 years were people who voted for and generally supported people like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  You probably did not see many people who voted for Romney in 2012 at the riot on Jan 6.  But you did see lots of people who voted for His High Holy Builder of Walls.  That's another thing that makes it unique and thus defines it.  The fact that for 50 years conservatives by definition generally did not riot, but suddenly people who say they are conservatives are rioting because of.......  I don't know.  It's a mystery, right? 

Quote
What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

It's true.  As a riot goes it was pretty much unorganized and poorly planned.  But that's generally what a mob is, and what separates it from an army.  Doesn't mean it isn't a riot or a mob, it just means they suck at actually achieving any aims.  It didn't seem to stop a small minority from actually trying to break into guarded spaces with guns and zip ties though, did it? 

Quote
But the constant media refrain about "insurrection" moves the public perception on what actually happened there.

Tell me again about what happened there.  Some people just accidently broke through police lines, fought cops, invaded the Capitol building while voting to confirm an election, accidently broke into congressional offices?

See, the accusation is that the Democrats are trying to make hay out of an event by playing it up.    Your political opponents should be expected to take advantage of adverse events that you are responsible for causing.  That's politics.  But do the Democrats really need to play it up?  Did any other riots attempt to stop a branch of the United States government from doing it's job?  Pretending that the location doesn't matter is kinda ridiculous.  The location was chosen for a reason.  It wasn't an accident.  "Oh we just accidentally broke in to the capitol and broke through police lines".  "Hey, we didn't break anything".  They didn't need to.  And Democrats don't need to blow the event out of proportion.

What I do see is some Republicans, not all, trying to downplay the event because they know it hurts them.  So I have to disagree that the event is being blown out of proportion.  Instead I think some people are trying to downplay what happened and why. 

Quote
If Republicans gain control of the House and Senate in the 2022 elections, I would be amazed if there isn't wide spread rioting in multiple cities, including Washington D.C. by the time that January has rolled around. We shall see if they try to assault Capitol Hill in the process(although it may not be in session at the time). 

If aliens invade earth or Christ comes again in 2022, I would be amazed too.  If the Saints win the Superbowl, I would be amazed if the people of Kansas City do not riot and burn all of Missouri down to the ground and Godzilla is crowned King of Colorado. 

Quote
What the justice system does to the January 6th rioters will make little meaningful difference to what such a prospective future group may try to do.

Another bold move, Cotton. 

Quote
The only real "proactive deterrence" path that might conceivably exist to the purpose you suggest doesn't exist in the US legal system. And even then it is questionable.

I have no idea what you are referring to.  Putting people in the stocks?  Torture? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 08, 2022, 01:18:51 PM
"What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside."

It was limited in scope.  It had one goal and that was to overturn the results of the election. Sounds like an coup/insurrection to me.

So what if most of the people had no idea what they were going to do once inside. As Trump likes to say, many people had an idea. They wanted to stop Congress from certifying Biden as the winner of the election. And Trump egged them on.  "Fight like hell" he said.  Of course he also said he would be with them and he did not go. Trump is famous for using people and hanging them out to dry afterwards.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: ScottF on January 08, 2022, 06:32:32 PM
"What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside."

It was limited in scope.  It had one goal and that was to overturn the results of the election. Sounds like an coup/insurrection to me.

So what if most of the people had no idea what they were going to do once inside. As Trump likes to say, many people had an idea. They wanted to stop Congress from certifying Biden as the winner of the election. And Trump egged them on.  "Fight like hell" he said.  Of course he also said he would be with them and he did not go. Trump is famous for using people and hanging them out to dry afterwards.

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 08, 2022, 07:15:29 PM

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.

If you mumble around a band of sycophantic nutjobs whose grip on reality is limited as it is, prone to violence, and mumble around them: "will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?", you're a moron if you didn't foresee the possible consequences of this.  Henry II had to grovel before the pope and let each bishop of England beat him with 5 rods, and all 80 monks of Canterbury strike him 3 times. 

I'm perfectly able to believe wholeheartedly that Donald Trump is a *censored*ing moron rather than inciting violence, because it fits with my previous judgements of him.  If he wanted to use the mob to overthrow the government he might have done a slightly better job, but he isn't that smart.  He's just an idiot.  But given his popularity and power, he's an extremely dangerous idiot.  Like lighting a cigarette at a gas station after shooting gasoline all over the place dangerous. 

This does not absolve his sycophantic nut job followers for assaulting the Capitol.  The High Holy 4th Grade Communicator might not be guilty of incitement to riot in a court, or sedition, or treason.  But he played an important role and was a critical cause of what happened on Jan 6 because IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IF HE WASN'T A CRAZY NARCISISTIC LIAR WHO SURROUNDED HIMSELF WITH SYCOPHANTIC CRAZY LIARS.  Even the majority of Republicans agreed on this on Jan 6 and 7.  The majority of Republicans in Congress admitted to this.  Even Laura Ingrahm and Sean Hannity knew it!  They just won't say it!  Because money and power are their gawds. 

So what is your choice?  Is he a traitor who attempted to knock off his own vice president and Congress?  Or is he an outrageous idiot? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 08, 2022, 08:59:18 PM
What it is not, aside from the specific location involved, is unusual behavior for left-wing protesters. Rioting is more typical behavior for the political left after all.

Hmmm.  Yes.  Just like that.  That is how you do it. 

Yes.  I imagine that Democrats have been involved in more riots since 1968, but the whole point is that the specific location, which you seem to want to paint as insignificant, makes that particular riot unique.

I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.

Quote
I'd also like to point out that the conservatives that have not rioted in the past 50 years were people who voted for and generally supported people like Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.  You probably did not see many people who voted for Romney in 2012 at the riot on Jan 6.  But you did see lots of people who voted for His High Holy Builder of Walls.  That's another thing that makes it unique and thus defines it.  The fact that for 50 years conservatives by definition generally did not riot, but suddenly people who say they are conservatives are rioting because of.......  I don't know.  It's a mystery, right?

Would be an interesting study. But I think you might be surprised on what you find. Brandon Straka was one of the participants in the January 6th riot. I think he was previously discussed in here for #walkaway (from the Democratic Party) in the 2017 time-frame. He was a Democratic voter prior to 2016, and he probably had a lot of #walkaway friends there who were "Obama Democrats" in attendance as well. (Sadly it seems he fell into an extremist echo chamber) But what happened in his case actually isn't that unique, during 2020 there were some people (including Tim Pool) who were taking note "radical right wingers" seemed to have a disproportionate amount of representation coming from people who claim to have identified as Democrats or "Liberals" in the past... In other words, the conservatives from pre-2012 didn't really move. What you saw happen was a bunch of people move from being politically left of them to being what is generally considered to be to political "right" of them. In some respects, I guess we could potentially call this a quasi "born again" effect for those who've ever had occasion to deal with the "Born Again Christians."

Decent odds you'd also find a lot of the people who were involved in that event that weren't "reformed liberals" either didn't vote (even when able) in most of the presidential election cycles since 1992. Although some of the older ones may have started voting again in 2010 with the Tea Party... But I'd tend to bet a substantial portion of that group subsequently didn't vote in at least 3 of intervening federal election cycles in between... So largely people who were outside of the political system until a wave of populism under Trump caused them to re-engage with the system in the dysfunctional way that is all too common with movements involving populist leaders(To be clear: Obama was a populist as well, just on the other side of the political spectrum).   

Quote
Quote
What happened on January 6th was a riot with extremely limited scope. Most of the people involved had no idea what they were going to do once inside, and refrained going "rah! smash! burn!" one inside.

It's true.  As a riot goes it was pretty much unorganized and poorly planned.  But that's generally what a mob is, and what separates it from an army.  Doesn't mean it isn't a riot or a mob, it just means they suck at actually achieving any aims.  It didn't seem to stop a small minority from actually trying to break into guarded spaces with guns and zip ties though, did it?

Where were the guys with guns? Where are the criminal prosecutions for that? It is a felony offense to bring a gun "Across state lines" into Washington D.C. and further, it's a felony to bring them into the capital building without proper approvals/clearances beforehand. Last I heard, most of the hundreds of people being charged were unarmed.

Quote
Tell me again about what happened there.  Some people just accidently broke through police lines, fought cops, invaded the Capitol building while voting to confirm an election, accidently broke into congressional offices?

Uh, you need to revisit some of those timelines, while you may sneer at the reporting about a specific guy. The surrounding reporting does provide some crucial information you seem to have missed.

By the time many people coming from the Trump Rally had made down the road to where the police lines used to be, the barriers had already been removed. Yes, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" but for a very large number of people, they had no idea they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be.

I guess you also missed the reporting about certain Entrances to Capital Hill having the Capital Police officers involved opening the doors and standing aside as people filed in. (Which is how you get footage of "rioters" peacefully wandering through the rotunda and never venturing beyond the roped in portions of the walkways they were on.) Yes, there were other entrances where forced entries happened, and individuals went well "above and beyond" what the rest of the crowd was up to. But the entire situation was a giant confused mess.

Quote
But do the Democrats really need to play it up?  Did any other riots attempt to stop a branch of the United States government from doing it's job?  Pretending that the location doesn't matter is kinda ridiculous.  The location was chosen for a reason.  It wasn't an accident.  "Oh we just accidentally broke in to the capitol and broke through police lines".  "Hey, we didn't break anything".  They didn't need to.  And Democrats don't need to blow the event out of proportion.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/trump-flees-to-bunker-as-protests-over-george-floyd-rage-outside-white-house

Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 09, 2022, 12:38:33 PM
Is he a traitor who attempted to knock off his own vice president and Congress?  Or is he an outrageous idiot?
Can't he be a dessert topping and a floor wax?

I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.
I must thank you for the courtesy to the reader here by at least clearly stating the claimed equivalence here.  As opposed to some of the "turtles all the way down" Gish Gallops we might have seen.  But I'm really struggling to see the part where you actually demonstrate any actual equivalence whatsoever.  Equivalence of danger to officials?  Equivalence of purpose?  Equivalence of actual harm done?  Not seeing any of those. You were equally peeved at both?  That's kinda the exact opposite of objectivity!


Quote
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/31/trump-flees-to-bunker-as-protests-over-george-floyd-rage-outside-white-house

Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.
Obviously there's a false premise here, as there was no "fleeing" of any kind.  It was an impromptu inspection, and there must be absolutely no false suggestion he was being some sort of chickenhawk.  He's a man of immense personal courage, as his record in 'Nam, fighting crime in Central Park, and unarmed and single-handed preventing school shootings testifies.  I insist you retract your characterisation immediately, and apologise to this self-identifiedly American forum for the use of that commie euroliberal link, above.

I assume you’ve seen the “fight” “fight them” “fight like hell” compilation yes? Now if he had been more specific and said something like “for those of you who are soldiers, make them pay!” I’d be right there with you and agree those words were literally inciting violence.
Legally?  I doubt it.  That's not even clearer (or worse than) the ton of other crap actually in that utter nightmare of a speech.  "My client was using the word 'soldiers' metaphorically, and he spoke of making them 'pay', to be understood in a strictly political sense."  You'd have to prove that he directed them to "make them pay" imminently, and in an unlawful manner.  The US standard for such an offence is (darkly) hilariously high, as compared to any other common law country.  Clearly you can use "fight" metaphorically, but in context -- they're stealing the election, there massive fraud, they're certifying that right now, you got to show strength, you got to take your country back, you got to stop them -- it's a tad more chilling than the average such usage.  Lacking specificity as to whether Mike Pence should be assassinated, or merely intimidated, I'd have to grant.

Morally obviously, but that ship sailed a long time ago.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 09, 2022, 02:12:43 PM
I guess we're also supposed the Washington DC riots in 2020 where Trump was sent into the Presidential Bunker out of concern that rioters were about to breach the perimeter around the White House?  Oh right, "mostly peaceful protest" and at least in that case, the attempt didn't succeed. And those guys were ostensibly BLM.

I'd say that had a pretty strong equivalency if we're being objective.

A Chevy Silverado is certainly closer to a C7 Corvette than a Fiat 500 is.  Both the Silverado and Corvette are manufactured in America and have 6.2L V8 engines, while the Fiat is manufactured somewhere in Italy and has a 1.4L inline 2.

But the Silverado isn't a Corvette. It isn't even a Camaro.  It isn't even a GT500.  It's a pickup truck. 

I feel I shouldn't have to do this, because it's quite obvious, and can only be overlooked if you are blindly overlooking it and intensely focused on making a comparison of a Silverado and a Corvette, but I'm going to do this anyways, despite knowing it's useless to do so, which may be a sign of some kind of psychological problem on my part. 

See, the Capitol riot actually broke into the Capitol.  They actually did break through the lines and actually did attack police officers and many were actually armed and came wearing body armor, gas masks, helmets, etc.  To top it all off, the BLM actions in Lafayette park were not organized or initiated or encouraged by Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Shumer, etc. 

So you should be able to see the difference there.  Why comparing the two events in some kind of whataboutism in preparation for more fantasy riots that will occur later so more whataboutism is not really valid.  In one case, the individuals broke into a seat of a branch of government, came armed to the teeth, attacked police, and were instigated by the head of another branch of government.  In the other this did not happen.  The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me. 

Quote
Would be an interesting study. But I think you might be surprised on what you find. Brandon Straka was one of the participants in the January 6th riot. I think he was previously discussed in here for #walkaway (from the Democratic Party) in the 2017 time-frame. He was a Democratic voter prior to 2016, and he probably had a lot of #walkaway friends there who were "Obama Democrats" in attendance as well.

It's true.  A whole bunch of people who loved His Tinygrabbyhands were not traditional Republicans.  Many of them didn't vote for McCain or Romney.  Too elite.  Too globalist.  Mormon.  Not "conservative" enough.  Not white enough or not nationalist enough.  The Republican party has changed a bunch since 2016.  But it's funny how these same tourists are going to call people like McCain or Romney or Jeb Bush RINOs.  They'll kick out Liz Cheney but praise be his name Lord L'Orange. 

Quote
Where were the guys with guns? Where are the criminal prosecutions for that? It is a felony offense to bring a gun "Across state lines" into Washington D.C. and further, it's a felony to bring them into the capital building without proper approvals/clearances beforehand. Last I heard, most of the hundreds of people being charged were unarmed.

You are truly blind.  I mean, you're not even trying to look.  I'm not going to enumerate the number of individuals that were charged with bringing weapons into the capitol building.  You can google "charged with bringing weapons into capitol" and see for yourself, and you could have but you don't want to see it. 

Quote
Yes, "Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law" but for a very large number of people, they had no idea they were somewhere they weren't supposed to be.

SMH

Ladies and gentlemen, TheDeamon would have you believe that the individuals who broke through police lines, attacked the capitol police, ransacked congressional offices, paraded through the floor of the senate, and attempted to break down doors leading to chambers with legislators, had nothing to do with Donald Trump, or the rally that Donald Trump called for, or that they were entirely unconnected to the hundreds of wonderfully peaceful Trump supporters that just wandered into the Capitol, blissfully unaware they were not where they were supposed to be.

First, ladies and gentlemen, the people who broken through the barriers, and assaulted the capitol police, and broke into the Capitol building knew exactly what they were doing, and they were indelibly linked to Donald Trump.  They were his people.  They were called there by him, they were fueled by his demagoguery, and they were there to try and keep him as President, through force, by stopping the United States Congress.  That hundreds of morons later wandered through the Capitol is, as Deamon mentioned, no excuse for breaking the law, but it also has nothing to do with the actions of those who did know what they were doing or the actions of Donald Trump. 

Quote
Oh right, "mostly peaceful" and that was grounds to subsequently mock Trump.

Ladies and gentlemen, a driver of a Silverado cannot joint the Corvette Driver's Club.  A Silverado is not a Corvette.  Do not be distracted by the similarities. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2022, 08:29:46 PM
See, the Capitol riot actually broke into the Capitol.  They actually did break through the lines and actually did attack police officers and many were actually armed and came wearing body armor, gas masks, helmets, etc.

From memory, just about as many of the guys in Lafayette Park on that particular night were comparably equipped, considering such equipment is common among the black block. Only the Secret Service and other federal agencies did a better job of maintaining the perimeter that exists around the White House. Probably helped in large part due to the matter of that core perimeter having been established for years as not being open to the public and blocked off as such. (And further fortified during that night) Which made it pretty obvious to "Joe Citizen" that there were some places they shouldn't go, or attempt to.

Meanwhile, that outer security perimeter around Capital Hill on January 6th? Normally open to the public. Also commonly sees traffic blocked off for large events.. Like a potential rally in front of Capital Hill?

That's a large part of why the prosecutions have been largely limited to the people who did carry out acts of property damage, or actually went inside Capital Hill.

But the guys who went inside are very much a minority compared to the ones who remained outside. And again, the number of people with guns were a very definite minority among the crowd presented in either group. (The ones outside, and the ones who went inside)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 09, 2022, 10:17:35 PM
Quote
The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 09, 2022, 11:55:45 PM
Quote
The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.

So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 10, 2022, 12:54:37 AM
Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Whatever happened to the liberal idea that intentions count? These people weren't trying to stop the certification of a valid election, not in their minds anyway. They were trying to prevent an election from being stolen. Tilting at windmills certainly, but that's hardly insurrection. Hardly treason. Not even anti-democracy.

Now if they have it wrong and the election wasn't stolen, in fact if every fraudulent vote that did exist went for Trump, then they are mistaken but they still aren't insurrectionists because they aren't trying to overthrow the government. They are still trying to protect the government.

It's like when a cop sees a guy with a gun standing over a dead guy and picking up another gun and then shoots him as happened to John Hurley. Is the cop a murderer? He just shot dead an innocent civilian hero? Well, that cop wasn't even charged. It was a tragic mistake, not murder. Sometimes intentions do matter.

So yeah, charge these people with rioting, with trespassing, with police brutality (brutalizing the police), with destruction of government property and even with littering or whatever the crime is when you smear feces all over the place, but insurrection? Hardly.

They didn't consider themselves to be fighting against the government and against authority but for it. They were just mistaken and due to a series of unfortunate events including confusion resulting from misinformation coming from the government itself, meaning of course Trump, they like that mistaken police officer got mixed up about who was wrong and who was right, who was guilty and who was the victim.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 10, 2022, 09:13:34 AM
Quote
The BLM guys did not even get close to the White House.  If they had, they'd been shot, as Lord Defender of Law and Order Mightness Manliness said they would have been after going to his bunker.  I don't know why they didn't shoot all the yahoos that were breaking into the Capitol.  Maybe mowing down white people trying to seize a seat of government on national TV isn't as photogenic as mowing down black people, or whomever else they had at the BLM thing.  You tell me.

Let's say a lot more BLM guys were violent, and perhaps that they didn't take the threat seriously enough to flood the area with enough cops to keep restoring the barriers as they got messed with. You still can't call that an insurrection, unless their stated or largely shared purpose was to prevent or create a transfer of power. If you get into the white house, somehow don't get shot or subdued, and kick your feet up in the oval office you still wouldn't be an insurrectionist, you'd be a vandal and a trespasser. The intent is the thing that keeps it from being a Corvette, to borrow Grant's distinction, probably more so than the degree of success. Particularly BLM was whipped up by Democrats telling them to fight like hell and go to the White House while also trying to change an election outside a legal framework.

So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?

Because his presence there was preventing the peaceful transfer of power, and that's why he was there.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 10, 2022, 09:23:00 AM
Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Whatever happened to the liberal idea that intentions count? These people weren't trying to stop the certification of a valid election, not in their minds anyway. They were trying to prevent an election from being stolen. Tilting at windmills certainly, but that's hardly insurrection. Hardly treason. Not even anti-democracy.

Let's say hypothetically that I believe that you are an alien, sent as part of a vast interplanetary conspiracy in league with MJ12, the Illuminati, the shareholders of Chase Manhattan, the state of Israel, the Gnomes of Zurich, and the Bush/Clinton family.  Or maybe I think you're just running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint. Let's say I go in and blow a few holes in you or somebody else, all with the intention to save the United States, the world, and kids who just want to eat pizza without being molested. 

All people who commit crimes or take will  immoral actions THINK they are doing the right thing.  This is why the greeks developed virtue ethics. 

Yes, intent does matter, in both the legal and moral spheres.  But only to a point, as illustrated above.  As stated earlier, people are expected to know better.  Nobody is being charged with treason or sedition or insurrection (not sure if that is even a crime), quite possibly because of the concept of intent. Personally I think there is enough of a case to be made, but I'm not a federal prosecutor or in the Justice Department.  But the results were the same.  As it has been pointed out several times by several Trumpists, not every follower of L'Orange was jumping the barricades and storming Congress.  You didn't see Rudy Giuliani or Jim Jordan or Steve Bannon leading the assault.  These were some extremely stupid people that were taken advantage of, but it does not absolve them of their responsibility for what they did and what they were attempting to accomplish, no matter what they thought they were doing.  The people who took advantage of them share some of the responsibility.  And I don't care how warped their minds were either.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 10, 2022, 09:28:43 AM
But how is that possible? All of Trumps followers are people of great personal moral fortitude and personal responsibility. They are not sheeple to be lead by others. They are rugged individuals who always think for themselves  and do their own research. These people could not be mis led like this since they are such wonderful examples of conservative and Republican values.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 10, 2022, 09:32:48 AM
So tell me again, how is the guy putting his feet up on Pelosi's desk an insurrection? He was going to overturn the ratification of the vote from Pelosi's office... How exactly?

How is Castro taking Havanna supposed to stop Batista from governing?   ::)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on January 10, 2022, 09:59:45 AM
Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen.

Let's say hypothetically that Trump is a wanna be dictator trying to destroy American democracy. Not so hypothetical, he is doing just that. What's the appropriate response?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 10, 2022, 10:08:59 AM
Quote
Let's say hypothetically we're in a third world country and there really is massive voter fraud going on and an election is actually stolen. Happens all the time. Now are the people who go out there and protest, and riot even, considered insurrectionists?

Actually, yes? When the American Colonists decided to challenge what was considered the legitimate authority of the Monarchy and Parliament, they were insurrectionists, rebels, and all the rest. The opposition to Assad in Syria were insurrectionists. By definition. When the Irish rose up against English rule, they were insurrectionists. The IRA was too. Their stated goal was to replace the existing power structure, and they took action to make that happen.

This wasn't some kind of gray area. All those poor misguided souls who wanted their dictator to stay in power had been told over and over by Republican legislatures, governors, secretaries of state, Senators, and Mike Pence that this was legitimate. Unlike in your hypothetical, where international election observers, opposition leaders, and international media would support those claims. In that hypothetical third world nation, the opposition wouldn't be allowed to file dozens of lawsuits trying to prove fraud and come up empty handed.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on January 10, 2022, 10:09:35 AM
Let's say hypothetically that I believe that you are an alien, sent as part of a vast interplanetary conspiracy in league with MJ12, the Illuminati, the shareholders of Chase Manhattan, the state of Israel, the Gnomes of Zurich, and the Bush/Clinton family.  Or maybe I think you're just running a child porn ring out of a pizza joint. Let's say I go in and blow a few holes in you or somebody else, all with the intention to save the United States, the world, and kids who just want to eat pizza without being molested.

There is a difference between a dumb/mistaken idea and an outright delusion, and the distinction matters not only morally but even legally. If you commit a crime under a bona fide delusion you may well be sentenced to receive psychiatric treatment but you won't be treated the same way as a wanton criminal.

Quote
All people who commit crimes or take will  immoral actions THINK they are doing the right thing.

I really don't think this is true. And if you think about it carefully I'm not sure you would agree with it either. Sure, the odd person breaks the law and stands by it 100% because they believe they're truly in the right and the law is wrong. How often do you really think this is the case? I would suggest that most of the time a person knows their action is wrong and is just hoping not to get caught. Examples include white collar crimes, crimes of passion, murder schemes, robbing stores; you really think these people think their actions are upright?

Quote
These were some extremely stupid people that were taken advantage of, but it does not absolve them of their responsibility for what they did and what they were attempting to accomplish, no matter what they thought they were doing.  The people who took advantage of them share some of the responsibility.  And I don't care how warped their minds were either.

cherry wasn't arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible, but that they should be held to what they were actually intending, with what came along with that, rather than being considered to have committed an action (insurrection) that (a) they didn't want to be doing, and (b) they did not in fact carry out. If you accept (a) then it seems like a reasonable proposition. Arguing that, regardless of both their intent and the results of it, they could theoretically have been insurrectionists is not a good standard to use when assessing what in fact they did. That's all. It's not that big a deal to accept this argument, as mainly it seems directed toward the rhetorical game of pretending that some goons actually tried to take over the country.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 10, 2022, 11:11:36 AM
There is a difference between a dumb/mistaken idea and an outright delusion, and the distinction matters not only morally but even legally. If you commit a crime under a bona fide delusion you may well be sentenced to receive psychiatric treatment but you won't be treated the same way as a wanton criminal.

You're right.  There is a difference.  As you say, when you're really delusional you can plead insanity and the law is more lenient. 

Do you believe that any of these people should plead insanity?  It seems not.  In this case, the approbation is greater because of one important distinction:

THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER

Welcome to adulthood, freedom, and responsibility.  You don't break into seats of government with or without firearms, helmets, gas masks, and beat on police. 

You just don't do it.  And I bet that most of those people knew that.  They weren't doing it previously. 

Quote
cherry wasn't arguing that they shouldn't be held responsible, but that they should be held to what they were actually intending, with what came along with that, rather than being considered to have committed an action (insurrection) that (a) they didn't want to be doing, and (b) they did not in fact carry out. If you accept (a) then it seems like a reasonable proposition. Arguing that, regardless of both their intent and the results of it, they could theoretically have been insurrectionists is not a good standard to use when assessing what in fact they did. That's all. It's not that big a deal to accept this argument, as mainly it seems directed toward the rhetorical game of pretending that some goons actually tried to take over the country.

"Officer, I really thought that Hillary Clinton was running a sex ring out of this pizza joint"

"4 years in prison". 

What many of these people intended to do was to STOP CONGRESS.  Stopping Congress is in itself an act of insurrection.  Their belief that Congress was corrupted or not is irrelevant.  Their intent itself was wrong.  Their underlying beliefs were wrong. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 10, 2022, 11:48:17 AM
Actually, yes? When the American Colonists decided to challenge what was considered the legitimate authority of the Monarchy and Parliament, they were insurrectionists, rebels, and all the rest. The opposition to Assad in Syria were insurrectionists. By definition. When the Irish rose up against English rule, they were insurrectionists. The IRA was too. Their stated goal was to replace the existing power structure, and they took action to make that happen.
Bonus localist quibble:  on the face of it you're double-counting the IRA there, but I presume the intended distinction is between the War of Independence IRA and the Provos of the Troubles (or indeed the intermediate incarnations:  Civil War, Border Campaign, and the modern splinter groups).

But on the actual point, exactly right.  At the risk of sounding a little bit Maoist, the art if either to act broadly within the existing law (give or take whatever level of civil disobedience the system will give you "rhythm" for, or that you're willing to take the consequences for), or to act expressly outside it and win.  Establish your revolutionary breach of legal continuity, apply some spackle, make good.  The constant trope on the US far right that they're entitled to start their "revolution" and to entirely get away with it is an oddly pouty form of proto(?)-fascism.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 10, 2022, 01:47:42 PM
If an election is totally stolen though through massive provable voter fraud, it's no longer insurrection to oppose the government that stole the election and support the government that rightfully won the election.

Hypothetically again since we all seem to love those scenarios, if it was proven beyond any doubt that Biden stole the election with massive voter fraud, if the U.N. itself calls the election a fraud and Trump the rightful winner and the only legitimate President, then are y'all still saying that's insurrection to oppose Biden taking office?

Because that's where these people were coming from. That's where Trump led them. And at the time there wasn't any sure way to know if there was massive voter fraud or not. Now that we've had time to look into it and didn't find it, we have more clarity but back then we didn't, yet.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 10, 2022, 01:57:29 PM
There was a sure way. There was all of the audits and recounts done before Jan 6 that showed no large scale fraud (or even medium scale fraud).

Remember before the election Trump was saying the only way he could loose was if it was stolen. He was priming the pump for the big lie.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 10, 2022, 02:02:30 PM
It is insurrection if you use illegal means. Particularly violent ones. In your scenario, you'd have state governments refusing to validate electors or putting up alternate slates, which in this case only looney tunes attempted unilaterally. Members of Congress could legitimately call electoral votes into question. Or are you suggesting that independent observers would assert fraud, but that the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of multiple state governments, local governments, and the federal government are mostly going along with it?

There is was and forever will be a way to know if there was massive voter fraud. On Jan 6, we already knew that was nonsense. Or at least we should have after dozens of washed out court cases, audits, recounts, and investigations. We had, by that point, two full months of no proof. Not even in one state, let alone five.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on January 10, 2022, 02:04:54 PM
No, it's actually still insurrection. It just might not be treason (especially if it prospers) in the sense of taking up arms against your own country. Also, there would be no other government to support. The constitution is very clear about how a federal government is formed but says  nothing about what to do if Congress signs off on fraudulent elections.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on January 10, 2022, 02:15:23 PM
"Stopping Congress is in itself an act of insurrection.  Their belief that Congress was corrupted or not is irrelevant.  Their intent itself was wrong."

The belief doesn't matter so much except for intent, but if Congress actually was corrupted such that members orchestrated massive voter fraud to steal an election that's a different story. Then it's no longer insurrection because the government is illegitimate. It's no longer attacking democracy but defending it.

These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 10, 2022, 02:22:18 PM
But there was no evidence other than Trump. That is why is was an insurrection and Trump is responsible..
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on January 10, 2022, 02:26:34 PM
That's all well and good, cherry, but it's a moot point.

Because a) it turned out they were wrong, and b) they are responsible for their actions.

Being a fool doesn't mean you get a pass.  Maybe leniency, depending on the judge, but no pass, especially if there were other, peaceful avenues available (and were availed). ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 10, 2022, 02:28:49 PM
If an election is totally stolen though through massive provable voter fraud, it's no longer insurrection to oppose the government that stole the election and support the government that rightfully won the election.
If it happened, and if it were provable, you'd prove it.  As in, in court.  If the US system were so thoroughly corrupted that it were "losing" 15m Trump votes (or whatever the Mike Lindell number-of-the-week is), colluding in this at every stage (or else failing to detect doing to at any) from district, to county, to state, to the FEC, to the many levels of judicial oversight on all of this, then surely insurrection would be necessary?

Quote
Hypothetically again since we all seem to love those scenarios, if it was proven beyond any doubt that Biden stole the election with massive voter fraud, if the U.N. itself calls the election a fraud and Trump the rightful winner and the only legitimate President, then are y'all still saying that's insurrection to oppose Biden taking office?
"The U.N. itself" part here seems glaringly anomalous, as the US pays scant regard to what the UN says, and has carefully and consistently ensured that the UN can't actually every do anything, especially as regards the US itself.  "The security council resolves, by a vote of 14-1, that the United States presidential election--"  "Veto."

Quote
Because that's where these people were coming from. That's where Trump led them.
This sounds a little like a mutual semi-cutthroat defence.  The insurrectionists are exculpated by Trump's lies and incitement.  But Trump himself isn't in any sense liable for the lies or the incitement.  How handy for both of them!  Responsibility laundered, while you wait.

These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.
The idea that you can conduct political violence to overturn an election on the basis of a "premise that didn't pan out" is folksily bathetic.  Maybe they should be in touch with the "mass psychosis" peeps, and look into a "temporary fascist insanity" line of defence.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 10, 2022, 02:32:09 PM
What is it they say... easier to ask for forgiveness then act on proof.  :'(
Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who ended up played as useful idiot?

Such is the power the strong man has over thier acolytes, one believes without question.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 10, 2022, 02:43:18 PM
Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who is the useful idiot.
Morally, both.  Legally, responsibility doesn't always -- rarely does! -- sum to 100%.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 10, 2022, 02:59:06 PM
These guys turned out to be wrong because their premise of provable massive voter fraud didn't pan out. But if it had it would have been a whole 'nother ballgame.

"Didn't pan out"

Like they didn't get the right card on the river to make their straight, after betting the farm. 

"It didn't pan out, pa"

I bet he believed he was going to get that Queen, too.  Just didn't pan out.  Unlucky.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on January 10, 2022, 03:03:02 PM
From the GOP's perspective, "it was all Trump's fault" isn't much better. If the rioters are not responsible for their errors, that responsibility has to go somewhere. While I'd be more than happy to dismantle the Republican disinformation machine on that basis, it's not a winning argument for the anti-Biden brigade.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 10, 2022, 05:44:42 PM
Sorry I broke the guy legs,  I was convinced he was a criminal... because my leader said he was and told me I should do something about it.  Who is guilty? Who is the useful idiot.
Morally, both.  Legally, responsibility doesn't always -- rarely does! -- sum to 100%.

True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label  :o
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 10, 2022, 05:58:02 PM
True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label  :o
It's a good rule-of-thumb.  But in less clearcut "designated suckers" sitches, you can have both parties get off (massaged below the evidential threshold), or both go down (joint enterprise, etc).
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on January 11, 2022, 09:53:51 AM
True but it was trick question. Its always the useful idiot that pays. Its in the label  :o
It's a good rule-of-thumb.  But in less clearcut "designated suckers" sitches, you can have both parties get off (massaged below the evidential threshold), or both go down (joint enterprise, etc).

Ah yes - Less ClearCut "Law and Order" useful idiot... when we pretend not to see and know what we see and know.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 11, 2022, 12:21:39 PM
Quote
A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.

US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."

During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 11, 2022, 01:11:48 PM
Also from the same (I take it) BI article, "In court Monday, Mehta asked whether Trump's inaction could be considered "ratification" of that statement."

I suspect it would be "novel to the law" that words and actions could travel back in time and turn "political free speech" into "incitement", but it's somewhat morally uplifting he's at least getting a vicarious earbashing over it.

Which case is this, anyway?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 11, 2022, 01:18:16 PM
Wasn't it Nixon who said he had the approval of the Silent Majority? Sounds like the same thing but in reverse. As long as Trump did not tell them to leave, he wanted them there.  I mean that is what most of those who are being convicted are saying. They believe that they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 11, 2022, 02:29:31 PM
A federal judge on Monday forced lawyers for former President Donald Trump to reckon with his hours of silence during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, asking in court whether the president's initial inaction could be considered a tacit endorsement of the day's violence.

US District Judge Amit Mehta also rejected one lawyer's claim that Trump urged his supporters to be peaceful on that day, telling the attorney to "stick with the facts."

During a court hearing Monday, Mehta said that for a "two-hour period" on the day of the siege, Trump did not "take to Twitter or to any other type of communication and say, 'Stop. Get out of the Capitol. What you are doing is not what I wanted you to do.'"

Hmmm.  I see where a bunch of this is going, and it's being brought up in the commission's line of questioning too, and I honestly am unsure if it will end up going anywhere other than as political capital.  I think you have to weigh the possibility that Lord L'Orange was basically stunned, then afraid of repercussions, all while all of his media advisors and even family are trying to get him to do something.  He probably felt that telling the mob to stop would be seen as admitting that they were his mob.  It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours. 

Then again, you accusations that he told McCarthy that the mob cared more about the election than he did.  Proving that Babyhands willfully and knowingly did nothing and was in dereliction of his duty as POTUS would be difficult but not impossible given the lengths the commission is going to to find dirt.  I still don't know what the end game is though.  Not sure if they could impeach him again or if they just want it as political capital.  Either way, it's probably best that the information comes out.  I don't pretend to believe that many Democrats have altruistic motives here, but here is another case where motives do not change the inherent rightness or value of an action. 

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 11, 2022, 02:36:24 PM
Quote
It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours.

Most like for much more than 2 hours.  I think it was more along the line of 4 years.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 11, 2022, 02:39:20 PM

Most like for much more than 2 hours.  I think it was more along the line of 4 years.

This would mean that he would not be responsible for not doing something to stop the mob from assaulting the capitol, any more than a one-year-old would be responsible for not buckling themselves into a baby chair in a car correctly. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 11, 2022, 06:12:58 PM
Hmmm.  I see where a bunch of this is going, and it's being brought up in the commission's line of questioning too, and I honestly am unsure if it will end up going anywhere other than as political capital.
I can see why you'd say that about the commission, by why's it coming up in this case?  From the little context we have, it's in relation to a point made by TFG's lawyers, but we'd need a lot more than that.  (Like starting with, which case!)

Quote
I think you have to weigh the possibility that Lord L'Orange was basically stunned, then afraid of repercussions, all while all of his media advisors and even family are trying to get him to do something.  He probably felt that telling the mob to stop would be seen as admitting that they were his mob.  It's quite possible that the man froze up and was simply incompetent for two hours. 
It's not the account we'd had to date, but who knows.  Maybe he felt he'd deliveroo'd an "out of concern they might breach a fence!" mob, and didn't know what to do with an "inside the building and homicidal" one.

Quote
Not sure if they could impeach him again or if they just want it as political capital.
Unsettled, so the only people not unsure on this are Trump and Matt Gaetz -- certain Obama could have been impeached...  in 2020 (wut? he's kinda term-barred already), other such barrack-room idiots (on either side of the aisle or the issue), or supreme court justices if they've already counted the votes on this.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on January 11, 2022, 06:21:25 PM
He's in more serious trouble than you think, Grant.

For one thing, this is a civil case where he is being sued for his negligence.  That means it has a lower standards and threshold for conviction.

For another, he is being sued (in no less than 9 suits) under the Ku Klux Klan Act, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_Act) a fascinating piece of legislation intended to prevent officials from aiding and abetting violent terrorists, through benign neglect.  In other words, by turning a blind eye to their activities or intended activities.

Quote
Section 1985(1) covers conspiracies to violently prevent a public official from taking office or to "molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede" the discharge of official duties, among other acts. ... In a reference to the Klan's practice of wearing face-covering hoods, Section 1985(3) prohibits two or more people from traveling in disguise or otherwise conspiring to deprive a person or class of people of equal protection of the law or other legal rights.[30] In addition, Section 1985(3) contains the "support-or-advocacy clauses", which cover conspiracies to harm citizens because of their support or advocacy for a federal candidate for public office.

More to the point is Section 1986:

Quote
Section 6 of the Act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1986 and known as "Section 1986", imposes civil liability upon persons who know of a violation of Section 1985 or a planned violation of Section 1985, and who are in a position to prevent it, but who fail to prevent it, fail to attempt to prevent it, or fail to assist in its prevention.[32] While the other sections create a remedy against conspirators who deprived people of their rights, Section 1986 creates a remedy against persons whose acquiescence make such conspiracies possible. Legislators recognized that the Klan's political violence could not continue without tacit approval from local community leaders, and sought to stop the Klan by making community leaders financially responsible for terrorist acts they knowingly fail to prevent.

Section 1986 reads: (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1986)

Quote
Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured, or his legal representatives, for all damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by reasonable diligence could have prevented; and such damages may be recovered in an action on the case; and any number of persons guilty of such wrongful neglect or refusal may be joined as defendants in the action; and if the death of any party be caused by any such wrongful act and neglect, the legal representatives of the deceased shall have such action therefor, and may recover not exceeding $5,000 damages therein, for the benefit of the widow of the deceased, if there be one, and if there be no widow, then for the benefit of the next of kin of the deceased.

The third thing is that hotel room where Trump's minions were trying to find a way to stop the transfer of power.  That alone shows that Trump was interested in stopping the process.  And who knows by what means they were considering... ;)

This is what Mehta was addressing when she questioned the lawyers. (https://electoral-vote.com/#item-2)

Quote
You have an almost two-hour window where the President does not say, 'Stop, get out of the Capitol. This is not what I wanted you to do.' What do I do about the fact the President didn't denounce the conduct immediately ... and sent a tweet that arguably exacerbated things? Isn't that, from a plausibility standpoint, that the President plausibly agreed with the conduct of the people inside the Capitol that day?

Of course, this is only an preliminary hearing for three of the suits.  But if Mehta allows it to go forward, the next phase would be discovery.  Which means the lawyers will want all the transcripts, phone records, and such from President Trump on that day, and everything from that hotel room for as many days as they were there. Which means, if they can get them, they are going to find out just how far Trump was willing to go to stop the transfer of power, over many weeks.

Potentially, everything could be laid out for all to see.  And I'm pretty sure Trump won't come out of that looking good at all.  And doubtlessly quite a bit poorer, to boot. :)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 13, 2022, 02:36:18 PM
Well the first sedition conspiracy charge has been brought against the head of the Oathkeepers.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/founder-oath-keepers-charged-seditious-184710688.html

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Grant on January 13, 2022, 03:23:59 PM
Well the first sedition conspiracy charge has been brought against the head of the Oathkeepers.

18 U.S.C. § 2384:
Quote
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.



Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 13, 2022, 03:50:23 PM
That statute certainly seems to apply. Possibly people at the University of Alabama might have been arrested and charged with sedition, but Wallace for all his flaws warned people they would get arrested if they showed up.

Kennedy federalized the Alabama National Guard under the insurrection act. See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government. In order to use that Act, a President must issue a proclamation to disperse - another thing Trump didn't do.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 14, 2022, 02:14:10 PM
See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government.
Though given that a number of them explicitly said they were...  Of course they said this rhetorically/hyperbolically/metaphorically/etc, so we should take that claim at face value, and not in any way examine any resemblance between that and their subsequent actions.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 14, 2022, 03:31:39 PM
See, an insurrection doesn't have to be aimed at overthrowing the government.
Though given that a number of them explicitly said they were...  Of course they said this rhetorically/hyperbolically/metaphorically/etc, so we should take that claim at face value, and not in any way examine any resemblance between that and their subsequent actions.

Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 14, 2022, 04:06:26 PM
Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.
Well, that'd be "verbatim".  I'd say statements like "this is a revolution" and "hang Mike Pence" are pretty explicit.  As to how thought-through any such intent might be, considerably harder to say.  And likewise the distinction between "overthrow" and "terrorise into compliance".
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 14, 2022, 06:15:19 PM
Well, be careful about saying explicitly. Explicitly would say "we are overthrowing the government". I don't think any of them had dissolving Congress in mind and taking control of the military. Or gain control of any specific territory. Nor do I think they expressed that hyperbolically or otherwise.
Well, that'd be "verbatim".  I'd say statements like "this is a revolution" and "hang Mike Pence" are pretty explicit.  As to how thought-through any such intent might be, considerably harder to say.  And likewise the distinction between "overthrow" and "terrorise into compliance".

The problem with the "revolution" term is it has meanings besides violent overthrow AKA insurrection
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 14, 2022, 06:35:44 PM
The problem with the "revolution" term is it has meanings besides violent overthrow AKA insurrection
Sure, the legal problems abound if you were to try to charge on the basis of such statements, as I think I alluded to in first inst.  Especially by the US standard.  But I think it's pretty clear that "this is 1776!" talk -- very patriotic-sounding, of course, but kinda also violent-ish and overthrowy -- serves to shift the mood of the room in the pro-violence direction, by contextually normalising it.  Overton Windowing trying to beat some Redcoats to death, as it were.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 18, 2022, 05:49:12 PM
Stumbled across this, and realized most of us probably memory holed it.

Storming Congress to try to change or obstruct Congress from carrying out a task wasn't that new in 2020.

It happened in 2018 after all.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/09/28/brett-kavanaugh-hearing-protesters-christine-blasey-ford/1453524002/

Or how about attacking the Supreme Court building?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/protests-build-capitol-hill-ahead-brett-kavanaugh-vote-n917351
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 06:06:42 PM
Or were less seized by its false-equivalence potential, perhaps?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on January 18, 2022, 06:21:44 PM
Where's the reports of smashed windows, battered policemen, dead people?  ???

Where's the reports of offices broken into and items taken?

Where's the feces-smeared messages???

You should find better sources for your reports, Deamon.  Those seem to be missing something. ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on January 18, 2022, 07:50:03 PM
I like how ensuring the orderly transfer of power is reduced simply to "carrying out a task." As if solving the succession problem isn't the single greatest achievement of modern democracy.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 18, 2022, 08:42:27 PM
I like how ensuring the orderly transfer of power is reduced simply to "carrying out a task." As if solving the succession problem isn't the single greatest achievement of modern democracy.

Nothing mandated Congress had to resolve the issue on that date. There were still two weeks before the transition could legally in any case.

Nothing about what happened on January 6th did anything to meaningfully change when the formal transition of power was going to happen.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 18, 2022, 09:05:49 PM
It does not matter because it failed? Is that the excuse?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 18, 2022, 09:16:08 PM
Nothing mandated Congress had to resolve the issue on that date. There were still two weeks before the transition could legally in any case.
Oh, silly me.  So evidently perfectly fine to have a successful Jan 6, Jan 7, etc.  Only if they obstruct the "carrying out a task" until the 19th does it become even slightly coup-adjacent.