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.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on January 19, 2022, 10:10:41 AM
As long as you eventually release the hostages, its not really kidnapping. Every minute that passed made it less certain that the transfer of power would happen on time, or even at all.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 19, 2022, 10:38:20 AM
I think the counting and recording of the votes is needed to swear in the President, right?  Or are you saying that they votes could have been counted any time up to Jan 19, the day before the swearing in?

I think there is a law that requires them to meet on that day.

Lets see.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Yeah I think there was something that required them to count the votes on that day.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 12:17:26 PM
I assume if "it's 1776 baby!" succeeds for the entire length of that day, but is quelled subsequently, the argument would be that congress would go ahead and meet to certify late, and argue contingent necessity.  Or if thought needed, isn't a a shame we can't change the law, oh wait we're congress yes we can.

Of course, if Aaron Sorkin or the producers of Homeland are writing the script, we can add additional plot twists...
At least, I think that's all in the realm of overwrought political thrillers.  Status of any of it on Republican and "Proud Boys" spreadsheets and future current events unknown.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 12:29:55 PM
Lets see.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Yeah I think there was something that required them to count the votes on that day.

Quote
unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

Yes, the law says they're supposed to meet on the designated date to count the electoral votes. But the law also includes a process for disputed electoral ballots, and it does seem with the whole "No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of" clause that there is provision for delay of the final ratification of the vote until disputes have been resolved. And as per the Constitution, which is the final arbiter on that matter, they'd have until 11:59AM on January 20th to accomplish that. In all reality, as per the Constitution, they could probably go beyond that if they felt warranted, although it creates a weird constitutional situation as that means the Speaker of the House becomes "acting President" until the situation is resolved.

That weird situation possibly gets even worse as I think it'd be pretty unclear on if a Speaker of the House holding such a position in such a circumstance would even be able to be impeached, it becomes a question of if they're still considered to be Speaker of the House while serving as Acting President. But as the Speaker requires majority support to be Speaker, and would require majority support to create such a scenario, you're talking about an unimpeachable "Acting PotUS" in any case.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 19, 2022, 12:54:40 PM
But we are talking about the insurrectionist, not the members of the House and Senate.  While I think the Republicans who objected to the electoral votes from certain states were just grandstanding, they were well with in their rights to do what they did.

But you are now moving the goal posts.

You said nothing mandated the Congress to resolve the issue on that date.  Well the law says that date is the day they have to resolve the issue.

Congress had most of the day left to get through the counting. The rioters purpose was to keep that from happening. They were trying to stop the Congress from doing their duty.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on January 19, 2022, 12:59:51 PM
You said nothing mandated the Congress to resolve the issue on that date.  Well the law says that date is the day they have to resolve the issue.

No. The law says January 6th is when they're supposed to examine the issue, and take actions from there. Nothing in that law stipulates the process must complete on that day. Just that it begin on that day.

Quote
Congress had most of the day left to get through the counting. The rioters purpose was to keep that from happening. They were trying to stop the Congress from doing their duty.

Most of the rioters were likely to be largely clueless. A few dozen of them likely had more specific objectives in mind, but they were a small minority. The prosecutions reflect this.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 19, 2022, 01:03:41 PM
How many leaders does it take to start a mob on a riot? What would have happened if they had found Pelosi or Pence and killed one of them? Like the rioters were talking about doing?

So since there is no end date listed, they should just leave it open? Why hold off? There was no evidence of fraud.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 19, 2022, 01:39:06 PM
Most of the rioters were likely to be largely clueless. A few dozen of them likely had more specific objectives in mind, but they were a small minority. The prosecutions reflect this.
The prosecutions, necessarily and as always, reflect what the state thinks it'll be able to prove.  Not being able to meet "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very different standard from "likely to be largely clueless".
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 19, 2022, 08:09:44 PM
SC decides against Trump.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-declines-trumps-request-to-block-records-from-jan-6-panel-003933108.html

I guess he is not still the President and so does not get to wield presidential powers.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 19, 2022, 08:26:22 PM
Well I guess Bannon take his contempt charge to court but my guess is Meadows will now testify.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on January 23, 2022, 08:07:59 AM
Donald Trump is not happy the Jan 6 committee and the NY AG is going after his children.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-blasts-vicious-jan-105739392.html

How disingenuous can you get?  I mean first, they are his children but they are not children. They are in their 40's. They are grown adults who are able to make their own choices and face the consequences of those choices.

Second, who put them in this position?  They did not have to work for dad. Is the Jan 6  Com. and the NY AG going after Tiffany or Baron?  Hell no, because they are not involved with their dad's work. Don Jr, Ivanka and Eric are. They are high level executives within the Trump Org. What did he think was going to happen?

The only real question is will Donald take responsibility for what he told/asked them to do? Or will he hang them out to dry?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Mynnion on January 23, 2022, 08:33:35 AM
There are almost certainly other Trump's out there who milk the system, walking the line between legal and illegal activity.  Previously they have either been able to steer under the radar or bribe there way out of trouble.  When they chose to move in to the public eye they painted a targets on their backs.  Of course the Commission and AG  are acting based on politics.  That does not mean they should be exempt from the law and the associated consequences.  I'd be thrilled if the Justice Dept. and the IRS did a better job at looking at the books of the rich and actually hold them accountable for fraud or near fraud.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 23, 2022, 07:50:04 PM
There are almost certainly other Trump's out there who milk the system, walking the line between legal and illegal activity.
I suspect he's more accurately walking the line between "reasonable doubt" and "been able to get away with all sorts of crap for decades, so now feels nothing but entitled to".

Quote
Of course the Commission and AG  are acting based on politics.
It's long looked very weird to how just how brazenly politicised the US justice system is.  But given developments elsewhere, you're maybe just, as is often the case, early adopters.  The UK AG's long been an elected MP, but the long tradition was they were also senior barristers (unsurprisingly, there as elsewhere lots of politicians are or were practising lawyers), and that they exercise their duties much more as jurists than as politician -- what a concept.  But the incumbent is an out-and-out hack that was only promoted to the inner bar after appointment.  And has indulged in nonsense like referring BLM-protest jury acquittals -- which can't conceivably actually be reversed -- to appeal, purely as red meat to the base.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: alai on January 23, 2022, 07:59:39 PM
How disingenuous can you get?  I mean first, they are his children but they are not children. They are in their 40's. They are grown adults who are able to make their own choices and face the consequences of those choices.
To be fair, whenever I see Junior or Junior Minor, I do tend to think "... what a child".  But not in a "and thus should not be held responsible for any criminality on their part" sort of way.

It's hard to say whether this is actually disingenuousness on TFG's part, mind you.  Suppose you hooked him up to a polygraph, MRI'd his brain, etc, while he describes others as "vicious", and boasts about the supposed high moral probity of his own actions.  Objectively exactly the reverse may -- well, I say may! -- be true, but I suspect you might discover that there's every chance he's fully convinced that somehow different standards apply to him.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on February 01, 2022, 09:07:52 AM
So with Trump loosing his Executive Privilege case, more and more of his aids and staff are turning over their info that they are being asked for.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/ex-white-house-press-secretary-090300360.html

Also it look like Trumps admin handed over a bunch of documents that had been shredded and then taped back together. Even though the law is clear that they are to be kept and turned over when the Admin is done. I wonder what evidence they were trying to destroy?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on February 01, 2022, 11:01:13 AM
Trump trying to hide evidence

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-records-were-torn-former-135600323.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on February 01, 2022, 11:23:29 AM
"Shredding" would be calling it a little more than it was. It conjures images of staffers feeding documents into a crosscut machine. Possibly a long standing habit to destroy evidence, or maybe he has pervasive developmental disorder and this constitutes self-soothing behavior.

Quote
Lartey said the papers he received included newspaper clips on which Trump had scribbled notes, or circled words; invitations; and letters from constituents or lawmakers on the Hill, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

“I had a letter from Schumer — he tore it up,” he said. “It was the craziest thing ever. He ripped papers into tiny pieces.”

Lartey did not work alone. He said his entire department was dedicated to the task of taping paper back together in the opening months of the Trump administration.

One of his colleagues, Reginald Young Jr., who worked as a senior records management analyst, said that during over two decades of government service, he had never been asked to do such a thing.

“We had to endure this under the Trump administration,” Young said. “I’m looking at my director, and saying, ‘Are you guys serious?’ We’re making more than $60,000 a year, we need to be doing far more important things than this. It felt like the lowest form of work you can take on without having to empty the trash cans.”
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on February 01, 2022, 03:38:47 PM
Hey, that's what you get when you work for a stable genius.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on February 02, 2022, 03:59:47 PM
Trump discussed pardoning all of the people involved with the riots/insurrection. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-considered-blanket-pardons-jan-184702834.html

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on February 08, 2022, 01:55:42 PM
Quote
Former President Donald Trump spent his time as the Capitol riot unfolded last year watching footage of his supporters battling with law enforcement and storming the building with enthusiasm as he cheered on the people “fighting for” him, according to a top aide.

Stephanie Grisham told The Associated Press that Mr Trump spent much of the time on 6 January 2021 watching cable news footage and rewinding it to see parts that he wanted to see multiple times: “Trump’s attention was so rapt that he hit rewind and watched certain moments again,” according to Ms Grisham, a former White House press secretary

At one moment he even turned to Ms Grisham, among those shocked aides who would resign in protest after the attack, and said with admiration: “Look at all of the people fighting for me.”

During that time the president also showed confusion as to why Ms Grisham and other aides were not as enthused by the horrifying, violent scene taking place at the Capitol building as he himself was.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 03, 2022, 08:12:16 AM
Ok so a member of the Oathkeepers has plead guilty to seditious conspiracy.   Many of those defending the protesters have claimed they were just acting to defend the country. Does this put an end to that thought?  There is now evidence that the Oathkeepers and Proud Boys were in direct contact with the Trump people.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/oath-keepers-prepared-bloody-battle-013548439.html

Most of the people at the rally and outside the Capitol were useful idiots, used as cover for the real insurrection that Trump and his people were trying to get started.  They should get a slap on the wrist.  But these others.  If only we were as tough on them at Trump wants us to be on his enemies.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on March 03, 2022, 11:09:19 AM
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1084098799/trump-select-committee-capitol-insurrection-conspiracy (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/02/1084098799/trump-select-committee-capitol-insurrection-conspiracy)

Quote
The Democratic-led House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol says the evidence it has leads to the conclusion that then-President Donald Trump broke the law in his effort to overturn the 2020 election.

The revelation was detailed in a court filing Wednesday evening. The filing was part of a court case tied to lawyer John Eastman, who has been fighting a subpoena issued by the panel to share additional documents.
...
The filing details:

"The evidence supports an inference that President Trump, Plaintiff, and several others entered into an agreement to defraud the United States by interfering with the election certification process, disseminating false information about election fraud, and pressuring state officials to alter state election results and federal officials to assist in that effort."
...

How long until they submit a report to the justice department for a criminal investigation?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: LetterRip on March 03, 2022, 11:14:44 AM
One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on March 03, 2022, 02:20:05 PM
One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

This narrative surprises always surprised me. If you believe Trump and his cronies its not a completely shocking reaction to your election and country is being stolen.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 08, 2022, 02:25:02 PM
Well the first rioter to actually go to trial is found guilty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/guy-reffitt-first-capitol-rioter-185742956.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 08, 2022, 03:21:48 PM
Quote
The defense called no witnesses

Sounds like somebody's lawyer couldn't convince his client to take the obvious guilty plea and had nothing else.

Quote
Defense attorney William Welch, suggested in his closing arguments that the government’s photographic evidence was possibly fake, BuzzFeed News reported Monday. Clearly, the jurors didn’t buy it.

But no witnesses to describe how it could be faked, or how such things can be detected. Just toss it out there in closing arguments and see if it distracts one of the jurors.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 08, 2022, 03:27:52 PM
The Trump defense.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2022, 01:25:18 PM
Quote
Breaking down the law on each point, Carter, who sits on the Central District of California and was nominated by President Bill Clinton, writes it is “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman conspired to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 — which would be a crime under federal statutes.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” the judge concludes. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.”
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 28, 2022, 01:49:52 PM
Liberal activist extremist judge bought and paid for by Gates and Soros, working for the Clinton Crime family.  He should be impeached.

Sarcasm filter turned off now.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2022, 02:05:22 PM
That was no judge, that was Antifa! See, he's wearing black!
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on March 28, 2022, 02:42:03 PM
One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

Which everyone with a working brain believes. Did you not see that those who asked Pelosi for added security were refused? The question should be what did Pelosi plan, and when did she plan it. Everyone with a brain (which eliminates many apologists here) do know that the Jan 6 protest was designed as a simple march, and that we have video of Pelosi's security inviting protestors into the Capital. Anyone ever hear of the Doctrine of Laches? You allow one group of people to do a thing, then all people have that right. That protestor with all the visibility (wearing Buffalo horns) never stole anything, broke in anywhere, or ignored any legal directions from security - yet he is still incarcerated. We also have video evidence of BLM and other activists infiltrated into the protestors who did nothing wrong. Ignore the eyewitness testimony of activists ditching their normal black outfits with "blend-in" camouflage clothes? Why not? you follow in the footsteps of 51 Intel officials and the Gray Lady in ignoring anything you don't like.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on March 28, 2022, 03:02:43 PM
One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

Which everyone with a working brain believes.

Strong words coming from the person most likely to post false information.

Quote
Did you not see that those who asked Pelosi for added security were refused? The question should be what did Pelosi plan, and when did she plan it. Everyone with a brain (which eliminates many apologists here) do know that the Jan 6 protest was designed as a simple march, and that we have video of Pelosi's security inviting protestors into the Capital.

Pelosi doesn't have security. The capital police work for the house and Senate.

Quote
Anyone ever hear of the Doctrine of Laches? You allow one group of people to do a thing, then all people have that right. That protestor with all the visibility (wearing Buffalo horns) never stole anything, broke in anywhere, or ignored any legal directions from security - yet he is still incarcerated. We also have video evidence of BLM and other activists infiltrated into the protestors who did nothing wrong. Ignore the eyewitness testimony of activists ditching their normal black outfits with "blend-in" camouflage clothes? Why not? you follow in the footsteps of 51 Intel officials and the Gray Lady in ignoring anything you don't like.

He is incarcerated because he pled guilty.

If you have the video evidence of these nefarious evil doers maybe you should submit it to the DOJ so they can get arrested with the rest of the rioters who rioted for Trump.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on March 28, 2022, 03:31:09 PM
...Pelosi doesn't have security. The capital police work for the house and Senate.

Is this a purposeful demonstration of said brainlessness? The Sergeant of Arms works for Nancy. Didn't he resign in protest over Nancy refusing his requests? This is documented, yet you want to blame Nancy leaving the Capitol wide open on the police? They have Nancy at the top of their command structure for the Capitol.

Mr Buffalo horns has been incarcerated since forever. Has he had a chance to argue it? What does the law say about being forced into a plea to get out of unjust solitary confinement? Coercion? Did he admit violence or any criminal activity? Is following a Security guard allowing him into the building illegal? How about all the others who are still awaiting a chance to be heard in court? Why weren't the known BLM and Dem activists not swept up? Please be honest and fair and stop blowing smoke. What are you going to say in 2024 if Trump regains the Presidency and goes after those who have escaped  arrest so far? Some one must speak the truth even though you are uncomfortable admitting it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on March 28, 2022, 04:43:28 PM
One relative who gets his news exclusively from Fox and OANN still believes it was BLM and Democrats.

Which everyone with a working brain believes.

A bigger question is how is it that no one on this board has a working brain except you?  ;D

Consider these points for your working brain:

If it was BLM and the Democrats who stormed the Capitol, why are so many Republicans insisting that nothing illegal happened?   

Why, of the dozens and dozens of people charged for the activities on Jan. 6, a vast majority are Trump supporters?  Where are all the actual BLM supporters and Democrats?

If there were so many BLM and Democrats, why hasn't anyone identified them from their Facebook posts and other electronic media?  (That's how most of the rioters were found.)  And I don't mean government officials; I mean activists like you. Why haven't activists like you found the many BLM supporters who were there, and published the proof?  Or is it only Trump supporters who were stupid enough to film themselves committing crimes at the time?  ;D

I consider myself to a have an adequately functioning brain.  And it tells me that when I see videos and pictures of a bunch of yahoos storming the Capitol wearing Trump hats, Trump T-shirts and waving Trump flags, yelling to stop the confirmation of the person who beat Trump, and then those yahoos that have been caught being all Trump supporters, it tells me it wasn't BLM and Democrats who were there.  It was Trump supporters.  :o

If your brain tells you anything different, look carefully at what you've been feeding it.  Brains don't work well if you've been feeding it a bunch of B.S.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 28, 2022, 04:51:00 PM
Quote
Without evidence, Jordan asserted that House Speaker Pelosi had denied a request for National Guard troops two days before the insurrection. Instead, public testimony shows she did not even hear about the request until two days later. Jordan also tried to pin the blame on the House sergeant-at-arms, but testimony shows the Senate sergeant-at-arms also was not keen about the idea.

Jim Jordan lied about Pelosi being involved. A person with a functioning brain would be able to understand that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 29, 2022, 08:19:06 AM
So should Clarence Thomas recuse himself from further SC decisions on Jan 6 items?  Sure seems like it.  His lone dissent on some of these cases makes much more sense now, don't they.

Should he be impeached?  He would never be convicted in the Senate, I don't think.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 29, 2022, 08:34:07 AM
Thomas shouldn't recuse himself. There's no precedent for it.

Quote
Ginsburg, like Thomas, was among the justices most reluctant to recuse herself. She maintained that posture despite blurring the lines between political activism and the judiciary on multiple occasions.

Many of the Ginsburg recusal questions stemmed from the work of her husband, Martin Ginsburg. He was a well-known tax lawyer who often found himself tied, however directly or indirectly, to cases before the Supreme Court.

In 1997, he sold stocks in eight companies after it was revealed that Justice Ginsburg took part in cases involving the companies. (Justices often — though not always — recuse from cases involving stock holdings.) He also worked at a law firm involved in cases before the court. In 2004, she defended her decision to continue working with the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, even after she took its side in a case. She heard cases involving the ACLU despite having been heavily involved with the group before becoming a justice. And most recently, in 2017, Republicans called on her to recuse herself from a case involving President Donald Trump’s travel ban because she had offered unusually blunt criticisms of his candidacy during the 2016 campaign.

Justices and their friends and family can hardly avoid being linked in some way to cases with broad impact involving politics and the law. It would be a different story if he was copied on the email, and clear grounds for impeachment if he were the author. But just because his wife expressed something? Might be different if he knows about more damning communications that are soon to be revealed, but we'll see.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 29, 2022, 08:54:17 AM
7-1/2 hours of WH phone logs are missing from Jan 6. Starting at 11:17 and ending around 7PM.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/possible-coverup-white-house-logs-113519295.html


Worse then the 13 minutes of tape missing?

For a guy who did nothing wrong he sure seems to be working very hard to make sure no one knows what happened.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on March 29, 2022, 04:16:43 PM
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089146544/scavino-navarro-trump-contempt-congress-jan-6 (https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089146544/scavino-navarro-trump-contempt-congress-jan-6)

More Trump advisors getting a contempt citation. Executive privilege doesn't apply because Biden waved it. What are they hiding?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDeamon on March 30, 2022, 07:19:53 AM
Quote
Breaking down the law on each point, Carter, who sits on the Central District of California and was nominated by President Bill Clinton, writes it is “more likely than not” that Trump and Eastman conspired to disrupt the counting of the electoral votes on Jan. 6 — which would be a crime under federal statutes.

“Dr. Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” the judge concludes. “Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory. The plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation’s government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process.”

Six in one hand, half-dozen in the other.

What Trump was attempting to do may have been "a coup attempt."

But I think an honest review of the relevant law being violated during the attempt is itself a bad law, and one that does need to be revised all the same. It is too rigid as it stands and does have me concerned about future ramifications, as it seems more concerned with a timetable than with election integrity.

It's like arguing with a bunch of Lawful ________ characters about why something is a bad idea and their falling back on "but it is the law"
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 30, 2022, 08:01:20 AM
The one thing that works against Trump is the fact that no large fraud has been found.  He keeps saying it, but, for example, AZ has recounted and audited their election 4 times and the results are always the same. Biden won.  Even when the count was done by a group hostile to Biden, Biden won.

If the people wanting the recounts and audit were honest, they would admit they were wrong. But they are so sure there was fraud, they will not accept any result that does not show fraud, no matter who tells them there was not fraud. They always have an excuse.  They just KNOW it because their guy lost and the only way their guy could lose is by fraud.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: cherrypoptart on March 31, 2022, 02:48:20 PM
There were so many irregularities during that election that just because no fraud was found doesn't mean it was wrong to suspect it and look for it just to make sure. And now that that's been done maybe it's time to move on.

The whole idea that suspecting voter fraud and wanting to make sure massive amounts didn't happen is the same thing as a coup, an insurrection, and terrorism is and always has been ridiculous. It's nothing more than Democrat Party posturing and politicking. Insurrection and coup attempt pshaw... it was a protest against potential voter fraud, nothing more and nothing less. If it didn't happen then fine. But nobody who had suspicions was wrong for doubting, especially after Democrats insisted for four years, and to this very day even, that the last Presidential election was stolen.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 31, 2022, 02:55:16 PM
The rally on Jan 6 was a protest that Trump and his supporters tried to turn into a coup. They wanted to obstruct the transfer of power. They wanted the crowd to break into the Capital and stop Congress. They turned a rally into a riot into a coup attempt.  Most of the crowd was innocent. Those who never entered the building were exercising their free speech rights. Those who entered violated laws of varying degree. Most were just sheeple who where drug along as useful idiots to those who really wanted to stop the proceedings. They were cover. The real people trying to stage a coup where the ones in contact with the Trump team, the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers and the like. The ones charged with insurrection.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2022, 03:20:34 PM
There were so many irregularities during that election that just because no fraud was found doesn't mean it was wrong to suspect it and look for it just to make sure. And now that that's been done maybe it's time to move on.

The whole idea that suspecting voter fraud and wanting to make sure massive amounts didn't happen is the same thing as a coup, an insurrection, and terrorism is and always has been ridiculous. It's nothing more than Democrat Party posturing and politicking. Insurrection and coup attempt pshaw... it was a protest against potential voter fraud, nothing more and nothing less. If it didn't happen then fine. But nobody who had suspicions was wrong for doubting, especially after Democrats insisted for four years, and to this very day even, that the last Presidential election was stolen.

Very few people had a problem with investigating. Those investigations went on for two months prior to Jan 6 and found nothing. There was either no massive fraud, or it was going to remain undetectable through inauguration. There was no point in trying to subvert the acknowledgement of electoral votes except to subvert the system itself - a coup. Nobody had a problem with recounting votes in Florida in 2000, despite unresolved issues nobody stormed the capitol after the supreme court halted the recount. Nixon strongly believed that he had an election stolen from him through fraud, and had a lot more to back it up than Trump. He accepted the results, his supporters didn't erect a gallows.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 31, 2022, 03:24:38 PM
And in AZ, after all the recounts and audits (4 so far) all they have found is that Biden won by more then they originally said.  Again, if it is not the result they want, they ignore it or say the fraud was so deep it can only be discovered if they visit every person who voted and make sure they voted correctly. And they will be armed when they do that, just to protect themselves.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on March 31, 2022, 05:19:45 PM
And in AZ, after all the recounts and audits (4 so far) all they have found is that Biden won by more then they originally said.  Again, if it is not the result they want, they ignore it or say the fraud was so deep it can only be discovered if they visit every person who voted and make sure they voted correctly. And they will be armed when they do that, just to protect themselves.

Silly rabbet tricks are for kids. The proof of fraud is the fact that it can't be proved.
The left is so wickedly smart their only pretending to be stupid as they can't stop stepping on thier own dicks. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on March 31, 2022, 06:30:43 PM
IT'S A CONSPIRACY SO VAST THAT IT CAN'T BE UNCOVERED! - Q

Every single observed "discrepancy" was easily explained. In some cases, right wing nutbags thought standard procedure was a discrepancy because they didn't even know what standard procedure was. Including not being allowed to force poll workers to feel their hot breath on the backs of their necks. Or boxes of ballots being delivered at nighttime.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on March 31, 2022, 07:36:37 PM
The thing is some Republicans (like Mark Meadows)  know that fraud happened because they did it.  I mean look how long it took NC to find out he voted fraudulently. There is proof fraud happens.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2022, 03:18:45 PM
Another secret antifa got sentenced. 72 year old Lonnie Coffman from Alabama got 46 months.

Quote
Lonnie Coffman, 72, parked his truck -- filled with 11 Mason jars filled with gasoline and Styrofoam, several unregistered firearms, hundreds of rounds of ammo, a stun gun, machetes and a crossbow with bolts -- a few blocks from the Capitol on January 6.

"He had almost a small armory in his truck, ready to do battle," Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said before sentencing Coffman to several months above what prosecutors had recommended.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2022, 04:06:32 PM
According to court records, along with the guns and ammunition, the guy brought Molotov cocktails (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/man-brought-small-armory-capitol-jan-6-sentenced-46-months-prison-rcna22559) to the Capitol that day, but said he had "no intentions to hurt anyone or destroy any property."

So what exactly were those "cocktails" for?  Drinks for an after-riot party?  As road flares to help direct traffic?  Mini-bonfires for a weenie roast?  ??? Exactly how can you use a Molotov cocktail without hurting anyone or destroying something? ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 01, 2022, 04:25:43 PM
George Soros planted those cocktails.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 01, 2022, 05:27:18 PM
According to court records, along with the guns and ammunition, the guy brought Molotov cocktails (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/man-brought-small-armory-capitol-jan-6-sentenced-46-months-prison-rcna22559) to the Capitol that day, but said he had "no intentions to hurt anyone or destroy any property."

So what exactly were those "cocktails" for?  Drinks for an after-riot party?  As road flares to help direct traffic?  Mini-bonfires for a weenie roast?  ??? Exactly how can you use a Molotov cocktail without hurting anyone or destroying something? ;D

They were for self defense against BLM and illegal immigrants.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on April 01, 2022, 05:44:40 PM
And we all know from Ukraine how useful molotov cocktails are for self defence.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on April 01, 2022, 06:24:56 PM
I'd still like to see how you can use one without intending to hurt someone or to cause destruction of property. 

Now that would be a trick!  :o
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 02, 2022, 09:08:53 AM
I'd still like to see how you can use one without intending to hurt someone or to cause destruction of property. 

Now that would be a trick!  :o

Maybe it's just for sport like target shooting at a range. It was just a coincidence that the amateur Molotov championships were the same time as the electoral vote.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on April 02, 2022, 07:33:03 PM
I look forward to when it becomes an Olympic sport.

Maybe the day Urkaine hosts the games.  ;)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 04, 2022, 07:42:08 AM
So where are the Trump supporters explaining away the 7-1/2 hours of missing call logs from Jan 6? Right when the riot was happening?  How do the law and order people explain such an egregious violation of Federal Law?  And don't say some underling did it. Just like Nixon, there is no way this did not start at the top?  Is this evidence changing your mind about what Trump wanted to happen?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 09:39:42 AM
Fake news.  I don't blame you for falling for it though.  The MSM dove into it hard.  Surprisingly, it was CNN that debunked it.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/mystery-call-gap-trump-jan-6-white-house-phone-logs/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics/mystery-call-gap-trump-jan-6-white-house-phone-logs/index.html)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 04, 2022, 09:56:24 AM
From the article you link to

Multiple sources have described the record-keeping during the Trump administration as generally chaotic. Those sources, as well as witnesses who have testified as part of previous congressional investigations related to the former President's conduct described Trump as deeply suspicious of the White House switchboard and detailed various ways he sought to avoid having records of certain phone calls from being kept.
A Senate Intelligence report from 2020 includes witness testimony from former aides saying that Trump regularly used the cellphone of his body man, Keith Schiller, to place calls to Republican operative Roger Stone because he did not want his to advisers to know they were talking.
"Trump hated people knowing who he spoke to, including from the residence at night when they went through the switchboard," one former Trump official told CNN.

He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things.  I wonder why he was trying to keep these records from being kept?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2022, 10:14:53 AM
From the article you link to

Multiple sources have described the record-keeping during the Trump administration as generally chaotic. Those sources, as well as witnesses who have testified as part of previous congressional investigations related to the former President's conduct described Trump as deeply suspicious of the White House switchboard and detailed various ways he sought to avoid having records of certain phone calls from being kept.
A Senate Intelligence report from 2020 includes witness testimony from former aides saying that Trump regularly used the cellphone of his body man, Keith Schiller, to place calls to Republican operative Roger Stone because he did not want his to advisers to know they were talking.
"Trump hated people knowing who he spoke to, including from the residence at night when they went through the switchboard," one former Trump official told CNN.

He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things.  I wonder why he was trying to keep these records from being kept?

Exactly this. Trump didn't want people knowing about all of his perfect phone calls. I wonder if Obama had a similar gap during the Benghazi assault? No, he just used regular phones? Interesting.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 10:49:23 AM
Moving the goalposts now.

From the article you link to

Multiple sources have described the record-keeping during the Trump administration as generally chaotic. Those sources, as well as witnesses who have testified as part of previous congressional investigations related to the former President's conduct described Trump as deeply suspicious of the White House switchboard and detailed various ways he sought to avoid having records of certain phone calls from being kept.
A Senate Intelligence report from 2020 includes witness testimony from former aides saying that Trump regularly used the cellphone of his body man, Keith Schiller, to place calls to Republican operative Roger Stone because he did not want his to advisers to know they were talking.
"Trump hated people knowing who he spoke to, including from the residence at night when they went through the switchboard," one former Trump official told CNN.

He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things.  I wonder why he was trying to keep these records from being kept?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on April 04, 2022, 11:26:02 AM
Quote
Moving the goalposts now.

What would you consider should be the goal line for the investigation? 
I don't understand the comment - move the goal line?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 04, 2022, 11:49:34 AM
Moving the goalposts now.

So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 12:49:06 PM
Quote
Moving the goalposts now.

What would you consider should be the goal line for the investigation? 
I don't understand the comment - move the goal line?

msquared's original claim was that there were "7-1/2 hours of missing call logs from Jan 6" which was "an egregious violation of Federal Law"

Except thats not true.  So msquared then shifted his claims to "He willfully tried to go around the system set up to keep track of these things"  thereby "moving the goal posts".


Quote from: yossarian22c
So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2022, 12:57:43 PM
Point being, we should know who he talked to and when. That should be a matter of public record. Shouldn't it? I remember when conservatives were up in arms because they didn't know what Bill Clinton said to Loretta Lynch at the airport. Guess he should have used his aide's phone to talk to her.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 04, 2022, 12:58:45 PM
FYI, the reason we're resorting to investigating call logs is the fact that most of the people he talked to are in contempt of Congress for not testifying as to what he said to them, among other things.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 04, 2022, 01:12:38 PM

Quote from: yossarian22c
So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 01:19:38 PM

Quote from: yossarian22c
So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?

Did you even read the article?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 04, 2022, 01:22:19 PM

Quote from: yossarian22c
So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?

Did you even read the article?

Yeah, the president purposefully used phones that wouldn't create the proper call log and presidential records. Just trying to understand how you interpret that since you didn't think it was important that he was purposefully avoiding following the presidential records act.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: kidv on April 04, 2022, 01:37:37 PM
Quote
Donald Trump used an official White House phone to place at least one call during the Capitol attack on January 6 last year that should have been reflected in the internal presidential call log from that day but was not, according to two sources familiar with the matter.

The former president called the phone of a Republican senator, Mike Lee, with a number recorded as 202-395-0000, a placeholder number that shows up when a call is incoming from a number of White House department phones, the sources said.

The number corresponds to an official White House phone and the call was placed by Donald Trump himself, which means the call should have been recorded in the internal presidential call log that was turned over to the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack.

Trump’s call to Lee was reported at the time, as well as its omission from the call log, by the Washington Post and CBS. But the origin of the call as coming from an official White House phone, which has not been previously reported, raises the prospect of tampering or deletion by Trump White House officials.

It also appears to mark perhaps the most serious violation of the Presidential Records Act – the statute that mandates preservation of White House records pertaining to a president’s official duties – by the Trump White House concerning January 6 records to date.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/trump-used-white-house-phone-call-capitol-attack-jan-6-not-official-log?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/30/trump-used-white-house-phone-call-capitol-attack-jan-6-not-official-log?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)

Well, there's at least one, per the Guardian
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 02:22:53 PM

Quote from: yossarian22c
So your defense to him destroying Presidential records is that he took willful action to avoid creating the proper presidential records?

There is testimony from 2020 of some things that you have characterized that way.  How is that relevant to January 6?

So during the riot on the capital the President was unavailable by phone for 7 and 1/2 hours? He was taking a nap and playing a round of golf and the white house didn't give a crap about what was going on a block away?

Did you even read the article?

Yeah, the president purposefully used phones that wouldn't create the proper call log and presidential records. Just trying to understand how you interpret that since you didn't think it was important that he was purposefully avoiding following the presidential records act.

You mean the same way Obama and many presidents before him did?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 04, 2022, 03:26:48 PM
for 7-1/2 hours? In the middle of a riot?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on April 04, 2022, 03:55:53 PM
I think I understand what Lloyd is getting at.

Democrats are saying that Trump was not logging his phone calls and flipping off American laws, Congress and the Constitution in order to cover up what he was doing on Jan. 6 during the insurrection.

Lloyd is saying that is completely untrue.

The article clearly shows that Trump has always not logged his phone calls and flipped off American laws, Congress and the Constitution in order to cover up what he was doing for his entire Presidency.  He's been casually ignoring and breaking the law since day one, and not just because of his attempt to subvert the Constitution on that particular day.  So we should not pay any particular attention to his illegal activity on that day.  Because he wasn't behaving any more illegally that day than any other day during his time in the White House.  To imply that he did anything especially wrong that day is a lie.

Besides, mommy, everybody else was doing it (all previous Presidents), so how could it be wrong if he did it?  Laws are just words written by Losers on paper for other Losers.  They don't apply to him.  After all, he's King--er, I mean, President--so how could anything he do be illegal?  "L'état c'est à moi."

That's basically what you're saying, isn't it, Lloyd? :)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 04, 2022, 07:42:44 PM
Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 05, 2022, 11:04:05 AM
Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html (https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html)

Quote
Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

So again is it your contention that Trump was not conducting any official business for the 7 and 1/2 hours of the riot on the capital. Or was he using non-official phone and messaging accounts?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 05, 2022, 11:21:22 AM
Lloyds contention is that since Obama did it, it's OK for Trump to do it.  I wonder if there is a study as to what percentage of Obama's communication would have violated these statues as compared to Trumps?  Or did the fact that he actively (and not just on Jan 6) tried to avoid people knowing who he was talking to means anything.

You see I think Trump never viewed himself as a public servant so the rules that applied to public servants never applied to him and it gauled him that he would have to report./tell others what he was doing.  I mean how can you cover up failure if everyone knows about it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on April 05, 2022, 12:36:56 PM
Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.

I've ben looking for the examples of Obama violating these laws and only came up with 'BlackBerry' Gate but even with that the calls and emails were subject to the Presidential Records Act.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 05, 2022, 12:56:16 PM
Please cite the laws that Trump was breaking  during these 7 1/2 hours by not routing his phone calls through the white house switchboard.  Also please describe why Obama was not violating these same laws by doing the same thing many many times during his presidency.

https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html (https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/laws/1978-act.html)

Quote
Establishes preservation requirements for official business conducted using non-official electronic messaging accounts:  any individual creating Presidential records must not use non-official electronic messaging accounts unless that individual copies an official account as the message is created or forwards a complete copy of the record to an official messaging account.  (A similar provision in the Federal Records Act applies to federal agencies.)

So again is it your contention that Trump was not conducting any official business for the 7 and 1/2 hours of the riot on the capital. Or was he using non-official phone and messaging accounts?

Your contention is that a President is required to document all "official business" in a permanent record?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: jc44 on April 05, 2022, 01:29:34 PM
Quote
Your contention is that a President is required to document all "official business" in a permanent record?

That would appear to be what this says (a slightly better link I think than the previous one):

https://www.archives.gov/about/laws/presidential-records.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 05, 2022, 02:45:00 PM
I disagree.  I think that law requires all documentation of official business be preserved.  If there is no document, there is nothing to preserve.  If a president has a face to face conversation, is that required to be documented and preserved?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 05, 2022, 02:51:33 PM
The fact the conversation took place, yes.  And who they took place with, yes.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Lloyd Perna on April 05, 2022, 03:07:38 PM
I'm sure you can back that up with facts right?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 05, 2022, 04:55:31 PM
In fact, Lloyd is correct. Trump's use is not illegal just unethical. It's the type of thing that usually prompts a closure of the loophole - much like emails were added to the records law.

Quote
It was unclear whether an impromptu, informal call with a foreign leader would be logged and archived. The Presidential Records Act of 1981, passed in response to the Watergate scandal, requires that the president and his staff preserve all records related to the office. In 2014, the act was amended to include personal emails.

But the law contains “blind spots” — namely, record-keeping for direct cellphone communications, said Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, who specializes in public interest and national security law.

CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/30/trump-to-world-leaders-call-me-maybe--on-my-cellphone.html)

If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Mynnion on April 05, 2022, 06:40:28 PM
The fact that this happened in the middle of one of the most questionable parts of his presidency may not be illegal but strongly suggests there were reasons for him to avoid normal procedures.  Is there proof of illegal activity?  We may or may never know.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2022, 07:36:39 AM
What's clear is who he wasn't calling. He wasn't calling the press to make a statement condemning his supporters and telling them to go home. He wasn't calling the leaders of his supporters to tell them to go home. He just sat back and watched in satisfaction. Maybe he kept calling people to gloat and egg them on. See, if he had a call log, he'd be able to demonstrate if any of my speculations were not true. BTW, I haven't yet seen anyone try to answer the question generally. Who was he calling? He could make those cell phone records public if he has nothing to hide. But he always has something to hide. Because he's shady AF. That's why he ritualistically shreds anything on the grounds that it could make him look bad or get him indicted. He's been doing that most of his life.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on April 06, 2022, 01:14:41 PM
Interesting really
Its seams legislations wasn't prepared for the rise of new communication technologies and that the expectation was that our Presidents would act with honor be men of character.
Acting within the expectation of the laws meant to protect us

What fools are we.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 06, 2022, 01:56:21 PM
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2022, 03:15:52 PM
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.

I'm not. CNBC is still considered left or center biased, its not NY Post or Newsmax.

They recently wrote this:

Quote
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama on Wednesday said Donald Trump had asked him to “rescind” the 2020 presidential election, “remove” President Joe Biden from his office, “immediately put” Trump back in the White House and hold a new special presidential election.

Brooks said in a statement that he had drawn Trump’s “ire” by telling the former president that his plan was not legal.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on April 06, 2022, 03:30:22 PM
...
If CNBC could have implied Trump might be breaking the law, they would have done so.

Don't confuse CNBC, the former home of Larry Kudlow with MSNBC.

I'm not. CNBC is still considered left or center biased, its not NY Post or Newsmax.

They recently wrote this:

Quote
Rep. Mo Brooks of Alabama on Wednesday said Donald Trump had asked him to “rescind” the 2020 presidential election, “remove” President Joe Biden from his office, “immediately put” Trump back in the White House and hold a new special presidential election.

Brooks said in a statement that he had drawn Trump’s “ire” by telling the former president that his plan was not legal.

Been a really long time since I've watched CNBC but they always felt center right. Kind of corporate Republican, stock market cheerleaders. Home of Kudlow and that crazy guy whose rant helped start the tea party movement. Historically I don't think that puts them left of center at all.

Things could have changed. But it bothers me that Republicans consider anything isn't explicitly pro right wing all the time as left of center.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 06, 2022, 04:19:01 PM
I'm not a republican either.

Chart it out (https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?utm_source=SourcePage&utm_medium=OnPageLink)

CNBC is considered balanced according to Ad Fontes. But if you look up their individual content, the news program with Shepard Smith is considered left skewed. Can't say I'm familiar with it, watching news makes me want to claw my eyes out. Washington Post is considered left of center compared to outlets like Associated Press. They have opinions, and those opinions tend to be more favorable to left-leaning policy ideas. The point isn't to arbitrarily decide where a news outlet is on the scale, my point is that CNBC in its political coverage wouldn't be likely to bury a story about Trump doing something illegal.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 08, 2022, 12:22:14 PM
Proud Boys leader pleads guilty.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-boys-senior-member-plead-143400421.html

All of these AnitFa types pleading guilty.  The power that Soros and Gates have is just mind boggoling.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 12, 2022, 08:02:33 AM
Another conviction.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/former-police-officer-stormed-capitol-230000887.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 25, 2022, 03:06:49 PM
Well Hannity was a mouth piece for the Trump Admin

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/yes-sir-sean-hannity-took-181403983.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on April 29, 2022, 03:36:48 PM
And a fresh one.

Quote
"Did you do that, agree with [Oath Keepers leader Stewart] Rhodes and develop a plan to stop the lawful transfer of presidential power, by force, on January 6, 2021" US District Judge Amit Mehta asked during the hearing on Friday.

"Yes, your honor" Ulrich said.

Rhodes, who is also charged with seditious conspiracy, has pleaded not guilty.

Ulrich, who at times appeared to be crying during the hearing, also agreed that he "intended to influence and affect conduct of the United States government and to retaliate against the United States government."

At one point, Mehta asked whether Ulrich needed time to gather himself. Ulrich initially declined, saying that "it's not going to get any easier," but later accepted -- taking a moment to audibly weep and gasp for air.

Ulrich, who is from Georgia, was part of an Oath Keepers leadership Signal chat where he, Rhodes and others planned for January 6. The messages, which are quoted in court documents, show how Ulrich repeatedly asked about bringing guns to DC as part of a quick reaction force.
"Someone can tell me if I'm crazy but I'm planning on having a backpack for regular use and then a separate backpack with my ammo" Ulrich messaged the leadership chat in late December, adding that "I will be the guy running around with the 'budget AR.'" In another message days later, Ulrich asked Joshua James about firearms and a potential plan to "stage them in VA."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on April 30, 2022, 08:01:37 AM
More guilty pleas in the sedition cases against the Oath Keepers.

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/oath-keeper-emotional-accepts-2nd-193024571.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 02, 2022, 01:53:22 PM
Another Jan 6 insurrectionist gets convicted of all 6 counts. This one had been a police officer. So much for respect for those in Blue.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/retired-nypd-cop-convicted-assaulting-163640109.html

These trials are not going well for those who did not plead guilty are they? I think only 1 case has been found in favor of the defendant and the rest have all been guilty verdicts.  It looks like they are moving up the food chain.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 11:17:04 AM
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/02/1095521376/jan-6-panel-asks-three-new-house-republicans-to-testify-voluntarily (https://www.npr.org/2022/05/02/1095521376/jan-6-panel-asks-three-new-house-republicans-to-testify-voluntarily)

Quote
House Republican Reps. Mo Brooks of Alabama, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Ronny Jackson of Texas on Monday rejected requests from the House select Jan. 6 committee to testify voluntarily regarding the attack on the Capitol.

I have nothing to hide but won't say anything under oath.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on May 09, 2022, 11:53:08 AM
Well Hannity was a mouth piece for the Trump Admin

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/yes-sir-sean-hannity-took-181403983.html

Attack after attack, neh? Why are you so incensed over Hannity, who saw the many eyewitness reports as newsworthy saying he agreed with others about what was important. You call it "taking orders." A normal, honest person just sees "agreeing with."

Where is your reposting of anything to do with the hundreds of riots that burned government buildings and killed people during the Democrat Summer of Love? Where are your repostings of Democrat operatives in the Justice Department who lied about Trump, Russian collusion (except for Hillary), and paid-for intelligence reports that lied about Trump? Why isn't Hillart prosecuted for violation of laws that Comey refused to prosecute because of "lack of intent" for violations that specifically said that intent is not relevant. The submarine snap-shotter spent time behinf bars - Hillary skated.

U suggest we know someone for what he/she is for what they ignore, as much as for what they pass along as truth, which is actually political disinformation.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on May 09, 2022, 12:02:29 PM
I see the whole "storming od the Capitol" as a Democrat version of the Reichstag Fire.  (The Reichstag Fire was a dramatic arson attack occurring on February 27, 1933, which burned the building that housed the Reichstag (German parliament) in Berlin. - it was set by the Nazi's and blamed on Jews to cause the same kind of reaction the Dems were hoping for the Jan 6 protest that wasn't violent until Democrat agitators and Pelosi-commanded security urged them into the Capital Building, where they didn't set fires or vandalize property like the Democrat mobs did in the summer riots pretending to defend BLM. Let's not go to the million-dollar mansions bought by the BLM leaders with donations that were supposed to help the Black Lives affected by racism.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 12:10:51 PM
...
Where is your reposting of anything to do with the hundreds of riots that burned government buildings and killed people during the Democrat Summer of Love? Where are your repostings of Democrat operatives in the Justice Department who lied about Trump, Russian collusion (except for Hillary), and paid-for intelligence reports that lied about Trump? Why isn't Hillart prosecuted for violation of laws that Comey refused to prosecute because of "lack of intent" for violations that specifically said that intent is not relevant. The submarine snap-shotter spent time behinf bars - Hillary skated.

U suggest we know someone for what he/she is for what they ignore, as much as for what they pass along as truth, which is actually political disinformation.

Plenty of people discussed the riots after the George Floyd murder. Everyone condemned the violence of the looters and provocateurs. People looting the local 7-11 just isn't a lasting news story and concern like the President pointing a mob at the congress and watching joyfully while they erected gallows and sent them away with much love.

Let's send Hillary and Trump to jail for storing classified information incorrectly. Hillary had her under-encrypted email server and Trump had boxes full of materials sitting around Mara Lago. I wouldn't lose sleep about either being hauled before a jury for their actions.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 09, 2022, 12:27:56 PM
Did I trigger you Wm?  What type of snowflake are you?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on May 09, 2022, 12:57:12 PM
...Let's send Hillary and Trump to jail for storing classified information incorrectly. Hillary had her under-encrypted email server and Trump had boxes full of materials sitting around Mara Lago. I wouldn't lose sleep about either being hauled before a jury for their actions.

Reading the actual laws are important:

UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL AND RETENTION OF CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS OR MATERIAL
18 U.S.C. § 1924 Class: A misdemeanor
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 1 year and/or $100,000 fine
"Knowingly removing materials containing classified information of the United States with the intent to retain said info at an unauthorized location without the ability to do so."

GATHERING, TRANSMITTING OR LOSING DEFENSE INFORMATION
18 U.S.C. § 793 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment for 10 years and/or $250,000 fine
"Allowing (by means of gross negligence) any document relating to the national defense to be removed from its proper place of custody or destroyed -or- willfully retaining unauthorized documents relating to national defense and failing to deliver them to the United States employee entitled to receive them -or- failure to report that unauthorized documents relating to national defense were removed from their proper place of custody or destroyed."

CONCEALING, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY
18 U.S.C. § 2071 Class: Felony
Possible penalty: imprisonment of no more than 3 years, a fine, or both
"Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same."

____________________________________

The New York Times on March 2, 2015, reported that Clinton  exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state.  The emails were stored on a private server at her New York home. At the State Department s request, Clinton turned over 30,490 work-related emails totaling roughly 55,000 pages, and deleted 31,830 emails she deemed personal. Clinton s defense of her unusual email arrangements resulted in numerous false and misleading claims.

Clinton said she  fully complied with every rule that I was governed by in preserving her emails. But department policy says all  correspondence and memorandums on substantive U.S. foreign policy issues  should be retained  at the end of the Secretary s tenure or sooner.  Clinton left office Feb. 1, 2013; she gave her emails to the department on Dec. 5, 2014. The department s Office of Inspector General in a May 26 report confirmed that  Clinton should have surrendered all [work-related] emails  before leaving government and, by not doing so,  she did not comply  with the Federal Records Act.

Clinton claimed the  vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately  by the State Department. The department s IG report said that is  not an appropriate method of preserving any such emails that would constitute a Federal record. 

Clinton has frequently remarked that her decision to use a personal email account exclusively for government business was  allowed  and  permitted  by the State Department. But the IG report cited department policies dating to 2005 that require  normal day-to-day operations  to be conducted on government servers. The IG report also said Clinton, who was secretary of State from January 2009 to February 2013,  had an obligation  to discuss her email system with security and information technology officials, but she did not and, if she had, the request would have been denied.

Clinton said  turning over my server  to the government shows  I have been as transparent as I could  about her emails. But she did so in August of 2015 after the FBI opened an investigation. Five months earlier, she rejected calls to turn over the server to a neutral party, saying  the server will remain private. 

Clinton has said that previous  secretaries of State  did the  same thing  in using personal emails for government business. But the State Department has said that only Colin Powell used a personal email account for official business, and Powell did not use a private server. In addition, the IG report said the rules governing personal email and the use of nongovernment systems were  considerably more detailed and more sophisticated  during Clinton s tenure, making comparisons to her predecessors invalid.  Secretary Clinton s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives,  the report said.

____________________________________


Comparing Hillary's willful violations to hide her Clinton Crime Family details  is not at all in the same mold as Trump (who held the power and authority of all security settings and clearances) legally putting anything he wanted, anywhere. As for the effect of these separate actions, Hillary's actions killed people:

____________________________________

Hillary Clinton recklessly discussed, in emails hosted on her private server, an Iranian nuclear scientist who was executed by Iran for treason.
On "Face the Nation." Clinton was speaking about Shahram Amiri, who gave information to the U.S. about Iran's nuclear program.

Iran confirmed on Sunday that Amiri had been hanged for treason. He was convicted of spying charges in a death sentence case that was upheld on appeal, according to the Associated Press.

"This person who had access to the country's secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan" a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said. "He provided the enemy with vital and secret information of the country."




Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on May 09, 2022, 01:07:15 PM
Did I trigger you Wm?  What type of snowflake are you?

You sadden me, because you act like you have enough brains not to be an idiot moron - yet you repeat the most easily rebuttable disinformation and re-post enough almost factual info to skew basic facts.

The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled. Pelosi disallowed the security that was asked for, and it was her people that directed people (hers?) into the building. (We have that on video so it is unarguable.) The Doctrine of Laches says such an action allows all entries to be legal, and permitted by the Speaker.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 01:30:51 PM
...
Comparing Hillary's willful violations to hide her Clinton Crime Family details  is not at all in the same mold as Trump (who held the power and authority of all security settings and clearances) legally putting anything he wanted, anywhere. As for the effect of these separate actions, Hillary's actions killed people:
...

This was after he quit being President. He lost all those rights. So he stole classified material from the US government and stored it at his private residence. But again, I'm fine if you want to try Hillary as a felony and Trump under the misdemeanor statute.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 01:33:06 PM
...

You sadden me, because you act like you have enough brains not to be an idiot moron - yet you repeat the most easily rebuttable disinformation and re-post enough almost factual info to skew basic facts.

The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled. Pelosi disallowed the security that was asked for, and it was her people that directed people (hers?) into the building. (We have that on video so it is unarguable.) The Doctrine of Laches says such an action allows all entries to be legal, and permitted by the Speaker.

I mean this with no irony or sarcasm. I am glad you are here engaging with people you disagree with.

Welcome to ornery, you are wrong.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 09, 2022, 01:43:51 PM
The difference is that the Right has already convicted Clinton so there is no need for a trial. Her guilt is so obvious that she should just LOCK HER UP tm.

Trump on the other hand is so obviously innocent that no investigation should be done, ever, for anything he has ever done in the past, since he is such a good Christian and so obviously pure of heart and soul. Any one who questions this is either a political hack/extremist or a communist, or more likely both.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on May 09, 2022, 02:20:53 PM
Quote
The January 6th protest was a valid exercise in people's rights to freely express their distrust of how the election was handled.

(I've always wanted to use this line.)

Hey, let me know where you live sometime, so I can exercise my right to freely express my opinion, too. 

I'll remember to bring my sledgehammer with me.  ;D
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 09, 2022, 02:26:07 PM
But the peaceful protest in front of the houses of the SC Justices are violent protest that should not be allowed.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 02:28:14 PM
But the peaceful protest in front of the houses of the SC Justices are violent protest that should not be allowed.

Actually, I don't like protests in front of private residences, no matter how justified and peaceful they are. Protest at the SC, you can make your voice heard without being threatening. Because no matter how peaceful and calm a protest a group of angry people on your front lawn is threatening.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on May 09, 2022, 02:37:17 PM
They've put up some significant barricades at the SC.  There may be issues making their voices heard. Not to mention at some point you have to start threatening the government.

There's also a difference between protesting the Supreme Court versus ordinary trial judges. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, the only questions are matters of law, not fact. Especially since objective interpretation of the law has clearly gone by the wayside. Since the Supreme Court has become the extra-legislative arm of the Republican party, it's a valid target for protests.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 02:46:54 PM
They've put up some significant barricades at the SC.  There may be issues making their voices heard. Not to mention at some point you have to start threatening the government.
...

Other ways. Vote the people who put them in charge out of power. Gerrymandering and unequal representation in the Senate complicate those issues. But thinking that threatening SC justices whose whole careers have been groomed by the right to overturn Roe is going to have any impact is absurd. Fight at the state level. Win elections. Don't become Trumpists who violently attack the government like toddlers throwing a temper tantrum.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on May 09, 2022, 03:00:11 PM
There's a world of difference between a mob trying to storm the capitol because of a fantasy about the election and people protesting the ongoing attempt to create a theocratic white ethnostate.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 03:03:58 PM
There's a world of difference between a mob trying to storm the capitol because of a fantasy about the election and people protesting the ongoing attempt to create a theocratic white ethnostate.

Yes, but no reason for violence or threats of violence against SC justices. Because literally short of killing them protesting/threatening them does nothing. This is their whole life's work to overturn Roe. So leave the threats (implicit or explicit) aside and work the problem like a rational member of a democracy. We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on May 09, 2022, 03:21:29 PM
We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

I get that politics is a battlefield and the biggest battles require use of any weapons necessary to win. However I guess my question is: what happened to the idea that the other side simply has a different belief about life? In other words, yes, the left-wing side is losing this battle in certain states if Roe is overturned, but isn't that merely reflective of the fact that many people disagree with the left on this?

While it's obviously a big deal that this precedent should be overturned, what if it's actually the legally correct move, putting aside the politics of it? Sure, you could argue it's only happening now because of the SCOTUS composition, but that doesn't automatically imply the ruling is invalid (if they do proceed and make it). Maybe it's best for the matter to be settled the correct way, by voters expressing their views locally rather than a body of unelected officials deciding for everyone based on, presumably, their own biases?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 03:49:13 PM
We need a big Senate and House majority. The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

I get that politics is a battlefield and the biggest battles require use of any weapons necessary to win. However I guess my question is: what happened to the idea that the other side simply has a different belief about life? In other words, yes, the left-wing side is losing this battle in certain states if Roe is overturned, but isn't that merely reflective of the fact that many people disagree with the left on this?

While it's obviously a big deal that this precedent should be overturned, what if it's actually the legally correct move, putting aside the politics of it? Sure, you could argue it's only happening now because of the SCOTUS composition, but that doesn't automatically imply the ruling is invalid (if they do proceed and make it). Maybe it's best for the matter to be settled the correct way, by voters expressing their views locally rather than a body of unelected officials deciding for everyone based on, presumably, their own biases?


Expanding the court would be the only option if they go one step further and decide fertilized eggs to be humans with all the protections afforded under the constitution. And since the draft opinion explicitly refers to the life of the fetus being of particular concern here it isn't outside the realm of possibility to think that today is overturning Roe and next year they SC says instead of abortion being a right, it is actually illegal everywhere.

Also there is an issue when we begin to allow majorities to vote away the rights of others. Less than 50% of voters are capable of conceiving. Teen girls have no vote but are probably some of the largest impacted by such decisions. Rape victims could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not saying it isn't a complex moral issue. But the burdens of lack of choice are not felt universally. And the way many legislatures have worded laws and personhood amendments in the past would actually outlaw most forms of birth control that simply prevent implantation instead of feralization. If the SC goes extreme, expanding the court or amending the constitution is the only solution.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on May 09, 2022, 04:12:36 PM
Expanding the court would be the only option if they go one step further and decide fertilized eggs to be humans with all the protections afforded under the constitution. And since the draft opinion explicitly refers to the life of the fetus being of particular concern here it isn't outside the realm of possibility to think that today is overturning Roe and next year they SC says instead of abortion being a right, it is actually illegal everywhere.

So to prevent a hypothetical wrong ruling in the future a wrong ruling now should be upheld to prevent momentum? That seems to be what you're implying. Again note that you're replying within my premise that Roe was a badly constructed ruling, i.e. not a good interpretation of the law. I'm not arguing that it was (I'm not a lawyer) but asking what if it was.

Quote
Also there is an issue when we begin to allow majorities to vote away the rights of others.

This seems to be a circular argument? It's not voting away a right of others if it's not actually a right. And it's not a right if huge amounts of people disagree that it's even morally legitimate, no less an inalienable right. Unless by "right" you just mean a thing people can do because a court said so. But that would be a highly problematic definition in our context.

Quote
Less than 50% of voters are capable of conceiving. Teen girls have no vote but are probably some of the largest impacted by such decisions. Rape victims could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. I'm not saying it isn't a complex moral issue. But the burdens of lack of choice are not felt universally. And the way many legislatures have worded laws and personhood amendments in the past would actually outlaw most forms of birth control that simply prevent implantation instead of feralization. If the SC goes extreme, expanding the court or amending the constitution is the only solution.

That's all fine, but doesn't really address my question about why 9 people should decide on these things for the people. Whether it's liberal justices legislating by fiat in one direction, or conservatives in another, it seems to be ridiculous that the SCOTUS should be deciding on this at all. By even saying it's a court-oriented issue implies that legislators (i.e. the people) are excluded from the process, which is totally weird for a moral issue. Btw I should add in that I don't believe for a second that the judges know much of anything about moral philosophy, biology, religion, or anything else actually relevant to the moral consideration of the issue. Their job is to explain what the law says, not what is right and wrong. In the event of an issue which boils down to right and wrong they should stay out of it IMO and let voters decide. If the law somehow already has something to say on this, then fine. The arguments about striking down Roe would appear to argue that the law never enshrined abortion. Assuming this premise is true, putting aside whether in fact abortions should be allowed, it seems to me reasonable for the court to - in essence - pass the ball back to the legislators on this issue.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on May 09, 2022, 04:27:16 PM
I should have moved my argument back into the other thread, sorry everyone. I lost track of which thread we were in.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on May 09, 2022, 04:31:15 PM
I should have moved my argument back into the other thread, sorry everyone. I lost track of which thread we were in.

I lost track of the thread too  :o
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 09, 2022, 04:31:55 PM
Contact OrneryMod. They might be able to move it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on May 27, 2022, 05:13:32 PM
Another one bites the dust. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/jan-6-defendant-posed-hitler-tells-jurors-idiot-didnt-know-congress-me-rcna30743)

Quote
Hale-Cusanelli attempted to defend himself against charges by saying he didn't know that the Capitol was where the House and Senate sit — despite having described himself during the trial as a history buff who closely followed the electoral college certification process. He claimed in testimony on Thursday that he didn't realize that senators and House members were in the Capitol building on Jan. 6.

Quote
McFadden said Friday after the jury's verdict that he was open to giving Hale-Cusanelli a sentencing enhancement because he found the defendant's testimony "highly dubious.” Sentencing is set for Sept. 16.

Quote
And back in 2010, prosecutors said, Hale-Cusanelli was one of four people arrested for using a "potato gun" made out of PVC pipe and "emblazoned with the words ‘WHITE IS RIGHT’ and a drawing of a confederate flag" to shoot frozen corn at houses in Howell, New Jersey.

Now, is this a secret antifa or what?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on May 27, 2022, 07:28:22 PM
George Soros and Bill Gates had been planning this for decades. 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 03, 2022, 10:18:42 AM
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 03, 2022, 10:28:20 AM
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?

Yes. Yes. Yes. But you forgot. Fake news and lies.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 03, 2022, 11:51:30 AM
Don't forget the tried and true.

CHOP was so much worse.
Why isn't the commission investigating antifa?
They doctored evidence
The committee is illegitimate because they didn't let Republicans pick their own members.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 03, 2022, 01:09:00 PM
Well Navarro has been charged with Contempt of Congress.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/navarro-charged-contempt-of-congress-subpoena-jan-6-committee-161304828.html

When will they learn that they are not above the law.

For them being Law and Order type people they sure like to not follow it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 03, 2022, 10:03:22 PM
So lets take bets on how the Republicans will spin the hearing of the Jan 6 Commission over the next few weeks.  Biased?  Partisan?  Traitors?

Why am I not surprised that the biased, partisan, traitorous committee is befriended by those who pretend it is honest? Since there are no minority members agreed to by the opposition, subpoenas are invalid. Any other opinion ignores partisan steamrolling.

When Hillary is finally indicted, will she be perp-walked to the prison bus in leg-irons?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 03, 2022, 10:13:27 PM
So those members of the House who were being investigated should have been on the committee?  Really? 
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 04, 2022, 03:01:22 PM
For my part, I think most of the venal, callow douchebags speaking at the rally aren't guilty of conspiracy (barring the ones who literally conspired with others to bring weapons in order to take advantage of any violence), although a good number of them are obviously guilty of incitement. Conspiracy to overturn the election is a little trickier, because there obviously was such a conspiracy among Republican political operatives -- and one perfectly willing to use the riot as cover -- but the whole point there was to overturn the election in an arguably legal way. Conspiracy to abuse interpretations of the law and possibly even legally change the law so that an egregious wrong can be committed isn't really a crime; it's arguably, from some perspectives, the whole reason rich people bother permitting government in the first place.

That said, some of the specific accusations -- junior members of the House promising material support to a mob, for example -- are evidence of criminal conspiracy, if provable. I think proof is unlikely and prosecution even less likely, though.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 06, 2022, 03:40:41 PM
...The solution maybe to abolish the filibuster and expand the court to 15 justices. Its drastic but constitutional and legal.

More attempts at a Coup? The only laws that should be changed in order to stop mass shootings would be to get rid of gun-free zones. There is no other problem as instrumental in the process.

Don't you love it when Chicago Democrats respond to having the strongest gun restrictions yet also has the highest incidents by claiming the guns are purchased in other states and brought in?

BTW, the Constitution AND the Federalist Papers say the reason for individual gun rights is for the individual to have the same weapons as contemporaneous soldiers. Not for hunting. The bigger weapons, howitzers, artillery, and the like, are stashed in armories all over the country for use of the individual when necessary to defeat any out-of-control government.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 06, 2022, 04:18:36 PM
...
Don't you love it when Chicago Democrats respond to having the strongest gun restrictions yet also has the highest incidents by claiming the guns are purchased in other states and brought in?
...

So they respond with facts about where the guns come from. How local gun laws doesn't affect gun traffic from Georgia or Indiana or Texas? Big cities have crime because of the drug trade. More people, more drugs, more money, more people willing to kill for it, more guns from out of state. There is nothing Chicago can do to stop straw purchasers in other states. But Republicans in congress hamstring the ATFs ability to go after straw purchasers. Not sure why this is a talking point you "love."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 06, 2022, 04:32:34 PM
William's truth claims in that post:
1) There is no other factor more influential in mass shootings than the presence of gun-free zones;
2) In recent years, Chicago had the strictest gun restrictions in the country;
3) Chicago Democrats asserted that the frequent shootings in Chicago were mainly committed by guns bought elsewhere and brought into Cook County as an explanation for why shootings were so common in Chicago;
4) This claim was false, and most shootings were performed by guns purchased within Chicago;
3) Both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers make it clear and obvious that the intent of the Second Amendment was for citizens to be matched evenly with professional soldiers, in the event that they needed to defend themselves from governments.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 07, 2022, 08:47:27 AM
Ok so now the Proud Boy's leaders have been charged with Seditious Conspiracy.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proud-boys-leaders-accused-of-seditious-conspiracy-in-jan-6-attack-213651336.html

So now the leaders of both White Nationalist groups that Trump was a fan of have been charged. 3 of the Oath Keepers who were charged have already plead guilty.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 08, 2022, 11:18:11 AM
Let's not litigate since we are sure to lose.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/email-trump-lawyers-shows-plan-143039900.html

Lets just intimidate them.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 09, 2022, 09:10:31 PM
Well that was riveting.

Just a tourist group walking around.  Not violent at all. Just egged on by a bunch of deep cover AntiFa. Yeah blow that *censored* our of your ass.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 09, 2022, 10:47:06 PM
The most chilling bit to me -- besides the panic in some of the cops' voices as they fell back under the crowd -- was the mob's playground chanting of "Nancy! Hey, Nancy!" as they tromped through and around Pelosi's office, demanding that she be brought before them. Can anyone hearing that not imagine what they would have done to her had they actually been able to seize her?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 10, 2022, 07:50:05 AM
One of the other comments that stood out is the these government officials who would not support Trump's effort say they took an oath to the Constitution and not Trump. I think that is what upsets Trump the most.  He demanded personal loyalty to himself.  Like a dictator.

I think 95-98% of the people at the riot were useful idiots. 2-5% were groups like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, who were trying to actually stop the counting of the ballots. They used the crowd that Trump and his cronies riled up at the rally and used them as ground troops.

I am just amazed at the restraint showed by the Capital Police.  How more people were not shot on that day is a wonder to me.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2022, 08:44:13 AM
One of the other comments that stood out is the these government officials who would not support Trump's effort say they took an oath to the Constitution and not Trump. I think that is what upsets Trump the most.  He demanded personal loyalty to himself.  Like a dictator.

I think 95-98% of the people at the riot were useful idiots. 2-5% were groups like the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, who were trying to actually stop the counting of the ballots. They used the crowd that Trump and his cronies riled up at the rally and used them as ground troops.

I am just amazed at the restraint showed by the Capital Police.  How more people were not shot on that day is a wonder to me.

I just watched the video that the house committee but out. I'm also shocked more of the police didn't pull weapons and start firing into the crowd that was attacking them.

WM if you still think they're all innocent because of laches. Please watch and see how the windows and doors were initially breached. Hopefully they'll put out full videos of multiple angles for people like WM who are going to claim selective editing for seeing just seeing the rioters at some of their most violent moments. 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage (https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 04:09:50 PM
...I just watched the video that the house committee but out. I'm also shocked more of the police didn't pull weapons and start firing into the crowd that was attacking them.

WM if you still think they're all innocent because of laches. Please watch and see how the windows and doors were initially breached. Hopefully they'll put out full videos of multiple angles for people like WM who are going to claim selective editing for seeing just seeing the rioters at some of their most violent moments. 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage (https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage)

Nice try, but since there was no minority members nominated by GOP, there was no vetting of anything we saw and heard. They let an ABC Producer edit and mix sound over unrelated visuals, and allowed the Never-Trumper Rep. Liz Cheney to lie through her teeth, with no one to object or cross-examine anyone. Strangest insurrection ever, when the insurrectionists came with no weapons, and the only person killed was an unarmed woman who was not threatening the security officer who shot her. Never in 130 years was a committee made like this one. No matter what they cobble together, it will not be accepted. I especially noted how James Goldston put Trump's voice addressed to one group over a video and attributing the speech as being addressed to another group. It doesn't need to be psycho-analyzed to understand what the impetus for this propaganda was.

Did anyone hear one question about why Pelosi refused to testify about why she refused Trump's request to provide additional security when their were fears of inadequate security, while the security guards were at half-strength? She also refused to allow the Sargent-at-Arms to testify about his resigning because Pelosi refused his endorsement of the Trump request? Whether it was Antifa saboteurs leading the dangerous actions, or not, how will we ever know?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2022, 04:17:30 PM
...I just watched the video that the house committee but out. I'm also shocked more of the police didn't pull weapons and start firing into the crowd that was attacking them.

WM if you still think they're all innocent because of laches. Please watch and see how the windows and doors were initially breached. Hopefully they'll put out full videos of multiple angles for people like WM who are going to claim selective editing for seeing just seeing the rioters at some of their most violent moments. 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage (https://www.npr.org/2022/06/09/1104095062/capitol-police-officer-jan-6-recalls-chaos-carnage)

Nice try, but since there was no minority members nominated by GOP, there was no vetting of anything we saw and heard. They let an ABC Producer edit and mix sound over unrelated visuals, and allowed the Never-Trumper Rep. Liz Cheney to lie through her teeth, with no one to object or cross-examine anyone. Strangest insurrection ever, when the insurrectionists came with no weapons, and the only person killed was an unarmed woman who was not threatening the security officer who shot her. Never in 130 years was a committee made like this one. No matter what they cobble together, it will not be accepted.
...

Were police officers assaulted in that video?

Were windows broken to allow people to breach the capital?

What lies did Liz Cheney tell? Be specific please.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 04:35:43 PM
Truth claims made by William in the above post:
1) In order for what Congress distributes to be reliable, the GOP has to be involved in the selection of items to distribute.
2) Implicitly, the GOP was either not permitted to be involved or was not interested in ensuring the reliability of distributed information.
3) Implicitly, editing sound over unrelated visuals means you cannot trust what is shown.
4) Liz Cheney lied through her teeth. Specifics not provided.
5) Presentations cannot be trusted when they are made without room for cross-examination or objections.
6) The January 6th insurrectionists came without weapons.
7) Only one person was killed on January 6th.
8 ) The only person who was killed was not threatening.
9) There has never been a committee like this House Investigative Committee.
10) No matter what the committee releases, it will not be accepted (by persons unidentified; presumably includes William).
11) William found the ironic audio editing at the end of the video to be rhetorically effective, but felt it distorted Trump's meaning.
12) It is unnecessary to psycho-analyze something (target unknown) to know why this presentation was released.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 05:30:16 PM
Tom, check out Jason Miller's charge against Liz Cheney of editing his testimony and getting the wrong understanding of what he said: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/09/jjason-miller-says-liz-cheney-deceptively-edited-his-testimony-for-january-6-primetime-hearing/t

Like I said. You can't, or shouldn't, believe anything coming out of that committee.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 05:47:33 PM
...Were police officers assaulted in that video?

Were windows broken to allow people to breach the capital?

What lies did Liz Cheney tell? Be specific please.

I don't know about the police. I know there were not enough of them to hold back even a small group of people. Can you tell me how many BLM imposters were in the crowd and if they started any dust ups? Did the BLM imposters break the windows? How do we know? We have the videos and cell phone links to the Mules in the 2,000 Mules documentary, so that is confirmed. Who is guilty of crimes can be guessed at, but that's it.

BTW, that one security woman who said she was hurt said she tripped while trying to impossibly hold back the crowd. That one officer who Pelosy originally said was killed by being hit by a fire extinguisher was another lie. His own family said that was untrue. You can't take anything shown last night as real. We already know the dited things deceptively.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 06:34:54 PM
William, you've mentioned 2000 Mules a few times, and I would urge you to look at their methodology before trying to say that anything has been "confirmed." I don't want to have to follow up every post you make with a list of truth claims, so it would help me enormously if you'd try to keep the number of assertions relatively small; being familiar with the actual facts will assist in that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 10, 2022, 06:49:58 PM
Quote
Can you tell me how many BLM imposters were in the crowd and if they started any dust ups?

No one knows how many BLM imposters were in the crowd, if any.  All we know is that it was an insignificant number, since the vast majority of those identified in breaking into the Capitol have been identified as Trump supports and NOT BLM or any such nonsense.

 
Quote
Did the BLM imposters break the windows? How do we know?

No, BLM imposters did not break the windows, because we have photographic evidence of who did and we have identified them, and they were not BLM supports or any such nonsense.  They were Trump supporters.

Why do you not know this?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 08:17:29 PM
William, you've mentioned 2000 Mules a few times, and I would urge you to look at their methodology before trying to say that anything has been "confirmed." I don't want to have to follow up every post you make with a list of truth claims, so it would help me enormously if you'd try to keep the number of assertions relatively small; being familiar with the actual facts will assist in that.

I would urge you to see the documentary, because the verification was presented into in detail. And, as I already stated, some of the Mules have been caught and plead guilty, which led the police to Democrat suppliers of bogus ballots, who also have plead guilty. The vote-scamming has been proved. The only thing left is to connect the dots as to all the Democrats nationwide who were together in this. We know from the key states investigated all these Mules were acting in concert.

It's funny. You argue about the Mules not being proved guilty - but accept anything the compromised Committee says without proof.

The ends justify the means.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 08:22:03 PM
BTW, if you were held in prison for six months, without even getting a hearing, you might plead guilty just to get out.

One question, while speaking about fairness... Was Rahm Emanuel put in leg-irons and shackles when he was arrested at the airport for not responding to a subpoena? Oh, that's right... He skated, didn't he?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 08:28:43 PM
Quote
I would urge you to see the documentary, because the verification was presented into in detail.
Yes, I'm familiar with the method they claim to have used, and also familiar with why it's completely insufficient to draw the conclusions they're drawing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2022, 08:48:55 PM
Quote
I would urge you to see the documentary, because the verification was presented into in detail.
Yes, I'm familiar with the method they claim to have used, and also familiar with why it's completely insufficient to draw the conclusions they're drawing.

I beg to differ. The means they used were sufficient to identify Mules and have them arrested and then plead guilty. It was sufficient to find fingerprints on bogus ballots, which then caused all these MUles to start distributing ballots with blue gloves on. The 2,000 Mules were the ones easily confirmed. The number the 2,000 Mules investigators research shows as scamming in its entirety is small compared to the total. Go to any of the free streams of 2000 Mules and follow the science. We now have indisputable confirmation that in 4 vote-scammed states, there were more than enough illegal scammed ballots to more than offset Biden's stolen election. 207K ballots illegally put in drop-boxes by mules in AZ which Trump only lost by 10,457 votes. 83K in WI to offset 20,682, 200K in PA to offset 80,555 votes, and 226K in MI to offset 154,188.

Far more than 2,000 scammers were involved. the 2,000 concentrated upon were just the easiest ones to prove.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 10, 2022, 08:52:51 PM
*sigh* No. Again, I beg you, please do some actual research into this.

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 10, 2022, 09:24:09 PM


I beg to differ. The means they used were sufficient to identify Mules and have them arrested and then plead guilty. …
Far more than 2,000 scammers were involved. the 2,000 concentrated upon were just the easiest ones to prove.

Please can you name one person who pled guilty as a result of 2000 mules? What did they pled guilty too? Where did they plead guilty?

Your failure to answer those questions repeatedly makes me think you don’t know who, what, when, or where but are taking it on faith that it happened from someone you trust.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 13, 2022, 08:27:19 AM
... I don't want to have to follow up every post you make with a list of truth claims, ...

You don't need to. We all know WM lives in his right wing bubble. I typically engage with him by asking simple questions about his claims. I know I can't convince him of anything. But I do hope that I can ask questions that may make him question some of the people he trusts. Just like the claim about "mules" being arrested. I just want him to give me a name, crime, and location for who has pled guilty. I know I can't convince him of anything but maybe not being able to answer simple questions about his claims will make him question who he's been trusting on faith. Its unlikely to change his opinions or who he trusts but I think this forum is probably one of the last places he even sees any information or questions that aren't part of the far right. So I hope he stays and is at least exposed to information and questions that don't come from far right grifters.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 13, 2022, 12:28:51 PM
What came out this morning in the hearings.

Trump did not like the results. So he insisted it was stolen. Even though all of the professional lawyers said no.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Mynnion on June 13, 2022, 01:37:02 PM
Quote
What came out this morning in the hearings.

Trump did not like the results. So he insisted it was stolen. Even though all of the professional lawyers said no.

No surprise there.  He insisted that before the election :)

Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 13, 2022, 01:41:51 PM
What I want to know is how so many Never-Trumpers infiltrated the very highest levels of the administration.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Mynnion on June 13, 2022, 01:48:27 PM
What really amazes me that the Stable Genius Business tycoon didn't seem to be able to hire anyone who was not a Never Trumper.  It would almost make you question his ability.......Naw......
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 13, 2022, 02:03:14 PM
It seems like they became Never Trumpers when they disagreed with him. Imagine that. Trump demanding personal loyalty over anything else.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 14, 2022, 09:14:12 AM
An excerpt of Bill Barr's sworn testimony. For WM because I know it won't get airtime on Fox or OAN or infowars.

First quote on election fraud in general.

Quote
And I told him that the stuff that his people were shoveling out to the public were bull — was b*******. I mean that the claims of fraud were b******* And, you know, he was indignant about that. And I reiterated that they've wasted a whole month on these claims — on the Dominion voting machines and they were idiotic claims.

Clipped a bit until he started talking about 2,000 mules.

Quote
Well, I mean, just in a nutshell, you know, I just think that the GBI was unimpressed with it and I was similarly unimpressed with it because I think if you — because I was holding my fire on that to see what the photographic evidence was because I thought, well, hell, if they have a lot of photographs of the same person dumping a lot of ballots in different boxes, you know, that's hard to explain.

So I wanted to see what the photographic evidence was, but the cell phone data is singularly unimpressive. I mean it basically, if you take 2 million cell phones and — and figure out where they are physically in a big city like Atlanta or wherever, just by definition you're going to find many hundreds of them have passed by and spent time in the vicinity of these boxes.
...
So I — but then when the movie came out, you know, I think the photographic evidence and it was completely black — I mean it was — there was a little bit of it, but it was lacking.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104690690/heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation (https://www.npr.org/2022/06/13/1104690690/heres-every-word-of-the-second-jan-6-committee-hearing-on-its-investigation)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 14, 2022, 09:32:47 AM
D'Souza's complete emotional meltdown on Twitter in response to Barr's criticism, BTW, was hysterical. :)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 14, 2022, 09:35:19 AM
Let's not forget that Barr was the upgrade on Sessions who was a sycophant in his own right. Barr defended Trump at every turn, and did his questionable bidding in matters relating to Roger Stone, Mueller, covid, and immigration. That's the same guy.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 14, 2022, 09:41:56 AM
Thanks for that laugh, Tom. His twitter feed is gold. My favorite part is that he is retweeting his own posts, probably in an attempt to drown out the people laughing at him.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 14, 2022, 07:26:52 PM
This is fun. (https://twitter.com/january6thcmte/status/1536815728208355330?s=21&t=W1f1naFZyfguUHcWyLVkog)  Liz Cheney released a video, outlining yesterday's hearing, previewing Thursday's hearing, and ending with a clip of one of Trump's attorney's suggesting to another one on January 7 to "Get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 15, 2022, 10:26:05 AM
This is fun. (https://twitter.com/january6thcmte/status/1536815728208355330?s=21&t=W1f1naFZyfguUHcWyLVkog)  Liz Cheney released a video, outlining yesterday's hearing, previewing Thursday's hearing, and ending with a clip of one of Trump's attorney's suggesting to another one on January 7 to "Get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."

Its... something
Unfortunate a large segment of the population doesn't care or something phycological is going on making it impossible for many to view what a happened with any kind of perspective.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 15, 2022, 12:40:09 PM
This is fun. (https://twitter.com/january6thcmte/status/1536815728208355330?s=21&t=W1f1naFZyfguUHcWyLVkog)  Liz Cheney released a video, outlining yesterday's hearing, previewing Thursday's hearing, and ending with a clip of one of Trump's attorney's suggesting to another one on January 7 to "Get a great f'ing criminal defense lawyer. You're going to need it."

Its... something
Unfortunate a large segment of the population doesn't care or something phycological is going on making it impossible for many to view what a happened with any kind of perspective.

Algae is getting in their eyes?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 16, 2022, 02:30:52 PM
Trump's trying to get Pence to overturn the election is getting put to rest. Completely bogus reasoning but still pushed by Trump even when told time and time again it was not legal.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 16, 2022, 06:01:14 PM
D'Souza's complete emotional meltdown on Twitter in response to Barr's criticism, BTW, was hysterical. :)

I guess you didn't read those tweets. Or maybe you didn't understand.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 16, 2022, 06:48:19 PM
What makes me saddest about all this, William, is that as you continue to be proven wrong again and again, you will conclude that it is because the world is increasingly blinded by corruption. It makes it impossible to reach you, and I think that's sincerely tragic.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 16, 2022, 07:58:24 PM
What makes me saddest about all this, William, is that as you continue to be proven wrong again and again, you will conclude that it is because the world is increasingly blinded by corruption. It makes it impossible to reach you, and I think that's sincerely tragic.

On the contrary. Unlike you, I actually looked at the D'Souza podcast where he consigned Barr to a non-important position. (https://rumble.com/v18ong0-making-history-dinesh-dsouza-podcast-ep352.html) He commented on Barr's descriptions of 2,000 Mules in such a way it was obvious Barr never saw it and only took others' straw-man depiction of what they thought it was. He didn't diss Barr, he just saw there was no there, there. Certainly nothing any honest person would deem as "hilarious." Barr entirely missed that the videos from the official ballot box cameras showed the same people putting in multiple ballots in many different precincts and taking photos of each ballot before putting it in - obviously to document their vote-scamming for payment. Those who plead guilty each had a price per ballot. the celphone tracking were used to verify that the person on camera was actually the same individual who showed up on different cameras. It actually showed the same people suddenly wearing blue gloves, at the same time. Many different people in different places - but all suddenly wearing blue gloves.

BTW, As the old posts have proven me correct over and over again, the only ones who say I am wrong have somehow missed the new info.

So let me get this straight. I provide info which is correct. A Dem apologist here says it is not credible, but never apologizes when later credible info that supports me is admitted to by their Democrat mentors. They just move along - nothing to see here!
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 16, 2022, 08:04:39 PM
I assure you, William, I am an honest person. So given that, let's try again to figure out why I -- and, frankly, many other people -- thought it was hilarious.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 16, 2022, 09:11:40 PM
I assure you, William, I am an honest person. So given that, let's try again to figure out why I -- and, frankly, many other people -- thought it was hilarious.

Go ahead. Please explain what was hilarious with the tweet. But please remember that disinformation is not humorous. Many people may believe Barr did something wrong that was right or looked right but was wrong. I did study his responses as edited by Ex-ABC News exec James Goldston. It was obvious to me that Barr was only marginally cognizant of the documentary. Had he seen it, he would not have said what he did. D'Souza picked up on that also, comparing him to the fat bullies at his school who behaved as they did because they couldn't run or fight. You think Barr was a hero for making conclusions about things he had not seen?

What I found hilarious is that Barr was a pariah who was castigated by his new friends in 2019 and 2020 - but now is considered a paragon of virtue. Trump's 12-page paper responded to the committee: https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/Statement-by-Trump-1.pdf. Is there anything there that is not completely accurate?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 16, 2022, 09:29:54 PM
I'm actually asking you to figure out what was hilarious about D'Souza's desperate flurry of tweets. I think you're largely impervious to being told anything.

Also: Trump's "paper" is absolutely revolting. Nothing in it is "completely accurate." It's pure demagoguery.
But here's the thing: I can understand why it seems like it contains facts. Leaving aside the unsubtle rhetorical digs and flourishes, truth claims are made in there; for example, the paper claims that cellphone location data was used in 45 cases against January 6th protesters, which is true. But it then attempts to draw a comparison between using location data to prove that someone was within 100' of the Capitol at a specific time of day (which is how that data was used) and proving that someone returned to the same dropbox dozens of times. This is, the paper claims, the "exact same" sort of evidence. But every single expert who works with location data will tell you that cellphone data of this sort cannot be used to make that kind of claim. (As an example: the two dropboxes in my town are at the Town Hall and the library, both of which I visit almost daily. My cellphone would indicate that I walk within 30' of those dropboxes twice a day, easily.) They speak of "video surveillance showing mules drop loads of ballots," but we know that in the five cases that were actually followed up on, in every case the multiple ballots were in fact legal ballots collected from the "mule's" family. They speak of video showing people returning to dropboxes multiple times, but in fact have never produced such video. Heck, that single woman in Arizona who pled guilty to participating in a handful of cases of voter fraud is here being depicted as a participant in a "ballot-trafficking scheme," as if she's just the tip of an iceberg that remains otherwise stubbornly invisible.

The "math" section is even more ridiculous, not least because if those numbers were even remotely accurate, you'd've expected the Democrats to pick up a few more Congressional seats
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 17, 2022, 08:44:11 AM
Well we know Trump lied about Pence agreeing he could just over rule the election on Jan 6. Trump tweeted that he and Pence agreed that Pence had the authority, but Pence never agreed he had that authority. Ever.

Trump lied about Pence's position. Setting Pence up as his fall guy. And Trump's supporters took him to heart. "Hang Mike Pence". That sure seems like a direct result of Trump blaming Pence for not doing something almost all legal scholars said Pence was not allowed to do.

Please tell me how this was not a lie and a dangerous one at that.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2022, 10:29:41 AM
What's hilarious about D'Souzas tweets? How about one item in particular, that he goes on and on about how fat Barr is. Claiming how Barr has no credibility or skill when years worth of Barr support tweets suggest that opinion was only formed once Barr ridiculed his work.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 17, 2022, 11:49:46 AM
...
What I found hilarious is that Barr was a pariah who was castigated by his new friends in 2019 and 2020 - but now is considered a paragon of virtue. Trump's 12-page paper responded to the committee: https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/06/Statement-by-Trump-1.pdf. Is there anything there that is not completely accurate?

Quote
Since the Unselect Committee refuses to allow their political opponents to participate in the hearings, the public likely won’t hear from the many patriots who contradict the lies being broadcast – at least not in these hearings. This is all a ridiculous and treasonous attempt to cover up the fact that Democrats rigged the Election and are siphoning Americans’ freedoms and power for their own benefit.

So Bill Barr, Liz Cheney, Trump's family, and Mike Pence's legal team are now all Democrats? Most of the people testifying worked for Trump. John Eastman's testimony was just claiming the 5th. Mark Meadows and others have refused to testify. Why? They can't articulate their story if they don't have a friendly questioner?

Also Trump had $250+ million in donors money to contest the election. Seems like he should be able to prove some of the fraud. Or put out more than a rambling statement that appeals to emotion.

Trump's statement avoids statements of facts or at least facts in context. It's the typical Trump statement that appeals to emotion, is misleading with what facts he provides, and makes hyperbolic claims that are non-factual. The whole thing is a steaming pile of demagoguery crap but I know it hits all your confirmation biases and smells like a bed of roses to you.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 17, 2022, 11:54:07 AM
Quote
Some areas are reported to have had more votes than voters! That raises some questions.

Highlight from Trump's statement that is very misleading but maybe not a lie. Some areas were reported to have had more votes than voters. But all those stories have been shown to be false. Which is why its stated that way, it was reported. It did raise questions. They were answered and shown to be absolutely untrue. That's why Trump didn't say, x precinct in y county had more votes than voters. Because there was no place where this happened.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 17, 2022, 12:10:26 PM
Any one who does not agree with Trump is a RINO and part of the deep state.
Trump is now like the flat earthers and young earth people. No amount of proof will change his mind since his whole sense of self is now based on the election being stolen from him, not him losing.  If he lost, then it was his fault. If it was stolen, it was not his fault. He has to maintain this to have any chance in any lawsuits.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 17, 2022, 12:17:16 PM
Any one who does not agree with Trump is a RINO and part of the deep state.
Trump is now like the flat earthers and young earth people. No amount of proof will change his mind since his whole sense of self is now based on the election being stolen from him, not him losing.  If he lost, then it was his fault. If it was stolen, it was not his fault. He has to maintain this to have any chance in any lawsuits.

Screw every senate Republican who voted to acquit him. He's a cancer on our society and banning him from the ballot would have at least removed him from that part of public life. Now we may have to put up with him running again. After an election cycle where its clear his endorsement is only contingent on people kissing his ass and spreading his lies. What happens when calls the next secretary of state of Florida asking for 10,000 votes?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2022, 06:45:28 PM
Great, you made me read some of the statement. It was worse than my wildest nightmares.

Quote
Why would it take four more days to count a few hundred thousand votes when they had counted millions in one day? They needed time to traffic the ballots and manipulate the outcome of the Election. The Swamp was so determined to keep their stranglehold on power that they delayed the results of the Election so that they could find, manufacture, or produce more ballots, after they knew how many they needed to beat me.

Obviously, mail in ballots take longer than the millions they counted from in-person voting. Does he even know how ballots work? It's not like you can just run off ballots at kinko's. It is completely detached from reality.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 17, 2022, 08:29:31 PM
...Obviously, mail in ballots take longer than the millions they counted from in-person voting. Does he even know how ballots work? It's not like you can just run off ballots at kinko's. It is completely detached from reality.

No. Many states count the mail-in ballots before election day, and as they come in, so they can be counted quickly. Some refuse to do so.

As for Trump stating things that are not verified - many of those are things you missed getting the info on. Many statisticians and professional number crunchers advised Trump early on how things should work - and also what the legal state election codes limited when votes can be counted. Some states stated that if the ballots were not officially delivered by particular deadlines, they could not be counted. Does every law the Dems don't like get to be ignored?

Saying that Trump's 12-page document is very misleading is, itself, misleading. Here's a pull-quote from Trump's 12-page document about the Sham Investigation:
Quote
...Our Constitution protects the right to confront accusers, honors the right to fair trials, and
holds the right to legal representation as paramount in our justice system. Equal representation
and the opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence is fundamental in our legal process. The
Committee has obliterated those rights and is making a mockery of justice. They have refused to
allow their political opponents to participate in this process, and have excluded all exculpatory
witnesses, and anyone who so easily points out the flaws in their story.
MAGA witnesses were interrogated behind closed doors and ordered to not record their
own testimony. Members of my staff, my friends, supporters, volunteers, donors, were subjected
to hours upon hours of inquisition – oftentimes having nothing to do with January 6th. Their very
lives were turned upside down for obvious reasons. They were told it was an ongoing
investigation and any reproduction of the interrogation would be viewed as an attempt to
interfere in the investigation. They were gagged, threatened, and in some cases ruined.
Yet, the Unselect Pseudo-Committee has coordinated with their media puppets to
broadcast their witnesses on national television without any opposition, cross-examination, or
rebuttal evidence. The American public has a right to know the truth and see every witness, but
these corrupt officials are trying to force-feed the public with their politically opportune
sideshow.[/quote

What is misleading? Like most of Trump's communications, there is little legalese to hide behind. His statements are clear and accurate and easy to understand. As I pointed out, Rahm Emmanuel refused to honor a Committee's subpoena (a real committee) but this Committee puts leg-irons on Peter Navarro. There is no mitigating actions here. How many uncomplicated transgressions need to be pointed out to you for you to understand?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 17, 2022, 08:35:00 PM
The fact that this is not a trial might have something to do with it. Trump will not be prosecuted by the Commission.  It is an investigation.  It might lead to charges by the DOJ and go to trial where Trump can put up his defense.

This is more of a Grand Jury, where the subject getting investigated gets no say.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 17, 2022, 09:31:33 PM
...Obviously, mail in ballots take longer than the millions they counted from in-person voting. Does he even know how ballots work? It's not like you can just run off ballots at kinko's. It is completely detached from reality.

No. Many states count the mail-in ballots before election day, and as they come in, so they can be counted quickly. Some refuse to do so.

Pennsylvania refused to do so. Election officials asked the republican controlled legislature to change the law and they refused to do so. Everyone who cared knew this and knew Pennsylvania would take a long time. But Trump uses that time lag to claim fraud that doesn’t exist. And he makes the same argument in his paper, it’s “factual” how many days Pennsylvania took. But claiming the time had anything to do with democrats or fraud is, in the words of Barr, bull*censored*.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 17, 2022, 10:02:45 PM
Quote
What is misleading?
I feel like you've been given a short list of misleading things to be getting along with.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 18, 2022, 07:26:18 PM
...I feel like you've been given a short list of misleading things to be getting along with.

No. When Mules have been caught because of the ballot cameras and cell phone tracking and then plead guilty, do yoy still find it necessary to claim they did not do whay they admitted doing? It seems you mislead to claim there was no wide-spread conspiracy to scam votes. Remember, most courts decided not to even evaluate the eyewitness complaints, saying the witnesses lacked standing. Then the Democrat apologists say the issue is closed and dealt with, even though no such "dealing with" ever happened. I have not seen a total listing of the officials who claimed they did everything correctly, yet didn't
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 18, 2022, 08:59:26 PM
BTW: In Michigan, we had hundreds of eyewitness allegations of scamming by official precinct watchers reporting wrongdoing. None of these seemed to approach the courts level of "standing." Care to explain that? Remember, it wasn't that their observations were mistaken or irrelevant. They were never evaluated at all.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 18, 2022, 10:07:46 PM
What do you believe was on the short list you were given?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 20, 2022, 08:45:34 PM
Sol far all of the witnesses have been Republicans.  And it looks like that will continue tomorrow.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 20, 2022, 08:51:43 PM
Oh sure a lot of RINOs who don't have the guts to be held in contempt. They won't let Jim Jordan speak, though, he could show the committee proof that the election was stolen! Seriously, I wonder what kind of exculpatory evidence we're missing out on? Calling Dinesh to the stand to play his 2000 mules into the public record so that the entire committee can have a big belly laugh? Or is some star witness going to reveal that Trump's people were not trying to overturn the election, when that was their stated goal?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 20, 2022, 09:26:27 PM
Oh sure a lot of RINOs who don't have the guts to be held in contempt. They won't let Jim Jordan speak, though, he could show the committee proof that the election was stolen! Seriously, I wonder what kind of exculpatory evidence we're missing out on? Calling Dinesh to the stand to play his 2000 mules into the public record so that the entire committee can have a big belly laugh? Or is some star witness going to reveal that Trump's people were not trying to overturn the election, when that was their stated goal?

He wouldn’t want to license it to them. How else could he get his cut of the big lie grift?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 21, 2022, 01:42:56 PM
Rusty Bowers is tearing Trump and his team to pieces.  Again he is bringing out that his oath was to the Constitution and not Trump or the Party.

Time and time again that is what we are hearing. Trump wanted personal loyalty and not loyalty to the Constitution or country.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 21, 2022, 02:22:47 PM
Waiting on the comments from the Trumpist about how Bowers is a Never Trumper RINO who would not listen or even look at the evidence.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 21, 2022, 02:50:22 PM
Oh sure a lot of RINOs who don't have the guts to be held in contempt. They won't let Jim Jordan speak, though, he could show the committee proof that the election was stolen!
...

Jim Jordan could speak to the committee all he wanted if he agreed to testify under oath. He refused that offer and is ignoring that subpoena. The party of "Law and Order."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 21, 2022, 03:44:07 PM
...Jim Jordan could speak to the committee all he wanted if he agreed to testify under oath. He refused that offer and is ignoring that subpoena. The party of "Law and Order."

Exactly. The Committee lacks any hint of "Law and Order." The two Never-Trumpers that Pelosi installed as pretend Republicans should feel mortified by the extent they are being used. In November, after the Red Wave flushes Pelosi out of her chair, Many MAGA GOP have vowed to return the favor and finally see the Democrats indicted for obvious malfeasance, Sedition, Treason, conspiracy, and untrue personal attacks. What one rarely sees on a poll is how important it is for criminals to pay for their crimes and not get away. Everyone thinks the politicians get away with things anybody else would be pilloried for. They live by defamation, libel, and slander - and always create strawman bogey men to run against.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 21, 2022, 04:05:21 PM
Projection.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 21, 2022, 04:06:10 PM
It's literally all they have left.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 21, 2022, 04:11:08 PM
Jordan couldn't be on the committee, because we don't normally let defendants also serve in the prosecution team or on the jury. It was an act in bad faith to nominate him when they had 210 Republicans to choose from, the majority of which would have been accepted without question. He was actively involved in the attempts to delegitimize the election, including giving a speech ON January 6th claiming that the Arizona results were wrong, now disproved by a half dozen different audits including the rigged one.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 22, 2022, 07:02:12 AM
Conservative commentator on Fox.  Trump "unfit for office."

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/even-fox-news-conservative-analysts-233216501.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 22, 2022, 09:54:04 AM
Conservative commentator on Fox.  Trump "unfit for office."

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/att/even-fox-news-conservative-analysts-233216501.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&uh_test=1_11

Hope he has his resume up to date. Fox commentator is probably no longer a gig for him.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 22, 2022, 11:08:34 AM
To me the most damming statements is where they tell the guy from AZ that they have thousands of names and that they will send the to him and they never do.

This was a bluff that Trump can not call his way out of.  He keeps claiming to have evidence of 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of cases of voter fraud and has not presented them to any one.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 03:50:33 PM
What do you believe was on the short list you were given?

Just so you will stop misleading and deflecting: I was given NO "list of any kind." I simply see the news as it occurs, then look to see how the contemporaneous events are approached by different media and people. By and large, anything that counters Democrat disinformation is ignored. Not refuted or explained - just never covered. Then the information is left in the air long enough for it to be considered old news. It is never referred to at all. the average person spends 750 minutes per day with the media. Time spent by the complicit media on important stories may be as little as one minute or less, if covered at all. If Joe Sixpack misses that minute within his 750 minutes of watching it never becomes news.

So stop bullying and start explaining the scammers who were caught and plead guilty, and admitted being a small part of the nuch bigger enterprise to scam the vote.

Hillary has been claiming her Presidency was stolen for over six years. At any time over that whining, any Hillary complaint would get far more than the minute allocated for real info. Anyone questioning proved scamming against Trump gets arrested and put in shackles. Hillary, Abrams, and the like could have been serving time for years.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 22, 2022, 03:56:28 PM
I meant the list we gave you, William.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 04:01:05 PM
Jordan couldn't be on the committee, because we don't normally let defendants also serve in the prosecution team or on the jury. It was an act in bad faith to nominate him when they had 210 Republicans to choose from, the majority of which would have been accepted without question. He was actively involved in the attempts to delegitimize the election, including giving a speech ON January 6th claiming that the Arizona results were wrong, now disproved by a half dozen different audits including the rigged one.

What a ludicrous stretch. Pelosi needed to be questioned for her role in the Jan. 6 protest, but tell me when and for how long she testified. That's right: zero. Never before has the "loyal opposition" been denied the right to present evidence and cross-examine. This entire Commission is a disgrace. Y'know, the right of Habeas Corpus and the right to confront one's accusers is guaranteed in the body of the Constitution. The Founders thought it too important to be an add-on withing the Bill of Rights. Alongside that, we are always guaranteed a jury by our peers. The Committee defies that, as well.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 22, 2022, 04:06:26 PM
It is for a criminal trial, but you seem to forget this is not a criminal trial.

And Trump and his supporters can show up and testify under oath, just like all of the others. But they will not.

Why do you keep bring up criminal trial things?  This is not a trial.  It is an investigation. What are Trump and his cronnies hidding?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 05:03:38 PM
Any one who does not agree with Trump is a RINO and part of the deep state.
Trump is now like the flat earthers and young earth people. No amount of proof will change his mind since his whole sense of self is now based on the election being stolen from him, not him losing.  If he lost, then it was his fault. If it was stolen, it was not his fault. He has to maintain this to have any chance in any lawsuits.

On the contrary.  Flat Earthers is a strawman pejorative consigned by Andrew Dickson White.
Quote

Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Liberal who knows any different! Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.

Quote
The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious] men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.

White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.
Quote
Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Liberal who knows any different!
White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.

The plan to dumb down America was launched in 1898 by socialist John Dewey in an essay entitled 'The Primary Education Fetich.' In it he showed his fellow progressives how to transform America into a collectivist utopia by taking over the public schools and destroying the literacy of millions of Americans. The plan has been so successfully implemented that it is now a fact that half the adult population of America are functionally illiterate. They can't read their nation's Constitution or its Declaration of Independence. They can't read their high school diplomas.

   [Dewey was a brilliant sociologist, but lived at a time when the promise of Marx and Engels was untested, but claimed the intelligencia (Like Dewey) could and should rule the world. Since then, the verdict has been rebutted by history, yet the Dewey plan endures. Dewey was inspired by Edward Bellamy, a Unitarian journalist, who in 1884 wrote 'Looking Backward' which described a utopian socialist society in 2000 America. It was this utopian vision of a socialist future that drove the progressives in their messianic crusade to use education as the means of changing America into a socialist society.]

Furthermore, Trump does not need to believe nonsense to maintain a sense of himself. He believes the election was deeply flawed because it was. It was also a high-tech lynching. Dominion has been declared dangerous and corruptible. It risks big bucks to call them out, because they sue anyone who wants the voting machines to be audited to explain eyewitness complaints. Instead of allowing transparency, they refuse any inspection. ...Awfully suspicious in itself.

Since Trump received far more votes than a popular Obama did - and an unpopular Biden (handicapped by a laptop that revealed the Biden Crime Family), who never came out of his basement to campaign, somehow got more, the stink is quite noticeable.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 05:28:34 PM
It is for a criminal trial, but you seem to forget this is not a criminal trial.

And Trump and his supporters can show up and testify under oath, just like all of the others. But they will not.

Why do you keep bring up criminal trial things?  This is not a trial.  It is an investigation. What are Trump and his cronnies hidding?

No. It is not a criminal trial. It is also not an investigation. It is a kangaroo court, an imitation court to make disinformational accusations in order to create a felonious crime to charge Trump,  to keep him off of future ballots. It is also sheer stupidity. The Democrats have crossed lines never contemplated before, unafraid of future reciprocity using the same tactics they now say is "good to go." They know that Trump is not constrained by comity. If someone crosses any line to unfairly attack him, he has always responded right back at them,  but twice as hard. Thery are stupid for doing this. Are they idiots?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 22, 2022, 05:43:55 PM
It is for a criminal trial, but you seem to forget this is not a criminal trial.

And Trump and his supporters can show up and testify under oath, just like all of the others. But they will not.

Why do you keep bring up criminal trial things?  This is not a trial.  It is an investigation. What are Trump and his cronnies hidding?

No. It is not a criminal trial. It is also not an investigation. It is a kangaroo court, an imitation court to make disinformational accusations in order to create a felonious crime to charge Trump,  to keep him off of future ballots. It is also sheer stupidity. The Democrats have crossed lines never contemplated before, unafraid of future reciprocity using the same tactics they now say is "good to go." They know that Trump is not constrained by comity. If someone crosses any line to unfairly attack him, he has always responded right back at them,  but twice as hard. Thery are stupid for doing this. Are they idiots?

Glad you see part of trump for who he is. Just wish it scared you that instead of public testimony that trump will go for secret trials. Strike back, twice as hard, end democracy and freedom.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 07:45:07 PM
Perhaps this list is the "short list" that Yossarian asked about.

I already commented on the least smarmy ones. I'll comment on each one, although I've already been told it won't be read for various smarmy reasons.

Truth claims made by William in the above post:
1) In order for what Congress distributes to be reliable, the GOP has to be involved in the selection of items to distribute.
Of course. Everything most be open to counterargument and exclusionary evidence. It's n the Constitution, and one of the reasons we had a War of Independence.

2) Implicitly, the GOP was either not permitted to be involved or was not interested in ensuring the reliability of distributed information.
Both. Pelosi, on her own, decided not to let the GOP select its own members to ensure any reliability. We know that was the right call because Cheney has already been caught in several outright lies. Since she and her GOP cohort on the unselect committee voted to impeach Trump - but once their reasons for that vote had been proved wrong, they never apologized for doing so.

3) Implicitly, editing sound over unrelated visuals means you cannot trust what is shown.
Correct. Video and audio can both be edited. That is why the original material must be vetted by the opposition, and other exculpatory clips must be examined for value.

4) Liz Cheney lied through her teeth. Specifics not provided.
BPR Business and Politics posted:
Quote
...Liz Cheney ran to CNN a few weeks ago to accuse conservative stalwart Rep. Jim Banks of falsely presenting himself as the Jan. 6 commission’s ranking member. Banks is, in fact, congressional Republicans’ choice to be their top investigator on the committee, but he has been prevented from fulfilling his duties by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. However, it’s Cheney who appears to be misrepresenting herself as the ranking member — that is, the top Republican — on the committee…

    “John Wood works for the Democrat Party, just like Liz Cheney, who was appointed by Pelosi and is not the Ranking Member of the Select Committee. She is misleading witnesses, before they testify under penalty of law, about the motives and the position of the person questioning them,” said Banks, who has continued leading Republicans’ investigation of the federal government’s handling of the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol…

    Cheney was given six days to explain whether she considers herself just the Democrat-appointed vice-chair of the committee or also the Republican ranking member, as is being represented to key witnesses. She has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

    “If this was a real investigation, that’d land you in jail for prosecutorial misconduct,” Banks said of the false representation. “Fortunately for Liz, this is a sham investigation,” he added.

She also lied about facts.

5) Presentations cannot be trusted when they are made without room for cross-examination or objections.
Since they were threatened to answer in the way the questioner instructed, without counsel, any thing said is not to be admitted.

6) The January 6th insurrectionists came without weapons.
I guess you didn't see the hearing. The Committee's witnesses said that.

7) Only one person was killed on January 6th.
Unarmed Ashli Babbitt was shot and killed by a Pelosi security guard who was off to the side and not endangered. He was hidden away and unnamed for months and given an award.

8 ) The only person who was killed was not threatening.
This was one position that could have been sealed off because of the doorway and number of guards defending the area against those without any weapons.

9) There has never been a committee like this House Investigative Committee.
there is no question here. This is a new precedent. No such unselected one-party committee in 138 years.

10) No matter what the committee releases, it will not be accepted (by persons unidentified; presumably includes William).
What about unselected one-party kangaroo court don't you understand?

11) William found the ironic audio editing at the end of the video to be rhetorically effective, but felt it distorted Trump's meaning.
I don't know about which edit at the end you are so interested in - but you must know it isn't right. As a professional producer/director for many years, I can tell you the editing was heavy-handed and unable to resist any legal challenge had there been anyone there to do so.

12) It is unnecessary to psycho-analyze something (target unknown) to know why this presentation was released.
Everyone knows there are two targets to this travesty. One is the American public to sway public opinion against Trump and the oncoming Red Wave. The other is aimed at the Democrat complicit swamp monsters in the the Justice Department to indict Trump and charge him with a non-existent felony to block him from Federal ballots.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 08:04:10 PM
...Glad you see part of trump for who he is. Just wish it scared you that instead of public testimony that trump will go for secret trials. Strike back, twice as hard, end democracy and freedom.

No, Trump holds no fear to anyone for his doing anything illegal - that is only in the Democrat playbook. Disinformation number one, is that Trump will go for secret trials. Why should he? He sees the Dems are already doing that. The danger is in the complicit heads of departments in the House, Senate, and Justice. Trump can't smash back in kind, but he can keep track of the legal violations and let them know there will be a time for justice in the end, but to do it for real and not in pretense like this committee. He will definitely fight back twice as hard, but transparently and to do so to expose the criminality of those trying to form a future coup against his running in 2024. Don't let this splash on you. The reason he fights back twice as hard is because bullies never expect their bullying to be blocked and for anyone to force them to account for their nefarious actions. Politicians always expect comity to rule the response to anything they do. Trumo knows how to it successfully.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 08:10:20 PM
Looking at my last post, I imagine appointing Giuliani as head of Justice. He is so unlike any Soros people.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 22, 2022, 08:40:47 PM
Perhaps this list is the "short list" that Yossarian asked about.

No you asked what was misleading about trump’s screed. Tom said we had given you a few items. Primary:

1) Trump’s repeated statement about more votes than voters that has shown to be false.
2) The fact this is an investigation, not a criminal trial. So all this hoopla about cross examination and confronting your accusers is a misdirection. You’ve clearly bought into this narrative pretty hard.

These are two examples where maybe Trump’s statements were not outright lies but are deceptive and misleading.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 22, 2022, 08:57:05 PM
Other examples.

Trump tweeting Jan 5 that Pence agreed with him that Pence was allowed to stop the counting of the EC votes. Straight up lie.
Trump and Rudy saying they have thousands of examples of voter fraud in AZ and never supplying any names to AZ.

Trump calling the poll worker in GA a known vote scammer. That was a lie. And a dangerous one.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 22, 2022, 11:30:38 PM
...1) Trump’s repeated statement about more votes than voters that has shown to be false.
At the time he mentioned yhem they were more than conjecture. The only reason he didn't push for fuller investigations was because the fix was in and he knew it. Here are wha=t was going on, up until the enf of December:
Quote
(Reuters) - Numerous voting machines in heavily Democratic Detroit showed a greater number of ballots than poll workers records said were cast in the Nov. 8 [2020] presidential election, the Detroit News reported on Tuesday.
About 37 percent of precincts in Wayne County, Michigan, where Detroit is located, showed such discrepancies, the newspaper reported, citing records prepared at its request by the county.
Voting irregularities in Detroit have prompted the state to audit the election results in the city, the newspaper said.
Michigan was one of three rust belt states in which the campaign of Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein requested a recount of the presidential election.
Those efforts came to an end in Michigan on Friday when the Michigan Supreme Court refused to review an appeal of a lower court order barring a recount.
On Monday, all three efforts were suspended after weeks of legal wrangling yielded a recount in Wisconsin only, and it favored Republican winner Donald Trump.
————————————
The numbers certified by the counties, not the uploading of voter histories…, determines the ultimate certification of an election by the secretary.

————————————

Courts have rejected challenges to the 2020 presidential vote, generally citing the lack of evidence that any alleged fraud would have altered the outcome in a particular state. The Republican plaintiffs argued that since their observers couldn’t watch the vote counts or were prevented from seeing other evidence, they couldn’t provide such proof without investigations backed by subpoena power. Still, while some judges have agreed that irregularities occurred in 2020, they weren’t willing to grant discovery in the absence of evidence that fraud could reverse the election results. Republicans thus faced a Catch-22 situation.
Recounts haven’t been useful in resolving fraud concerns, as they merely involve recounting the same potentially fraudulent ballots.
—————————————
Republican-leaning swing state counties had higher turnouts relative to the 2016 election. Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnouts, except for the Democratic counties with alleged vote fraud, which had very high turnouts.

The main counter to this was David Mikkelson of Snopes who is a rabid Democrat apologist. He found everything to be a conspiracy ...but this is the guy who said that Gore never claimed to have invented the Internet, which he did. Problem is that he did. He was assigned to be the bureaucrat behind the Internet Two, which was an unsuccessful attempt to give the educational system its own intranet. Taking a tip from Biden, he lied about it to senior citizens and other less discriminating audiences, and didn't explain the II wasn't the whole internet. Since then, Snopes has been less than fair.

2) The fact this is an investigation, not a criminal trial. So all this hoopla about cross examination and confronting your accusers is a misdirection. You’ve clearly bought into this narrative pretty hard.
No need to buy into anything. The Dems have all but promised that they will get to the bottom of Trump's Felonious coup attempt. They have only recently been made to admit they don't have any authority to do anything but give the DOJ the excuse to indict him.
 
3) Trump tweeting Jan 5 that Pence agreed with him that Pence was allowed to stop the counting of the EC votes. Straight up lie.[/quote
I've always respected Pense, until he decided he was safer bowing out of any responsibility to ensure the election wasn't scammed.

4) Trump and Rudy saying they have thousands of examples of voter fraud in AZ and never supplying any names to AZ.
When courts refused to look at the evidence, the eyewitness affidavits became just wide-eyed speculation.

5)Trump calling the poll worker in GA a known vote scammer. That was a lie. And a dangerous one.
You mean Wandrea "Shaye" Moss, who was a member of the team that said there was a non-existent water main break that made all the ballot observers leave the premises, whereupon this team locked the doors, and instead of also leaving, turned the lights back on and started counting ballots without the watchers? She had been with this bunch for 10 years. Of course the eyewitness affidavits could not be evaluated, because they were said to lack standing. Sure smelled dirty. You know, when you lie about removing the observers, you don't have much credibility left.

These are ... examples where maybe Trump’s statements were not outright lies but are deceptive and misleading.

Or maybe not deceptive and misleading at all, but dead on, but without an honest investigation.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 23, 2022, 07:25:15 AM
...1) Trump’s repeated statement about more votes than voters that has shown to be false.
At the time he mentioned yhem they were more than conjecture. The only reason he didn't push for fuller investigations was because the fix was in and he knew it. Here are wha=t was going on, up until the enf of December:
 …

Or maybe not deceptive and misleading at all, but dead on, but without an honest investigation.

Trump brought it up again in his pdf diatribe about the January 6th committee. You do realize most of that 36% of being off was by a single vote and none off by more than 10. Small clerical or counting errors. Not evidence of massive fraud. Trump didn’t give up investigating because “the fix was in” it’s because there was nothing to investigate. So bringing this up again last week out of context, without specifying where and how many votes they were off by is misleading. Trump had 250+ million of his donors money to investigate and show the evidence of fraud to the American people. Instead he paid his daughter in law $60,000 to give a 2 minute speech. Why not pay an investigator, mathematician, or statistician that money to write a report detailing such obvious fraud? Unless he knows there is no there there.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 23, 2022, 04:05:10 PM
DOJ is saying they investigated claims of fraud and said they did not find any. Trump did not like those answers so he claims they were not doing enough.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 23, 2022, 04:07:50 PM
Trump to DOJ "Just say it was corrupt and let me and the Rep in Congress take it from there."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 23, 2022, 09:34:53 PM
DOJ is saying they investigated claims of fraud and said they did not find any. Trump did not like those answers so he claims they were not doing enough.

Who said that? What investigations did they run that used subpoena power and actually looked at the eyewitness affidavits? What Dominion audits did they run? All the ones I know about said Dominion is not safe because they have been found to have been wrong and hackable. Somebody arrested Mules from D'Souza's documentary and got confessions of their guilt. Somebody found operatives supplying bogus ballots to those Mules, who also confessed. Did someone explain why they lied about a water main break and locked out the poll watchers? Did the courts who said the plaintiffs lacked standing because there were not enough numbers to overturn the election notice the 2,000 Mules documentary that asserted there were more than enough proved scammed votes to alter the results?

The numbers are:  207K ballots illegally put in drop-boxes by mules in AZ which Trump only lost by 10,457 votes. 83K in WI to offset 20,682, 200K in PA to offset 80,555 votes, and 226K in MI to offset 154,188.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 23, 2022, 09:51:49 PM
Evidently, Cheney has asked Democrats to vote for her instead of their own candidate in order to screw up the GOP voting. Certainly fits in with the Democrat propensity to cheat. She is currently at least 30% behind her opponents.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 23, 2022, 10:57:31 PM
Good Lord, William. Gish galloping is one thing, but a simple refusal to acknowledge when specific talking points have been thoroughly refuted is quite another. Do you realize how tiresome you're being, or would it come as a surprise to you?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 24, 2022, 07:36:32 AM
How could the courts in 2019 know about a "documentary" that was released in 2022?

And when the head of the DOJ says they investigated the claims I believe him. They just do some research and find out the claims are false.  Or are not what the people who reported them think they are.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 24, 2022, 08:23:48 AM
Now that he has lost his primary Mo Brooks is willing to testify.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-loyalist-mo-brooks-spurned-035442795.html
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: NobleHunter on June 24, 2022, 11:11:25 AM
If the GOP tries to turn around and launch a committee at democrats, it would be hilarious except for the enormous waste of time and money involved. They'll bring charge after charge with great sound and fury only to quietly slink away when they can't actually prove anything or when they've actually provided proof of innocence.

I mean, they tried how many times to hang Benghazi on Clinton using Benghazi? It was a farce. If she hadn't run her own private server they'd have had nothing to show for it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2022, 12:07:05 PM
I love that wm is still peddling the water main story. There isn't one actual fact that they got correct, and Trump and his minions continue to cackle about it. I mean, they have video tape of the actual water leak, the cleanup, and the ballot handling as well as the statements of observers that they weren't told to leave, they just went home when the work was done. The situation was originally reported by AJC as a "burst pipe" - which I don't know how you get from that to "water main" which isn't typically inside a building. I wonder if maintaining that level of cognitive dissonance takes a lot of energy.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 24, 2022, 12:11:30 PM
Quote
I love that wm is still peddling the water main story.
For what it's worth, I do not love it. It means that he's deliberately made himself unreceptive to anything that challenges even his weakest points, which makes it highly unlikely that he'll be able to extricate himself from his delusions without first lapsing into psychosis. I've seen that happen to people, and it's tragic every time.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 12:12:28 PM
My observation has been the the majority of Trumper's refuse (or psychologically can't) to look at evidence that might challenge what they already know. ( the idea that a lack of proof is proof so dangerous and they don't/wont 'see' it)

The Daily Show did the bit where they asked Trumper's about the Jan 6 Commission. I know not a valid format that proves anything but one of the Guys face when He was shown Barr's comments was... he just couldn't believe it. And then the two young women total refusal to acknowledge that anything even occurred on Jan 6.

Troubling.
I'm going to bet nothing comes from the Jan 6 Commission and Trump is elected if he runs again. When he wins the GOP will not lose again for a long long time.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 12:14:18 PM
I love that wm is still peddling the water main story. There isn't one actual fact that they got correct, and Trump and his minions continue to cackle about it. I mean, they have video tape of the actual water leak, the cleanup, and the ballot handling as well as the statements of observers that they weren't told to leave, they just went home when the work was done. The situation was originally reported by AJC as a "burst pipe" - which I don't know how you get from that to "water main" which isn't typically inside a building. I wonder if maintaining that level of cognitive dissonance takes a lot of energy.

Or very little. Close yourself off to any information that doesn't fit the Trump narrative.

Watching Klepper show clips of the Jan 6 committee testimony to Trump supporters is simultaneously hilarious and terrifying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIJH5gufaQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIJH5gufaQ)
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 24, 2022, 12:15:30 PM
I guess I keep hoping that the further out there that the GOP nutbags go, at some point the non-crazy conservatives will hit the limit of their patience and get things under control. Through primaries of course, they'd rather have a lunatic Trumper than a sane Socialist, apparently.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 12:30:23 PM
I guess I keep hoping that the further out there that the GOP nutbags go, at some point the non-crazy conservatives will hit the limit of their patience and get things under control. Through primaries of course, they'd rather have a lunatic Trumper than a sane Socialist, apparently.

I was hoping that as well. But the house keeps getting more gerrymandered. I think the most recent analysis I saw said around 30 swing districts out of 435. The majority of the non-crazies don't vote on primary day so ... they end up voting for Greene, Gatze, or Bobart anyway. The Senate favors the small rural red states, so hard for Democrats to keep pace there.  There just aren't enough middle of the road districts to make the GOP pay a price for nominating Trump sycophants. Maybe we can get some more Joe Machin's elected. But its hard for people like that to join the Democratic party, make it through a primary, and have enough name recognition to attract cross over voters.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 12:34:16 PM
I guess I keep hoping that the further out there that the GOP nutbags go, at some point the non-crazy conservatives will hit the limit of their patience and get things under control. Through primaries of course, they'd rather have a lunatic Trumper than a sane Socialist, apparently.

I had hoped that that would happen but I don't think its going to.
The GOP stance on 'small government' when it comes to economics comes into tension with 'big government' to enforce "law and order", Values...
verses
DNC 'big government' when it comes to economics and small government on social issues. 

Only everything is getting mixed up and it seems that no one really knows what they want let alone how to get where the want to go.
No compromise no commission... I can't 'see' how we arn't in the process of crating the very things we fear.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 12:35:32 PM
DOJ is saying they investigated claims of fraud and said they did not find any. Trump did not like those answers so he claims they were not doing enough.

Who said that?
...

The senior officials at the DoJ under Trump testified that they investigated all the claims and found no evidence to support any of them. Jeffery Clark (environmental law) also investigated found no evidence but was willing to call the election corrupt anyway. In front of the January 6th committee he didn't tell his side of the story he pled the 5th the entire time. Why would he do that if he had all this great evidence of fraud? Why would he do that if everything he did was honest and lawful?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 12:40:15 PM
Seeing more and more interviews with liberal progresses who are angry with Biden and won't be voting for him and that means down the ticket.
A year from now they will be wondering why they keep losing at the State and local level of government let along at the Supreme Court and blaming anyone but themselves.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 24, 2022, 12:51:55 PM
To be fair, it probably does suck to be a progressive and thus forced to choose, in every election of your lifetime, between a party who wants to destroy you and another party that just wants to marginalize you while lying to your face.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: rightleft22 on June 24, 2022, 01:01:13 PM
To be fair, it probably does suck to be a progressive and thus forced to choose, in every election of your lifetime, between a party who wants to destroy you and another party that just wants to marginalize you while lying to your face.

I get it but as some point one needs to become conscious of when your working against yourself.
Just don't act surprised when your moment start losing ground you thought it already won.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on June 24, 2022, 01:06:37 PM
Seeing more and more interviews with liberal progresses who are angry with Biden and won't be voting for him and that means down the ticket.
A year from now they will be wondering why they keep losing at the State and local level of government let along at the Supreme Court and blaming anyone but themselves.

And the truth is for 90% of them is doesn't matter if they show up to vote or not. They likely don't live in a swing district or swing state with a Senate race on the ballot. They can show up and vote for someone who will win easily or for a hopeless candidate. They just need the 10% of their fellow progressives who live somewhere it matters to go vote. So at least we have Speaker Pelosi instead of Speaker KissTrumpsAss. Getting 10% of what you want is better than nation wide abortion bans, gay marriage bans, dirty air, water, tax breaks for Elon Musk, tax hikes for wal-mart workers, Trump and the end of democracy in America. So vote, before you can't.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 27, 2022, 04:26:26 PM
So we have a special session of the Commission tomorrow that was just scheduled today.  Looks like they are going to be talking to Alex Holder about what he filmed during this time.

Sure to be interesting stuff.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 28, 2022, 01:48:19 PM
Well waiting to see how long it takes the Trumpist to call Ms Hutchinson a RINO and a liar.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 28, 2022, 02:28:00 PM
Ok now we have a choice of names.  Temper Tantrum Trump or Toddler Trump.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 28, 2022, 02:29:35 PM
I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Trump's driver and security had allowed him to go to the Capitol with the mob.

The protesters would probably have still attacked it (since the Proud Boys apparently had already decided to do so).

Would security still have tried to stop them?  Or would the Capitol police have stepped back and let them in?  Would they have grabbed Pence and Pelosi--and then what?  With Trump standing in the background watching it all?  :o

That would have been a coup, obvious to everyone.  By the President of the United States of America, standing with them and egging them on.  :o

We were saved by his limo driver...
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 28, 2022, 04:01:24 PM
Have you noticed that there is almost no grand standing.  Comments by the members of the committee have basically been very short.  No 10-15 minute rambling speeches.  No wonder Trumps allies are hating this.  It is clear, concise and to the point. And almost every witness has been a Republican.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 07:38:50 AM
Eastman is not trying to block access to his phone records from the Committee.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/john-eastman-former-trump-lawyer-034256868.html

More bad news.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 08:10:54 AM
Not sure what that will show exactly. His call logs don't seem terribly interesting to me. What would it mean if he took a call from Trump at a particular time and date?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 08:20:34 AM
It might show they were talking earlier than has been thought.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 08:34:14 AM
Yeah, but what significance is that? IF they were talking X hours earlier, THEN.... ?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 08:40:59 AM
It could be days earlier. Or weeks.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 08:42:34 AM
It might lead to nothing. Who knows?  But he sure tried to hide whatever it was.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2022, 08:48:52 AM
I'm trying to imagine what would have happened if Trump's driver and security had allowed him to go to the Capitol with the mob.

The protesters would probably have still attacked it (since the Proud Boys apparently had already decided to do so).

Would security still have tried to stop them?  Or would the Capitol police have stepped back and let them in?  Would they have grabbed Pence and Pelosi--and then what?  With Trump standing in the background watching it all?  :o

That would have been a coup, obvious to everyone.  By the President of the United States of America, standing with them and egging them on.  :o

We were saved by his limo driver...

I’m trying to imagine how anyone believed this story. It’s a obvious lie and, if you actually believe it, evidence of your own mental illness as it’s literally insane to accept this story as truth. Her lawyer has started walking it back. The agents involved say it never happened. Then there’s the fact it’s physically impossible. Insanity.

Quite a few of you need some help. Professional help.  Even then, I’m not sure you’ll get better but you need to start doing the work if you ever want to be normal again.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 08:52:25 AM
Have them testify under oath then.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 29, 2022, 09:36:01 AM
...I’m trying to imagine how anyone believed this story. It’s a obvious lie and, if you actually believe it, evidence of your own mental illness as it’s literally insane to accept this story as truth. Her lawyer has started walking it back. The agents involved say it never happened. Then there’s the fact it’s physically impossible. Insanity.

Quite a few of you need some help. Professional help.  Even then, I’m not sure you’ll get better but you need to start doing the work if you ever want to be normal again.

Yes, those who know "The Beast" (not Hillary) say it is physically impossible to reach the driver from the back seat.

This means there is no need to swear in anyone for an unselect committee bogus appearance. This may have been the best thing for Trump. Such an obvious lie put forward by this stupid committee should knock it off the complicit televised media. The entire strawman episode is only attempted to let the complicit Democrat operatives in the DOJ indict Trump on made-up charges to keep him off the 2024 ballot. They used up Russia, Russia, Russia! and the Ukraine phone call to force Impeachments proven to be invalid, so they thought they could do it again. One other thing is that Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger won't be around anymore after the next election - even with the Democrats following Cheney's request to cross lines and vote for her as GOP.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 09:52:37 AM
I don't see how it is impossible.

detail on the Beast (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4273134/Inside-Trump-s-new-car-dubbed-Beast.html)

It is obviously true that if the President is sitting where he normally would, he can't reach the steering wheel, but I don't see why he couldn't lunge forward and stick his arm through the seats. There is no physical barrier there, which would prevent secret service from moving to the back to protect the president among other things. I won't even bother to ask who the nebulous "those who know" are, I know you don't actually have a source when you do that.

The agents do seem to be refuting the story, and I don't give it a lot of credibility. First, I don't think Trump could move that fast given that he wobbles down a gradual incline. I don't think Hutchinson is lying though. She definitely could have overheard someone who was engaging in Trump-style hyperbole, who may or may not have been an agent, or who may or may not have been "just joking", or someone who said "I thought Trump was going to grab the wheel." As opposed to "Trump tried to grab the wheel." Which became distorted either at the time or over the period of months to follow.

I could easily see an irate Trump threatening to grab the wheel. But really, the bigger point is whether he WANTED to go to the capitol to egg on his supporters, and we generally already know this because he told them he was going with them in his speech.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2022, 09:56:59 AM
But really, the bigger point is whether he WANTED to go to the capitol to egg on his supporters, and we generally already know this because he told them he was going with them in his speech.

What would be demonstrated by this being true?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 10:10:36 AM
Demonstrates a number of things, potentially. That he wasn't done with making them angrier. That he could have tried ordering the security to get out of the way. That he was comfortable joining a conglomeration of militias, proud boys, Qspiracists, Boogaloo, and other unsavory characters that were "good people" to him, because they supported him. Just like when Pelosi joined a BLM protest, it was tacit approval of their cause and their tactics.

Now, we can't know for sure that if Trump had been there he would have been shocked by the violence unfolding and done something to stop it. But we know he couldn't even be bothered to tweet against it, so we can be pretty sure he'd have been in favor of doing nothing at the very least.

We need to ask, "Why was it important to Trump to be physically present?"
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 10:20:38 AM
That he wanted to intimidate Congress to do what he wanted? With his armed mob at his back.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2022, 10:28:44 AM
If you imagine he was trying to whip up an unruly mob trying to overthrow the government, it would be illogical for him to want to be there. Why put yourself in a dangerous situation for no reason, and why implicate yourself directly in treason by being present? I don't see Trump as a storming the castle kind of guy. If he wanted to be there it probably means he thought it wouldn't be too unruly, and that he'd be able to personally protest whatever it is he thought he was protesting. It probably doesn't prove anything in either direction, but if we're talking about a shifting of probabilities, I would guess that him wanting to be there lowers the chance that what he wanted was a violent or tumultuous event.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 29, 2022, 11:02:44 AM
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Fenring on June 29, 2022, 11:36:30 AM
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

If the topic is to base his intentions on a fact (such as him wanting to be there) then we can choose between guessing at his reasoning process, or dropping the whole matter. If you're saying we can't assume any rationale to his reasoning then that means we can't assess his thought process at all, and must drop it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 12:09:19 PM
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on June 29, 2022, 02:58:52 PM
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.

So much wrong. The Beast (not Hillary) was talked about by Secret Service agents who have been in it. I will galdly take their opinion than Cassidy Hutchinson who admitted her entire testimony was second hand.

Furthermore; have you never heard of Ockham's Razor? Since Trump told his audience to be legal, peaceful, and patriotic, why would he go to a reported  confrontation if not to repeat his admonition? Your allusions to them being armed has been refuted numerous times. Even the filmmaker who was shown in the J6 hearing said even the "Proud Boys" were unarmed. Perhaps someone had a pencil in his pocket. Would that be your evidence of a "spear"? If Trump saw any weapons he certainly was not "fine with that" because he said on the record he wanted a peaceful march. What did you want? If you assumed he wanted them to barge in with weapons, you are a Democrat activist. Why did he offer Pelosi's House Sergeant-at-Arms, Paul Irving, troops to help support the half-strength security? And isn't that the guy who resigned in protest because Pelosi did not accept the help? Is he the same guy who just died? Schumer fired his head of security, blaming the Sargeant-at-Arms for his own incompetence? Pelosi and Schumer said they both wanted to fire the DC Chief of Police.

You assume.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2022, 03:08:56 PM
Have them testify under oath then.

They have offered to do so. The Jan 6th commission doesn't want them. Any guesses why?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2022, 03:13:31 PM
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?

Did Trump extend his arms their full 8 feet and reach through the partition to grab the wheel, then pour himself into the front seat T1000 style? Or did he manage to somehow squeeze that 44-inch waist and Patrick Swayze-size head through the little partition space to fight his way into the front seat? Or are you imagining Trump routinely rode in the front seat, sandwiched between the agents?

I'm just curious how deep the delusion goes really.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 29, 2022, 03:18:42 PM
Quote
In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?
I haven't given it any thought, because I honestly don't care what sort of tantrum Trump may or may not have thrown. I'm not particularly interested in salacious details regarding how much of a man-baby the last president may or may not have been, and don't really speculate about them. For me, the only interesting part of the last day of testimony was Cheney's closing mention of text messages that, on their face, appear to be transparent witness tampering; everything else is just varying degrees of "Trump continued to be a narcissistic, delusional, autocratic *censored*," which is hardly revelatory.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2022, 03:30:02 PM
It seems obvious that he wanted to watch some chaos, since that's exactly what he did when it unfolded on TV. And, he already knew about the fact that people trying to attend his rally had weapons, including spears, and he was fine with that. It seems implausible that he was thinking that people were going to peacefully protest with bear spray. There's no proof to this, of course, we can't know what was in his mind. But I think if we're assigning probabilities, he wanted to them to barge in with weapons though he might have thought there would be no violence because he deluded himself into thinking the capitol police would wave them in or that Mike Pence would see the mob outside and suspend proceedings. His stated point was for the mob to make Mike Pence change his mind. It hinged on the implied threat, as he well knew that Pence wasn't going to suddenly decide that he had the power to reject the count.

So much wrong. The Beast (not Hillary) was talked about by Secret Service agents who have been in it. I will galdly take their opinion than Cassidy Hutchinson who admitted her entire testimony was second hand.

This is where the delusion meets the road. We got some (then) 23-year-old girl who has a friend that knows a guy that said Trump attacked agents and tried to take the wheel (something physically impossible). Then we have the agents that were right there in the car, actually involved in anything that went down in the limo. They 100% deny it ever happened.

Should we believe the agents, with direct first-hand experience and were the supposed targets of Trump's physical attack? Or should we believe what some random chick tells us she overheard from her cousin in California or whatever it was?

This is literally the Smollett moment of the Jan 6 commission and exposes the absolute sham of this thing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Crunch on June 29, 2022, 03:32:09 PM
Quote
In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?
I haven't given it any thought, because I honestly don't care what sort of tantrum Trump may or may not have thrown. I'm not particularly interested in salacious details regarding how much of a man-baby the last president may or may not have been, and don't really speculate about them. For me, the only interesting part of the last day of testimony was Cheney's closing mention of text messages that, on their face, appear to be transparent witness tampering; everything else is just varying degrees of "Trump continued to be a narcissistic, delusional, autocratic *censored*," which is hardly revelatory.

Right. You don't care if they're lying, you just want your delusion to be accurate and confirm all your biases. Truth be damned. Bold strategy, let's see how it plays out.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 03:35:09 PM
They have? Then why are they taking the 5th?  Or going to court to oppose the suponeas?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 03:48:16 PM
What if Trump was not in "The Beast" when the event occurred? Does that change anything as being possible then?

Washington Post reporter and Secret Service expert Carol Leonnig told MSNBC on Tuesday night that Trump physically could have reached for Engel and the steering wheel of the Secret Service SUV he was riding in on Jan. 6 — not the presidential limo, or Beast — and that Engel and especially Ornato "were very, very close to President Trump, and some people accused them of at times being enablers and yes men of the president."
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on June 29, 2022, 03:57:39 PM
I have found conflicting reports as to which vehicle Trump was in.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on June 29, 2022, 04:05:54 PM
Quote
You don't care if they're lying, you just want your delusion to be accurate and confirm all your biases.
I'd like to think that you missed what I actually said, or somehow misunderstood it, but sadly I'm almost certain that you're just playing enfant terrible again.

Of course, what I actually said, Crunch, is that I don't care if someone is testifying under oath to someone else's description of Trump's terrible behavior because Trump's terrible behavior is not actually the subject of this investigation. It's not particularly relevant to anything, it's not empirically verifiable, and it's not actionable. It's just salacious copy. What I do care about is hard evidence of witness tampering.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on June 29, 2022, 04:14:49 PM
"It would be illogical for Trump to want this" is, I submit, not a particularly effective argument against the possibility that Trump wanted something, based on what we have observed of his behavior over the years.

In this particular fantasy, how do you imagine it went down?

Did Trump extend his arms their full 8 feet and reach through the partition to grab the wheel, then pour himself into the front seat T1000 style? Or did he manage to somehow squeeze that 44-inch waist and Patrick Swayze-size head through the little partition space to fight his way into the front seat? Or are you imagining Trump routinely rode in the front seat, sandwiched between the agents?

I'm just curious how deep the delusion goes really.

If you looked at the diagram I provided of the beast, he doesn't have to have gadget arms, he would just have to lunge forward. I find the story improbable, but to declare it impossible is just silly. Do you not think that a normal human pressed up against the back of the front seat could reach the wheel? Or do you think he was strapped into a child seat? Did he even have to be seated, or was he up there arguing with the agent after he entered the vehicle? Maybe he never did sit back into the back seat. Use some imagination, just pretend it was Biden and you'll suddenly find it very possible.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Wayward Son on June 29, 2022, 06:12:48 PM
Whether Trump could have reached the steering wheel is not that important to me.  She related a story she heard from someone else; if the details are wrong, it doesn't matter that much.

What matters is that Trump wanted very much to follow the crowd to the Capitol.  A crowd that was riled-up by Trump to believe that the election had been stolen.  That Trump told that the transfer of power could be stopped.  That Trump was told that members of which were armed.  That Trump sent to the Capitol and told to "fight like hell."

These facts have been attested to by multiple witnesses.

He wanted to be there when an angry crowd, some of whom he thought were armed (and some were), reached the Capitol.  He wanted to be there to see what they would do.  What anyone in that situation, with that information, would expect them to do--storm the Capitol, to attempt to stop the transfer of power. 

Which they did.  >:(

Whether he was in the Beast, or another SUV, or just yelled and screamed, he wanted to be there because he wanted to see his supporters try to stop Congress from doing their Constitutional duty.  He wanted to see them try to keep him in power.

It's sedition, pure and simple.  The President tried to stop Congress from doing it's business.  He tried to overthrow Congress.

That's what is important.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on July 02, 2022, 08:40:10 PM
Whether Trump could have reached the steering wheel is not that important to me.  She related a story she heard from someone else; if the details are wrong, it doesn't matter that much.
Not important? It was done by connivance of the Committee to denigrate Trump's conduct and his thinking. It is the bigger picture you should be livid about. Were you not livid when you found out Hillary created the Russia! Russia! Russia! hoax? Were you not livid when you found out that Hillary did all the eMail felonies she was accused of and still skated? Were you livid when Schiff lied over and over about his Intelligence Committee's findings, and his "proof" that never existed?

...What matters is that Trump wanted very much to follow the crowd to the Capitol.  A crowd that was riled-up by Trump to believe that the election had been stolen.  That Trump told that the transfer of power could be stopped.  That Trump was told that members of which were armed.  That Trump sent to the Capitol and told to "fight like hell."

These facts have been attested to by multiple witnesses.

He wanted to be there when an angry crowd, some of whom he thought were armed (and some were), reached the Capitol.  He wanted to be there to see what they would do.  What anyone in that situation, with that information, would expect them to do--storm the Capitol, to attempt to stop the transfer of power. 

Which they did.  >:(
Unpack what you stated. Those who "stormed" the Capitol Building (Even though the Security forces were videoed letting them in with smiles and motioning them to enter with their full approval) preceded the end of the speech, and most did not even attend the speech (as shown by the videos, and clearly stated by the J6 Committee's own commentary. These people were not armed.) Please refrain from reading his mind when he clearly urged his crowd to legally and patriotically show their support for truth to be honored, but not be violent.

...Whether he was in the Beast, or another SUV, or just yelled and screamed, he wanted to be there because he wanted to see his supporters try to stop Congress from doing their Constitutional duty.  He wanted to see them try to keep him in power.

It's sedition, pure and simple.  The President tried to stop Congress from doing it's business.  He tried to overthrow Congress.

That's what is important.
No -  the problem, as has now been demonstrated, was the vote scamming, with enough numbers to alter the election - which was not allowed to be looked at. What Trump and all his followers wanted was an honest look at what happened. The courts never admitted eyewitness affidavits into evidence so they was never looked at. They were not ruled on - just ignored. We all know the water main break never occurred, that allowed the Democrat counters to lock out the poll watchers. ...And since that occurred when Trump was winning by a wide margin - any change is suspect.

What you miss, is that Trump wanted to perfect the voting process so that illegal vote-scamming could not become sacrosanct. Democrats are known to be THE vote-scamming party. Stopping that for the future was far more important than Trump personally winning or losing.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on July 02, 2022, 08:48:22 PM
Please be less delusional, William.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on July 03, 2022, 05:19:49 PM
Please be less delusional, William.

Insult shows your dishonor. The delusion comes from you accepting the strawman Trump that you and your hoax crowd created.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on July 03, 2022, 05:24:50 PM
I don't for a moment believe that you feel insulted. But I'm trying to be clear and forthright, here: you are delusional. This is not healthy, and it is similarly unhealthy for you for people to engage you in a way that does not acknowledge the degree of your delusion. People might believe they are doing you a favor by pretending that you are making points open to factual rebuttal, but this back-and-forth actually does you harm. It's unfortunate on a number of levels.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on July 04, 2022, 12:39:11 AM
What's unfortunate is that we have 12 pages of comments on a banana republic show trial thread.  No one should have paid any attention to this propaganda vehicle.  If they were serious they would have honored our American legal process, they would have included defense counsel or contrary voices to cross examine witnesses (and nothing at all stopped them from hiring someone to do this), they would have honored probable cause in their subpoenas (instead of claiming they have no restrictions at all on what they demand notwithstanding the blatant 4th Amendment violations), and in fact, they would not have conducted this through Congress (Congress has no legal authority to investigate crimes).  There is no conceivable legislation to which this is relevant other than possible an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder and they've made it express that everything they are doing is designed to trigger an investigation by the DOJ. 

No one who believes in the principals behind this country should even tolerate this abuse, let alone pretend that its bringing out the truth (rather than obscuring it).

Reading and watching propaganda will have an effect on you.  For example, denying the wide spread voting irregularities is a sign that you've lost touch with reality.  Given this is a specific intent of the election based propaganda that has been relentlessly pushed ever since the election, it's a sign that you've been over exposed to propaganda.  Either that or you know its false and nonetheless continue to spread it.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on July 04, 2022, 08:04:40 AM
Serati

Again, the Republicans had a chance to put people on the commission (there are 2 Republicans on it) If McCarthy had just not picked 2 people who would be investigated. There wee hundreds of other congress people he could have chosen, but he wanted a reason to not have members on the commission.
As we have said before this is not a court (other than court of public opinion). Trump and McCarthy had their chance and threw it away.

It is not propaganda. I think all of the witnesses (or at least a vast majority) have been life long Republicans who have been disgusted by the actions of Trump and his cronies.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: wmLambert on July 04, 2022, 09:28:49 AM
Serati

Again, the Republicans had a chance to put people on the commission (there are 2 Republicans on it) If McCarthy had just not picked 2 people who would be investigated. There wee hundreds of other congress people he could have chosen, but he wanted a reason to not have members on the commission.
As we have said before this is not a court (other than court of public opinion). Trump and McCarthy had their chance and threw it away.

It is not propaganda. I think all of the witnesses (or at least a vast majority) have been life long Republicans who have been disgusted by the actions of Trump and his cronies.

The GOP did name people to the commission, and they were disallowed. Since Pelosi was the one who disallowed them and put Kinzinger and Cheney in who are anti-Trumpers, she invalidated her own kangaroo court. Anyone who goes along with what they know is wrong becomes wrong, themselves. Look at the Sussman trial. The judge allowed jurors who were admittedly pro-Sussman and anti-Trump, yet those legally allowed to participate in the J6 Committee were kept off with bogus allegations that they also could be looked at?

This is not about being delusioonal - that is just a red herring. This is about circumventing justice and searching for a way to keep Trump off the 2024 ballot.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: TheDrake on July 04, 2022, 11:58:20 AM
There were disallowed because they spread the very lies that sparked the violent acts in the first place. What contrary point of view did you want on the commission? A parade of inaccurate and unverified allegations about the "stolen election" because that's all McCarthy and company had to offer. And when the actual justice department starts investigating more deeply and more publicly, McCarthy will call it a witch hunt, spying, violation of rights. Corrupt people always hate being investigated and try to delegitimize the efforts to reveal their malfeasance. The committee has to start with the premise that attempts to disrupt and circumvent the rule of law is, well, bad. The law said Pence had no right to stop the certification, so instead they fomented an illegal attempt to stop the proceedings.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Seriati on July 04, 2022, 04:03:05 PM
Serati

Again, the Republicans had a chance to put people on the commission (there are 2 Republicans on it) If McCarthy had just not picked 2 people who would be investigated. There wee hundreds of other congress people he could have chosen, but he wanted a reason to not have members on the commission.

And?  You think that not participating in a propaganda vehicle somehow reflects on the reality of it being a propaganda vehicle?  It would have been even more screamingly obvious if they had set it up to exclude the Republicans.  Instead they just insured that Republican participation would be for nothing but show, no authority to get to the truth.

Quote
As we have said before this is not a court (other than court of public opinion). Trump and McCarthy had their chance and threw it away.

Don't lie to yourself.  This is a court, specifically a banana court.  There is no legitimate Congressional purpose to this committee.

Quote
It is not propaganda. I think all of the witnesses (or at least a vast majority) have been life long Republicans who have been disgusted by the actions of Trump and his cronies.

It's complete and total propaganda.  That you can think a curated, one-side presentation without cross examination is anything but propaganda is incredibly disturbing.

Flip it around, if Trump supporters had put together a congressional committee with no meaningful Democratic buy in, would you be on here claiming that it was somehow not propaganda?  The reality is you would "know" it was propaganda from the start, there is no difference here.

There were disallowed because they spread the very lies that sparked the violent acts in the first place.

Sure, nothing like assuming guilt.  Great place to start your "searching for the truth" committee.

Even if that were the case, wouldn't including Jim Jordan, for example, if you believed that, have added credibility to the results?  No one could have argued that he didn't have a chance to cross examine the witnesses or to defend himself if he had been there, and then the committee's conclusions would have been the result of a process that gave the "guilty" the chance to participate. 

But no, that didn't happen, because the real reason he was excluded is simple.  He has absolutely owned the Democrats and their witnesses in every televised hearing at getting to the truth and exposing the lies of the witnesses.  Not for any other reason.  The fact that you think him asking such questions would "confuse" people rather than expose the truth is just a fundamental rejection of the American justice process. 

Not to mention that if your reasoning held water, the entire committee would be invalidated because Nancy Pelosi - who has a direct personal liability involved - appointed every member.  How better for her to avoid taking responsibility for her own culpability than to appoint every member - who then promptly ruled out investigating her role.

The point of the committee is propaganda, they've told you openly that they had to exclude people to ensure they couldn't "confuse the narrative," and you still debate it?  As I said, consuming propaganda works.  It causes your ability to critically think through an issue to become compromised. 

Quote
What contrary point of view did you want on the commission? A parade of inaccurate and unverified allegations about the "stolen election" because that's all McCarthy and company had to offer.

How about people with an honest interest in understanding what happened?  There's not one member of that committee that was interested in finding where the facts led, everyone of them was interested in finding the facts that led (no matter how strained the interpretation) to the place they wanted to go in the first place.  How about people that question statements such as what we heard to date that expose the obvious falseness before they are broadcast on tv. 

Why exactly are you okay with a witness spreading disinformation in a nationally televised hearing, when it's debunked within hours?  That kind of thing wouldn't have happened with an honest effort to cross examine a witness, or even a basic concept of not relying on hearsay.  Any body interested in the truth would have brought in those directly involved to testify and confronted them with the hearsay rather than putting the hearsay up as if it were proof of the substance.

We both know why they didn't.  The media amplified and broadcast the disinformation as if it were true, solely for the purpose of injecting it as true into the masses.  They couldn't care less about any debunking or walkback because they already know that won't get the same level of distribution.  This is the essence of a banana court's work.

I mean heck, any plausible argument that the committee is more interested in the truth fails when you consider the timing of the committee (always intentionally targeted at the election), the targets of the committee (political enemies, they literally subpeonad the RNC's donor lists and demanded all records of engagement with those private citizens, and then went into court and argued the fourth amendment didn't apply and that once they have the records they can do whatever they want with them without legal consequences) and its strategies (designed to undermine the truth in favor of their narrative). 

Raw uses of power established as new rights are dangerous.  No chance you're going to apply the same rules when the Republicans have the power.

Also what does a "stolen election" have to do with the security failure?  Again, you're repeating a propaganda narrative.  Anyone protesting in DC had every right to do so, they had every right to conclude the election was stolen based on the level of impropriety involved, and most significantly, whether they believed that or not had NOTHING to do with the security breach at the capital.  There is NO left wing riot from the last 2 years that would not have been able to breach the in place security at the Capital that day.  Why was that?

An investigation of "how this could happen" that excludes looking at "how this did happen" seems to be a fail as far as a legitimate investigation.  The committee's focus is on nothing but politics.

Quote
And when the actual justice department starts investigating more deeply and more publicly, McCarthy will call it a witch hunt, spying, violation of rights.

Everything presented by the Committee was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the separation of powers.  What kind of fools see their actual rights being eliminated real time and say nothing?  Oh yeah, the partisan kind.

Honestly, how can you not understand or care that this process violates every principal of justice upon which this country rests.  The right to confront your accusers, the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a trial before a jury of your peers, all thrown in the trash in pursuit of the personal bogey man of the left.

Quote
Corrupt people always hate being investigated and try to delegitimize the efforts to reveal their malfeasance.

Agreed, so why are you on here supporting those corrupt people and their committee?  If you were really the good guys, you wouldn't have needed to pursue your goals corruptly.  You're literally backing the team that's breaking the country and have bought into their propaganda.  I mean heck, it's just a deeper more sophisticated version of Hillary's claims about the vast right wing conspiracy to pretend that Jan 6 was more than it was.

Quote
The committee has to start with the premise that attempts to disrupt and circumvent the rule of law is, well, bad.

No, they should have started with that premise, instead they've actually disrupted and circumvented the rule of law in pursuit of their purely partisan goals.  In no way is this committee supporting the rule of law when they intentionally violate every principal of America justice.

Quote
The law said Pence had no right to stop the certification, so instead they fomented an illegal attempt to stop the proceedings.

The law in question is stupid, and it doesn't say what you think it says.  It does purport to give Pence an authority, but inherent in that grant is that it is likely un-Constitutional to use it.  But citing to a law that probably is un-Constitutional and isn't as clear as you pretend is part of the problem.  Nothing about the ceremony on the capital, whether or not it actually occurs, changes the reality of who becomes the President on Jan. 20th. 

Biden got away with "the steal" because our legal processes have no way to actually change a result, even it if was fraudulent, if it has been certified.  This is in part because the integrity of a secret ballot prevents after the fact verification, and partly because our courts generally want no part of the controversy that would ensue. 

Would Biden have won without the manipulation and improprieties?  I doubt it, but no one can really know for sure.  We should have spent the last 2 years ensuring the integrity of our elections to ensure that they would be trusted in the future, but one party has spent every minute trying to ensure the opposite and why wouldn't they, they were able to win by introducing all those improprieties and see a future to cheat democracy in the future so long as those improprieties remain.   
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: Tom on July 04, 2022, 05:27:51 PM
Seriati, I'm curious: which if any of the Benghazi investigative committees do you believe were primarily propaganda?
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: yossarian22c on July 04, 2022, 05:42:32 PM
I’m curious if you think every police and grand jury investigation is propaganda because the defense and the accused aren’t part of the police investigation and questioning of witnesses?

No one was denied due process, courts reviewed subpoenas, people were allowed to plead the 5th. Just because Trump’s coconspirators weren’t in on the investigation it’s propaganda? I think it might be intimidating to testify to Jim Jordan’s crimes if he’s the investigator. Republicans rejected the concept of a full bipartisan commission. And I see no signs that the two Republicans have been muffled or relegated to insignificant roles.
Title: Re: The Jan 6 Commission
Post by: msquared on July 04, 2022, 06:36:36 PM
Serati's problem is that they do not support Trump so they are not Republicans.  If you do not support Trump you are a RINO. That is the only definition of a RINO now. Life long Republicans who have supported the Party for decades are RINO's if they do not support Trump's election and Jan 6 claims.

Just ask Rusty Bowers, Kemp, the GA SOS, and dozens of other Republicans whose only "crime" is not not support Trumps view of things.