International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Jan. 6 Investigation (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=353105)

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13552900)
Who said the GOP congress was against "any investigation"?

Or turning the spin around, why was Pelosi against a bipartisan investigation?

You're joking right?

acbytesla 29th July 2021 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 13552911)
Did anyone die there? Felony Murder requires that those charged are involved with the crime that was happening at the time of the killing, only those directly involved can be charged, there is nothing arbitrary about that.

It's arbitrary because you're picking a single event when this insurrection was hundreds of events. If the first barricade isn't broken through there is no opportunity to break into the chambers. All these people are involved in an insurrection. In my view the guy who broke through the front door is just as guiltyas those trying to break into the Senate chamber.

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13552906)
Maybe. But other windows and doors were broken through by the rioters. Do you charge anyone near those locations? This seems too arbitrary.

Come on Mr Tesla, don't be so willing to write off the guy that broke the windows in the door Babbitt climbed through when she got shot. Some of those people trying to bash down that specific door at that specific time are more than implicated in a specific crime that resulted in a death. No one is saying everyone who broke a window or a door down is connected to everything else that happened.

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13552923)
It's arbitrary because you're picking a single event when this insurrection was hundreds of events. If the first barricade isn't broken through there is no opportunity to break into the chambers. All these people are involved in an insurrection. In my view the guy who broke through the front door is just as guiltyas those trying to break into the Senate chamber.

That doesn't mean this was all or none lawbreaking. It's not up to your view, it's up to the law and the prosecutors.

acbytesla 29th July 2021 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13552927)
Come on Mr Tesla, don't be so willing to write off the guy that broke the windows in the door Babbitt climbed through when she got shot. Some of those people trying to bash down that specific door at that specific time are more than implicated in a specific crime that resulted in a death. No one is saying everyone who broke a window or a door down is connected to everything else that happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13552930)
That doesn't mean this was all or none lawbreaking. It's not up to your view, it's up to the law and the prosecutors.

I'm sorry, I'm not a fan of felony murder especially in theses circumstances. IMV, this is far worse. I think many of these people including Trump should see an end like Saddam Hussein. They should swing. But not for felony murder.

PhantomWolf 29th July 2021 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13552923)
It's arbitrary because you're picking a single event when this insurrection was hundreds of events. If the first barricade isn't broken through there is no opportunity to break into the chambers. All these people are involved in an insurrection. In my view the guy who broke through the front door is just as guiltyas those trying to break into the Senate chamber.

But that isn't how the law works. The law requires it to be only those involved in the crime occurring at the time of the death, and only those involved specifically in that crime. This is the exact opposite of arbitary. It's saying that if you were at place A and involved in the committing of Crime B when person C was killed, you are able to be charged with Felony Murder. Just because person Y was down the hallway committing crime E at the time and thus doesn't get charged, doesn't make it arbitrary. Even if Crime B and Crime E are the exact same statutes being broken unless there is a strong and valid connection between those crimes such as the participants all agreeing to do them in a conspiracy, then there is no ability to charge people outside the group commiting the crime at the time of the killing.

acbytesla 29th July 2021 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13552930)
That doesn't mean this was all or none lawbreaking. It's not up to your view, it's up to the law and the prosecutors.

You're right, It isn't. But my bet is no one will be charged with felony murder. We can bet avatars. The loser has to use the avatar the other picks for them for a month.

Stacyhs 29th July 2021 07:06 PM

Ziggurat's downplaying of the threat made to both Pence and Pelosi is duly noted:

They didn't actually FIND the people they were threatening to kill so no actual attempt was made! How dare you contend that was their intent?

This handwaving away is just typical "It wasn't that bad! You're just being emotional" crap.

acbytesla 29th July 2021 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 13552933)
But that isn't how the law works. The law requires it to be only those involved in the crime occurring at the time of the death, and only those involved specifically in that crime. This is the exact opposite of arbitary. It's saying that if you were at place A and involved in the committing of Crime B when person C was killed, you are able to be charged with Felony Murder. Just because person Y was down the hallway committing crime E at the time and thus doesn't get charged, doesn't make it arbitrary. Even if Crime B and Crime E are the exact same statutes being broken unless there is a strong and valid connection between those crimes such as the participants all agreeing to do them in a conspiracy, then there is no ability to charge people outside the group commiting the crime at the time of the killing.

OK then. You might be right.

But I stand by my argument that no one will stand trial facing that charge.

smartcooky 29th July 2021 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13552794)
You can call it whatever you want, it remains true. Insulting me won't change that. More investigation won't find what they've been unable to find any trace of so far.

And really, what do you expect? You expect a grand conspiracy spearheaded by the likes of that idiot with a buffalo hat and face paint? That's how you topple the US federal government? Please. They might find a few loons in a basement who "conspired", but there isn't going to be anything else, no matter how long you look.

You clearly have not read the superseding conspiracy indictments against the 12 Oath Keepers. Here is some reading for you...

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pres...82471/download

The indictment goes into great detail about the pre-planning, recruitment and training these people did - where they stayed, how they travelled to and from DC, and what they did on January 6, including communications and messages, code names, the equipment they brought with them such as combat gear, radio comms equipment and firearms caches held nearby with a "Quick Reaction Force" of additional, as yet unindicted members ready to go if Trump's order came and the shooting started.

You really are a long, long way behind the 8 ball here. Most everyone else here in this thread is already familiar with these facts. You have a lot of catching up to do if you want to be able to debate credibly on this topic.

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13552934)
You're right, It isn't. But my bet is no one will be charged with felony murder. We can bet avatars. The loser has to use the avatar the other picks for them for a month.

I'm not giving up my adorable Arctic Snowy Owlets. :) I don't know what the charges on all these guys will be. And if they plea down to lesser charges, how it that predictable?

RecoveringYuppy 29th July 2021 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13552937)
You clearly have not read the superseding conspiracy indictments against the 12 Oath Keepers. Here is some reading for you...

Could you pay more attention to what Ziggurat said? Those people are the loons in a basement he just acknowledged in the quote you just made of him.


The facts as they actually are should be fine.

dudalb 29th July 2021 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13552900)
Who said the GOP congress was against "any investigation"?

Or turning the spin around, why was Pelosi against a bipartisan investigation?

Bipartisan investigation was killed by the GOP in the Senate.

You really think we are stupid enough not to know that?

That is what is annoyning about Trumpers:They all think we are as stupid as they are.

And this poster is a sad exmaple of what happens when you depend on Newxmax, FOx, and OANN for all your news.

Ziggurat 29th July 2021 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13552917)
No, I don't have a link to those court documents. It's likely they are still restricted to only certain clearances seeing them.

No, they are not. I already provided them.

Ziggurat 29th July 2021 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13552937)
You clearly have not read the superseding conspiracy indictments against the 12 Oath Keepers. Here is some reading for you...

You clearly didnít read my post if you think that contradicts anything I said.

Ziggurat 29th July 2021 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13552935)
Ziggurat's downplaying of the threat made to both Pence and Pelosi is duly noted:

They didn't actually FIND the people they were threatening to kill so no actual attempt was made! How dare you contend that was their intent?

This handwaving away is just typical "It wasn't that bad! You're just being emotional" crap.

I said nothing about the Pence threats because I havenít looked into them yet. I commented on the Pelosi threats that were referenced earlier because, unlike you, I actually read through the court documents that they came from. You thought they were classified and unavailable even though I already linked directly to them. How clueless is that?

And I said that no attempt was made because, get this, the woman in question never even went looking. It was always just empty posturing.

rdwight 29th July 2021 08:23 PM

So many thoughts on this that bounce around for me. At the time it was happening, the anxiety produced due to external things happening (to me) made it too much to follow. This was different than the general rioting going on elsewhere. Location matters. At the same time, the hyperbole in describing it is staggering. The saddest part is that I have no faith in the intentions of this investigation. Does anyone feel differently?

smartcooky 29th July 2021 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13552941)
Could you pay more attention to what Ziggurat said? Those people are the loons in a basement he just acknowledged in the quote you just made of him.


The facts as they actually are should be fine.

No!

He has previously claimed that no conspiracy exists. I'm going to assume he still thinks that until such time as he walks it back and admits his claim is incorrect!!!

Cain 29th July 2021 09:21 PM

When it comes to "life-threatening" circumstances, there's only one situation where I take officer testimony at face-value: When an agent of the state shoots unarmed Black boys. Har, har, har. In all seriousness, I'm like everyone else: I look at things on a case-by-case basis and determine if what's being said is convenient for my political beliefs.

Ziggurat 29th July 2021 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553038)
No!

He has previously claimed that no conspiracy exists. I'm going to assume he still thinks that until such time as he walks it back and admits his claim is incorrect!!!

This is simply false. I never said there were no conspiracies of any sort. I always qualified it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13552794)
You expect a grand conspiracy spearheaded by the likes of that idiot with a buffalo hat and face paint?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13552780)
I doubt it. There was no grand conspiracy here.

That word is there for a reason. The kind of conspiracy that the Oathkeepers were charged with is not grand, by any stretch of the imagination. And the fact that they are already being charged also demonstrates that such pathetic conspiracies donít require years of investigation to unravel. They come apart pretty easily.

dirtywick 29th July 2021 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13553017)
So many thoughts on this that bounce around for me. At the time it was happening, the anxiety produced due to external things happening (to me) made it too much to follow. This was different than the general rioting going on elsewhere. Location matters. At the same time, the hyperbole in describing it is staggering. The saddest part is that I have no faith in the intentions of this investigation. Does anyone feel differently?

I feel a bit differently. I think the Dems plan on politically posturing as much as possible and attempting to write the narrative as much as they can, so in that sense I think the intentions aren't necessarily pure. Politicians will continue to do their jobs. But, I don't think that matters a whole lot. I think the truth looks really bad for the GOP and Trump, and I think this is so incredibly damaging that simply revealing the truth accurately is enough.

But remember why the Dems are in this position. The GOP shot down a bipartisan investigation, and the House started their own and offered bipartisan participation, and the GOP refused that also. Speaking of intentions, I'd think it would be a little curious as to why they're trying to distract by creating partisan a situation as possible and then accused the other side of being partisan. But it's pretty obvious why they don't want to talk about the investigation itself.

How bad do things look when you look into why high ranking military leaders were spooked, the shake up at the pentagon, the slow response, who called Trump during the breach and what were they talking about? They're just refusing to talk about this stuff now. Nobody wants to hear about any of that? Wonder why.

dudalb 29th July 2021 09:41 PM

Last time I remember joecool was here,he was telling us how wonderful Trump's Hydrocholchorline (probably misspelled that was.....

dudalb 29th July 2021 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553038)
No!

He has previously claimed that no conspiracy exists. I'm going to assume he still thinks that until such time as he walks it back and admits his claim is incorrect!!!

Don't hold your breath.....

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdwight (Post 13553017)
So many thoughts on this that bounce around for me. At the time it was happening, the anxiety produced due to external things happening (to me) made it too much to follow. This was different than the general rioting going on elsewhere. Location matters. At the same time, the hyperbole in describing it is staggering. The saddest part is that I have no faith in the intentions of this investigation. Does anyone feel differently?

I have faith. This is an important investigation despite the GOP attempt to cover things up. A mob attacked the Capitol and tried to stop a routine procedure done to transfer power officially from one POTUS to the next.

Dump was refusing to give up his power. Do you know just how serious that was? Seven months later and there is still bull **** going on to interfere with the last election and prevent a fair one in some states in 2022.

Liz Cheney is one of the most Conservative members in Congress. She's one of a few that have stood up for the rule of law and against the Dump cult that has taken over the GOP. Pelosi is very intelligent and certainly intends to run a clean ship.

The only reason to be concerned is if one is listening to all those Dump/GOP sycophants trying to tell whoever will listen that it is a 'witch hunt'. It is not.

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13553065)
I feel a bit differently. I think the Dems plan on politically posturing as much as possible and attempting to write the narrative as much as they can, so in that sense I think the intentions aren't necessarily pure. Politicians will continue to do their jobs. But, I don't think that matters a whole lot. I think the truth looks really bad for the GOP and Trump, and I think this is so incredibly damaging that simply revealing the truth accurately is enough.

Which makes me ask you, then why do the Democrats need to posture and force a slanted narrative?


Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13553065)
How bad do things look when you look into why high ranking military leaders were spooked, the shake up at the pentagon, the slow response, who called Trump during the breach and what were they talking about? They're just refusing to talk about this stuff now. Nobody wants to hear about any of that? Wonder why.

Yes, how bad do they look? :rolleyes:

Skeptic Ginger 29th July 2021 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13553067)
Last time I remember joecool was here,he was telling us how wonderful Trump's Hydrocholchorline (probably misspelled that was.....

:D

hydroxychloroquine

Cain 29th July 2021 09:58 PM

Getting Caught Up...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13552935)
Ziggurat's downplaying of the threat made to both Pence and Pelosi is duly noted:

They didn't actually FIND the people they were threatening to kill so no actual attempt was made! How dare you contend that was their intent?

I know little about the threats, but there is a distinction to be made between a threat and a true threat. Between someone who says they're going to blow up a school and a person who has a map of the school highlighting vulnerable entry points. A person who has reconned the school documenting arrival times of service vehicles etc. Some people had zip ties, others were caught up in a monkey-see, monkey-do.

Stacyhs 29th July 2021 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13552952)
I said nothing about the Pence threats because I havenít looked into them yet. I commented on the Pelosi threats that were referenced earlier because, unlike you, I actually read through the court documents that they came from. You thought they were classified and unavailable even though I already linked directly to them. How clueless is that?

And I said that no attempt was made because, get this, the woman in question never even went looking. It was always just empty posturing.

I provided those links to the articles regarding the threats made to Pelosi and Pence at 12:17 PM.

Paul2 asked me for a link to those documents at 12:37 PM.

You provided the link to them at 12:55 PM, so when Paul2 asked me for the link at 12:37 PM, you had not yet provided them.

I read Paul2's request which came before your post to I answered him immediately.

How clueless are you for not being able to figure that out?

I said they were LIKELY classified since none of the articles I provided contained links to those documents which would be expected.

Stacyhs 29th July 2021 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13553079)
I know little about the threats, but there is a distinction to be made between a threat and a true threat. Between someone who says they're going to blow up a school and a person who has a map of the school highlighting vulnerable entry points. A person who has reconned the school documenting arrival times of service vehicles etc. Some people had zip ties, others were caught up in a monkey-see, monkey-do.

And when those caught up in " monkey-see, monkey-do" happen to be with those monkeys when they actually find those they're looking for and threatening to 'hang' or 'put a bullet in'? People in mobs feed off each other as we saw in that insurrection. They became more violent as they urged each other on to the point of beating police officers and calling for machetes, and to use their own guns against them. The officers refraining from using their own guns in self-defense most likely kept the mob from becoming even more violent as one officer testified.

PhantomWolf 29th July 2021 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13553065)
I feel a bit differently. I think the Dems plan on politically posturing as much as possible and attempting to write the narrative as much as they can, so in that sense I think the intentions aren't necessarily pure. Politicians will continue to do their jobs. But, I don't think that matters a whole lot. I think the truth looks really bad for the GOP and Trump, and I think this is so incredibly damaging that simply revealing the truth accurately is enough.

I don't think that the Dems need to posture on this, and in fact, I think that if they do then they will be doing themselves and the investigation a dis-service, and allow the Republicans to attack them over that and distract from the investigation itself. The reality of this is that it's going to be bad for the Republicans, it's just a question of how bad it will get. The Democrats really just need to call witnesses and let them talk, allow the chips to fall as they will, and reveal the picture of what happened in a sober and solemn way. All the Republicans and their supporters on FOX and OAN would have left is to attack the witnesses and make themselves look even worse.

So yeah, if I was in the Dems shoes, I'd just play it totally straight and let the Republicans continue to make fools of themselves as they try and distract from the overwhelming facts showing how invloved in it they all were.

Stacyhs 29th July 2021 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 13553125)
I don't think that the Dems need to posture on this, and in fact, I think that if they do then they will be doing themselves and the investigation a dis-service, and allow the Republicans to attack them over that and distract from the investigation itself. The reality of this is that it's going to be bad for the Republicans, it's just a question of how bad it will get. The Democrats really just need to call witnesses and let them talk, allow the chips to fall as they will, and reveal the picture of what happened in a sober and solemn way. All the Republicans and their supporters on FOX and OAN would have left is to attack the witnesses and make themselves look even worse.

So yeah, if I was in the Dems shoes, I'd just play it totally straight and let the Republicans continue to make fools of themselves as they try and distract from the overwhelming facts showing how invloved in it they all were.

Agreed. There is no need to embellish or spin anything in this. The facts themselves are bad enough. The GOP's claim that they just want to move forward because an investigation will just divide the country is pure bull crap. They know how responsible Trump and their support of his Big Lie is for that insurrection and they want to sweep it under the rug ASAP. Certain players, like McCarthy, are scared to death of it just how bad they're going to look if people have to testify under oath. Although we can expect a serious outbreak of the "I don't recall" flu.

dirtywick 29th July 2021 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13553071)
Which makes me ask you, then why do the Democrats need to posture and force a slanted narrative?

You don't think they're going to give impassioned speeches and scold the GOP from the moral high ground? They're going to do that every chance they get.

Quote:

Yes, how bad do they look? :rolleyes:
Not really sure why you're rolling your eyes, most of what's come out so far has looked awful for the GOP and they're doing everything they can to distract from the substance of the investigation out of some combination of culpability and fear of the wrath of Trump. Jim Jordan doesn't even want to admit he made a call to Trump. They do not want to talk about this stuff at all.

The Great Zaganza 30th July 2021 12:04 AM

We have a direct line of communication between the Oathkeepers and Roger Stone, and Roger Stone and Trump.
Not looking for a Conspiracy would be negligent.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13553139)
We have a direct line of communication between the Oathkeepers and Roger Stone, and Roger Stone and Trump.
Not looking for a Conspiracy would be negligent.

.. and pretending there isn't one is ignorant.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13553079)
I know little about the threats, but there is a distinction to be made between a threat and a true threat. Between someone who says they're going to blow up a school and a person who has a map of the school highlighting vulnerable entry points. A person who has reconned the school documenting arrival times of service vehicles etc. Some people had zip ties, others were caught up in a monkey-see, monkey-do.

Does erecting a gallows and a rope with a hangman's noose at the end count?

Does arriving with zip-cuffs (not ordinary electrical zip-ties, but actual law enforcement issue zip-cuffs) count?

Or are these just examples of performance art?

uke2se 30th July 2021 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553154)
.. and pretending there isn't one is ignorant.

No, it's not ignorance. Those who deny it know very well what they're doing.

The Great Zaganza 30th July 2021 01:26 AM

The fact that a member of Congress showed up to the rally in a bulletproof vest should be evidence enough that he believed that these were not harmless tourists.
And he ought to know.

PhantomWolf 30th July 2021 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dirtywick (Post 13553132)
You don't think they're going to give impassioned speeches and scold the GOP from the moral high ground? They're going to do that every chance they get.

I think that they'll lose some of the position they could get without doing it. They need to leave those things to Cheney and Kinzinger.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cain (Post 13553079)
I know little about the threats, but there is a distinction to be made between a threat and a true threat.

True.

Quote:

Between someone who says they're going to blow up a school and a person who has a map of the school highlighting vulnerable entry points. A person who has reconned the school documenting arrival times of service vehicles etc. Some people had zip ties, others were caught up in a monkey-see, monkey-do.
This zip tie guy found the zip ties in the capitol and picked them up. He did not bring them from home. He wasnít planning to use them, and didnít.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553160)
Does arriving with zip-cuffs (not ordinary electrical zip-ties, but actual law enforcement issue zip-cuffs) count?

Nobody arrived with zip cuffs. That story was debunked months ago, by the prosecutor in his case no less.
https://news.yahoo.com/capitol-riots...190644133.html

Why do so many people still believe the false version?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.