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)

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553278)
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?

I don't see how stealing police restraints during a riot is an improvement. Why do you think he took them, if not looking for an opportunity to put them to use?

Belz... 30th July 2021 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553278)
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?

That's like saying that no one was armed; someone just stole the person's gun!

It's a distinction without a difference. Why would they take the zip cuffs? Well, maybe if we listen to what they said their purpose was, that would give us the answer.

uke2se 30th July 2021 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553281)
I don't see how stealing police restraints during a riot is an improvement. Why do you think he took them, if not looking for an opportunity to put them to use?

He wants to argue that there was no intention to grab any congress-people without actually saying so. The intention to grab congress-people was in fact stated out loud by the insurrectionists, and that there was a conspiracy to do so is evidenced in the Oath-keeper cases.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553281)
I don't see how stealing police restraints during a riot is an improvement. Why do you think he took them, if not looking for an opportunity to put them to use?

You didnít read the link, did you? You just looked at the headline. The link says why.

God, am I the only person here who does any actual research?

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke2se (Post 13553293)
He wants to argue that there was no intention to grab any congress-people without actually saying so.

No. I want to correct a false record. Why does that need any further justification? And there WAS no intention to grab any congresspersons by THAT guy. I am willing to be quite explicit about that.

If this situation is so clear cut, why is everyone resorting to examples that keep falling apart under scrutiny?

Belz... 30th July 2021 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553300)
God, am I the only person here who does any actual research?

Research with the specific goal of finding the conclusion you already have isn't very valuable.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553278)
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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553274)
This zip tie guy found the zip ties in the capitol and picked them up. He did not bring them from home. He wasn’t planning to use them, and didn’t.

More piffling semantics as usual. It doesn't actually matter how he got them - he was in possession of them. What did he intend to do with them is the only thing that matters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13553303)
Research with the specific goal of finding the conclusion you already have isn't very valuable.

And it isn't honest research either!

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553300)
You didn’t read the link, did you? You just looked at the headline. The link says why.

God, am I the only person here who does any actual research?

Sure, we should take the word of a guy and his defense attorney that his intentions were not as bad as they plainly appear. Doing a skepticism because a guy caught on camera committing a crime claims it's not what it looks like. Galaxy brain.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553306)
Sure, we should take the word of a guy and his defense attorney that his intentions were not as bad as they plainly appear. Doing a skepticism because a guy caught on camera committing a crime claims it's not what it looks like. Galaxy brain.

That isnít coming from his defense attorney. It came from the prosecutionís filing, which you can find through that link.

You really arenít good at this research thing. Galaxy brain indeed.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553305)
More piffling semantics as usual. It doesn't actually matter how he got them - he was in possession of them. What did he intend to do with them is the only thing that matters.

Already addressed.

Quote:

And it isn't honest research either!
Since Iím right on the facts, you have to go after my motives. Nice.

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553309)
Already addressed.



Since I’m right on the facts, you have to go after my motives. Nice.

Perhaps you can help a simpleton such as myself. I'm not seeing anything in the government filing that explains such innocent motives. I don't see anything in their filing that presumes to know the mother and son's intentions for these restraints, but there are a few occasions where they seem to be implying that they had nefarious purposes.

The stolen flex cuffs were found in his home, along with the rest of his tactical gear and weapons, when being arrested. Seems like they wanted them for themselves after all. I wonder why?

The filing claims that he stole several, but left others behind. If his goal was to deprive police of these restraints, he failed miserably.

Quote:

At one point, MUNCHEL spots plastic handcuffs on a table inside a hallway in the Capitol.
MUNCHEL exclaims, “Zipties. I need to get me some of them *************,” and grabs several
white plastic handcuffsfrom on top of a cabinet (but leaves many others).
https://storage.courtlistener.com/re....85025.8.0.pdf

But yeah, I guess it's not very skeptical to think a braying mob of rioters breaking down doors and searching for members of Congress might grab restraints to aid apprehending these people. What was I thinking?

jollyroger85 30th July 2021 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553313)
Perhaps you can help a simpleton such as myself. I'm not seeing anything in the government filing that explains such innocent motives.

The stolen flex cuffs were found in his home, along with the rest of his tactical gear and weapons, when being arrested. Seems reasonable to conclude he held onto the cuffs once laying his hands on them for reasons unknown.

The filing claims that he stole several, but left others behind. If his goal was to deprive police of these restraints, he failed miserably.

The goal... if it isn't obvious.... was to gain entry to the Election results, take hostages (The 1%ers, oath keepers and proud boys) among congress members and fuel a riot amongst the rubes there with them as cover, and attempt an overthrow of the US Government. Anyone who was there should be in jail and held to the sword for the treasonous scum they are.

Belz... 30th July 2021 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553308)
That isnít coming from his defense attorney. It came from the prosecutionís filing, which you can find through that link.

You really arenít good at this research thing. Galaxy brain indeed.

You seem to imply that it coming from the prosecution means something.

Belz... 30th July 2021 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553309)
Since Iím right on the facts, you have to go after my motives. Nice.

"Apparently" isn't a fact.

wareyin 30th July 2021 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553313)
Perhaps you can help a simpleton such as myself. I'm not seeing anything in the government filing that explains such innocent motives.

The stolen flex cuffs were found in his home, along with the rest of his tactical gear and weapons, when being arrested. Seems reasonable to conclude he held onto the cuffs once laying his hands on them for reasons unknown.

The filing claims that he stole several, but left others behind. If his goal was to deprive police of these restraints, he failed miserably.

It's weird, too, but the "zip-tie guy" sure sounded like he was taking those zip-ties because he wanted to have them, not because he wanted to deprive police of them. From Zig's link: "MUNCHEL exclaims, 'zipties. I need to get me some of them motherf---ers," and grabs several white plastic handcuffs from on top of a cabinet," the filing says"

And from the actual filing: "At one point, MUNCHEL spots plastic handcuffs on a table inside a hallway in the Capitol.
MUNCHEL exclaims, “Zipties. I need to get me some of them *************,” and grabs several
white plastic handcuffs from on top of a cabinet (but leaves many others)."

I hilighted the part that damages any credibility to the idea that Munchel took the zip-tie restraints only to prevent police from having them. He left many others there.


eta: guess you read the filing that showed Zig's claims to be bunk as well!

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 05:51 AM

Apparently being a skeptics means giving a criminal extreme benefit of the doubt based on an extremely charitable interpretation of a garbled sentence caught on surveillance, and ignoring the plain fact that their purported motive makes no sense at all given the context.

Our guy took a handful of restraints out of a bag and left the remainder behind. This did very little to stop cops from having the ability to use them if they wanted, but did accomplish equipping himself with restraining tools for reasons unclear.

But yeah, we're the rubes here.

Susheel 30th July 2021 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13553317)
"Apparently" isn't a fact.

Well...maybe if he claps his hands really really hard and wishes with all his heart...

smartcooky 30th July 2021 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553302)
No. I want to correct a false record. Why does that need any further justification? And there WAS no intention to grab any congresspersons by THAT guy. I am willing to be quite explicit about that.

If this situation is so clear cut, why is everyone resorting to examples that keep falling apart under scrutiny?

The only thing that is "falling apart under scrutiny" is the cover up that's been perpetrated by the GQP.

Strand by strand, the tangled web of deceit built by certain members of the Repugnican Congress in order to cover up what really happened in the weeks leading up to 1/6, is unravelling, and its happening in plain sight, right before our eyes. Mo Brooks has admitted he knew there was likely to be violence beforehand, and Gym Jordan keeps equivocating as to whether or not he talked to Das TrumpenfŁhrer on 1/6.

The Repugnicans were afraid this would happen... their carefully crafted faÁade is falling apart, that's why they blocked the independent inquiry to investigate the 1/6 Capitol Hill riots, and its why, with he help of their barking dogs in the right wing media, they are now doing everything they can to undermine, sabotage, discredit and diminish this bipartisan Select Committee, so they can later attempt to control the narrative by obfuscating, clouding and befogging any conclusions it might reach.

Those of us paying attention to the facts will not be fooled by McCarthy or the rest of the lying bastards in the GQP.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13553324)
Well...maybe if he claps his hands really really hard and wishes with all his heart...


... or says it three times quickly, it will magically become true! :rolleyes:

acbytesla 30th July 2021 06:03 AM

Quote:

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

It's not ignorant. It is dishonest.

Armitage72 30th July 2021 08:27 AM

I wonder if they'll call Steve Bannon to answer questions. On January 5th, he publicly stated on his podcast that "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Itís gonna be moving. Itís gonna be quick.Ē


"Mr Bannon, what led you to conclude that something unusual was going to happen on the 6th? Did someone provide you with advance notice that violence was planned?"

jimbob 30th July 2021 10:12 AM

Quote:

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

What is your definition of a grand conspiracy?

I'd have thought that at least two organised violent fascist groups planning to storm the Capitol and succeeding, only stopping when one of the supporting mob was shot was a sufficiently grand conspiracy.

What do you want? A squad of Marines taking part?

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 13553450)
I wonder if they'll call Steve Bannon to answer questions. On January 5th, he publicly stated on his podcast that "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s gonna be moving. It’s gonna be quick.”


"Mr Bannon, what led you to conclude that something unusual was going to happen on the 6th? Did someone provide you with advance notice that violence was planned?"

Anyone even half paying attention knew that there was a general atmosphere of violence for that rally. Bannon may or may not have known about specific bad actors and specific plans, but you didn't need an inside line to know that a ****-storm was brewing.

The CHUDs were openly talking about revolution on social media well in advance of the event. The language was explicit and belligerent. Fox News poisoned grandpas were talking about spilling blood and a second 1776 openly on social media. The riot could not have been more openly telegraphed.

The certification was understood to be the last chance for the election conspiracies and Q promises to come to fruition, and these people clearly expressed their role was as patriotic foot-soldiers.

TokenMac 30th July 2021 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wareyin (Post 13553322)
It's weird, too, but the "zip-tie guy" sure sounded like he was taking those zip-ties because he wanted to have them, not because he wanted to deprive police of them. From Zig's link: "MUNCHEL exclaims, 'zipties. I need to get me some of them motherf---ers," and grabs several white plastic handcuffs from on top of a cabinet," the filing says"

And from the actual filing: "At one point, MUNCHEL spots plastic handcuffs on a table inside a hallway in the Capitol.
MUNCHEL exclaims, ďZipties. I need to get me some of them *************,Ē and grabs several
white plastic handcuffs from on top of a cabinet (but leaves many others)."

I hilighted the part that damages any credibility to the idea that Munchel took the zip-tie restraints only to prevent police from having them. He left many others there.


eta: guess you read the filing that showed Zig's claims to be bunk as well!

I'm wondering how it is any better to steal the zip-tie restraints to keep the police from having them.
Would it be ok to steal a cop's gun or baton while in the middle of committing crimes, to I guess stop them from stopping my crimes.

Belz... 30th July 2021 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13553570)
What is your definition of a grand conspiracy?

Whatever this isn't, I guess.

jimbob 30th July 2021 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belz... (Post 13553601)
Whatever this isn't, I guess.

Hot damn - I think you might have got it.

Paul2 30th July 2021 11:15 AM

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.

That makes me wonder, then, how the reporters who reported what was in those court documents determined that.

ETA: Way too late to a conversation that moved quickly

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 11:19 AM

To be honest, I really doubt there's a "grand conspiracy", at least nothing that goes to Trump.

It's pretty funny because the crowd did exactly what Trump's speech incited them to do and then... nothing. They went all in on throwing their lives away expecting that their leaders had some plan, then Trump went home and watched the riot on TV. The CHUDs actually succeeded in taking the building and disrupting the vote and their leaders did not pick up the baton and run with it. No insurrection act, no "storm", no cavalry riding in to secure a coup, nothing. They milled around for a bit and vandalized the place until enough cops showed up to clear the building.

They got hung out to dry when their supposed revolution turned into little more than a public tantrum to assuage Trump's ego. They actually believed his BS, the absolute morons, and found out the hard way there was no plan.

The cases of conspiracy we've seen include pre-existing fascist groups that had a history of engaging in organized political violence under their own volition without external leadership. Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and Q cranks have a long history of engaging in this kind of violence without the need of an outside instigator leading the charge. I imagine these groups would be open to coordinating with larger profile right wing leaders, but that's not necessary to explain what happened in this case.

Trump and other leaders of the fascist right were definitely whipping up the mob and pandering to their sense of grievance, but I don't think that necessarily means that they actually had any plan.

Paul2 30th July 2021 11:26 AM

Ninja'ed a long time ago

JoeMorgue 30th July 2021 11:28 AM

That's the dumbass "I made the conscious decision to shoot the other person, and I know that shooting the other person would kill them, but that doesn't mean I wanted the other person to die!" nonsense, just blown up to a bigger scale.

One of the most common characteristics of the Proudly Wrong is that have a total disconnect between their actions and their intent to the point that intentionally doing something that is obviously going to cause a specific outcome in their minds isn't the same thing as intentionally desiring the outcome.

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13553637)
That's the dumbass "I made the conscious decision to shoot the other person, and I know that shooting the other person would kill them, but that doesn't mean I wanted the other person to die!" nonsense, just blown up to a bigger scale.

One of the most common characteristics of the Proudly Wrong is that have a total disconnect between their actions and their intent to the point that intentionally doing something that is obviously going to cause a specific outcome in their minds isn't the same thing as intentionally desiring the outcome.

Is this directed at me?

I don't doubt that the right wing leaders were ginning up the mob and are culpable for the riot. My point is that I don't think anyone, even them, had any idea how this would lead to "stopping the steal" they had promised.

The people on the ground didn't know how it would stop the steal, but perhaps they assumed that those leaders directing them to the Capitol had a secret master strategy laid out.

Seems to me that the whole "stop the steal" plan turned out to be little more than:

1) riot
2) ???
3) Trump God-King for life.


Trump has always had a good instinct for fascist politics and pandering to the fascist base, but he's never been accused of being a strategic thinker.

I think all the digging in the world may never turn up any more explanation than this, and the "grand conspiracy" never had any plans beyond being Big Mad in public and rioting.

JoeMorgue 30th July 2021 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553644)
Is this directed at me?

No, at the Rioters on the 6th.

The narrative they (and their apologists and the "I'm totally not on their side but every argument I make will defend them" types) seem to want to push is.


"Did you on the 6th of January make the conscious decision to storm the Capital during the certification of the electoral votes?"
"Yes."
"Were you aware that doing so would disrupt the certification of the votes?"
"Yes."
"But your argument is you didn't intend to disrupt the certification of the votes?"
"Yes."

Again this stupid pretending that there is any difference between "I intended to do the thing" and "I intended to perform actions I knew would lead to the thing happening, but that's not the same as intending to do the thing" is something we keep coming back to with the proudly wrong.

Ziggurat 30th July 2021 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13553570)
What is your definition of a grand conspiracy?

A large competent group with a plan of illegal actions that would actually accomplish something real. Just planning to break in to stop the proceedings on that day (with no plan for what happens if they just do everything tomorrow) isn't a grand plan.

RecoveringYuppy 30th July 2021 11:39 AM

I don't know if SuburbanTurkey will agree or appreciate this but he has just said the same thing Ziggurat is saying. The actual conspiracies amongst this group are very limited and are in the "loons in the basement" category. There are not very many opportunities for flipping simply because most of the people involved didn't even know any of the other participants save the person or people they came with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553628)
To be honest, I really doubt there's a "grand conspiracy", at least nothing that goes to Trump.

It's pretty funny because the crowd did exactly what Trump's speech incited them to do and then... nothing. They went all in on throwing their lives away expecting that their leaders had some plan, then Trump went home and watched the riot on TV. The CHUDs actually succeeded in taking the building and disrupting the vote and their leaders did not pick up the baton and run with it. No insurrection act, no "storm", no cavalry riding in to secure a coup, nothing. They milled around for a bit and vandalized the place until enough cops showed up to clear the building.

They got hung out to dry when their supposed revolution turned into little more than a public tantrum to assuage Trump's ego. They actually believed his BS, the absolute morons, and found out the hard way there was no plan.

The cases of conspiracy we've seen include pre-existing fascist groups that had a history of engaging in organized political violence under their own volition without external leadership. Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and Q cranks have a long history of engaging in this kind of violence without the need of an outside instigator leading the charge. I imagine these groups would be open to coordinating with larger profile right wing leaders, but that's not necessary to explain what happened in this case.

Trump and other leaders of the fascist right were definitely whipping up the mob and pandering to their sense of grievance, but I don't think that necessarily means that they actually had any plan.


Ziggurat 30th July 2021 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TokenMac (Post 13553581)
I'm wondering how it is any better to steal the zip-tie restraints to keep the police from having them.

Better? I didn't say better. You can form your own opinions on that subjective question. But it's still different.

RecoveringYuppy 30th July 2021 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553653)
A large competent group with a plan of illegal actions that would actually accomplish something real. Just planning to break in to stop the proceedings on that day (with no plan for what happens if they just do everything tomorrow) isn't a grand plan.

Ziggurat has just defended himself but note that it should not be necessary to have asked. This was perfectly apparent from context provided by the quotes he replied to and by other things he said. Note that he acknowledged some level of conspiracy, "loons in the basement".

dirtywick 30th July 2021 11:43 AM

The crowd didn't get the idea that the election was fraudulent and if they could just get to Mike Pence to stop him from certifying the results Trump would still be president on their own.

In any case, I'd still be interested in knowing who the Trump admin communicated with regarding Jan 6 and what those communications consisted of.

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13553658)
Better? I didn't say better. You can form your own opinions on that subjective question. But it's still different.

Still waiting for you to cite the line from the prosecutor's filing that makes it clear they had no intention to use these restraints on anyone. You made it very clear that it was in plain black and white.

JoeMorgue 30th July 2021 11:44 AM

Listen who among doesn't grab the first pair of restraints we see lying about, just on the off chance we'll need them later?

dirtywick 30th July 2021 11:44 AM

Well it seems like grand can be anything. It can even be a boat.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM.

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