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)

kookbreaker 31st July 2021 02:58 PM

Apparently “ambushing” means you give multiple warnings that you will shoot.

dudalb 31st July 2021 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13554646)
Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

Yeah, i meant New Accusations . Gohmert is a total nutjob.
WAPO did an article today about how Ashli has beomce that Horst Wessel for the Trump movement.

dudalb 31st July 2021 03:09 PM

I made a mistake. It was Gosart, not Gohmert who made the accusation about an ambush.

From the WAPO:

Quote:

Who executed Ashli Babbitt?” Gosar, a Trump ally, asked acting U.S. attorney general Jeffrey Rosen at a hearing in May. A month later, while questioning FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, Gosar said the officer “appeared to be hiding, lying in wait and then gave no warning before killing her.”

Trebuchet 31st July 2021 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13554757)
I made a mistake. It was Gosart, not Gohmert who made the accusation about an ambush.

From the WAPO:

Gohmert is the stupidest man in Congress, but not the only stupid man in Congress. And if you make it "stupidest person", Greene and Boebert give him a run for his money.

Resume 31st July 2021 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 13554779)
Gohmert is the stupidest man in Congress, but not the only stupid man in Congress. And if you make it "stupidest person", Greene and Boebert give him a run for his money.

They don't have to be smart, they just need the ability to gull and grift their base. Which they are doing, for time being.

dudalb 31st July 2021 03:49 PM

it's getting hard to tell these rfght wing GOP morons apart, frankly.

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 04:19 PM

Gosart's own siblings say he's nuts and want nothing to do with him:
Quote:

Quote:

Three of Rep. Paul Gosar's (R-Ariz.) siblings have called on him to be expelled from Congress, The Arizona Republic reported, placing blame on the congressman for helping incite the violent riot that took place at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Gosar’s siblings sent a letter to Rep. Raśl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asking for his help in removing their brother from Congress, the newspaper reported.

It's the third time in three years that members of Gosar's family have publicly voiced their disapproval of the representative.


"We know him to be an extremist and we took that very seriously," Jennifer Gosar told the newspaper. "I believe that my brother has been a constant perpetrator of misinformation. ... I've been incredulous at the lack of accountability thus far. I would think Wednesday would be certainly a line."
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5...r-capitol-riot
"When you talk about what happened the other day, you're talking about treason. You're talking about overthrowing the government. That's what this is. If that doesn't rise to the level of expulsion, what does?" said Tim Gosar.
It's as if GOP Congressmembers are vying to be crowned King and Queen of the Stupid Prom.

Lurch 31st July 2021 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13554753)
Yeah, i meant New Accusations . Gohmert is a total nutjob.
WAPO did an article today about how Ashli has beomce that Horst Wessel for the Trump movement.

WAPO is slow on the uptake. I recognized this new role of Babbitt's some weeks back. Next up; the sacred Blood Banner ritual. Someone's gonna come up with some purported blood-stained scrap of material attributed to her attire.

catsmate 1st August 2021 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13553669)
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?

I have a couple of pairs of handcuffs in my backpack, part os my standard kit.

Stacyhs 1st August 2021 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13555411)
I have a couple of pairs of handcuffs in my backpack, part os my standard kit.

Kinky! But, who am I to judge? :p

theprestige 1st August 2021 12:50 PM

I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?

Dragon 1st August 2021 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13555730)
I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

I very much doubt that you are.
Quote:

What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?
It took me about 30 seconds to find the relevant House resolution establishing the select committee. I come here to learn a bit about US politics and I find the sort of jaq-ing off you indulge in really, really tiresome. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

smartcooky 1st August 2021 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsmate (Post 13555411)
I have a couple of pairs of handcuffs in my backpack, part os my standard kit.

You mean like these?


smartcooky 1st August 2021 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragon (Post 13555763)
I very much doubt that you are.


It took me about 30 seconds to find the relevant House resolution establishing the select committee. I come here to learn a bit about US politics and I find the sort of jaq-ing off you indulge in really, really tiresome. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

That's not a bug, its a feature!

Parsman 2nd August 2021 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13555730)
I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?

Have you checked the thesaurus for a word you prefer to "coup" yet?

SuburbanTurkey 2nd August 2021 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13554671)
Is there such a thing as a "professional" insurrectionist? Several of those charged have military and/or law enforcement experience, especially the Oath Keepers.




https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/98542...tol-riot-probe

Plenty of the people involved with the more serious crimes like conspiracy or attacking the police had previous experience with street violence at smaller actions throughout the country over the last few years.

The Jan6 attack was not a one-off phenomena, but merely the capstone of a long running series of right wing violent street rallies. Like the Capitol attack, police inaction, if not explicit cooperation, played a big role in allowing these attacks to occur without meaningful resistance or criminal consequences for those involved.

Many of these Proud Boys were routinely jetting around the country to take part in street brawls and violent anti-government rallies and would have been easy targets for local or federal law enforcement should they had the desire to do their duty.

The Jan6 attack was only the most extreme example showing the danger that comes when police willfully turn a blind eye to fascist violence.

For example: Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boy leader currently facing conspiracy charges, became a meme for beating a counter protestor unconscious at a fascist rally turned riot in Portland in 2018. Police inaction against organized fascist violence is a long standing problem in this country. Proud Boys getting away with broad daylight crimes again and again was a huge factor in their rise of popularity and increasing boldness.

Mongrel 2nd August 2021 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13554872)
Someone's gonna come up with some purported blood-stained scrap of material attributed to her attire.

Teddy bear?
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

plague311 2nd August 2021 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13555730)
I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?

None. It's all just showboating for politics. There are no questions, no facts in dispute, and they have no meaningful objective. It's purely to waste taxpayer money by keeping people busy and for soundbites for the next election cycle.

There, I said it for you so we don't have to go through this coy ******** of you trying to con others into saying what you want to say.

None of what I posted up there is true though. If you're confused what it's investigating, maybe you should start with some basic googling, and then come back with actual questions.

SuburbanTurkey 2nd August 2021 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plague311 (Post 13556913)
None. It's all just a showboating for politics. There are no questions, no facts in dispute, and they have no meaningful objective. It's purely to waste taxpayer money by keeping people busy and for soundbites for the next election cycle.

There, I said it for you so we don't have to go through this coy ******** of you trying to con others into saying what you want to say.

None of what I posted up there is true though. If you're confused what it's investigating, maybe you should start with same basic googling, and then come back with actual questions.

A large portion of this investigation is largely going to be political showboating.

That's not a criticism though. This attack is part of a larger political crisis being drummed up by the fascist right, and fighting back against it will be inherently political as well. Staking out a firm position about the very basics of the attack: who was there, what happened, why it happened, and to what political purpose it served, is an important piece of political communication.

The attack is a direct result of the brand of fascist politics popular among the American right wing these days, and it's worthwhile goal to extract a political cost by publicly and painfully exploring the gritty details. If it galvanizes liberals and makes squishy right wingers (if there are any left at this point) waver in their support for an increasingly fascist Republican party, that's a good outcome.

I have to give Pelosi credit for being shrewd enough to realize this and deny Republicans a position to muddy the waters and go on tedious tangents meant to blunt the right wing's responsibility for the attack.

There is some real stuff to investigate though. I am hoping that they really sink their teeth into Capitol police leadership and get to the bottom of why the cops were so woefully underprepared for the obviously telegraphed right wing threat. It remains to be seen if this happens.

TL;DR: It's a good thing if Democrats are waving the bloody shirt.

Paul2 2nd August 2021 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13556920)
A large portion of this investigation is largely going to be political showboating.

That's not a criticism though. This attack is part of a larger political crisis being drummed up by the fascist right, and fighting back against it will be inherently political as well. Staking out a firm position about the very basics of the attack: who was there, what happened, why it happened, and to what political purpose it served, is an important piece of political communication.

The attack is a direct result of the brand of fascist politics popular among the American right wing these days, and it's worthwhile goal to extract a political cost by publicly and painfully exploring the gritty details.

I have to give Pelosi credit for being shrewd enough to realize this and deny Republicans a position to muddy the waters and go on tedious tangents meant to blunt the right wing's responsibility for the attack. If it galvanizes liberals and makes squishy right wingers (if there are any left at this point) waver in their support for an increasingly fascist Republican party, that's a good outcome.

There is some real stuff to investigate though. I am hoping that they really sink their teeth into Capitol police leadership and get to the bottom of why the cops were so woefully underprepared for the obviously telegraphed right wing threat. It remains to be seen if this happens.

Yes, it's possible to score political points as part of a substantive investigation. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Skeptic Ginger 2nd August 2021 11:31 AM

While most/all of these Congressional hearings include showboating for individual legislators (Jim Jordan being one of the worst barely beating out Cruz and Rubio), it's simply not true that nothing new is uncovered and that the hearings serve no other purpose.

There is a lot here already I didn't know about such as Jordan's call(s) to Dump on the 6th.

The testimony of Vindman and Hill for example, was completely new stuff for me in the impeachment hearing.

SuburbanTurkey 2nd August 2021 11:34 AM

My only complaint is that they waited too damn long. The right wing machine has already run history through their revisionism machine.

In the immediate aftermath there was more chaos on the right and how they should respond. I fear they are far less vulnerable to getting their feet held to fire at this late date.

Skeptic Ginger 2nd August 2021 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13556936)
My only complaint is that they waited too damn long. The right wing machine has already run history through their revisionism machine.

In the immediate aftermath there was more chaos on the right and how they should respond. I fear they are far less vulnerable to getting their feet held to fire at this late date.

There's another argument to be made here. What does "feet to the fire" accomplish? Is the DoJ going to indict these people?

Probably not. But closer to the 2022 election, now that might be the place we want all this to boil up around.

SuburbanTurkey 2nd August 2021 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13556939)
There's another argument to be made here. What does "feet to the fire" accomplish? Is the DoJ going to indict these people?

Probably not. But closer to the 2022 election, now that might be the place we want all this to boil up around.

There might have been an opportunity to sow division among the broader right if some were willing to repudiate Trump or the Jan6 attackers in the immediate aftermath. Now everybody on the right is pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum, minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up and valorizing those that took action to "stop the steal".

I predict there's almost no chance of any indictments coming from the investigation unless someone perjures themselves, and that strikes me as unlikely.

Stacyhs 2nd August 2021 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13556486)
Plenty of the people involved with the more serious crimes like conspiracy or attacking the police had previous experience with street violence at smaller actions throughout the country over the last few years.

The Jan6 attack was not a one-off phenomena, but merely the capstone of a long running series of right wing violent street rallies. Like the Capitol attack, police inaction, if not explicit cooperation, played a big role in allowing these attacks to occur without meaningful resistance or criminal consequences for those involved.

Many of these Proud Boys were routinely jetting around the country to take part in street brawls and violent anti-government rallies and would have been easy targets for local or federal law enforcement should they had the desire to do their duty.

The Jan6 attack was only the most extreme example showing the danger that comes when police willfully turn a blind eye to fascist violence.

For example: Ethan Nordean, a Proud Boy leader currently facing conspiracy charges, became a meme for beating a counter protestor unconscious at a fascist rally turned riot in Portland in 2018. Police inaction against organized fascist violence is a long standing problem in this country. Proud Boys getting away with broad daylight crimes again and again was a huge factor in their rise of popularity and increasing boldness.

Yes, lots of them have a history of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't make them "professional" insurrectionists. It makes them repeat offenders.

SuburbanTurkey 2nd August 2021 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13557009)
Yes, lots of them have a history of this kind of behavior, but that doesn't make them "professional" insurrectionists. It makes them repeat offenders.

Their experience of engaging in this exact kind of behavior is probably more relevant than any tangential training they received through police and military jobs.

The closest thing to a "professional" insurrectionist are the grifter leaders, like Fedrico Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes, who manage to generate profit through trading on the name recognition of these fascist groups.

Stacyhs 2nd August 2021 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13557016)
Their experience of engaging in this exact kind of behavior is probably more relevant than any tangential training they received through police and military jobs.

The closest thing to a "professional" insurrectionist are the grifter leaders, like Fedrico Tarrio or Stewart Rhodes, who manage to generate profit through trading on the name recognition of these fascist groups.

Speaking of Steward Rhodes, it's likely that he will also be charged with conspiracy considering the emails and phone conversations the Feds have.

PhantomWolf 3rd August 2021 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13556945)
There might have been an opportunity to sow division among the broader right if some were willing to repudiate Trump or the Jan6 attackers in the immediate aftermath. Now everybody on the right is pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum, minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up and valorizing those that took action to "stop the steal".

I predict there's almost no chance of any indictments coming from the investigation unless someone perjures themselves, and that strikes me as unlikely.

If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

SuburbanTurkey 3rd August 2021 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 13557621)
If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

jimbob 3rd August 2021 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13557724)
Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

Exactly, and if one lies under oath but there's no proof - "I don't recall", it's also not something that will get a conviction.

crescent 3rd August 2021 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf (Post 13557621)
If the Right are all "pretty much marching to the beat of the same drum" and are "minimizing the seriousness of the legitimacy crisis they ginned up" and "valorizing those that took action" and they say these untrue things in front of the Committee, then isn't that exactly what "perjur(ing) themselves" would be?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13557724)
Opinions are not perjury. Saying that Babbitt is a martyr and a patriot is not perjury, for example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13557726)
Exactly, and if one lies under oath but there's no proof - "I don't recall", it's also not something that will get a conviction.

That, and it is hard to prove a negative. You can't prove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd. So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

acbytesla 3rd August 2021 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 13557902)
That, and it is hard to prove a negative. You can't prove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd. So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

I understand your point and excuse me for saying this, but it is naive and ridiculous. Determining guilt does not require a finding of beyond all doubt, but beyond reasonable doubt.

So the question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that January 6th was the result of ANTIFA?"

The answer is an obvious no.

crescent 3rd August 2021 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acbytesla (Post 13557951)
I understand your point and excuse me for saying this but it is naive and ridiculous. Determining guilt does not require a determination of beyond all doubt but beyond reasonable doubt.

So the question is, "Is it reasonable to believe that January 6th was the result of ANTIFA?"

The answer is an obvious no.

I agree. Except....

But the I was responding to a post that was focusing on the potential for charges of perjury. If a witness gets up there at the hearing and swears that Antifa was there, he won't get charged with perjury.

Getting a conviction for perjury seems to be a pretty high bar to cross. A judge and jury may not believe what a witness claims, and may convict in spite of that witness's testimony - but does not mean that the witness is likely to be charged with perjury.

And at any rate, this is just a committee before congress. Nobody gets convicted of anything in these hearings. At best, they can daylight some hypocrisy, which supporters of the former President don't care about anyway.

acbytesla 3rd August 2021 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 13557974)
I agree. Except....

But the I was responding to a post that was focusing on the potential for charges of perjury. If a witness gets up there at the hearing and swears that Antifa was there, he won't get charged with perjury.

Getting a conviction for perjury seems to be a pretty high bar to cross. A judge and jury may not believe what a witness claims, and may convict in spite of that witness's testimony - but does not mean that the witness is likely to be charged with perjury.

And at any rate, this is just a committee before congress. Nobody gets convicted of anything in these hearings. At best, they can daylight some hypocrisy, which supporters of the former President don't care about anyway.

I agree and disagree. it depends a great deal on the other evidence. If Congress believes you're perjuring yourself, they don't issue a charge, they make a recommendation to the DOJ that you should be investigated for committing perjury or making false claims to Congress. It is up to the DOJ to charge or not charge. They might charge you just to squeeze you.

BTW, both Roger Stone and Michael Cohen were convicted of lying to Congress as well as a few Nixon aides off the top of my head.

Skeptic Ginger 3rd August 2021 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crescent (Post 13557902)
That, and it is hard to prove a negative. [/b]You can'tprove that there were no organized Antifa groups in that crowd.[/b] So it would not be perjury to say that you're convinced there were Antifa plants organizing the whole thing, and that failure to identify them just proves something nefarious about a grand liberal coverup.

The fact that there is absolutely no evidence supporting accusations of Antifa activity at the Capitol on January 6 would not be enough for perjury charges against those who claim otherwise. (Unless they made much more specific charges, which any experienced political person would know how to avoid.)

I'm not sure where 'false beliefs' falls in the perjury law but ignorance is considered not an excuse so it should apply to perjury as well. It would be up to the sentencing judge to take those kinds of circumstances into account. If you think about it, a lot of these weekend revolutionary wannabes are claiming they believed the POTUS sent them. Will those guys get off?

On the subject of proving the negative, there were a limited number of people in the melee. So it's not like one needs to prove some kind of infinite negative.


Getting to legislators who are are going to be found complicit, it will be interesting to see how believing 'the big lie' is going to play out on the perjury before Congress stage.

varwoche 3rd August 2021 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13555730)
I'm sorry if this has already been asked and answered. What questions, exactly, is this investigation investigating?

I don't recall ever seeing such a finely distilled example of JAQing.

dudalb 3rd August 2021 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by varwoche (Post 13558167)
I don't recall ever seeing such a finely distilled example of JAQing.

THIS.
The right wingers attempt to hand wave away 1/6 is becoming more desperate.

smartcooky 3rd August 2021 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13558177)
THIS.
The right wingers attempt to hand wave away 1/6 is becoming more desperate.

The more the facade crumbles, the more the cover up is exposed, the more desperate they will become!

Stacyhs 3rd August 2021 02:36 PM

Another officer who responded to the Jan. 6 insurrection has died by suicide. So that's three by suicide, and one from a stroke.

Stacyhs 4th August 2021 02:02 PM

A DOJ official between the election and Jan. 6 tried to get acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to sign a letter saying the DOJ had found irregularities in the election which was a lie. Both Rosen and Donoghue refused. The letter was sent on Dec. 28, 2020

Quote:

A draft letter reportedly circulated late last year by a Donald Trump-loyalist at the Justice Department shows the lengths his allies were willing to go to overturn the presidential election.

The draft December 28 letter, published by ABC News, urged top Georgia officials to convene the state legislature in a special session to evaluate supposed “irregularities” in the 2020 election.

The letter said, falsely, that Justice Department had identified “significant concerns that may have impacted of the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

According to internal Justice Department emails also obtained by ABC News, the letter was circulated by Jeffrey Clark, a top department official who was working with the then-President to get the department more directly involved in the Trump election reversal crusade. Clark was acting attorney general of the civil division at the time.

He sent the draft letter, according to the emails, to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue. Though the letter was directed to Georgia, Clark’s email indicated that he wanted to send similar versions to “each relevant state.”

“I set it up for signature by the three of us. I think we should get it out as soon as possible,” Clark told Rosen and Donoghue, according to the emails obtained by ABC News.
Quote:

The draft letter was one of several examples of how Trump tried to weaponize the Justice Department in his efforts to reverse his electoral defeat. Trump himself demanded that DOJ officials declare the election “illegal” and “corrupt,” according to notes of a December 27 call Trump had with Rosen and Donoghue released by the House committee last week. Internal DOJ documents previously released by the committee showed that Trump allies had also pressured the department to get involved in the legal fight to disrupt the election results.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/04/polit...sal/index.html

Clark later tried to get Trump to appointment him acting Attorney General but Rosen and Donoghue stopped it according to ABC News.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 AM.

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