The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

“How DARE you show emotion when talking about how you were almost beaten to death by lunatics I support!!”

It's weird that people are expected to stay entirely detached from traumatic memories by other people who are constantly afraid of everything.

[Armitage72]

Originally Posted by jollyroger85

The attempt to overturn the Democratic process was Unamerican. ANYONE who was inside that building should face time, and those who were clearly ringleaders deserve time at gitmo, with the same treatment given those suspected of involvement in things AL Qaeda etc, because there is no difference in who and what they are. Anyone who openly sympathizes with the guilty deserve an active FBI file as well.

You heard me.

From your post count and join date, you may not be familiar with Cain. He's kind of the forum's Stephen Colbert, specifically the character he portrayed on the Colbert Report. Most of his posts are parodies meant to emphasize and mock the extreme views of others.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Or, more accurately, posted a movie review after reading the title of another review for that movie... broadcast on Fox News.

Considering the fact that the poster has more or less admitted in the past that a large part of his support of Trump was because he hurts the libs...I guess this is par for the course.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Susheel

Considering the fact that the poster has more or less admitted in the past that a large part of his support of Trump was because he hurts the libs...I guess this is par for the course.

It's such a strange way to do politics, isn't it? Not any actual policies or goals you have for yourself and people around you, but just sticking it to some vague "other". That's so sad.

[sackett]

When somebody cites Clint Eastwood and Johnny Wayne as REAL men, I kinda take it for sarcasm.

[jollyroger85]

Originally Posted by Armitage72

From your post count and join date, you may not be familiar with Cain. He's kind of the forum's Stephen Colbert, specifically the character he portrayed on the Colbert Report. Most of his posts are parodies meant to emphasize and mock the extreme views of others.

Got it, I still spoke my piece.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Back in the good ole days, men experiencing trauma would keep a stiff upper lip and come home, become alcoholic wrecks that terrorize their families, and die young in a "gun cleaning" accident.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by sackett

When somebody cites Clint Eastwood and Johnny Wayne as REAL men, I kinda take it for sarcasm.

Hollywood celebrities. mmmmff

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by jollyroger85

Got it, I still spoke my piece.

Don't feel bad Roger. You're not initiated here until you've been Cained.

Welcome aboard.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course emotionally detailed accounts are the best kind of accounts. I certainly hope that Congress passes new laws based on emotionally detailed accounts.

The accounts also contained facts. Lots of facts. Let’s pay attention to the facts; people do occasionally get emotional when talking about attempted murder and the overthrow of a government, so we can just talk about facts.

Or do you prefer “alternate facts?”

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

The accounts also contained facts. Lots of facts. Let’s pay attention to the facts; people do occasionally get emotional when talking about attempted murder and the overthrow of a government, so we can just talk about facts.

Nope. Emotions present means we can ignore everything else. It's the low-hanging fruit principle.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

The accounts also contained facts. Lots of facts. Let’s pay attention to the facts; people do occasionally get emotional when talking about attempted murder and the overthrow of a government, so we can just talk about facts.

OK, let's do that. Let's talk about the facts.

The DOJ has a web page set up for the January 6 cases:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
I'm going through the list right now. I can find no cases where anyone has been charged with attempted murder.

If protesters attempted to murder anyone, why have none of them been charges with such a crime? That seems... odd.

[ahhell]

The Capitol riot was terrible, Trump should have been impeached, and he should be barred from public office and the police's testimony is basically just emotional appeal and not especially necessary. The important stuff will be white house records(now in the hands of the current administration) and a bunch of Trump staffers pleading the fifth or maybe even testifying.

Also, the vast majority of GOP pols in federal office are blatantly lying about the events.

Also, gotta love Trump, he's the only guy that can get progressives defending the police, FBI, and CIA and get conservatives to condemn and ignore those bulwarks against fascism.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

OK, let's do that. Let's talk about the facts.

The DOJ has a web page set up for the January 6 cases:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
I'm going through the list right now. I can find no cases where anyone has been charged with attempted murder.

If protesters attempted to murder anyone, why have none of them been charges with such a crime? That seems... odd.

It seems odd to you that prosecutors pick charges that are much easier to get a conviction on?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It seems odd to you that prosecutors pick charges that are much easier to get a conviction on?

Let's completely ignore their stated reasons for being there, to begin with.

[Shalamar]

Two More Conservative posters: "They're being emotional!"

Two more points towards my hypothesis: "It's only wrong when a Liberal/Democrat/commie/progressive does it."

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Let's completely ignore their stated reasons for being there, to begin with.

Oh, I certainly agree that the rioters could and maybe even should be charged with attempted murder, but it's certainly far more difficult to make a case that any one rioter was responsible for the attempt.

Maybe we should lay the charges for attempted murder at the feet of the guy who instigated the whole thing, as he's bound to be easier to convict. I'm sure Zig would be happy with that.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

It seems odd to you that prosecutors pick charges that are much easier to get a conviction on?

Well, yes. Attempted murder is a very, very serious crime. Much more serious than trespass, much more serious than even assault. If someone has attempted to murder a capitol police officer, convicting them on a trespass charge doesn't really suffice. Why aren't prosecutors even trying to charge anyone with attempted murder? It isn't like the DOJ is unwilling to overprosecute, or to prosecute charges that they might not secure a conviction on. They do that **** all the time. And this isn't even a case of them just going after the most obvious culprits first. autumn1971 is claiming that there was attempted murder, but NO ONE is being charged with that.

Yes, that's very, very odd.

Unless he's just making **** up, and there was never any attempted murder. Then it's all perfectly normal.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Oh, I certainly agree that the rioters could and maybe even should be charged with attempted murder, but it's certainly far more difficult to make a case that any one rioter was responsible for the attempt.

I wasn't disagreeing with you; rather adding to your post against Zig's point.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, that's very, very odd.

Unless he's just making **** up, and there was never any attempted murder. Then it's all perfectly normal.

Or unless it would be very hard to prove even though there's actual evidence, and they have better odds of conviction for lesser charges, getting attempted murderers off the streets.

This is standard stuff. What's odd is that this is a mystery to you once those on the receiving end are on your side of the political spectrum.

That's why it's better to not have a side on said spectrum.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Well, yes. Attempted murder is a very, very serious crime. Much more serious than trespass, much more serious than even assault. If someone has attempted to murder a capitol police officer, convicting them on a trespass charge doesn't really suffice. Why aren't prosecutors even trying to charge anyone with attempted murder? It isn't like the DOJ is unwilling to overprosecute, or to prosecute charges that they might not secure a conviction on. They do that **** all the time. And this isn't even a case of them just going after the most obvious culprits first. autumn1971 is claiming that there was attempted murder, but NO ONE is being charged with that.

Yes, that's very, very odd.

Unless he's just making **** up, and there was never any attempted murder. Then it's all perfectly normal.

How do you prove that one man in a crowd of those committing assault was attempting murder? The crowd was certainly attempting to kill, the cumulative effects of the assault were certainly likely to result in a murder, but how do you prove that anyone in that crowd was attempting to commit murder?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I wasn't disagreeing with you; rather adding to your post against Zig's point.

I thought so, but wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up!

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by wareyin

I thought so, but wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up!

It does feels weird when we both agree on something.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

How do you prove that one man in a crowd of those committing assault was attempting murder? The crowd was certainly attempting to kill, the cumulative effects of the assault were certainly likely to result in a murder, but how do you prove that anyone in that crowd was attempting to commit murder?

"Certainly"?

How exactly are you so certain that this is what the crowd is trying to do? And why, if you're certain that the crowd is trying to do this, can you not say that about any individual in the crowd?

It seems to me you're trying to establish an unfalsifiable standard. I don't accept that, certainly not as "fact".

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Certainly"?

How exactly are you so certain that this is what the crowd is trying to do? And why, if you're certain that the crowd is trying to do this, can you not say that about any individual in the crowd?

It seems to me you're trying to establish an unfalsifiable standard. I don't accept that, certainly not as "fact".

Ok let's try this: why was this crowd there, according to the people who went there, and why did they break into the building?

For bonus points: take into consideration that they actually killed someone.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Of course emotionally detailed accounts are the best kind of accounts. I certainly hope that Congress passes new laws based on emotionally detailed accounts.

No more emotional than people testifying about the 9/11 attacks.
Or the people testifying about how much federal funding was reaching first responders.

But I suppose we could balance the overly-emotional testimony with the testimony of the The Congressfolk who lead tours on 5 January. Let’s hope that they are resolute enough and dauntless¹ enough to step forward and explain what they did.


(1) good words to use in Washington. Partly because of the historical connotations and partly because Trump most likely doesn’t know the definition of either one.

[Belz...]

I for one would really like to know what's wrong with emotional accounts, as long as they are accurate.

[kookbreaker]

“I was dragged out by the crowd, they hit me with my own taser, tried to steal my gun, and tried to gouge my eye out”

Republicans: “You are sooooo emotional about this! Let’s fret about the Capitol terrorists are not having a nice time in prison!!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Laura Ingraham on Fox is giving out 'best performance' awards to police officers from today’s hearing

Video in link

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1420209713644331009

I saw that last night. It is so ******* disgusting!

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Dragging this over here from the other thread:

Many of the police worked hard that day in extremely adverse conditions and did their duty well. We also know that some did not.

Last I checked 6 were put on leave to investigate their conduct during the attack where some cops were seen glad-handing the mob and made it pretty clear where their sympathies lied. It's plainly obvious that decisions were made that left the Capitol a soft target, and the reasons for why that happened must be investigated thoroughly.

If the chief resigned, that's a good thing, but that's not the end of things. The leadership decision to not be prepared needs to be publicly explored in detail. Firing leadership is a necessary result, but not the end of the matter. The public needs to understand what was motivating this failure and how to prevent future repeats.

The police enabling of right wing political violence is a nationwide problem that must be addressed. The Capitol police being unprepared to stop a clearly telegraphed right wing attack is not a one-off phenomena. Across the country we have been seeing that police are either inexplicably unable or unwilling to enforce the law against violent right wing actors. I can't think of a higher profile way than to explore this particular example in extreme detail.

I agree with all of that, which is one good that actually can come out of the hearings. I assume you know that bolded sentence was not Pelosi but by all means let's see the evidence.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Belz...

I for one would really like to know what's wrong with emotional accounts, as long as they are accurate.

Nothing. How the events and the proceeding response impacted the people involved is a part of the account. This isn't an argument being made, it's a statement from their point of view.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

"Certainly"?

How exactly are you so certain that this is what the crowd is trying to do?

Other than their own words and actions, before, during, and afterwards?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And why, if you're certain that the crowd is trying to do this, can you not say that about any individual in the crowd?

We can certainly say that about any individual in the crowd. The problem is not what we can say, but what we can prove beyond reasonable doubt in court. "Your honor, while my client was caught on video beating a police officer with a metal pole, he wasn't actually trying to kill him. It was the rest of the crowd that was trying, my client fully intended to stop short of death." Heck, we can't even get half the country to agree that a riot in which 170 some police officers were injured, 5 people were killed, and millions of dollars in damage was done was worse than a typical tour of the Capitol Building, but you think it'd be easy to get a jury to unanimously agree to attempted murder?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It seems to me you're trying to establish an unfalsifiable standard. I don't accept that, certainly not as "fact".

Hmmm, your inability to falsify something doesn't actually make it unfalsifiable. Your inability to accept video and witness testimony actually strengthens my argument as to why a prosecutor may decide not to charge people with absolutely everything he can this time around, so thanks for that.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Nothing. How the events and the proceeding response impacted the people involved is a part of the account. This isn't an argument being made, it's a statement from their point of view.

I guess our resident right-wingers don't like impact statements, either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

OK, let's do that. Let's talk about the facts.

The DOJ has a web page set up for the January 6 cases:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
I'm going through the list right now. I can find no cases where anyone has been charged with attempted murder.

If protesters attempted to murder anyone, why have none of them been charges with such a crime? That seems... odd.

I'm pretty sure they started with preliminary charges to get the case rolling and get search warrants. But they are still investigating, especially the videos and in some cases, videos on the insurgents' cameras that weren't shown in the clips that were on social media.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

...
How exactly are you so certain that this is what the crowd is trying to do? And why, if you're certain that the crowd is trying to do this, can you not say that about any individual in the crowd? ...

For a lot of those criminals it really was only criminal trespass and trying to hinder the Congress from certifying the vote. For others there is evidence they planned the attack. And for still others murder charges are warranted. The guy who bashed the window in that Babbitt climbed through before she was shot, for example, is guilty of murder because he was involved in a crime that lead to her death.

Not sure where these cases will end up. If you attack someone who shortly after dies from a heart attack or stroke, I'm not sure what the law says about that.
CNN: Two men arrested and charged for assaulting Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick

Quote:

Julian Elie Khater, 32, of Pennsylvania, and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of West Virginia, are alleged to have worked together to spray police, including Sicknick, with a toxic chemical spray during the Capitol riot. Khater called what was in the cannister "bear sh*t," according to court records, but the Justice Department on Monday said the spray is unknown.
Investigators had struggled for weeks to build a federal murder case in Sicknick's death as they pored over video and photographs to try to determine the moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries. Investigators determined that initial reports suggesting Sicknick had been struck with a fire extinguisher weren't true.

Lawfare Blog: Felony Murder and the Storming of the Capitol

Quote:

When the news broke that people had been killed during the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, commentators began speculating that at least some of the pro-Trump rioters could be charged with murder—in particular, felony murder. The felony murder rule is a complicated legal doctrine that can result in a murder conviction for people who did not intend to kill and for people who did not personally cause anyone’s death. Though the facts of precisely what happened at the Capitol are still coming to light, it seems likely that prosecutors could file felony murder charges against at least some of the rioters.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Other than their own words and actions, before, during, and afterwards?

It's really amazing, isn't it? They organised this thing in order to overturn the election, threatened to hang Pence and kill AOC and others, brought material to carry this out, brought weapons, actually killed a police officer, broke into the seat of government, and one of them got shot trying to get into the place where the congresspeople they said they would kill were hiding, and Zig still can't figure out how you could possibly conclude that they were trying to murder people.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Other than their own words and actions, before, during, and afterwards?

What words exactly? So they've essentially confessed... but the prosecutors can't even try to bring them up on charges for it?

Again, this isn't making any sense. Are the prosecutors trying to go easy on them? Or do you somehow know more than the prosecutors?

The excuse being offered, that they're only going after the easier to convict charges, is obvious nonsense. Prosecutors sometimes go easy on bringing serious charges because limited resources mean they want to allocate their time and effort elsewhere where it can provide more payoff. But the DOJ has made it pretty damn obvious that this isn't a limiting factor here. They're willing to pour a **** ton of resources into these cases. They aren't going to avoid bringing an attempted murder charge because it might not stick. Hell, they even brought charges against someone who wasn't even there. They're not exactly afraid of bringing charges so flimsy they have to drop them even before going to trial. We know this because they've done this.

If they're not bringing attempted murder charges, the most likely explanation is that they don't think there's ANY chance of getting a conviction. And the simplest explanation for that is that nobody is actually guilty of attempted murder.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

“I was dragged out by the crowd, they hit me with my own taser, tried to steal my gun, and tried to gouge my eye out”

Republicans: “You are sooooo emotional about this! Let’s fret about the Capitol terrorists are not having a nice time in prison!!

Hey, maybe at last we'll get some of the usual "tough on crime" conservatives on board with penal reform!

Okay, that didn't sound quite as crazy inside my head.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What words exactly? So they've essentially confessed... but the prosecutors can't even try to bring them up on charges for it?

Again, this isn't making any sense. Are the prosecutors trying to go easy on them? Or do you somehow know more than the prosecutors?

You would probably be a lot less confused if you actually watched any of the testimony talked about in this thread, any news source other than FOX, NesMaxx, or OANN that showed video, or read any unbiased article about Jan 6th.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

These four men recounted in graphic detail what happened to them, supported with graphic body-cam video. They were beaten the crap out of, one was tazered repeatedly with his own tazer, one had his eyes gouged, one now has a permanent traumatic brain injury that will affect him for the rest of his life, and your take away from all that was to mock them for their emotions. Well, I guess if I was beaten to the point of fearing for my life, I would be emotional too when recounting it to others, as would any thinking, feeling member of the human race.

That's all true, of course, but we should recognize that discussing such things with pseudonymous ****** is not necessarily the same as interacting with thinking, feeling members of the human race.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I can sum up the causes of 1/6 in four short paragraphs...

1. For more than six months leading up to the 2020 Presidential election, Donald Trump sowed the seeds of distrust among the morons that make up his base by repeatedly stating that if he lost the election, it would be because the Democrats will have stolen it.

2. When he actually did lose the election in November 2020 (by over seven million votes) he amplified his claims into The Big Lie. Taking a leaf from the Joseph Goebbels' Book of Propaganda, he incessantly repeated The Big Lie until he brainwashed his moronic followers into believing it.

3. In the weeks leading up to Electoral College certification, he ramped up the lies, repeating The Big Lie repeatedly, and adding in other lies such as the lie that the VP could stop the count and declare Trump the winner, and the lie that he could declare martial law to stop the Electoral College vote. He was ably assisted spreading those lies by a number of co-conspirators... Rudy Giuliani, Sydney Powell, Paul Gosar, Mo Brooks, Michael Flynn, Ted Cruz, Matt Gaetz, Josh Hawley, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Lauren Boebert et al.

4. He invited his moronic base of deplorables to come to Washington DC for a rally. He had a number of his fellow traitors, including his idiot family, whip up his moronic base into a blind frenzy, pointed them at the Capitol and told them to stop the Electoral College vote - 'Stop what's happening in that building'.... and they did!

That too is all true, but why should anyone become emotional just because a few thousand morons and traitors invaded the US Capitol for the purpose of putting an end to over two centuries of democratic tradition and the rule of law?

Seriously, can you imagine *********** or ******** becoming the least bit upset about that? I can't.

And if you think Officer Hodges was emotional during Tuesday's testimony, you should watch the video of Hodges being crushed in the doorway on 6 January. It's hard to imagine Clint Eastwood or John Wayne screaming like that just because they were in real danger of being crushed to death.

And consider Officer Fanone, when he became separated from his fellow law enforcement officers and was beaten and tased by rioters who called him a traitor and chanted "kill him with his own gun." Fanone was so scared that he appealed to the emotions of his would-be killers by saying he has kids. Can you imagine *********** or ******** paying the slightest attention to such a transparent appeal to humanity? I can't. Yet at least some of the rioters relented, allowing Fanone to be rescued and dragged back to relative safety. As we saw in video from his body camera, Fanone became as stoic as Eastwood or Wayne during his rescue. By then, of course, he was unconscious, just like Eastwood and Wayne were when acting their most famous roles. Doctors say Fanone was lucky to escape with nothing worse than a heart attack, concussion, and traumatic brain injury. Why, that's nothing compared to the many shootings Eastwood and Wayne have suffered on screen.

Gonell was beaten with a flagpole, sprayed with bear spray, and suffered a lacerated hand. Would Eastwood or Wayne have complained about such treatment? I've seen videos in which they remained stoically silent, even after they'd been killed.

Dunn was repeatedly called a name that starts with the letter N. Can you imagine how Clint Eastwood or John Wayne would have responded? They'd have shot the scoundrels without a second thought. But Dunn over-reacted: Instead of reaching for his firearm, he became emotional hours, days, and months later.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by jollyroger85

Got it, I still spoke my piece.

As acbytesla said, you've been 'Cained'. It's almost an initiation into ISF for newbies to be informed of Cain's parodies. Happened to me, too. The sad part is that things are so bad that what should be obvious parodies can understandably be mistaken for serious posts.