The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
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-zip-tie-guy-190644133.html

Why do so many people still believe the false version?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
uke2se said:
He wants to argue that there was no intention to grab any congress-people without actually saying so.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ziggurat said:
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-zip-tie-guy-190644133.html
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Belz... said:
Research with the specific goal of finding the conclusion you already have isn't very valuable.
Click to expand...

And it isn't honest research either!
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

That isn’t coming from his defense attorney. It came from the prosecution’s filing, which you can find through that link.

You really aren’t good at this research thing. Galaxy brain indeed.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...

Already addressed.

And it isn't honest research either!
Click to expand...

Since I’m right on the facts, you have to go after my motives. Nice.
 
Ziggurat said:
Already addressed.



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

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.

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).
Click to expand...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025/gov.uscourts.tnmd.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?
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Ziggurat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 Trumpenführer on 1/6.

The Repugnicans were afraid this would happen... their carefully crafted façade 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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom