The Jan. 6 Investigation

[Ziggurat]

Only if you completely ignore the context in which the threat was made. Which you are.

You invented an entire context, in which she made the threat first, entered the building and went searching for Pelosi. But none of that happened.

If an unknown person were to break into your office building during a time when you were there and be heard to say, "I'm going to find and kill Ziggurat!" as they left. Would you consider that to be merely an empty threat?

Again, you are inventing context which doesn't exist. She didn't say she was going to find Pelosi and kill her. She said that if she HAD found her, she would have killed her. And yes, the distinction matters. Threats of future action are not the same as hypotheticals about past actions. And at this point, she's not an unknown person anymore. The FBI knows exactly who she is, and you can be sure they have scrutinized her quite carefully. There is no indication that she was even capable of carrying out her hypothetical attack. You are also conflating how one treats a threat in the absence of knowledge with how to treat that threat when the situation is known and any threat that may have existed is passed.

It is not an opinion that we do not know if she was armed when she broke into the Capitol building. It is a statement of fact until more evidence immerges. You are the one dismissing her threat solely because of your beliefs.

You don't think the FBI knows if she owns a gun? Of course they know. You don't think they would mention that she owns one if she did? That stretches credulity, since (again) they found even owning Lego sets worthy of mention. Lots of suspects who did own guns had their gun inventory meticulously detailed by the FBI.

The evidence is that she doesn't own a gun. And it is unlikely that she would be carrying one without owning it.

I contend her threat was credible.

The FBI does not contend that it was credible.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The "Context" is a violent break-in into a government building with me Representatives doing important government business.
That alone, according to Castle Doctrine, means that the Capitol Police could have shot every single one of them.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You invented an entire context, in which she made the threat first, entered the building and went searching for Pelosi. But none of that happened.



Again, you are inventing context which doesn't exist. She didn't say she was going to find Pelosi and kill her. She said that if she HAD found her, she would have killed her. And yes, the distinction matters. Threats of future action are not the same as hypotheticals about past actions. And at this point, she's not an unknown person anymore. The FBI knows exactly who she is, and you can be sure they have scrutinized her quite carefully. There is no indication that she was even capable of carrying out her hypothetical attack. You are also conflating how one treats a threat in the absence of knowledge with how to treat that threat when the situation is known and any threat that may have existed is passed.



You don't think the FBI knows if she owns a gun? Of course they know. You don't think they would mention that she owns one if she did? That stretches credulity, since (again) they found even owning Lego sets worthy of mention. Lots of suspects who did own guns had their gun inventory meticulously detailed by the FBI.

The evidence is that she doesn't own a gun. And it is unlikely that she would be carrying one without owning it.



The FBI does not contend that it was credible.

False the Threat was spoken by her and that makes it credible she simply Lacked Oppertunity to carry out the Threat and the FBI is concentrating resource on bigger fish.

 

[Upchurch]

You invented an entire context, in which she made the threat first, entered the building and went searching for Pelosi. But none of that happened.

Meanwhile, in the very same post:

She said that if she HAD found her, she would have killed her.

But that's worse. You see how that's worse, right?

In your paraphrase, she's admitting, after the fact, that her intention was to kill Pelosi when she was in the same building as her. The only reason she didn't is because she hadn't found her.

And yes, the distinction matters. Threats of future action are not the same as hypotheticals about past actions.

Yeah, that distinction matters. It's no longer a threat of future action, but an admission to the crime of attempted murder. (Assuming your paraphrase is correct, which is not a version I have heard.)

You don't think the FBI knows if she owns a gun?

I seem to remember gun control opponents shouting something about most gun crime happening with stolen guns, rather than legally purchased guns. I'll have to double-check that.


Also, The Great Zaganza is correct. I didn't invent the January 6 Insurrection.


ETA:

And it is unlikely that she would be carrying one without owning it.

Why? Because this person who broke into the Capitol with, according to you, the intention to kill Nancy Pelosi and then bragged about it, has great respect for following the law? Could you elaborate on your "logic" here a bit?

 

[Ziggurat]

Meanwhile, in the very same post:

But that's worse. You see how that's worse, right?

Except now you're ignoring context again. She said she searched for Pelosi. But she in fact did not search for Pelosi. She is bragging about having done something she did not do. Do you not see how that undermines the credibility of the threat? Do you not see how that also suggests that she's bragging about something she wouldn't do?

And again, she probably wasn't even capable of carrying out the threat. Which also undermines the credibility and severity of the threat.

In your paraphrase, she's admitting, after the fact, that her intention was to kill Pelosi when she was in the same building as her. The only reason she didn't is because she hadn't found her.

Plus she didn't actually search for Pelosi, and probably didn't have a gun. Those are pretty relevant reasons as well.

I seem to remember gun control opponents shouting something about most gun crime happening with stolen guns, rather than legally purchased guns. I'll have to double-check that.

Sure. Because this woman totally fits the profile of someone who walks around with a stolen gun.

 

[Ziggurat]

The "Context" is a violent break-in into a government building with me Representatives doing important government business.
That alone, according to Castle Doctrine, means that the Capitol Police could have shot every single one of them.

We aren't here to indulge in your violent wish fulfillment fantasies.

 

[Upchurch]

Except now you're ignoring context again. She said she searched for Pelosi. But she in fact did not search for Pelosi.

She marched up the Capitol stairs and entered through a broken window. How are you excluding that in her search for Pelosi?

She is bragging about having done something she did not do. Do you not see how that undermines the credibility of the threat? Do you not see how that also suggests that she's bragging about something she wouldn't do?

You should really look up the Simpson's episode where Sideshow Bob makes his epic line about "Attempted Murder! What is that? Do they give Nobel Prizes for attempted Chemistry?" You are so forcibly reminding me of that right now and that's meant to be comedy performed by a (former) clown.

It doesn't undermine the threat at all. I don't know why you insist that her failing to do something means that she didn't try or intend to do it. Did you know that it is possible to be convicted of attempting a crime even if you don't actually do it? True story.

And again, she probably wasn't even capable of carrying out the threat. Which also undermines the credibility and severity of the threat.

In your opinion. She was capable of joining an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow US democracy and, in fact, she did. Who are you to say what she is not capable of?

Plus she didn't actually search for Pelosi, and probably didn't have a gun. Those are pretty relevant reasons as well.

Except she did search for Pelosi. She broke into the Capitol building to look for her. That she was not particularly thorough or competent at it does not mean she wasn't there.

Sure. Because this woman totally fits the profile of someone who walks around with a stolen gun.

There it is. The white motherly woman could not possibly do something bad or illegal. We should take her at her word, except when she self-incriminates, then she didn't really mean it.

Oh so many biases and preconceived notions. Which profile? White? Woman? Mother? Criminal? Insurrectionist? Person verbally yearning to be a murderer?


If it appeases your culture warrior sensibilities, perhaps she borrowed a gun from a relative or friend. I seem to remember a school shooting some years back where a kids took one or more of his mom's guns. That was described as "stealing" depending on who was doing the describing. I was thinking about this earlier. In about 7-8 hours, most of it driving time, I could get my hands on a few guns and some ammo that would not have any official documentation connecting it to me and, honestly, wouldn't even be considered stolen, per se.

 

[Ziggurat]

She marched up the Capitol stairs and entered through a broken window. How are you excluding that in her search for Pelosi?

Because it would have been pretty ******* obvious that Pelosi wouldn't still be hanging around in the same room people already broke into some time before. And she didn't go any further into the building.

It doesn't undermine the threat at all. I don't know why you insist that her failing to do something means that she didn't try or intend to do it.

Her not trying is how I know she didn't try.

She claimed she searched for Pelosi. She did not search for Pelosi, any more than OJ Simpson searched for the real killers.

In your opinion. She was capable of joining an insurrection in an attempt to overthrow US democracy and, in fact, she did. Who are you to say what she is not capable of?

She trespassed, and she said some naughty things. That's all she actually did. And that's all the FBI is charging her with. You want to turn her into some terrible threat, but she never was.

Except she did search for Pelosi. She broke into the Capitol building to look for her.

No, she didn't. She followed the crowd, because she's a stupid sheep.

There it is. The white motherly woman could not possibly do something bad or illegal.

Well, no. We know she trespassed. That's illegal, and that's bad.

But people tend to follow patterns. The kind of people who get into gang shootouts, for example, tend to have long criminal records of petty crimes as well. Profiles work for a reason.

And she doesn't fit the profile of a person who walks around with a stolen gun. That's got nothing to do with whether or not she could possibly do something bad or illegal. It's got everything to do with the likelihood that she did that specific bad and illegal thing. And the odds are, well, miniscule.

Oh so many biases and preconceived notions. Which profile? White? Woman? Mother?

Well, yes. Middle aged white women, as a demographic, are very unlikely to walk around with stolen guns. Their criminal activity tends to be of a different nature.

If it appeases your culture warrior sensibilities, perhaps she borrowed a gun from a relative or friend.

"Perhaps"?

You can come up with pretty much anything if you want to talk about what's possible, rather than what's likely.

I seem to remember a school shooting some years back where a kids took one or more of his mom's guns.

Again: profile. Males are shooters much more often than females, even when females own guns. Middle aged white women don't fit the profile for shooters. It's just not what they do. I can't recall a single school shooting done by a girl. I can't recall a single shooting of a politician in the US done by a woman.

 

[slyjoe]

...snip
Again: profile. Males are shooters much more often than females, even when females own guns. Middle aged white women don't fit the profile for shooters. It's just not what they do. I can't recall a single school shooting done by a girl. I can't recall a single shooting of a politician in the US done by a woman.

Squeaky Fromme?

 

[carlitos]

Close your eyes and imagine a Black Lives Matter protest breaking into Congress and interrupting the session certifying Trump as the winner of the electoral college, and imagine any of these apologists saying "They trespassed." "They said naughty things."

 

[carlitos]

Again: profile. Males are shooters much more often than females, even when females own guns. Middle aged white women don't fit the profile for shooters. It's just not what they do. I can't recall a single school shooting done by a girl. I can't recall a single shooting of a politician in the US done by a woman.

I immediately thought of Laurie Dann^WP when I read this, but in the US spree / new normal of frequent school shootings, there have been some female shooters. But less than half a dozen.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Double standard is obvious.
All violence that did happen was blamed on AntiFa - which suggests that they did commit violence, but we will only look if we are sure that we won't find Trump supporters.
The sabotage of the initial Jan 6 commission is a clear proof that Republicans don't want to look for criminals on their own team.

 

[Ziggurat]

Squeaky Fromme?

Fair enough. But she's the odd one out. The vast majority are men. They are also typically young. There are some exceptions to that rule too, but the norm is young men. Middle aged women, not so much.

 

[slyjoe]

Fair enough. But she's the odd one out. The vast majority are men. They are also typically young. There are some exceptions to that rule too, but the norm is young men. Middle aged women, not so much.

No argument there. However, we do have a member who claims that most school shootings are done by blacks.

 

[Ziggurat]

Close your eyes and imagine a Black Lives Matter protest breaking into Congress and interrupting the session certifying Trump as the winner of the electoral college, and imagine any of these apologists saying "They trespassed." "They said naughty things."

Dawn Bancroft trespassed and said naughty things.

Other people committed more serious crimes including assault, but my claim was specifically about Bancroft, and Bancroft alone. Your attempted slight of hand substitution is noted.

 

[carlitos]

Nope. I still can't imagine you saying it about any single person in a BLM crowd that invaded the Capitol Building interrupting the electoral college. Whether black or white, innocent or guilty, violent or peaceful. You would have a whole new set of apologia ready to go about collective guilt and mob action.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. I still can't imagine you saying it about any single person in a BLM crowd that invaded the Capitol Building interrupting the electoral college. Whether black or white, innocent or guilty, violent or peaceful. You would have a whole new set of apologia ready to go about collective guilt and mob action.

The wonderful thing about inventing counterfactual claims about your opponents is that it's impossible to disprove them. But by the same token, because they are unfalsifiable, they are also trivially dismissed. Your accusation means nothing.

 

[Stacyhs]

Zig, you are tying yourself into knots trying to minimize what Bancroft said and did.

Bancroft said “We were looking for Nancy to shoot her in the friggin’ brain, but we didn’t find her.”

The judge who sentenced her asked prosecutors why she was not being charged with a felony for threatening a public official. But as she was leaving the building when she made the video comment, it would have been difficult to prove it was a serious threat.

Indeed, Bancroft used the tried and true "joke" excuse: “It was a dumb, stupid comment,” Bancroft told the judge, one she said she made in jest. “I did not mean it.” What else was she going to say? "Oh, I was dead serious, Judge! I want to be charged with a felony now, please!" Come on, Zig. Maybe she was just blustering...but maybe she wasn't.

When Bancroft says "WE were looking for Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin’ brain," she includes herself with those we know were actively looking for Pelosi as part of an angry and violent mob. When people act in a mob, they often do things they normally wouldn't do alone. That is a well-known fact. She may not have shot Pelosi personally, but if Pelosi had been found and shot, Bancroft would have been part of that.

As for her owning a gun or not, you keep claiming she likely didn't own one. Come on! This woman is a right wing Trumper who lives in Pennsylvania. Chances are just as likely as not that she owns one and the FBI not saying if she owns one means nothing if they weren't charging her with using it or carrying it on Jan. 6.

Bancroft also lied to the FBI during her initial interview when she claimed she had not entered the Capitol and initially pleaded not guilty. But when confronted with video showing her inside the building, she changed her plea to guilty.

Stop minimizing what happened.

 

[Upchurch]

Stop minimizing what happened.

But what if she's white and Zig really really doesn't want to believe she meant it? It's okay then, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Zig, you are tying yourself into knots trying to minimize what Bancroft said and did.

Bancroft said “We were looking for Nancy to shoot her in the friggin’ brain, but we didn’t find her.”

The judge who sentenced her asked prosecutors why she was not being charged with a felony for threatening a public official. But as she was leaving the building when she made the video comment, it would have been difficult to prove it was a serious threat.

Yes, it would be difficult to prove that. That's often the case with things that aren't true.

Come on, Zig. Maybe she was just blustering...but maybe she wasn't.

Had she been armed, I wouldn't take it as bluster.

She wasn't.

Had she even spent any real time looking for Pelosi, I would consider it more seriously.

She didn't.

When Bancroft says "WE were looking for Pelosi to shoot her in the friggin’ brain," she includes herself with those we know were actively looking for Pelosi as part of an angry and violent mob.

Uh, no. "We" almost certainly referred to Bancroft herself and one other woman, Santos-Smith.

As for her owning a gun or not, you keep claiming she likely didn't own one. Come on! This woman is a right wing Trumper who lives in Pennsylvania. Chances are just as likely as not that she owns one and the FBI not saying if she owns one means nothing if they weren't charging her with using it or carrying it on Jan. 6.

Robert Morss wasn't charged with using or carrying a Lego set, yet the FBI felt it important enough to mention in his charging documents.

Bancroft also lied to the FBI during her initial interview when she claimed she had not entered the Capitol and initially pleaded not guilty. But when confronted with video showing her inside the building, she changed her plea to guilty.

Yes. She is guilty of trespass. That isn't in dispute.

Stop minimizing what happened.

Stop overstating what happened. Bancroft isn't your poster child.