The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ziggurat said:
Still wrong. I didn’t say it wouldn’t be bluster, I said I wouldn’t take it as bluster. Do you understand the distinction?
Click to expand...

There's a distinction between "If she had been armed, I wouldn't take it as bluster" and "If she had been armed, it wouldn't be bluster"? What is that distinction?

I just asked two people if those two sentences were saying the same thing or opposite things. They both immediately said, "The same thing". They're both saying that, if she'd had a gun, her threat against Pelosi wouldn't have been bluster.
 
Ziggurat said:
Bwahahahaha!

It was a Lego Architecture set, of the capitol. And it wasn’t even out of the box!

Ooooooo, scary stuff!
Click to expand...

It was first reported as being fully constructed.

FBI seized a fully constructed U.S. Capitol LEGO set and a notebook with local militia information from a suspected Capitol riot arrested on January 6 did.
Click to expand...
https://pennsylvanianewstoday.com/l...f-parliament-notebook-seized-from-man/184888/

The police report was then amended that it was not "fully constructed".

The· US Capitol Lego Set Federal authorities claiming to have recovered from the allegedly “fully constructed” riots, according to new court documents, were not actually assembled at all.
Click to expand...
https://newyorklatestnews.com/capitol-lego-set-confiscated-from-riots-and-not-assembled/224850/

Regardless, this is not the "gotcha" you seem to think it is. It was still evidence that he had an interest in the plan of the Capitol.You know, the place that was stormed by a mob of insurrectionists, including Morse. And yes, that was scary stuff.
 
Stacyhs said:
There's a distinction between "If she had been armed, I wouldn't take it as bluster" and "If she had been armed, it wouldn't be bluster"? What is that distinction?
Click to expand...

In one, we know it's not bluster. In the other, it might or might not be bluster, but the risk is sufficient to treat it provisionally as if it is not. It's pretty simple.

I just asked two people if those two sentences were saying the same thing or opposite things. They both immediately said, "The same thing". They're both saying that, if she'd had a gun, her threat against Pelosi wouldn't have been bluster.
Click to expand...

You need smarter friends who can recognize that you presented them with a false dichotomy.
 
Ziggurat said:
In one, we know it's not bluster. In the other, it might or might not be bluster, but the risk is sufficient to treat it provisionally as if it is not. It's pretty simple.

You need smarter friends who can recognize that you presented them with a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...


Nope. You didn't say "I might not take it as bluster". You said "I wouldn't take it as bluster." That does not give the option that it "might not be".

You need better excuses. Or a better understanding of the English language.

ETA: By the way, you never provided an example of where I 'overstated' what happened. But here's a classic one of you minimizing something:

newyorkguy said:
I agree. :thumbsup:

Some of the testimony on Tuesday by Capitol police officers who were involved was incredible.
Click to expand...

Ziggurat said:
It’s not often I see appeals to emotion explicitly labeled as such.
Click to expand...

You're minimizing the CP officers' testimony as an "appeal to emotion."

Like I said, I don't have to read your mind; I read your posts.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Nope. You didn't say "I might not take it as bluster". You said "I wouldn't take it as bluster." That does not give the option that it "might not be".
Click to expand...

It absolutely does give that option. You can take something as being true even if it isn't. This isn't even a reading comprehension fail, this is a basic logic fail.

In the absence of perfect information, one can still make provisional judgments. In a simple example with two mutually exclusive possibilities, if the consequences of being wrong are not symmetric between the two possibilities (ie, if we're wrong in one direction it's no big deal but if we're wrong in the other it is), then making a provisional judgment in the direction with safer consequences makes sense. For example, you should treat any gun you encounter as loaded, not because they are, but because they might be, and the consequences of the gun being loaded but treating it as unloaded are potentially much worse than the consequences of treating the gun as loaded when it's unloaded.

And that's what I'm saying here. If she had a gun, that wouldn't mean that she wasn't bluffing. But it would be worth treating the situation provisionally as if she wasn't, because the possible consequences of her not bluffing in such a situation are high enough that it's worth being careful.

So when I say I would take it as not bluffing, that's a statement about provisional treatment of the situation, it is NOT a statement about what the situation actually is.
 
Another Jan. 6 insurrectionist pleads 'guilty'.
Florida man 'at the front line of rioters' on Jan. 6 pleads guilty

A Florida man on Monday pleaded guilty to assaulting law enforcement with a deadly weapon during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Robert Scott Palmer of Largo, Fla., was part of the crowd of rioters on Jan. 6 and threw a wooden plank at a U.S. Capitol police officers as well as at D.C. Metropolitan officers. Just a few minutes after this, Palmer sprayed the contents of a fire extinguisher at the officers and then threw the empty fire extinguisher at them.

The DOJ said that Palmer was at "the front line of rioters confronting the officers."
No injuries were tied to Palmer's conduct, but the DOJ noted that the size and weight of the objects he threw made them capable of "inflicting serious bodily injury."

Palmer faces a maximum sentence of a $250,000 fine and 20 years in prison.
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
It absolutely does give that option. You can take something as being true even if it isn't. This isn't even a reading comprehension fail, this is a basic logic fail.

In the absence of perfect information, one can still make provisional judgments. In a simple example with two mutually exclusive possibilities, if the consequences of being wrong are not symmetric between the two possibilities (ie, if we're wrong in one direction it's no big deal but if we're wrong in the other it is), then making a provisional judgment in the direction with safer consequences makes sense. For example, you should treat any gun you encounter as loaded, not because they are, but because they might be, and the consequences of the gun being loaded but treating it as unloaded are potentially much worse than the consequences of treating the gun as loaded when it's unloaded.

And that's what I'm saying here. If she had a gun, that wouldn't mean that she wasn't bluffing. But it would be worth treating the situation provisionally as if she wasn't, because the possible consequences of her not bluffing in such a situation are high enough that it's worth being careful.

So when I say I would take it as not bluffing, that's a statement about provisional treatment of the situation, it is NOT a statement about what the situation actually is.
Click to expand...

Uh-huh.:rolleyes:
 
To nobody's suprise:

From: The Guardian
The former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack are expected to defy orders for documents and testimony...All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said....The House select committee chairman, Bennie Thompson, told reporters recently that he was prepared to pursue criminal referrals to witnesses who defied subpoenas and subpoena deadlines

Likely more of a delaying tactic than a legal strategy, since Biden is likely to cooperate in removing executive privilege.

Hopefully the committee follows through on the promise of using criminal referrals to deal with the Trump people who defy the subpoenas.
 
Last edited:
Senate probe says that Trump tried to get the DOJ to overturn the election nine times before Jan. 20th including installing a lawyer specifically for that purpose.

But, NOOOOOOOOO....there was no coup attempt!
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
To nobody's suprise:

From: The Guardian
The former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack are expected to defy orders for documents and testimony...All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said....The House select committee chairman, Bennie Thompson, told reporters recently that he was prepared to pursue criminal referrals to witnesses who defied subpoenas and subpoena deadlines

Likely more of a delaying tactic than a legal strategy, since Biden is likely to cooperate in removing executive privilege.

Hopefully the committee follows through on the promise of using criminal referrals to deal with the Trump people who defy the subpoenas.
Click to expand...

Send the Feds. Get warrants for the documents then raid their offices, handcuff the bastards and drag them them before the committee. Call the press first so you can perp-walk them on camera.

You would only have to do this once, and any other people subpoenaed will fall in line and comply.


ETA: Then watch Tucker Carlson's head explode live on the White Supremacy Show!
 
Last edited:
Trump told Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue at the DOJ to declare the election fraudulent through an official DOJ announcement in December then told them to "leave the rest to me and the (Republican) Congressmen". Trump wanted to appoint former Asst. AG Jeffrey Clark, the pro-election fraud Trump sycophant , to replace Rosen. By installing Clark, he believed he could have the DOJ officially support the Big Lie but he was told there would be mass resignations if he did that, including WH chief counsel Pat Cipolione.

Can you imagine the Constitutional crisis that would have ensued if he had been successful installing Clark? But according to GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley who continues to support Trump:

This truncated investigation doesn’t support the long-running Democratic narrative that Trump used the Justice Department to try to overturn the 2020 election.

And it’s truncated because we don’t have all the records and this committee only interviewed three witnesses.

The available evidence shows that President Trump didn’t use the Department of Justice to subvert the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

That's not the conclusion the investigating committee came to. Nor is it the conclusion anyone without Trump blinders on or honesty would come to.

For example, one witness testified that President Trump had “no impact” – I repeat “no impact” – on what the Department did to investigate election allegations.
Click to expand...

"No impact" because Rosen et al. refused to do what Trump wanted.

In fact, the evidence shows that President Trump listened to his advisors and their recommendations, and he followed them.

The witnesses also testified that President Trump didn’t fire anyone at the Justice Department relating to the election.
Click to expand...

He only followed them because of the threat of massive resignations which would have reflected extremely badly on him and likely would have lead to undermining his attempts to overturn the election. As Sen. Dick Durbin said, "It wasn't a coup; it was only an attempted coup," which the GOP thinks is perfectly reasonable.

Records indicate that President Trump’s focus was on “legitimate complaints and reports of crimes.”

Witnesses testified that President Trump’s main focus was on making the Department aware of the potential criminal allegations and to ensure the Department did its job. It wasn’t to direct or order specific investigative steps.

Witnesses also testified that it wasn’t unreasonable for President Trump to ask the Department what it was doing to investigate election fraud and crime allegations
Click to expand...
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/new...igation-dont-comport-with-democrats-narrative

That's laughable. He was focused on anything that he thought supported his Big Lie.
And who are these witnesses saying this? His supporters? I'd bet there were witnesses who totally disagreed that Grassley doesn't mention.

Grassley then goes on to drag Biden and Afghanistan into this which shows what his true intentions are.

ETA: Trump's lawyer tells Trump's allies not to comply with the J6 Committee's subpoenas. More obstruction from Trump.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
What I would really like investigated is how some of the insurrectionists seem to know which of the windows were not reinforced.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...-weak-spots-a-handful-of-unreinforced-windows
Click to expand...


Ha that's an easy one the unreinforced Widows were single pane, with wooden frames there were postings on Facebook before the Riot about how venerable those were, too attack.
They knew which parts of the buildings to target, just by casing the building the day before the Rally. Any person familiar with Ballistic glass could have seen the difference.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
What I would really like investigated is how some of the insurrectionists seem to know which of the windows were not reinforced.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...-weak-spots-a-handful-of-unreinforced-windows
Click to expand...
Well, your reference actually gives several possibilities....

The most likely answer is trial and error... they tried breaking dozens of windows. Some broke (the non-reinforced ones), others remained intact. Its not that they targeted the weaker ones... they targeted everything, and it was just the weak ones that broke.
 
Segnosaur said:
Well, your reference actually gives several possibilities....

The most likely answer is trial and error... they tried breaking dozens of windows. Some broke (the non-reinforced ones), others remained intact. Its not that they targeted the weaker ones... they targeted everything, and it was just the weak ones that broke.
Click to expand...

Actually it's pretty clear the Oath Keepers cased the Capitol the day before the Insurrection looking for the most venerable spots, as Vets it would have been easy for them to tell the Ballistic Glase from the wooden framed single pane windows.
 
Segnosaur said:
To nobody's suprise:

From: The Guardian
The former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and other top aides subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Capitol attack are expected to defy orders for documents and testimony...All four Trump aides targeted by the select committee – Meadows, deputy chief of staff Dan Scavino, strategist Steve Bannon and defense department aide Kash Patel – are expected to resist the orders because Trump is preparing to direct them to do so, the source said....The House select committee chairman, Bennie Thompson, told reporters recently that he was prepared to pursue criminal referrals to witnesses who defied subpoenas and subpoena deadlines

Likely more of a delaying tactic than a legal strategy, since Biden is likely to cooperate in removing executive privilege.

Hopefully the committee follows through on the promise of using criminal referrals to deal with the Trump people who defy the subpoenas.
Click to expand...


Well, they're just Trump supporters so it's okay if they go to jail for contempt of Congress. It's not as if we'd be jailing people.
 
Bannon's announced he's just going to not listen to the subpoena, furthering the Republican strategy of "Okay, make me."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom