The Jan. 6 Investigation

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if they'll call Steve Bannon to answer questions. On January 5th, he publicly stated on his podcast that "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s gonna be moving. It’s gonna be quick.”


"Mr Bannon, what led you to conclude that something unusual was going to happen on the 6th? Did someone provide you with advance notice that violence was planned?"
 
Ziggurat said:
I doubt it. There was no grand conspiracy here.
Click to expand...

What is your definition of a grand conspiracy?

I'd have thought that at least two organised violent fascist groups planning to storm the Capitol and succeeding, only stopping when one of the supporting mob was shot was a sufficiently grand conspiracy.

What do you want? A squad of Marines taking part?
 
Armitage72 said:
I wonder if they'll call Steve Bannon to answer questions. On January 5th, he publicly stated on his podcast that "All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. Just understand this. All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. It’s gonna be moving. It’s gonna be quick.”


"Mr Bannon, what led you to conclude that something unusual was going to happen on the 6th? Did someone provide you with advance notice that violence was planned?"
Click to expand...

Anyone even half paying attention knew that there was a general atmosphere of violence for that rally. Bannon may or may not have known about specific bad actors and specific plans, but you didn't need an inside line to know that a ****-storm was brewing.

The CHUDs were openly talking about revolution on social media well in advance of the event. The language was explicit and belligerent. Fox News poisoned grandpas were talking about spilling blood and a second 1776 openly on social media. The riot could not have been more openly telegraphed.

The certification was understood to be the last chance for the election conspiracies and Q promises to come to fruition, and these people clearly expressed their role was as patriotic foot-soldiers.
 
Last edited:
wareyin said:
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!
Click to expand...

I'm wondering how it is any better to steal the zip-tie restraints to keep the police from having them.
Would it be ok to steal a cop's gun or baton while in the middle of committing crimes, to I guess stop them from stopping my crimes.
 
Stacyhs said:
No, I don't have a link to those court documents. It's likely they are still restricted to only certain clearances seeing them.
Click to expand...

That makes me wonder, then, how the reporters who reported what was in those court documents determined that.

ETA: Way too late to a conversation that moved quickly
 
Last edited:
To be honest, I really doubt there's a "grand conspiracy", at least nothing that goes to Trump.

It's pretty funny because the crowd did exactly what Trump's speech incited them to do and then... nothing. They went all in on throwing their lives away expecting that their leaders had some plan, then Trump went home and watched the riot on TV. The CHUDs actually succeeded in taking the building and disrupting the vote and their leaders did not pick up the baton and run with it. No insurrection act, no "storm", no cavalry riding in to secure a coup, nothing. They milled around for a bit and vandalized the place until enough cops showed up to clear the building.

They got hung out to dry when their supposed revolution turned into little more than a public tantrum to assuage Trump's ego. They actually believed his BS, the absolute morons, and found out the hard way there was no plan.

The cases of conspiracy we've seen include pre-existing fascist groups that had a history of engaging in organized political violence under their own volition without external leadership. Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and Q cranks have a long history of engaging in this kind of violence without the need of an outside instigator leading the charge. I imagine these groups would be open to coordinating with larger profile right wing leaders, but that's not necessary to explain what happened in this case.

Trump and other leaders of the fascist right were definitely whipping up the mob and pandering to their sense of grievance, but I don't think that necessarily means that they actually had any plan.
 
Last edited:
That's the dumbass "I made the conscious decision to shoot the other person, and I know that shooting the other person would kill them, but that doesn't mean I wanted the other person to die!" nonsense, just blown up to a bigger scale.

One of the most common characteristics of the Proudly Wrong is that have a total disconnect between their actions and their intent to the point that intentionally doing something that is obviously going to cause a specific outcome in their minds isn't the same thing as intentionally desiring the outcome.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's the dumbass "I made the conscious decision to shoot the other person, and I know that shooting the other person would kill them, but that doesn't mean I wanted the other person to die!" nonsense, just blown up to a bigger scale.

One of the most common characteristics of the Proudly Wrong is that have a total disconnect between their actions and their intent to the point that intentionally doing something that is obviously going to cause a specific outcome in their minds isn't the same thing as intentionally desiring the outcome.
Click to expand...

Is this directed at me?

I don't doubt that the right wing leaders were ginning up the mob and are culpable for the riot. My point is that I don't think anyone, even them, had any idea how this would lead to "stopping the steal" they had promised.

The people on the ground didn't know how it would stop the steal, but perhaps they assumed that those leaders directing them to the Capitol had a secret master strategy laid out.

Seems to me that the whole "stop the steal" plan turned out to be little more than:

1) riot
2) ???
3) Trump God-King for life.


Trump has always had a good instinct for fascist politics and pandering to the fascist base, but he's never been accused of being a strategic thinker.

I think all the digging in the world may never turn up any more explanation than this, and the "grand conspiracy" never had any plans beyond being Big Mad in public and rioting.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Is this directed at me?
Click to expand...

No, at the Rioters on the 6th.

The narrative they (and their apologists and the "I'm totally not on their side but every argument I make will defend them" types) seem to want to push is.


"Did you on the 6th of January make the conscious decision to storm the Capital during the certification of the electoral votes?"
"Yes."
"Were you aware that doing so would disrupt the certification of the votes?"
"Yes."
"But your argument is you didn't intend to disrupt the certification of the votes?"
"Yes."

Again this stupid pretending that there is any difference between "I intended to do the thing" and "I intended to perform actions I knew would lead to the thing happening, but that's not the same as intending to do the thing" is something we keep coming back to with the proudly wrong.
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
What is your definition of a grand conspiracy?
Click to expand...

A large competent group with a plan of illegal actions that would actually accomplish something real. Just planning to break in to stop the proceedings on that day (with no plan for what happens if they just do everything tomorrow) isn't a grand plan.
 
I don't know if SuburbanTurkey will agree or appreciate this but he has just said the same thing Ziggurat is saying. The actual conspiracies amongst this group are very limited and are in the "loons in the basement" category. There are not very many opportunities for flipping simply because most of the people involved didn't even know any of the other participants save the person or people they came with.

SuburbanTurkey said:
To be honest, I really doubt there's a "grand conspiracy", at least nothing that goes to Trump.

It's pretty funny because the crowd did exactly what Trump's speech incited them to do and then... nothing. They went all in on throwing their lives away expecting that their leaders had some plan, then Trump went home and watched the riot on TV. The CHUDs actually succeeded in taking the building and disrupting the vote and their leaders did not pick up the baton and run with it. No insurrection act, no "storm", no cavalry riding in to secure a coup, nothing. They milled around for a bit and vandalized the place until enough cops showed up to clear the building.

They got hung out to dry when their supposed revolution turned into little more than a public tantrum to assuage Trump's ego. They actually believed his BS, the absolute morons, and found out the hard way there was no plan.

The cases of conspiracy we've seen include pre-existing fascist groups that had a history of engaging in organized political violence under their own volition without external leadership. Proud Boys, Oathkeepers, and Q cranks have a long history of engaging in this kind of violence without the need of an outside instigator leading the charge. I imagine these groups would be open to coordinating with larger profile right wing leaders, but that's not necessary to explain what happened in this case.

Trump and other leaders of the fascist right were definitely whipping up the mob and pandering to their sense of grievance, but I don't think that necessarily means that they actually had any plan.
Click to expand...
 
TokenMac said:
I'm wondering how it is any better to steal the zip-tie restraints to keep the police from having them.
Click to expand...

Better? I didn't say better. You can form your own opinions on that subjective question. But it's still different.
 
Ziggurat said:
A large competent group with a plan of illegal actions that would actually accomplish something real. Just planning to break in to stop the proceedings on that day (with no plan for what happens if they just do everything tomorrow) isn't a grand plan.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat has just defended himself but note that it should not be necessary to have asked. This was perfectly apparent from context provided by the quotes he replied to and by other things he said. Note that he acknowledged some level of conspiracy, "loons in the basement".
 
The crowd didn't get the idea that the election was fraudulent and if they could just get to Mike Pence to stop him from certifying the results Trump would still be president on their own.

In any case, I'd still be interested in knowing who the Trump admin communicated with regarding Jan 6 and what those communications consisted of.
 
Ziggurat said:
Better? I didn't say better. You can form your own opinions on that subjective question. But it's still different.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to cite the line from the prosecutor's filing that makes it clear they had no intention to use these restraints on anyone. You made it very clear that it was in plain black and white.
 
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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom