Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-21-2021, 04:13 PM   #1
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
"the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name,"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...?ocid=msedgntp
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2021, 01:52 PM   #2
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Saul, you’re back
Actually, Reuters seems to have been "provided false information" by those four unnamed sources, perhaps even intentionally. Now the FBI has to investigate overtime! Note they neither commented on the article nor denied it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2021, 06:04 PM   #3
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Saul, you’re back
Actually, Reuters seems to have been "provided false information" by those four unnamed sources, perhaps even intentionally. Now the FBI has to investigate overtime! Note they neither commented on the article nor denied it!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you're referring to me, I never left. Been mostly tuning in, finding the same old--same old.

Are you supporting calling the Jan. 6 riot an insurrection . . . calling it a coordinated plot instigated by Trump . . . without proof? Those are serious charges on the slimmest evidence . . . if any at all. Is that a good thing to do? Is that "fair"?

At this point, for sure, it was some kind of riot. Call it by its proper name. Unless, of course, you need to politicize language for political ends. It "seems" or "perhaps" (like you so often resort to various conjectures--as in your above post as well) that you approve of calling it an insurrection.

My name is not Saul. Call me by my proper name. Oh, that's right . . . you need to embellish, label, lie in order to convince that your conjectures must be true.

Turley's article referred, ultimately, to a Confucian wisdom. Preferring lies and unproven labels to calling something by its proper name is not wise. It leads to folly and stupidity.

Last edited by detbuch; 08-22-2021 at 06:40 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2021, 09:30 PM   #4
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Actually, Reuters seems to have been "provided false information"

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
they are still running the story...maybe you should call them to let them know they've been duped
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 06:32 AM   #5
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Detbuch is quite an odd proper name, isn’t it?

When Trump was not known, he lost popular vote to Hillary by 2% in 2016

When Trump was known, he lost to Biden by 4% in 2020. That was BEFORE January 6th.

If Trump runs again in 2024, he will lose by FAR MORE than 4%. It will be Mondale level loss.

Keep believing January 6th was just tourists.
“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 06:46 AM   #6
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
If USCP knew this, so did FBI.
“We knew that militia groups & white supremacists organizations would be attending…some of these participants were intending to bring firearms & other weapons…We knew that there was a strong potential for violence & that Congress was the target.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 06:47 AM   #7
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
The FBI knew enough to personally visit the homes of Proud Boys and militants days before 1/6, warning them if they even thought of going to DC they would be immediately arrested.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:05 AM   #8
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
they did a fabulous job protecting the Capitol apparently having all of that knowledge beforehand.....
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:17 AM   #9
JohnR
Certifiable Intertidal Anguiologist
iTrader: (1)
 
JohnR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere between OOB & west of Watch Hill
Posts: 34,109
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
they did a fabulous job protecting the Capitol apparently having all of that knowledge beforehand.....



And yet they were unable to prevent the greatest threat to Democracy since the Civil War.

Obviously they had all of their planning and intelligence apparatus laser focused on a smooth Afghanistan withdrawal.

~Fix the Bait~ ~Pogies Forever~

Striped Bass Fishing - All Stripers


Kobayashi Maru Election - there is no way to win.


Apocalypse is Coming:
JohnR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:48 AM   #10
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
WHAT HAPPENS IF WE SUCCEED? I’m sure y'all & Trump media will still insist this was the worst military catastrophe in all history. In fact, it’s on track to be the cleanest, most orderly non-combatant evacuation ever. ISIS-K could mar that but this NEO is working for now

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:54 AM   #11
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR View Post

And yet they were unable to prevent the greatest threat to Democracy since the Civil War.

.
probably fortunate thing that the "armed insurrectionists" were unarmed ...might have lasted more than a couple of hours

I thought we'd have some entertaining public hangings by now...seems like mostly trespassing charges
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 08:07 AM   #12
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Silly boy, lesser charges come first and I suppose pipe bombs don't count?

Federal prosecutors have charged more than 500 people in more than 40 states with participating in the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, and arrests continue almost daily.


Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 09:23 AM   #13
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Detbuch is quite an odd proper name, isn’t it?

It's my proper forum name.

When Trump was not known, he lost popular vote to Hillary by 2% in 2016

When Trump was known, he lost to Biden by 4% in 2020. That was BEFORE January 6th.

If Trump runs again in 2024, he will lose by FAR MORE than 4%. It will be Mondale level loss.

So what? What's that to do with a proper name? Typical deke from subject when you've got nothing other than labeling and conjecturing.

Keep believing January 6th was just tourists.

Who said that it was? Not me. The proper name would be 10's of thousands of peaceful Trump protesters and ralliers with a comparativey small number of rioters.

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Calling J6 an insurrection is rejecting the obvious display of many thousands of peaceful protesters and ralliers disrupted by a few hundred disparate unorganized rioters that did not have the power to do much beyond the stupid mess, comparatively less destructive and much shorter than other recent riots in the U.S. which were properly called riots, not insurrections, though the one in Seattle was far more like an insurrection than J6.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 10:13 AM   #14
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Calling J6 an insurrection is rejecting the obvious display of many thousands of peaceful protesters and ralliers disrupted by a few hundred disparate unorganized rioters that did not have the power to do much beyond the stupid mess, comparatively less destructive and much shorter than other recent riots in the U.S. which were properly called riots, not insurrections, though the one in Seattle was far more like an insurrection than J6.
Perhaps given your choice of genocide as the ultimate solution you should have chosen a more appropriate forum name, several come to mind.

No occupation of the seat of government occurred in the USA with the exception of armed protesters occupying the Michigan State House and the domestic terrorists attacking Congress.

Oddly enough the Proud Boys came out of their basements yesterday and had a great time committing felonies in Portland.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 11:19 AM   #15
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

No occupation of the seat of government occurred in the USA with the exception of armed protesters occupying the Michigan State House and the domestic terrorists attacking Congress.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Dearest History Major,

“Thousands of protesters rushed to the … Capitol Wednesday night, forcing their way through doors, crawling through windows and jamming corridors.” That is how one newspaper described the storming of the Capitol — not the one in Washington last week, but the state Capitol in Madison, Wis., a decade ago.

Back then, thousands of pro-union activists — many bused in from out of state — rampaged through the historic building in an effort to stop a vote on collective bargaining reform legislation. So, when I saw the images of a pro-Trump mob rampaging through the U.S. Capitol last week, my first thought was: What is Scott Walker thinking right now?

“It’s like I’m having PTSD from a decade ago,” the former Republican governor of Wisconsin texted me.

Most conservatives have condemned the right-wing mob that assaulted the U.S. Capitol. But 10 years ago, Democrats embraced the left-wing mob that occupied the state Capitol in Madison. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists.

Kindest Regards, History
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 11:53 AM   #16
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
With the charges against Owen Shroyer, the government has now charged three people who had a speaking part in several rallies tied to Stop the Steal the day before the insurrection: Brandon Straka, Russell Taylor and his co-conspirators, and Shroyer. Because I’m working on some gaps in the government’s story — gaps that must be intentional, for investigative or prosecutorial reasons — I want to look at how DOJ is beginning to fill in the story about January 5.

With Walk Away founder Brandon Straka, who was arrested on January 25, the mention of his speech at the Stop the Steal rally at Freedom Plaza in his arrest affidavit was almost incidental, included along with the rest of his incendiary speech directly tied to the riot (but the affidavit didn’t include his other public comments over a broader period — for example, it doesn’t mention Straka’s role in sowing suspicion of the Michigan vote tally).

My review of STRAKA’s Twitter account on January 11, also found a video he had posted of himself speaking at a “Stop the Steal” rally held at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2021. As of January 13, STRAKA had removed this video from his Twitter account, but a video of the entire event had been posted to YouTube. The video showed that STRAKA was introduced by name and brought onto stage. STRAKA spoke for about five minutes during which time he repeatedly referred to the attendees as “Patriots” and referenced the “revolution” multiple times. STRAKA told the attendees to “fight back” and ended by saying, “We are sending a message to the Democrats, we are not going away, you’ve got a problem!”

Though Straka was charged with civil disorder for encouraging others to strip an officer of his riot shield, he has not yet been indicted, with or without obstruction, which these statements would seem to support. Instead, the government has gotten two 90-plus day continuances in this case with Straka’s consent, offering the explanation that, “are continuing to communicate in an effort to resolve this matter.” Straka currently has a status hearing scheduled on August 25, Wednesday, though these things do get moved quickly.

The January 5 rally at the Supreme Court (which featured some of the same people as the Freedom Plaza one) appears in the So Cal Three Percenter conspiracy indictment in part for the logistical challenges it posed.

On December 30, 2020, KINNISON sent a text message to MELE, WARNER, and MARTINEZ in which he attached a flyer advertising the January 5, 2021 rally outside the Supreme Court, at which TAYLOR, HOSTETTER, and PERSON ONE were named speakers for the American Phoenix Project. After KINNISON set this message, MELE wrote, “We need to make sure we roll into town earlier on the 5th now,” to which KINNISON responded, “We can leave Saturday.”

But it still provided cause for DOJ to mention that by December 30, Russell Taylor knew of a Stop the Steal plan to “surround the Capitol.”

On December 30, 2020, TAYLOR posted to his “russ.taylor” Instagram account:

Spread the word to other CALIFORNIA Patriots to join us as we March into the Capitol Jan 6. The Plan right now is to meet up at two occasions and locations: 1. Jan 5th 2pm at the Supreme Court steps for a rally. (Myself, Alan, [and others] will be speaking) 2. Jan 6th early 7am meet in front of the Kimpton George Hotel…we will leave at 7:30am sharp and March (15 mins) to the Capital [sic] to meet up with the stop the steal organization and surround the capital. [sic] There will be speakers there and we will be part of the large effort for the “Wild Rally” that Trump has asked us all to be part of. [my emphasis]

Mentioning this rally also gave DOJ an opportunity to describe Taylor promising to “fight” and “bleed” in his speech at the rally.

On January 5, 2021, TAYLOR spoke at a Virginia Women for Trump rally in front of the United States Supreme Court as part of a panel of American Phoenix Project speakers. In his speech, he stated:

I am Russell Taylor and I am a free American. And I stand here in the streets with you in defiance of a communist coup that is set to take over America. But we are awake and we are never going back to sleep. We are free Americans and in these streets we will fight and we will bleed before we allow our freedom to be taken from us. We declare that we will never bend a knee to the Marxists within Antifa, to the tyrannical Democrat governors who are puppets, and to the deep state commie actors who threaten to destroy America…. But now these anti-Americans have made the fatal mistake, and they have brought out the Patriot’s fury onto these streets and they did so without knowing that we will not return to our peaceful way of life until this election is made right, our freedoms are restored, and American is preserved.

That is, in the conspiracy indictment charging 3 percenters with organizing not just themselves to come armed to the Capitol, but others in Southern California, the earlier rally serves as both an organizational focus and a platform to sow violence.

Shroyer’s affidavit mentions several things he said on January 5

SHROYER traveled to Washington, D.C. in January 2021, and in advance of January 6, 2021, spoke of stopping the certification of the Electoral College vote. In a video1 posted to the Infowars website on January 5, 2021, SHROYER gave an address in Freedom Plaza in Washington D.C., during which he stated: “Americans are ready to fight. We’re not exactly sure what that’s going to look like perhaps in a couple of weeks if we can’t stop this certification of the fraudulent election . . . we are the new revolution! We are going to restore and we are going to save the republic!”

In another video2 posted to the Infowars website on January 5, 2021, SHROYER called into an Infowars live broadcast and said: “what I’m afraid of is if we do not get this false certification of Biden stopped this week. I’m afraid of what this means for the rest of the month . . . Everybody knows election was stolen . . . are we just going to sit here and become activists for 4 years or are going to actually do something about this . . . whatever that cause or course of cause may be?”3

In addition, SHROYER was featured in promotional material circulated by Infowars. One promotional video urged listeners to “come to the big D.C. marches on the 5th and 6th of January, I’ll see you there.”4 The video ended with an edited graphic of SHROYER and others in front of the Capitol building. That graphic is depicted below:



1 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff4aebaa285a02ed04c4d6e.

2 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff511bb5a212330029f5a9c.

3 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff511bb5a212330029f5a9c.

4 https://www.banned.video/watch?id=5f...93a8267a6432ee.

While Shroyer is circled in that graphic — which demonstrates that Jones had a plan to go to the Capitol (significantly, this is the East front) days in advance — it really is all about Jones.

As I noted, this is just a trespass arrest, like hundreds of other trespass arrests (though by charging Shroyer with violating a pre-existing Deferred Prosecution Agreement, they lessen any claims of persecution that will come as they investigate Shroyer further).

But what these three arrests together show is that those involved as speakers on January 5 seem to have had advance knowledge of what would happen the next day.

One of the other mentions of January 5 rallies thus far appears in the filings for Josiah Colt, Ronnie Sandlin, and Nate DeGrave, three random guys who hooked up on the Internet and armed themselves for violence in advance of January 6. Though they have no ties to any organized militia, the day after they went to a January 5 rally, they seemed to know there would be a second front opening at the East door, and Sandlin and DeGrave were among those charged with forcibly ensuring that door was opened.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 12:01 PM   #17
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
REUTERS DOESN’T MENTION TERRORISM WHEN CLAIMING DOJ WON’T CHARGE SERIOUS OFFENSES IN THE JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION
August 20, 2021/43 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection, Terrorism /by emptywheel
Reuters has a story claiming to report that, “FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated,” that has elicited a lot of consternation. I’d like to look at what it does and does not say. Most of it is true — and not news — but somewhere along the way someone (either the reporters or the sources) misunderstood parts of what they’re looking at.

REUTERS OR ITS SOURCES DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW DOJ IS CHARGING THIS
One detail shows this to be true.

The Reuters piece makes much of the fact that DOJ is not charging what it calls “serious” charges.

Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree of planning before the attack.

They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol.

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.

[snip]

More than 170 people have been charged so far with assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the Justice Department. That carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

But one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as “seditious conspiracy” to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted not to bring racketeering charges, often used against organized criminal gangs.

Not once does the story mention obstruction, which also carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. If you don’t mention obstruction — and your sources don’t explain that obstruction will get you to precisely where you’d get with a sedition charge, but with a lot more flexibility to distinguish between defendants and a far lower bar of proof (unless and until judges decide it has been misapplied) — then your sources are not describing what is going on with the investigation.

Furthermore, Reuters purports to rule out “more serious, politically-loaded charges,” but it never mentions terrorism.

One reason it wouldn’t, though, is because for domestic terrorists, you don’t charge terrorism, you charge crimes of terrorism or you argue for an enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3A1.4 at sentencing. And that has and will continue to happen. For example, both the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys conspiracies include 18 USC 1361 charges (damage to a government building exceeding $1,000, a charge that is a bit of a stretch for the Oath Keepers) that constitutes a crime of terrorism, and the government has raised that and noted it is a crime of terrorism in a number of bail disputes. Effectively, DOJ has already called the leaders of the militia conspiracies terrorists. But Reuters doesn’t think that’s worth noting.

Similarly, for both the assault pleas DOJ has obtained thus far, the government has reserved the right to invoke a terrorism enhancement at sentencing. In the case of Scott Fairlamb, who also pled guilty to obstruction, which effectively amounts to pleading guilty to having a political purpose for his assault, I suspect such an enhancement is likely.

Somehow this entire story got written without mentioning what DOJ is using instead of seditious conspiracy: obstruction (which has been charged against over 200 defendants) and terrorism enhancements; civil disorder is likewise not mentioned, but has been charged against around 150 defendants. DOJ isn’t using seditious conspiracy because it doesn’t need it (again, unless and until the courts reject this use of obstruction).

REUTERS MIS-DESCRIBES THE PROUD BOYS’ ROLE IN THE RIOT
Much of the rest of the story includes details that are true, and public, but arguably misleading.

A “former senior law enforcement official” (most former senior people who had visibility on the investigation have been gone for some time) claims that 90 to 95% of these cases are “one-off” cases, seemingly distinguishing between the 40 people Reuters describes to have been charged in conspiracy from the 540 or so who have not been charged with a conspiracy.

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

On paper, that’s true, and in key places a really important detail. But in other places it doesn’t mean what Reuters suggests it says.

For example, consider the nine men charged in the assault of Daniel Hodges. None of them knew each other before they started beating the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of some cops in the Tunnel of the Capitol. But several of the men charged nevertheless managed to orchestrate the assault (indeed, that’s most of what David Mehaffie did do — make other assailants more effective) and so, even while these individuals did not conspire to beat the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of cops, they worked in concert when they did so. The same is true for the men jointly accused of assaulting Michael Fanone (though Daniel Rodriguez has not been charged with the other men involved, many people believe because he’ll be charged in a conspiracy with others from Southern California).

Plus, the number cited to Reuters is probably wrong. Ten percent of the 580 people charged would be around 60. There were that many people on the Proud Boys’ organizational Telegram channel that day (though not all those people were present). There are a bunch of Proud Boys already charged individually, including some (like Dan Scott) who could easily be added to existing conspiracy indictments, others charged as groups (like the five Floridians on the Arthur Jackman indictment), and a father-son pair Jeffrey and Jeremy Grace who just got a terrorism prosecutor added. There are five Oath Keepers not included in that conspiracy (four cooperating against the others). And DOJ is only beginning to unwind the 3%er networks involved. So even just considering militias, the number is likely closer to 80.

And there are other important affiliations represented at the riot — with QAnon and anti-maskers being two of the most important — that actually created networks that were in some ways more effective than the militias. The QAnoners didn’t conspire with each other but they sure as hell were directed from the same place. And anti-mask protests were actually one place where a goodly number of rioters were radicalized, and those localized networks manifested as cells of cooperation in some key incidents in the riot.

More importantly, this claim can only have come from people who misunderstand what the investigation has shown:

Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that any individual or group played a central role in organizing or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no such charges appeared to be pending.

Conspiracy charges that have been filed allege that defendants discussed their plans in the weeks before the attack and worked together on the day itself. But prosecutors have not alleged that this activity was part of a broader plot.

It’s true that the Proud Boys are not known to have had a detailed plan describing who would move where in the Capitol. But it’s also true that both before and after the riot, the Proud Boys discussed mobilizing the “normies,” because normies have no adrenalin control. And the Proud Boys’ success at doing this is what made the initial assault on the West side of the Capitol work (and therefore the attack generally). The Proud Boys weren’t ordering the 1,000 rioters what to do at each step (though probably 100 people at the riot had some interaction with the Proud Boys), but they did give the riot a kind of structure that was crucial to its success.

MAYBE ROGER STONE ISN’T INVOLVED?
Because of the other problems with this article, I don’t know what to make of the single piece of news in it. As noted above, a former senior law enforcement official claims that, “there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.” That makes sense with respect to Alex Jones; his videographer was arrested long ago and remains charged only with trespass.

But Stone has continued to appear in Oath Keeper filings long after the time that someone very senior would have left. And the two cooperators who might confirm or deny Stone’s involvement — Graydon Young (who did an Oath Keeper event with Stone in Florida) and Mark Grods (who was present with the Oath Keepers who were with Stone the day of the attack) — only pled guilty at the end of June, meaning if they confirmed Stone wasn’t involved (even in the planning for the attack known to have taken place in December, in Florida), it wouldn’t have happened all that long ago.

Particularly given the mention of kidnapping — which was a real question at the beginning of the investigation because of the zip ties that Larry Brock and Eric Munchel picked up inside the Capitol — this seems like a denial of a very dated misunderstanding of what happened.

I don’t think this story is meant maliciously. For example, I’m unimpressed with concerns raised about Tass’ ownership; this is Mark Hosenball and he’ll do the same reporting regardless of who signs his paycheck. Nor am I all that concerned by the anonymity of the sources; I’m more interested in how dated some of this information might be and which corners of the sprawling investigation those who actually worked on it were personally involved with.

It reads like the end result of a game of telephone asking questions that were raised in January, not a report about the investigation as public filings reveal it to be in August.

Update: DOJ just charged InfoWars host Owen Shroyer. The initial charges are just trespassing (leveraging a prior charge and Deferred Prosecution Agreement he entered), but he’s likely to be charged with obstruction based on stuff in his arrest affidavit.

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 12:14 PM   #18
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
keep pumpin' pete
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 01:18 PM   #19
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Scott, I think there’s room for you in Vanilla ISIS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 03:00 PM   #20
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
With the charges against Owen Shroyer, the government has now charged three people who had a speaking part in several rallies tied to Stop the Steal the day before the insurrection: Brandon Straka, Russell Taylor and his co-conspirators, and Shroyer. Because I’m working on some gaps in the government’s story — gaps that must be intentional, for investigative or prosecutorial reasons — I want to look at how DOJ is beginning to fill in the story about January 5.

With Walk Away founder Brandon Straka, who was arrested on January 25, the mention of his speech at the Stop the Steal rally at Freedom Plaza in his arrest affidavit was almost incidental, included along with the rest of his incendiary speech directly tied to the riot (but the affidavit didn’t include his other public comments over a broader period — for example, it doesn’t mention Straka’s role in sowing suspicion of the Michigan vote tally).

My review of STRAKA’s Twitter account on January 11, also found a video he had posted of himself speaking at a “Stop the Steal” rally held at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. on January 5, 2021. As of January 13, STRAKA had removed this video from his Twitter account, but a video of the entire event had been posted to YouTube. The video showed that STRAKA was introduced by name and brought onto stage. STRAKA spoke for about five minutes during which time he repeatedly referred to the attendees as “Patriots” and referenced the “revolution” multiple times. STRAKA told the attendees to “fight back” and ended by saying, “We are sending a message to the Democrats, we are not going away, you’ve got a problem!”

Though Straka was charged with civil disorder for encouraging others to strip an officer of his riot shield, he has not yet been indicted, with or without obstruction, which these statements would seem to support. Instead, the government has gotten two 90-plus day continuances in this case with Straka’s consent, offering the explanation that, “are continuing to communicate in an effort to resolve this matter.” Straka currently has a status hearing scheduled on August 25, Wednesday, though these things do get moved quickly.

The January 5 rally at the Supreme Court (which featured some of the same people as the Freedom Plaza one) appears in the So Cal Three Percenter conspiracy indictment in part for the logistical challenges it posed.

On December 30, 2020, KINNISON sent a text message to MELE, WARNER, and MARTINEZ in which he attached a flyer advertising the January 5, 2021 rally outside the Supreme Court, at which TAYLOR, HOSTETTER, and PERSON ONE were named speakers for the American Phoenix Project. After KINNISON set this message, MELE wrote, “We need to make sure we roll into town earlier on the 5th now,” to which KINNISON responded, “We can leave Saturday.”

But it still provided cause for DOJ to mention that by December 30, Russell Taylor knew of a Stop the Steal plan to “surround the Capitol.”

On December 30, 2020, TAYLOR posted to his “russ.taylor” Instagram account:

Spread the word to other CALIFORNIA Patriots to join us as we March into the Capitol Jan 6. The Plan right now is to meet up at two occasions and locations: 1. Jan 5th 2pm at the Supreme Court steps for a rally. (Myself, Alan, [and others] will be speaking) 2. Jan 6th early 7am meet in front of the Kimpton George Hotel…we will leave at 7:30am sharp and March (15 mins) to the Capital [sic] to meet up with the stop the steal organization and surround the capital. [sic] There will be speakers there and we will be part of the large effort for the “Wild Rally” that Trump has asked us all to be part of. [my emphasis]

Mentioning this rally also gave DOJ an opportunity to describe Taylor promising to “fight” and “bleed” in his speech at the rally.

On January 5, 2021, TAYLOR spoke at a Virginia Women for Trump rally in front of the United States Supreme Court as part of a panel of American Phoenix Project speakers. In his speech, he stated:

I am Russell Taylor and I am a free American. And I stand here in the streets with you in defiance of a communist coup that is set to take over America. But we are awake and we are never going back to sleep. We are free Americans and in these streets we will fight and we will bleed before we allow our freedom to be taken from us. We declare that we will never bend a knee to the Marxists within Antifa, to the tyrannical Democrat governors who are puppets, and to the deep state commie actors who threaten to destroy America…. But now these anti-Americans have made the fatal mistake, and they have brought out the Patriot’s fury onto these streets and they did so without knowing that we will not return to our peaceful way of life until this election is made right, our freedoms are restored, and American is preserved.

That is, in the conspiracy indictment charging 3 percenters with organizing not just themselves to come armed to the Capitol, but others in Southern California, the earlier rally serves as both an organizational focus and a platform to sow violence.

Shroyer’s affidavit mentions several things he said on January 5

SHROYER traveled to Washington, D.C. in January 2021, and in advance of January 6, 2021, spoke of stopping the certification of the Electoral College vote. In a video1 posted to the Infowars website on January 5, 2021, SHROYER gave an address in Freedom Plaza in Washington D.C., during which he stated: “Americans are ready to fight. We’re not exactly sure what that’s going to look like perhaps in a couple of weeks if we can’t stop this certification of the fraudulent election . . . we are the new revolution! We are going to restore and we are going to save the republic!”

In another video2 posted to the Infowars website on January 5, 2021, SHROYER called into an Infowars live broadcast and said: “what I’m afraid of is if we do not get this false certification of Biden stopped this week. I’m afraid of what this means for the rest of the month . . . Everybody knows election was stolen . . . are we just going to sit here and become activists for 4 years or are going to actually do something about this . . . whatever that cause or course of cause may be?”3

In addition, SHROYER was featured in promotional material circulated by Infowars. One promotional video urged listeners to “come to the big D.C. marches on the 5th and 6th of January, I’ll see you there.”4 The video ended with an edited graphic of SHROYER and others in front of the Capitol building. That graphic is depicted below:



1 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff4aebaa285a02ed04c4d6e.

2 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff511bb5a212330029f5a9c.

3 https://banned.video/watch?id=5ff511bb5a212330029f5a9c.

4 https://www.banned.video/watch?id=5f...93a8267a6432ee.

While Shroyer is circled in that graphic — which demonstrates that Jones had a plan to go to the Capitol (significantly, this is the East front) days in advance — it really is all about Jones.

As I noted, this is just a trespass arrest, like hundreds of other trespass arrests (though by charging Shroyer with violating a pre-existing Deferred Prosecution Agreement, they lessen any claims of persecution that will come as they investigate Shroyer further).

But what these three arrests together show is that those involved as speakers on January 5 seem to have had advance knowledge of what would happen the next day.

One of the other mentions of January 5 rallies thus far appears in the filings for Josiah Colt, Ronnie Sandlin, and Nate DeGrave, three random guys who hooked up on the Internet and armed themselves for violence in advance of January 6. Though they have no ties to any organized militia, the day after they went to a January 5 rally, they seemed to know there would be a second front opening at the East door, and Sandlin and DeGrave were among those charged with forcibly ensuring that door was opened.
Various and separate acts of civil disorder and obstruction do not comprise an organized and consolidated "insurrection."

Last edited by detbuch; 08-23-2021 at 04:46 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 03:06 PM   #21
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
REUTERS DOESN’T MENTION TERRORISM WHEN CLAIMING DOJ WON’T CHARGE SERIOUS OFFENSES IN THE JANUARY 6 INVESTIGATION
August 20, 2021/43 Comments/in 2020 Presidential Election, January 6 Insurrection, Terrorism /by emptywheel
Reuters has a story claiming to report that, “FBI finds scant evidence U.S. Capitol attack was coordinated,” that has elicited a lot of consternation. I’d like to look at what it does and does not say. Most of it is true — and not news — but somewhere along the way someone (either the reporters or the sources) misunderstood parts of what they’re looking at.

REUTERS OR ITS SOURCES DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW DOJ IS CHARGING THIS
One detail shows this to be true.

The Reuters piece makes much of the fact that DOJ is not charging what it calls “serious” charges.

Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree of planning before the attack.

They alleged that one Proud Boy leader recruited members and urged them to stockpile bulletproof vests and other military-style equipment in the weeks before the attack and on Jan. 6 sent members forward with a plan to split into groups and make multiple entries to the Capitol.

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.

[snip]

More than 170 people have been charged so far with assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the Justice Department. That carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.

But one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as “seditious conspiracy” to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government. They have also opted not to bring racketeering charges, often used against organized criminal gangs.

Not once does the story mention obstruction, which also carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. If you don’t mention obstruction — and your sources don’t explain that obstruction will get you to precisely where you’d get with a sedition charge, but with a lot more flexibility to distinguish between defendants and a far lower bar of proof (unless and until judges decide it has been misapplied) — then your sources are not describing what is going on with the investigation.

Furthermore, Reuters purports to rule out “more serious, politically-loaded charges,” but it never mentions terrorism.

One reason it wouldn’t, though, is because for domestic terrorists, you don’t charge terrorism, you charge crimes of terrorism or you argue for an enhancement under U.S.S.G. §3A1.4 at sentencing. And that has and will continue to happen. For example, both the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys conspiracies include 18 USC 1361 charges (damage to a government building exceeding $1,000, a charge that is a bit of a stretch for the Oath Keepers) that constitutes a crime of terrorism, and the government has raised that and noted it is a crime of terrorism in a number of bail disputes. Effectively, DOJ has already called the leaders of the militia conspiracies terrorists. But Reuters doesn’t think that’s worth noting.

Similarly, for both the assault pleas DOJ has obtained thus far, the government has reserved the right to invoke a terrorism enhancement at sentencing. In the case of Scott Fairlamb, who also pled guilty to obstruction, which effectively amounts to pleading guilty to having a political purpose for his assault, I suspect such an enhancement is likely.

Somehow this entire story got written without mentioning what DOJ is using instead of seditious conspiracy: obstruction (which has been charged against over 200 defendants) and terrorism enhancements; civil disorder is likewise not mentioned, but has been charged against around 150 defendants. DOJ isn’t using seditious conspiracy because it doesn’t need it (again, unless and until the courts reject this use of obstruction).

REUTERS MIS-DESCRIBES THE PROUD BOYS’ ROLE IN THE RIOT
Much of the rest of the story includes details that are true, and public, but arguably misleading.

A “former senior law enforcement official” (most former senior people who had visibility on the investigation have been gone for some time) claims that 90 to 95% of these cases are “one-off” cases, seemingly distinguishing between the 40 people Reuters describes to have been charged in conspiracy from the 540 or so who have not been charged with a conspiracy.

“Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases,” said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. “Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

On paper, that’s true, and in key places a really important detail. But in other places it doesn’t mean what Reuters suggests it says.

For example, consider the nine men charged in the assault of Daniel Hodges. None of them knew each other before they started beating the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of some cops in the Tunnel of the Capitol. But several of the men charged nevertheless managed to orchestrate the assault (indeed, that’s most of what David Mehaffie did do — make other assailants more effective) and so, even while these individuals did not conspire to beat the #^&#^&#^&#^& out of cops, they worked in concert when they did so. The same is true for the men jointly accused of assaulting Michael Fanone (though Daniel Rodriguez has not been charged with the other men involved, many people believe because he’ll be charged in a conspiracy with others from Southern California).

Plus, the number cited to Reuters is probably wrong. Ten percent of the 580 people charged would be around 60. There were that many people on the Proud Boys’ organizational Telegram channel that day (though not all those people were present). There are a bunch of Proud Boys already charged individually, including some (like Dan Scott) who could easily be added to existing conspiracy indictments, others charged as groups (like the five Floridians on the Arthur Jackman indictment), and a father-son pair Jeffrey and Jeremy Grace who just got a terrorism prosecutor added. There are five Oath Keepers not included in that conspiracy (four cooperating against the others). And DOJ is only beginning to unwind the 3%er networks involved. So even just considering militias, the number is likely closer to 80.

And there are other important affiliations represented at the riot — with QAnon and anti-maskers being two of the most important — that actually created networks that were in some ways more effective than the militias. The QAnoners didn’t conspire with each other but they sure as hell were directed from the same place. And anti-mask protests were actually one place where a goodly number of rioters were radicalized, and those localized networks manifested as cells of cooperation in some key incidents in the riot.

More importantly, this claim can only have come from people who misunderstand what the investigation has shown:

Prosecutors have also not brought any charges alleging that any individual or group played a central role in organizing or leading the riot. Law-enforcement sources told Reuters no such charges appeared to be pending.

Conspiracy charges that have been filed allege that defendants discussed their plans in the weeks before the attack and worked together on the day itself. But prosecutors have not alleged that this activity was part of a broader plot.

It’s true that the Proud Boys are not known to have had a detailed plan describing who would move where in the Capitol. But it’s also true that both before and after the riot, the Proud Boys discussed mobilizing the “normies,” because normies have no adrenalin control. And the Proud Boys’ success at doing this is what made the initial assault on the West side of the Capitol work (and therefore the attack generally). The Proud Boys weren’t ordering the 1,000 rioters what to do at each step (though probably 100 people at the riot had some interaction with the Proud Boys), but they did give the riot a kind of structure that was crucial to its success.

MAYBE ROGER STONE ISN’T INVOLVED?
Because of the other problems with this article, I don’t know what to make of the single piece of news in it. As noted above, a former senior law enforcement official claims that, “there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.” That makes sense with respect to Alex Jones; his videographer was arrested long ago and remains charged only with trespass.

But Stone has continued to appear in Oath Keeper filings long after the time that someone very senior would have left. And the two cooperators who might confirm or deny Stone’s involvement — Graydon Young (who did an Oath Keeper event with Stone in Florida) and Mark Grods (who was present with the Oath Keepers who were with Stone the day of the attack) — only pled guilty at the end of June, meaning if they confirmed Stone wasn’t involved (even in the planning for the attack known to have taken place in December, in Florida), it wouldn’t have happened all that long ago.

Particularly given the mention of kidnapping — which was a real question at the beginning of the investigation because of the zip ties that Larry Brock and Eric Munchel picked up inside the Capitol — this seems like a denial of a very dated misunderstanding of what happened.

I don’t think this story is meant maliciously. For example, I’m unimpressed with concerns raised about Tass’ ownership; this is Mark Hosenball and he’ll do the same reporting regardless of who signs his paycheck. Nor am I all that concerned by the anonymity of the sources; I’m more interested in how dated some of this information might be and which corners of the sprawling investigation those who actually worked on it were personally involved with.

It reads like the end result of a game of telephone asking questions that were raised in January, not a report about the investigation as public filings reveal it to be in August.

Update: DOJ just charged InfoWars host Owen Shroyer. The initial charges are just trespassing (leveraging a prior charge and Deferred Prosecution Agreement he entered), but he’s likely to be charged with obstruction based on stuff in his arrest affidavit.
So where's the grand "insurrection" in all this motley mess of possible conspiracists, terrorists, trespassing, rioters? It was referred to as a riot in your source here.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 04:41 PM   #22
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
No occupation of the seat of government occurred in the USA with the exception of armed protesters occupying the Michigan State House and the domestic terrorists attacking Congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
During various riots and protests there were occupations of portions of American cities declared as self governing autonomous zones. Such as on June 8 The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle. And on June 18 the Patrick Kimmons Autonomous Zone in Portland. And on June 22 the Black House Autonomous Zone in Washington D.C.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:01 PM   #23
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
So where's the grand "insurrection" in all this motley mess of possible conspiracists, terrorists, trespassing, rioters? It was referred to as a riot in your source here.
Oh, Saul, Alinsky your way out of it, Putin’s proud of you
Remember collusion, you’re playing that game again, now it’s insurrection, what matters in criminal law is the facts, not the precise terms used to describe what happened. Saying the president is off the hook because there is no crime called “collusion” is akin to claiming the president could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and escape prosecution because the criminal statutes prohibit “homicide” not “shooting.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:06 PM   #24
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
During various riots and protests there were occupations of portions of American cities declared as self governing autonomous zones. Such as on June 8 The Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in Seattle. And on June 18 the Patrick Kimmons Autonomous Zone in Portland. And on June 22 the Black House Autonomous Zone in Washington D.C.
You are forgetting all the sovereign citizens, Timothy McVeigh and the people on that ranch out west, isn’t he running for Congress now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 07:23 PM   #25
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

Saying the president is off the hook because there is no crime called “collusion” is akin to claiming the president could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and escape prosecution because the criminal statutes prohibit “homicide” not “shooting.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
still bitter about that huh?
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 08:01 PM   #26
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw View Post
still bitter about that huh?
Not bitter, the wheels of Justice turn slowly but grind exceedingly fine.

Tomorrow Igor Furman is changing his plea from not guilty, likely as a cooperating witness against Guiliani.
Rudy is bankrupt, old and facing what will be effectively a life sentence.
Will he flip, jump out a window or get Epstein’d

Weiselburg will be up within a month, old and with family also looking at prison terms.

Roger Stone claims that Steve Bannon was a Robert Mueller informant who is merely a grifter. Stone calls for Bannon to be tried and jailed.

It looks like Himmler and Goebbels still fighting for the führer’s primacy.


FIVE paths take Trump to prison for life

1. Weisselberg (NY Taxes)
2. Giuliani (Ukraine)
3. Matt Gaetz (selling Pardons)
4. Roger Stone (Jan 6)
5. Tom Barrack (Qatar extortion)

Weisselberg is FASTEST, but all are grinding along
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 09:18 PM   #27
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
Oh, Saul, Alinsky your way out of it, Putin’s proud of you
Remember collusion, you’re playing that game again, now it’s insurrection, what matters in criminal law is the facts, not the precise terms used to describe what happened.

Actually, in criminal law, precise terms are necessary. Calling things by their proper name is necessary in all law, or else the law is too vague and unreliable to be considered an actual law. Without precise terms in criminal law, all kinds of prosecutorial hanky-panky and trumped up charges, even more than now occur, will abound.

And in politics, more hanky-panky, false allegations and character destruction in order to defeat opponents are done by the use of imprecise language. Even "fundamental transformations" of a nation, its laws and culture and history and foundational principles are made possible simply by misnaming, mislabeling, twisting language, creating new meanings for words, such as "racism" or "gender" or "insurrection" simply in order to sway or brainwash the public into defeating opponents or passing legislation. Naming me Saul Alinsky rather than my proper name and saying that Putin is proud of me is a cheap dishonest way of trying to discredit what I say.


Saying the president is off the hook because there is no crime called “collusion” is akin to claiming the president could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and escape prosecution because the criminal statutes prohibit “homicide” not “shooting.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Unfortunately, it was common practice, even in the media, to call it collusion rather than conspiracy. I often did refer to conspiracy, but sometimes to collusion to fit the common practice. A good example of not calling something by its proper name. Which muddies up language and trivializes the law. The law would not have prosecuted him for collusion. If proven, it could have done so for conspiracy.

And, indeed, the law would not have prosecuted him for merely shooting. But for homicide if the shooting was not justified.

And the J6 rioters will probably be prosecuted for crimes other than "insurrection." But the difference here between your "collusion" and "shooting" analogies is that using the wrong term in this case has a political motivation. It is not merely sloppy, imprecise language.

It is an intentional calling it by the wrong name because that word can imply the larger narrative tied to the President. Painting him as a deliberate traitor who attempted to destroy the nation.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 09:56 PM   #28
Pete F.
Canceled
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: vt
Posts: 10,191
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Unfortunately, it was common practice, even in the media, to call it collusion rather than conspiracy. I often did refer to conspiracy, but sometimes to collusion to fit the common practice. A good example of not calling something by its proper name. Which muddies up language and trivializes the law. The law would not have prosecuted him for collusion. If proven, it could have done so for conspiracy.

And, indeed, the law would not have prosecuted him for merely shooting. But for homicide if the shooting was not justified.

And the J6 rioters will probably be prosecuted for crimes other than "insurrection." But the difference here between your "collusion" and "shooting" analogies is that using the wrong term in this case has a political motivation. It is not merely sloppy, imprecise language.

It is an intentional calling it by the wrong name because that word can imply the larger narrative tied to the President. Painting him as a deliberate traitor who attempted to destroy the nation.
You don’t need to paint the emperor who has no clothes, he’s told us who he is, again and again

Now the vermin are turning on each other
Alex Jones Attacks Trump for Promoting Vaccines: ‘Maybe Trump’s Actually a Dumbass

Roger Stone claims that Steve Bannon was a Robert Mueller informant who is merely a grifter. Stone calls for Bannon to be tried and jailed.

Igor pleading guilty and ostensibly flipping on Rudy Giuliani.

This must be a very confusing day for MAGAland.

So at some point, you have to stand back and let self-destruction ensue.
🍿🍿🍿anyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Frasier: Niles, I’ve just had the most marvelous idea for a website! People will post their opinions, cheeky bon mots, and insights, and others will reply in kind!

Niles: You have met “people”, haven’t you?

Just because someone says they think you are deplorable doesn't mean you have to prove it.
Pete F. is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2021, 10:43 PM   #29
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post
You don’t need to paint the emperor who has no clothes, he’s told us who he is, again and again

Now the vermin are turning on each other
Alex Jones Attacks Trump for Promoting Vaccines: ‘Maybe Trump’s Actually a Dumbass

Roger Stone claims that Steve Bannon was a Robert Mueller informant who is merely a grifter. Stone calls for Bannon to be tried and jailed.

Igor pleading guilty and ostensibly flipping on Rudy Giuliani.

This must be a very confusing day for MAGAland.

So at some point, you have to stand back and let self-destruction ensue.
������anyone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If you don't need to paint the emperor because he's told us who he is, then why paint him? Why paint him with an unproven name such as insurrectionist? Why don't you take your own advice? Do you not believe what you say?

As for all of that other stuff, it may be very meaningful, important to you to bring this kind of stuff up "again and again" but I don't care about it, doesn't relate to this thread except maybe your name calling such as "vermin"--"dumbass"--"grifter"--and "emperor who has no clothes".

But it's what you do. Again and again.
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2021, 05:14 AM   #30
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F. View Post

FIVE paths take Trump to prison for life

1. Weisselberg (NY Taxes)
2. Giuliani (Ukraine)
3. Matt Gaetz (selling Pardons)
4. Roger Stone (Jan 6)
5. Tom Barrack (Qatar extortion)


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I bet you have this tattooed on your chest
scottw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com