January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[old salt]

Terrific; now we all might reap what the GOP has sown:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1276567

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories --

Officials were clear that they have no intelligence of a specific domestic terrorism plot. But DHS leaders say they believe security agencies were unprepared for the Jan. 6 riot in part because they paid too little attention to violent and extremist rhetoric on social media.

In an effort to avoid repeating that mistake, the department is trying to sound the alarm among local police agencies about the potential for political violence.

DHS issued a so-called awareness bulletin... discussed the security climate... heightened terrorism-related threat environment...

“Currently, DHS lacks specific or credible reporting indicating that violent extremists are planning to target specific events,” the spokesperson added.

...the agency has watched conspiracy theories about the 2020 election migrate from obscure internet forums to more mainstream ones, and “we are concerned about calls to violence.”

The goal is to build a warning system to detect the sort of posts that appeared to predict an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but were missed or ignored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, officials said.

“DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” the spokesman said. “DHS does not monitor posts or engagements from individual people — rather DHS is focused on identifying and evaluating narratives and disinformation that may incite violence.”

Do you have a point? Is this all not within DHS’s remit to report out the threads it is seeing by and hearing?

Pointing out what the DHS actually said & didn't say. ...they got nothin' but nutty, scary internet chatter.

[MDlaxfan76]

Terrific; now we all might reap what the GOP has sown:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1276567

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories --

Officials were clear that they have no intelligence of a specific domestic terrorism plot. But DHS leaders say they believe security agencies were unprepared for the Jan. 6 riot in part because they paid too little attention to violent and extremist rhetoric on social media.

In an effort to avoid repeating that mistake, the department is trying to sound the alarm among local police agencies about the potential for political violence.

DHS issued a so-called awareness bulletin... discussed the security climate... heightened terrorism-related threat environment...

“Currently, DHS lacks specific or credible reporting indicating that violent extremists are planning to target specific events,” the spokesperson added.

...the agency has watched conspiracy theories about the 2020 election migrate from obscure internet forums to more mainstream ones, and “we are concerned about calls to violence.”

The goal is to build a warning system to detect the sort of posts that appeared to predict an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but were missed or ignored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, officials said.

“DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” the spokesman said. “DHS does not monitor posts or engagements from individual people — rather DHS is focused on identifying and evaluating narratives and disinformation that may incite violence.”

Do you have a point? Is this all not within DHS’s remit to report out the threads it is seeing by and hearing?

Pointing out what the DHS actually said & didn't say. ...they got nothin' but nutty, scary internet chatter.

Apparently like the "nuthin" they got leading up to Jan 6.

At what level does rising volume of violent rhetoric "chatter" cause an alarm to go off?
When should it?
After the outburst?

[old salt]

Terrific; now we all might reap what the GOP has sown:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1276567

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories --

Officials were clear that they have no intelligence of a specific domestic terrorism plot. But DHS leaders say they believe security agencies were unprepared for the Jan. 6 riot in part because they paid too little attention to violent and extremist rhetoric on social media.

In an effort to avoid repeating that mistake, the department is trying to sound the alarm among local police agencies about the potential for political violence.

DHS issued a so-called awareness bulletin... discussed the security climate... heightened terrorism-related threat environment...

“Currently, DHS lacks specific or credible reporting indicating that violent extremists are planning to target specific events,” the spokesperson added.

...the agency has watched conspiracy theories about the 2020 election migrate from obscure internet forums to more mainstream ones, and “we are concerned about calls to violence.”

The goal is to build a warning system to detect the sort of posts that appeared to predict an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but were missed or ignored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, officials said.

“DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” the spokesman said. “DHS does not monitor posts or engagements from individual people — rather DHS is focused on identifying and evaluating narratives and disinformation that may incite violence.”

Do you have a point? Is this all not within DHS’s remit to report out the threads it is seeing by and hearing?

Pointing out what the DHS actually said & didn't say. ...they got nothin' but nutty, scary internet chatter.

Apparently like the "nuthin" they got leading up to Jan 6.

At what level does rising volume of violent rhetoric "chatter" cause an alarm to go off?
When should it?
After the outburst?

Had the Capitol been adequately & competently policed on Jan 6th, it would nave remained nutty chatter & just another politically inspired
ugly mob riot, without the arson & looting of private property.

[seacoaster]

Terrific; now we all might reap what the GOP has sown:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1276567

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories --

Officials were clear that they have no intelligence of a specific domestic terrorism plot. But DHS leaders say they believe security agencies were unprepared for the Jan. 6 riot in part because they paid too little attention to violent and extremist rhetoric on social media.

In an effort to avoid repeating that mistake, the department is trying to sound the alarm among local police agencies about the potential for political violence.

DHS issued a so-called awareness bulletin... discussed the security climate... heightened terrorism-related threat environment...

“Currently, DHS lacks specific or credible reporting indicating that violent extremists are planning to target specific events,” the spokesperson added.

...the agency has watched conspiracy theories about the 2020 election migrate from obscure internet forums to more mainstream ones, and “we are concerned about calls to violence.”

The goal is to build a warning system to detect the sort of posts that appeared to predict an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but were missed or ignored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, officials said.

“DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” the spokesman said. “DHS does not monitor posts or engagements from individual people — rather DHS is focused on identifying and evaluating narratives and disinformation that may incite violence.”

Do you have a point? Is this all not within DHS’s remit to report out the threads it is seeing by and hearing?

Pointing out what the DHS actually said & didn't say. ...they got nothin' but nutty, scary internet chatter.

Apparently like the "nuthin" they got leading up to Jan 6.

At what level does rising volume of violent rhetoric "chatter" cause an alarm to go off?
When should it?
After the outburst?

Had the Capitol been adequately & competently policed on Jan 6th, it would nave remained nutty chatter & just another politically inspired
ugly mob riot, without the arson & looting of private property.

Thank you for your crystal ball. Sure. And then you’d have complained that “Pelosi” didn’t respect First Amendment rights. Either way, you find a way.

[MDlaxfan76]

Terrific; now we all might reap what the GOP has sown:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politi ... s-n1276567

Conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories --

Officials were clear that they have no intelligence of a specific domestic terrorism plot. But DHS leaders say they believe security agencies were unprepared for the Jan. 6 riot in part because they paid too little attention to violent and extremist rhetoric on social media.

In an effort to avoid repeating that mistake, the department is trying to sound the alarm among local police agencies about the potential for political violence.

DHS issued a so-called awareness bulletin... discussed the security climate... heightened terrorism-related threat environment...

“Currently, DHS lacks specific or credible reporting indicating that violent extremists are planning to target specific events,” the spokesperson added.

...the agency has watched conspiracy theories about the 2020 election migrate from obscure internet forums to more mainstream ones, and “we are concerned about calls to violence.”

The goal is to build a warning system to detect the sort of posts that appeared to predict an attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 but were missed or ignored by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, officials said.

“DHS is focused on the nexus between violence and extremist ideologies,” the spokesman said. “DHS does not monitor posts or engagements from individual people — rather DHS is focused on identifying and evaluating narratives and disinformation that may incite violence.”

Do you have a point? Is this all not within DHS’s remit to report out the threads it is seeing by and hearing?

Pointing out what the DHS actually said & didn't say. ...they got nothin' but nutty, scary internet chatter.

Apparently like the "nuthin" they got leading up to Jan 6.

At what level does rising volume of violent rhetoric "chatter" cause an alarm to go off?
When should it?
After the outburst?

Had the Capitol been adequately & competently policed on Jan 6th, it would nave remained nutty chatter & just another politically inspired
ugly mob riot, without the arson & looting of private property.

So what government building or citizens do we need to especially protect from this nutty chatter?

As you know, I disagree with your indictment of "competently policed" as the cause of the calamity, the insurrection against democracy that nearly succeeded (and would have had the DOJ caved, IMO)...I think that while there could have been more forces present and visible, it's not at all clear that would have prevented the violence, indeed for all we know, it might have been worse...

The cause of the calamity was driven by Trump and his sycophants, and all the idiots who supported him and the Big Lie. Pure and simple that's where fault lies. Any deflection from that reality is merely more air cover.

[MDlaxfan76]

I do find this attempt at a false equivalency of "politically inspired mob violence" between BLM and/or Antifa and an outright insurrection to be particularly offensive and quite wrong.

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

The insurrection was entirely about partisan power, including at the expense of the fundamentals of democracy, the peaceful transfer of power through elections.

[old salt]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

[PizzaSnake]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

The one adjacent to “STOP THE STUPID AVENUE”.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

[MDlaxfan76]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power. I'm a Republican and I, like Mitt Romney, support the message of BLM; I'm also anti-fascist, and anti-white supremacy...and yeah, I'm a Republican. I don't support violent means to achieve these objectives, and I'm a Republican...the Republican aspect isn't related to any of these views.

The Insurrection was explicitly about partisan power. Pure and simple, nothing else.

Now, underlying that extreme effort to achieve partisan power are also some pretty gross ideological views and, thus, it was also, at least for many of the participants, an expression of anger and resentment about the loss, or perceived loss, or just the potential for loss, of white supremacist privileges. Yup.

But the specific effort was about partisan power. Anti-democracy.

[Farfromgeneva]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

If a street name changes but a man is afraid to walk down said city streets did the name really change?

FarfromG c 2021

[Farfromgeneva]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power. I'm a Republican and I, like Mitt Romney, support the message of BLM; I'm also anti-fascist, and anti-white supremacy...and yeah, I'm a Republican. I don't support violent means to achieve these objectives, and I'm a Republican...the Republican aspect isn't related to any of these views.

The Insurrection was explicitly about partisan power. Pure and simple, nothing else.

Now, underlying that extreme effort to achieve partisan power are also some pretty gross ideological views and, thus, it was also, at least for many of the participants, an expression of anger and resentment about the loss, or perceived loss, or just the potential for loss, of white supremacist privileges. Yup.

But the specific effort was about partisan power. Anti-democracy.

It’s just dumb except to a certain type of person. What’s funny is his hourglass running out. That was good.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power. I'm a Republican and I, like Mitt Romney, support the message of BLM; I'm also anti-fascist, and anti-white supremacy...and yeah, I'm a Republican. I don't support violent means to achieve these objectives, and I'm a Republican...the Republican aspect isn't related to any of these views.

The Insurrection was explicitly about partisan power. Pure and simple, nothing else.

Now, underlying that extreme effort to achieve partisan power are also some pretty gross ideological views and, thus, it was also, at least for many of the participants, an expression of anger and resentment about the loss, or perceived loss, or just the potential for loss, of white supremacist privileges. Yup.

But the specific effort was about partisan power. Anti-democracy.

It’s just dumb except to a certain type of person. What’s funny is his hourglass running out. That was good.

Now JD Vance is to the rescue.

[Farfromgeneva]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power. I'm a Republican and I, like Mitt Romney, support the message of BLM; I'm also anti-fascist, and anti-white supremacy...and yeah, I'm a Republican. I don't support violent means to achieve these objectives, and I'm a Republican...the Republican aspect isn't related to any of these views.

The Insurrection was explicitly about partisan power. Pure and simple, nothing else.

Now, underlying that extreme effort to achieve partisan power are also some pretty gross ideological views and, thus, it was also, at least for many of the participants, an expression of anger and resentment about the loss, or perceived loss, or just the potential for loss, of white supremacist privileges. Yup.

But the specific effort was about partisan power. Anti-democracy.

It’s just dumb except to a certain type of person. What’s funny is his hourglass running out. That was good.

Now JD Vance is to the rescue.

Is that this guy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkQQGsOegv0

[Typical Lax Dad]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power. I'm a Republican and I, like Mitt Romney, support the message of BLM; I'm also anti-fascist, and anti-white supremacy...and yeah, I'm a Republican. I don't support violent means to achieve these objectives, and I'm a Republican...the Republican aspect isn't related to any of these views.

The Insurrection was explicitly about partisan power. Pure and simple, nothing else.

Now, underlying that extreme effort to achieve partisan power are also some pretty gross ideological views and, thus, it was also, at least for many of the participants, an expression of anger and resentment about the loss, or perceived loss, or just the potential for loss, of white supremacist privileges. Yup.

But the specific effort was about partisan power. Anti-democracy.

It’s just dumb except to a certain type of person. What’s funny is his hourglass running out. That was good.

Now JD Vance is to the rescue.

Is that this guy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hkQQGsOegv0

Classic!

[Typical Lax Dad]

This looks familiar! He needs to put his feet up on the desk!!

[old salt]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power.

How about Antifa Alley ? If the MAGAQ Patriots are going to match BLM & Antifa, they need to up their game, add arson & looting, & kill a cop like David Dorn.

Equal justice for all :
blm rioters charges dropped

[Farfromgeneva]

Funny thing about DC is the alley and diagonal streets were designed to create Sub communities. A friend who lived in tenleytown was a dc history buff and lived it in his backyard where only in the 2000s did folks start putting back fences up, previously weekends were like neighborhood cookouts. So the alley system is already designed with social organizational intent but it failed eventually.

[MDlaxfan76]

The issues that BLM and Antifa are motivated by are not about partisan power.

They may find more support from the members of one political party than another, but they're not about partisan power.

...which DC street will Mayor Bowser convert to "STOP THE STEEL" square.

Do you really believe this nonsensical post is funny or makes a valid point or are you just trying to get under others' skin?

BLM and Antifa are not about, nor motivated by, partisan power.

How about Antifa Alley ? If the MAGAQ Patriots are going to match BLM & Antifa, they need to up their game, add arson & looting, & kill a cop like David Dorn.

Equal justice for all :
blm rioters charges dropped

Or the reverse, maybe Antifa needs to attack the Capitol, try to kill all the MAGA Senators and Representatives and track down all their toady enablers; meanwhile BLM can focus on Mara Lago etc.

And then declare the Democrats the victors in all State races. Make it about partisan power.

This stuff you are posting Salty is really offensive.
I guess that's your intent.

[dislaxxic]

DON’T IGNORE WHAT TREVOR MCFADDEN HAS TO SAY ABOUT JANUARY 6

McFadden is a judge that Orange Cheeto appointed...

McFadden based his decision on this point in part on separation of powers (the basis for some of his decisions that have been deemed pro-Trump) and presumption of regularity, as well as basic facts. He deemed reasonable the possibility that prosecutors viewed Griffin’s leadership role to be more important to prosecute. He suggested he might sentence Griffin (if he were found guilty) leniently based on a comparison with similarly situated protestors against Kavanugh. But he also based his decision on the notion that Griffin’s threats of violence (raised in a detention challenge conducted before Michael Sherwin departed) could pose a genuine concern to the government.

McFadden is not treating this investigation as a witch hunt against people with right wing views.

But at the same time, McFadden has deviated from his colleagues’ more alarmist language to refer to January 6. At least twice in hearings (including on this Griffin challenge), McFadden admonished an AUSA who referred to January 6 as an insurrection. Have you charged anyone with insurrection, McFadden rightly asked. In a court room, these are not empty terms. They are also names of crimes. And DOJ needs to be careful not to accuse these defendants of crimes that — for whatever reason — they haven’t charged.

It’s not that McFadden thinks January 6 was not serious. In the same Hale-Cusanelli hearing, he described, “Obviously, the January 6th riot was a serious and sui generis threat to our country’s body politic.” But thus far (he has not presided over any of the six cases that have been sentenced yet), he has adopted a more moderate tone in discussing the event.

..