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

[MDlaxfan76]

nope, I'm very concerned that democracy is America is about to morph into something more akin to Eastern European faux democracy.

So much for your optimism you claimed to have . Trumpism will die off, a slow death, but it will die off. THe speed at which it does, will take a robust economic and employment recovery, coupled with an extended peacetime.

Trimmed for sanity..

Not sure we have the luxury of waiting for "a robust economic and employment recovery, coupled with an extended peacetime.' I think the "body blows" à la a "Sonny Liston"-like climate change are coming soon. Going to take something like FDR and his fear quotation, and that still might not work - I'm not sure our rivals will allow us sufficient time. Also, I think Americans are too soft for the requisite privation such a response would entail.

I never claimed "optimism" about Trump or Trumpism. I've been shouting off the rooftops about the dangers of Trump and his followers' authoritarian impulses from even before the 2016 election and have only grown louder since then.

I've had a single answer to Trumpism and that's that it will require Trumpism's complete and ignominious refutation, not simply at the polls but by the GOP itself. They had a moment in time where it looked like that would happen, but very strangely, they went all-in for Trumpism including it's very worst reflections. Grossly so. They've embraced white supremacists. They've embraced Qanon. They've embraced the Big Lie. And they've rejected all semblances of respect for the rule of law or even common decency. It's downright crazy, but there we are.

So, at this point I don't know what will break the stranglehold of this ideology. It's definitely not just going to wither and die.

I do agree with your more general point about robust economics and employment (surely that's what we're experiencing now, albeit with inflation) and peacetime...no troops in hot wars anywhere.

Indeed, I think that was exactly what the Biden playbook was, grapple with Covid, encourage economic recovery, make massive commitments to multi-year infrastructure investments that will drive employment and other economic productivity benefits, etc, etc. End our longest war.

And had the GOP dumped Trump, all of that might well have worked...R's would have regained respectability and a voice, yes some excessive spending likely would have occurred, but a GOP candidate might well have emerged to take on the Dems in 2024, or at least by 2028, and the GOP would have likely gained seats in 2022. Functioning democracy.

If by authoritarian do you mean The First Step Act, Middle East peace treaties that aimed to diminish Iran, making NATO allies pay their fair share and raising wages for the non-collegiate class while pushing back on a semi-demented popular culture. First president to fly the Rainbow flag above the White House. Ceaucescu maybe?

No, authoritarian like Trump's fawning over foreign dictators, his most recent endorsement of Victor Orban, and most importantly the attempted coup. We're headed down the path of Eastern European style authoritarian rule.

I was at dinner last evening in Palm Beach with a woman who had worked at the UN as a political appointee during Trump term, who was gushing over how effective and strong a leader Putin has been. She exclaimed over his "popularity". Her husband, a federal appellate judge in DC, agreed with me that Russia is a kleptocracy and that Putin and his cronies are bleeding the country, close to a failed state, not a "success" except for himself and his cronies. We both agreed that China is far more of a long term threat, but that Putin has been a very savvy player at disrupting western democracies, primarily for domestic propaganda purposes.

She also told me that Xi had been mightily impressed by his visit to Mar a Lago and, thus, we were getting along great with China during the Trump Admin...really???

We'd been having a discussion about China; she's very angry that the Chinese engineered to have Chinese be spoken/translated during committee meetings...English is/should be the only language of the UN!. We agreed on the challenge of China generally, but she had great difficulty discerning the differences between the authoritarian government and the life and expectations of the people. She was upset that the Chinese delegation has to live together, that they can't shop like normal folks here in US, have restricted movement...as if that control is applied to the non-gov't employees who come here for study, work, tourism, etc. Hint: it's not remotely the same (the UN delegation actually deals with top secret info, so control of them is taken super seriously)....she was also under the mistaken impression that only Party members are allowed to travel, study, etc abroad...not true. You can't be openly opposed to the Party, but you needn't be one of the 95 million formal Party members.

My son's view is that Americans, in general, have great difficulty in understanding that while Party membership is necessary for government employment, even low level gov't employment, it's not necessary for all sorts of other participation, economically, travel, whatever...we think of "Party" as something akin to Democrats and Republicans, a choice...whereas there, there's only one viable choice...in the Party or not opposed to the Party. Either you want to work in government, or you really don't care. No one has the option to oppose (concentration camp). And that's simply not a problem for them as they're busy trying to get ahead, working way more hours than Americans do per year, 12 hours a day, 6 days a week.

She also gushed about how America and democracy and capitalism have lifted so many out of poverty out of the world, which I made clear I agreed with, while pointing out the biggest beneficiary of our world system has indeed been the US . I posited that we, the US, and West more generally, face two main authoritarian system challenges, one akin to Russia (discussed above) and most importantly from China. China has quite successfully raised enormous #'s of its citizens out of abject poverty, largely through government-controlled capitalism, which makes their system seem quite compelling to much of the less developed world. And certainly Belt and Road, is very appealing on its face, for the countries receiving massive infrastructure investments (loans), but I argued that their system might well have fatal flaws in the long haul, possibly strangling debt and over reach, resentments of the host countries of Belt and Road, etc to China First...but only if we present to the world a more compelling path of democracy, self-determination, freedom, mutual respect and prosperity.

She'd been very negative about "international orgs" like the UN and WHO ("do you think we know they didn't create the virus"? me: "no, and I don't expect to. They're not transparent. Fact of life." But then I told her that had a virus popped up first in say Baltimore (Wuhan) we certainly would not have invited the Chinese, nor WHO, in to examine Ft. Dietrich's labs and secret biological research programs when accused...whether it had originated in the lab or not...no way. She didn't know what Ft Dietrich is, where it is, what it does, etc.

My point was that we need to perform better, present a far more attractive path for the world than the competitive proposition of the Chinese authoritarian system, IF we wish our system to prevail. And we can't do it alone, though we certainly can lead.

But it's not possible if we turn from a gridlocked hyper-partisan world to the fascism of Eastern Europe/Russian "strong man" rule. We need to restore actual functioning democracy, build respect for our institutions, both US and international, and invite the lesser developed world to adopt our rules of the road to their own benefit.

Hard work, but ohh so critical.

[MDlaxfan76]

They didn't intend to fight police??? But then did fight police??? That part doesn't seem right, they clearly intended to violently overturn the election results, had to know that the government (police, military) would be opposed...unless you're saying they had some reason to believe they would be unopposed and the only opposition would be Antifa???

I do think that there was originally an expectation of conflict with counter-protestors and indeed, it's plausible that the whole game plan was for that to devolve into such violence it would give Trump an excuse to declare martial law...but the counter protestors stayed away and the plan fell apart...so, Trump directed them at the Capitol directly. But that may well have not been the original plan.

. Stop it ! I meant they did not intend to fight the police with guns. That's why they did not bring guns to the Capitol. You know what I meant.

Not sure what I'm being told to stop.

Yes, I understood that you were saying they didn't plan on shooting at police.

But it's perplexing.

My question was whether they thought they were going to fight the police...or not. Did they think the police or Guard were going to be passive or actually on their side in what they clearly planned to be violent action?

There's certainly some reasonable supposition, given some of the evidence so far, that the Oath Keepers and others were being told they wouldn't be opposed by police, Guard etc, quite the reverse...so that's plausible. An open question.

But they certainly did then fight directly with police, so it's not as if they had such respect for police that they were unwilling to go into hand to hand combat with them...indeed they were geared to fight, and there's evidence that they had studied such tactics against police/gov't forces.

But then there's this tantalizing question as to what the weapons cache was for, moreover what was the $40k in spending on weapons and gear post Jan 6, pre Jan 20 for? Just to have them? Just in case gunfire broke out? with Antifa? Or were they planning a second attack on the gov't? Texts appear to suggest the latter.

And if hand to hand was expected, why not be prepared to call on reinforcements to bring the weapons if shooting actually broke out...recall the resistance of the police to firing on the crowd, the concern that they would then trip off massive return fire and loss of life overall...probably a quite reasonable concern as evidenced ny those weapons staged nearby.

As I said, my hunch from early on has been that the original game plan, to the extent coordinated thru Stone, Bannon, et al was for the "protests" to create a situation in which enough violence could break out with counter protestors, justifying the declaration of martial law and throwing the 'election' to the House, which would be an automatic reinstatement of Trump as President. But the counter protestors stayed away, so Trump et al turned the crowd's frustration towards the Capitol, probably not expecting the riot to be so out of control and violent, but clearly not opposed by Trump himself...reporting is that he was pleased by the rioting on his behalf...and the game plan remained in place to the bitter end to somehow pressure Pence into flipping it to the House.

And the groups like the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, etc who came jacked up and spoiling for violence led the vanguard, with the weight of the mob behind them.

It'll be interesting to learn the extent of communications with those groups from those in the 'war room' at various stages. It's pretty clear that there was at least some communication/coordination...but what was the extent of it? And were there communications post the riot?

And that's the violent part of the insurrection...what we're now learning is that the real "coup" was very much being played out through non violent, but quite illegal, much less dishonest, means, at the state level and it sure looks like that was coordinated by the White House/Trump Campaign. Whole bunch of evidence of that coming to light.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jan-6 ... hp&pc=U531

Interesting read, if you have an open mind.

This little opinion piece is not aging well. Already.

If your an individual with a more progressive point of view, of course it doesn't age very well. You know you never want to let a good crisis go to waste. Comparing the events of 1/6/21 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is about as asinine and over the top as it gets. The objective here is very clear, keep beating the same insurrection drum over and over and over until everybody believes you. The protest of 1/6/21 was a disgusting display by some really bad characters. It made me all sorts of angry. It wasn't Pearl Harbor and it wasn't 9/11. Trying to make that analogy stick is an insult to those 2 tragedies in our history.

[RedFromMI]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jan-6 ... hp&pc=U531

Interesting read, if you have an open mind.

This little opinion piece is not aging well. Already.

If your an individual with a more progressive point of view, of course it doesn't age very well. You know you never want to let a good crisis go to waste. Comparing the events of 1/6/21 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is about as asinine and over the top as it gets. The objective here is very clear, keep beating the same insurrection drum over and over and over until everybody believes you. The protest of 1/6/21 was a disgusting display by some really bad characters. It made me all sorts of angry. It wasn't Pearl Harbor and it wasn't 9/11. Trying to make that analogy stick is an insult to those 2 tragedies in our history.

Those tragedies were also attacks from the outside. 1/6/21 was an attack on our own government by citizens of the United States. Both a violent one at the Capitol, and a nonviolent one around the same time trying to overturn a legitimate electoral victory of the current president.

Both are really sedition - and should be prosecuted. It does not matter how effective or organized, but the attempt and intent was there. And I think there are also members of Congress who by going along for the ride deserve to be removed from office as well... Their intent to try to override the election carries guilt as well...

[Kismet]

Detailed synopsis by Asha Rangappa, former FBI Special Agent and Associate Dean at Yale Law School now Director of Admissions and Senior Lecturer at Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482 ... 13795.html

[RedFromMI]

Detailed synopsis by Asha Rangappa, former FBI Special Agent and Associate Dean at Yale Law School now Director of Admissions and Senior Lecturer at Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482 ... 13795.html

Fits exactly with what I just said. According to my Twitter feed within the last hour, Trump is telling the GOP in PA:

Trump tells PA GOP why he is placing an emphasis on Supervisor of Elections races in 22: “We have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote .. Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate. They have to get a lot tougher and smarter.”

Video of Trump saying that:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/14 ... mp4?tag=12

[seacoaster]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/jan-6 ... hp&pc=U531

Interesting read, if you have an open mind.

This little opinion piece is not aging well. Already.

If your an individual with a more progressive point of view, of course it doesn't age very well. You know you never want to let a good crisis go to waste. Comparing the events of 1/6/21 to Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is about as asinine and over the top as it gets. The objective here is very clear, keep beating the same insurrection drum over and over and over until everybody believes you. The protest of 1/6/21 was a disgusting display by some really bad characters. It made me all sorts of angry. It wasn't Pearl Harbor and it wasn't 9/11. Trying to make that analogy stick is an insult to those 2 tragedies in our history.

The comparisons aren't meant to be literal, of course. They are intended to reflect the fact that this was a serious event, and unprecedented event in the modern life of the country. That has nothing to do with being "progressive" or "conservative." The assault on the Capitol was intended -- by the inciters and the participants -- to derail an important function of Congress, preclude the certification of the vote, and leave the country in leadership limbo long enough for Trump's functionaries to continue to work for his unlawful retention of office. You would think that would engender a non-partisan or bipartisan response. Instead, folks like the hayseed who wrote this opinion piece want to soft-peddle the whole event, and make it appear that "the left" is using it for gain. You are just being the type of rube they want.

[SCLaxAttack]

Detailed synopsis by Asha Rangappa, former FBI Special Agent and Associate Dean at Yale Law School now Director of Admissions and Senior Lecturer at Jackson Institute for Global Affairs at Yale University.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1482 ... 13795.html

Fits exactly with what I just said. According to my Twitter feed within the last hour, Trump is telling the GOP in PA:

Trump tells PA GOP why he is placing an emphasis on Supervisor of Elections races in 22: “We have to be a lot sharper the next time when it comes to counting the vote .. Sometimes the vote counter is more important than the candidate. They have to get a lot tougher and smarter.”

Video of Trump saying that:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/14 ... mp4?tag=12

Being seditious...... in plain sight.

Scum bag.

[old salt]

They didn't intend to fight police??? But then did fight police??? That part doesn't seem right, they clearly intended to violently overturn the election results, had to know that the government (police, military) would be opposed...unless you're saying they had some reason to believe they would be unopposed and the only opposition would be Antifa???

I do think that there was originally an expectation of conflict with counter-protestors and indeed, it's plausible that the whole game plan was for that to devolve into such violence it would give Trump an excuse to declare martial law...but the counter protestors stayed away and the plan fell apart...so, Trump directed them at the Capitol directly. But that may well have not been the original plan.

. Stop it ! I meant they did not intend to fight the police with guns. That's why they did not bring guns to the Capitol. You know what I meant.

Not sure what I'm being told to stop.

Yes, I understood that you were saying they didn't plan on shooting at police.

But it's perplexing.

My question was whether they thought they were going to fight the police...or not. Did they think the police or Guard were going to be passive or actually on their side in what they clearly planned to be violent action?

There's certainly some reasonable supposition, given some of the evidence so far, that the Oath Keepers and others were being told they wouldn't be opposed by police, Guard etc, quite the reverse...so that's plausible. An open question.

But they certainly did then fight directly with police, so it's not as if they had such respect for police that they were unwilling to go into hand to hand combat with them...indeed they were geared to fight, and there's evidence that they had studied such tactics against police/gov't forces.

But then there's this tantalizing question as to what the weapons cache was for, moreover what was the $40k in spending on weapons and gear post Jan 6, pre Jan 20 for? Just to have them? Just in case gunfire broke out? with Antifa? Or were they planning a second attack on the gov't? Texts appear to suggest the latter.

And if hand to hand was expected, why not be prepared to call on reinforcements to bring the weapons if shooting actually broke out...recall the resistance of the police to firing on the crowd, the concern that they would then trip off massive return fire and loss of life overall...probably a quite reasonable concern as evidenced ny those weapons staged nearby.

As I said, my hunch from early on has been that the original game plan, to the extent coordinated thru Stone, Bannon, et al was for the "protests" to create a situation in which enough violence could break out with counter protestors, justifying the declaration of martial law and throwing the 'election' to the House, which would be an automatic reinstatement of Trump as President. But the counter protestors stayed away, so Trump et al turned the crowd's frustration towards the Capitol, probably not expecting the riot to be so out of control and violent, but clearly not opposed by Trump himself...reporting is that he was pleased by the rioting on his behalf...and the game plan remained in place to the bitter end to somehow pressure Pence into flipping it to the House.

And the groups like the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, etc who came jacked up and spoiling for violence led the vanguard, with the weight of the mob behind them.

It'll be interesting to learn the extent of communications with those groups from those in the 'war room' at various stages. It's pretty clear that there was at least some communication/coordination...but what was the extent of it? And were there communications post the riot?

And that's the violent part of the insurrection...what we're now learning is that the real "coup" was very much being played out through non violent, but quite illegal, much less dishonest, means, at the state level and it sure looks like that was coordinated by the White House/Trump Campaign. Whole bunch of evidence of that coming to light.

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

[Kismet]

They didn't intend to fight police??? But then did fight police??? That part doesn't seem right, they clearly intended to violently overturn the election results, had to know that the government (police, military) would be opposed...unless you're saying they had some reason to believe they would be unopposed and the only opposition would be Antifa???

I do think that there was originally an expectation of conflict with counter-protestors and indeed, it's plausible that the whole game plan was for that to devolve into such violence it would give Trump an excuse to declare martial law...but the counter protestors stayed away and the plan fell apart...so, Trump directed them at the Capitol directly. But that may well have not been the original plan.

. Stop it ! I meant they did not intend to fight the police with guns. That's why they did not bring guns to the Capitol. You know what I meant.

Not sure what I'm being told to stop.

Yes, I understood that you were saying they didn't plan on shooting at police.

But it's perplexing.

My question was whether they thought they were going to fight the police...or not. Did they think the police or Guard were going to be passive or actually on their side in what they clearly planned to be violent action?

There's certainly some reasonable supposition, given some of the evidence so far, that the Oath Keepers and others were being told they wouldn't be opposed by police, Guard etc, quite the reverse...so that's plausible. An open question.

But they certainly did then fight directly with police, so it's not as if they had such respect for police that they were unwilling to go into hand to hand combat with them...indeed they were geared to fight, and there's evidence that they had studied such tactics against police/gov't forces.

But then there's this tantalizing question as to what the weapons cache was for, moreover what was the $40k in spending on weapons and gear post Jan 6, pre Jan 20 for? Just to have them? Just in case gunfire broke out? with Antifa? Or were they planning a second attack on the gov't? Texts appear to suggest the latter.

And if hand to hand was expected, why not be prepared to call on reinforcements to bring the weapons if shooting actually broke out...recall the resistance of the police to firing on the crowd, the concern that they would then trip off massive return fire and loss of life overall...probably a quite reasonable concern as evidenced ny those weapons staged nearby.

As I said, my hunch from early on has been that the original game plan, to the extent coordinated thru Stone, Bannon, et al was for the "protests" to create a situation in which enough violence could break out with counter protestors, justifying the declaration of martial law and throwing the 'election' to the House, which would be an automatic reinstatement of Trump as President. But the counter protestors stayed away, so Trump et al turned the crowd's frustration towards the Capitol, probably not expecting the riot to be so out of control and violent, but clearly not opposed by Trump himself...reporting is that he was pleased by the rioting on his behalf...and the game plan remained in place to the bitter end to somehow pressure Pence into flipping it to the House.

And the groups like the Oathkeepers, Proud Boys, Three Percenters, etc who came jacked up and spoiling for violence led the vanguard, with the weight of the mob behind them.

It'll be interesting to learn the extent of communications with those groups from those in the 'war room' at various stages. It's pretty clear that there was at least some communication/coordination...but what was the extent of it? And were there communications post the riot?

And that's the violent part of the insurrection...what we're now learning is that the real "coup" was very much being played out through non violent, but quite illegal, much less dishonest, means, at the state level and it sure looks like that was coordinated by the White House/Trump Campaign. Whole bunch of evidence of that coming to light.

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if dirtbag Rhodes and the other rats flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

[old salt]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

[Kismet]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

That's not the standard for conviction - You have to prove an agreement between parties and those parties take action in furtherance of the agreement to act - you don't need to succeed or even be competent to get convicted.

As for Garland, word is he balked at the first try and sent them back for more evidence before he would agree to indict. He is going out of his way to not be political here. He was a federal judge for over 20 years. He is not a political type by nature.

[old salt]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

That's not the standard for conviction - You have to prove an agreement between parties and those parties take action in furtherance of the agreement to act - you don't need to succeed or even be competent to get convicted.

As for Garland, word is he balked at the first try and sent them back for more evidence before he would agree to indict. He is going out of his way to not be political here. He was a federal judge for over 20 years. He is not a political type by nature.

I understand how little success or competence is required. I look forward to seeing their operations plan, who signed up for it, & what tangible actions were taken before & after Jan 6. Concrete actions, not posturing.

[MDlaxfan76]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

That's not the standard for conviction - You have to prove an agreement between parties and those parties take action in furtherance of the agreement to act - you don't need to succeed or even be competent to get convicted.

As for Garland, word is he balked at the first try and sent them back for more evidence before he would agree to indict. He is going out of his way to not be political here. He was a federal judge for over 20 years. He is not a political type by nature.

I understand how little success or competence is required. I look forward to seeing their operations plan, who signed up for it, & what tangible actions were taken before & after Jan 6. Concrete actions, not posturing.

From what has already been revealed, I'm not concerned about DOJ getting convictions on the charges currently levied, on the specific individuals charged. Serious prison time. Seditious conspiracy.

However, I'm far more interested in who else was being coordinated with, especially the non-direct action folks back in the 'war room' and from there the White House.

These a-holes are gonna do serious time, but the real question is whether the far more serious coup plotters do serious time.

And most importantly, not directly related to the violence itself. It's the plot to overthrow the election results by whatever dishonest means necessary that is the most serious crime committed...and it's a whole lot of people involved.

[jhu72]

They didn't intend to fight police??? But then did fight police??? That part doesn't seem right, they clearly intended to violently overturn the election results, had to know that the government (police, military) would be opposed...unless you're saying they had some reason to believe they would be unopposed and the only opposition would be Antifa???

I do think that there was originally an expectation of conflict with counter-protestors and indeed, it's plausible that the whole game plan was for that to devolve into such violence it would give Trump an excuse to declare martial law...but the counter protestors stayed away and the plan fell apart...so, Trump directed them at the Capitol directly. But that may well have not been the original plan.

. Stop it ! I meant they did not intend to fight the police with guns. That's why they did not bring guns to the Capitol. You know what I meant.

... they just brought them from far and wide to store them in Virginia hotel rooms.

[jhu72]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

That's not the standard for conviction - You have to prove an agreement between parties and those parties take action in furtherance of the agreement to act - you don't need to succeed or even be competent to get convicted.

As for Garland, word is he balked at the first try and sent them back for more evidence before he would agree to indict. He is going out of his way to not be political here. He was a federal judge for over 20 years. He is not a political type by nature.

I understand how little success or competence is required. I look forward to seeing their operations plan, who signed up for it, & what tangible actions were taken before & after Jan 6. Concrete actions, not posturing.

From what has already been revealed, I'm not concerned about DOJ getting convictions on the charges currently levied, on the specific individuals charged. Serious prison time. Seditious conspiracy.

However, I'm far more interested in who else was being coordinated with, especially the non-direct action folks back in the 'war room' and from there the White House.

These a-holes are gonna do serious time, but the real question is whether the far more serious coup plotters do serious time.

And most importantly, not directly related to the violence itself. It's the plot to overthrow the election results by whatever dishonest means necessary that is the most serious crime committed...and it's a whole lot of people involved.

... you forget this was just a normal tourist visit to the capitol. Like every other day in DC.

[PizzaSnake]

They didn't intend to fight police??? But then did fight police??? That part doesn't seem right, they clearly intended to violently overturn the election results, had to know that the government (police, military) would be opposed...unless you're saying they had some reason to believe they would be unopposed and the only opposition would be Antifa???

I do think that there was originally an expectation of conflict with counter-protestors and indeed, it's plausible that the whole game plan was for that to devolve into such violence it would give Trump an excuse to declare martial law...but the counter protestors stayed away and the plan fell apart...so, Trump directed them at the Capitol directly. But that may well have not been the original plan.

. Stop it ! I meant they did not intend to fight the police with guns. That's why they did not bring guns to the Capitol. You know what I meant.

... they just brought them from far and wide to store them in Virginia hotel rooms.

Just wanted to re-distill in ol’ Virginny…


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Gentleman

[old salt]

https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justi ... terrorism/
“We want him to declare an insurrection, and to call us up as the militia,” said Rhodes, ...Court filings show that in a series of communications through video chats and encrypted messaging platforms multiple Oath Keepers discussed coordination of weapons for their January 6 “ops” in DC. Although some talked about not bringing firearms into the city initially, the group was preparing for battle against Trump’s political enemies, including “antifa.”

They were afraid to bring their guns to the insurrection because they were afraid of DC's gun laws.
That's some hard core revolutionaries all right.

[Kismet]

Some came equipped to engage police in riot gear. The counter protestors did not show up. So everything else is supposition on our part.
Maybe their comms & testimony will reveal some detailed plan or just more grandiose posturing.
I'm not sure every protester carrying a flag intended to use it as a weapon & engage the police.
Those with helmets, vests, goggles, bear spray &/or radios came equipped for a fight.

I think you can bet that the Feds have a lot more information than you do (or that is public). The fact that they made a 48 page indictment for the Oathkeeper big cheese should tell you something about what they have minimally to indict and you can bet there will be a lot more before and during trial.

They have other perps who are flipping to make deals for less time in the slammer, access to encrypted communications plus all sorts of other incriminating evidence. Would not surprise me if Rhodes and the others flip on other big cheeses in the conspiracy before its over.

Seditious conspiracy is a very high bar and suspect the AG rightly wants an overwhelming case at trial with little chance for acquittal.

There was a lot of concern expressed about potential violence by these groups after Jan 6th, some in state capitals. I don't recall reporting that any of that took place. The NG spent a winter guarding the lamp posts of DC. There was a lot of quacking about a year of the most massive investigation in history, yielding no indictments for sedition. That's a lot to justify. Garland & the DoJ are not immune from political pressure. Their challenge will be convincing a jury that this cast of clowns was a serious, coherent insurrection. Criminals don't have to be competent or succeed, but these "insurrectionists" didn't accomplish much beyond taking advantage of a political protest to trespass & vandalize an incompetently undefended Capitol building. They did not establish themselves as a credible threat.

That's not the standard for conviction - You have to prove an agreement between parties and those parties take action in furtherance of the agreement to act - you don't need to succeed or even be competent to get convicted.

As for Garland, word is he balked at the first try and sent them back for more evidence before he would agree to indict. He is going out of his way to not be political here. He was a federal judge for over 20 years. He is not a political type by nature.

I understand how little success or competence is required. I look forward to seeing their operations plan, who signed up for it, & what tangible actions were taken before & after Jan 6. Concrete actions, not posturing.

I expect that no matter what happens going forward you'll be skeptical, continue to tacitly support these alleged criminals and continue to try and be funny until the very end.

[jhu72]

... well you know there are special exemptions in the sedition laws for being incompetent and stupid.