Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[Edge-]

https://archive.is/wuzUb

Nearly a year after the 2020 election, Arizona’s then-attorney general Mark Brnovich launched an investigation into voting in the state’s largest county that quickly consumed more than 10,000 hours of his staff’s time.

Investigators prepared a report in March 2022 stating that virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded, according to internal documents reviewed by The Washington Post. Brnovich, a Republican, kept it private.

In April, the attorney general — who was running in the GOP primary for a U.S. Senate seat — released an “Interim Report” claiming that his office had discovered “serious vulnerabilities.” He left out edits from his own investigators refuting his assertions.

His office then compiled an “Election Review Summary” in September that systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties — from state lawmakers to self-styled “election integrity” groups — had presented any evidence to support their claims. Brnovich left office last month without releasing the summary.

Man, so how many Republican officials are complicit in willfully spreading misinformation that drove conservatives into a riotous frenzy because they actually believed all these widespread liars?

[Breccia]

"Brnovich left office last month without releasing the summary."

This is why whistleblowers exist. If someone in a position of power is going to intentionally misrepresent your work to declare something is a problem when it's not -- especially in this case, this is the "Trump led a murderous insurrection" thread -- then hopefully someone will have the guts to come forward to say "no, that's not what we said, I have proof".

[Edge-]

https://www.politico.com/minutes/con...son-jan6-deal/

You'll never guess who was surprised to learn that Speaker McCarthy had handed over a trove of Jan. 6 footage to Tucker Carlson.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s apparent deal to grant Tucker Carlson access to thousands of hours of Capitol security footage from Jan. 6, 2021 came as a surprise to at least one official with oversight responsibility over those files: Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger.

A person familiar with the matter said Manger told associates he didn’t learn of the arrangement between McCarthy and Carlson until it began publicly circulating Monday. Capitol Police have been extremely reluctant to share large swaths of their security footage, citing potential risks to lawmakers, aides and officers tasked with protecting the building.

House Sergeant at Arms William McFarland also told associates he learned about it around the same time Axios broke the news Monday, the person familiar said.

You know, senior law enforcement officials who should probably be given a heads up.

Worth noting:

Murky deal: McCarthy has not yet commented on the arrangement with the Fox News host, and it’s not clear precisely what Carlson is able to access – or how. On his Monday show, Carlson described his producers’ access as “unfettered,” said they’d already been reviewing material for a week and that they plan to continue for another few days before revealing their findings next week.

It's yet another shady backroom deal from Republicans.

[Edge-]

"We're busy working away on trying to figure out how to selectively edit, and spin, whatever we can to create a narrative that shows no issues with Jan. 6" I assume is what they actually mean to say.

I'm honestly curious to see what they come up with.

Because the Fox News propagandists are very good at their jobs.

[diller]

House GOP leaders appear to have given a Fox News host exclusive access to more than 40-thousand hours of previously unreleased surveillance camera footage from the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Wonder how he will manipulate the content.

[postman1782]

Wonder how he will manipulate the content.

They will probably hire James O'Keefe to get ideas on how to cleverly edit the footage like he always did in Project Veritas.

[Edge-]

https://www.newsweek.com/mike-lindel...3496?piano_t=1

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is suing House Speaker Kevin McCarthy for exclusively releasing footage from the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot to Fox News and not to other networks like his.

"Lindell TV is going after Kevin McCarthy in Congress, we're going after them, because they did it wrong," Lindell announced on Wednesday's episode of The Lindell Report.

Earlier in the day, McCarthy had confirmed that he was granting Fox News host Tucker Carlson exclusive access to thousands of hours of surveillance footage from inside the Capitol on the day of the attack—a decision that has drawn sharp criticisms from Democrats who have argued the move only further endangers Capitol security.

But Lindell, a close ally of former President Donald Trump and far-right firebrand, quickly joined those condemning McCarthy. However, Lindell's gripe with McCarthy was less about the House Speaker's decision to release the tapes and more about to whom he was choosing to release the recordings.

By only handing the footage to Carlson and Fox News, McCarthy is violating two Constitutional provisions, the Equal Protection clause and the First Amendment, Lindell argues.

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ooooooooooo
ffffffffffffffffffff
llllllllllllllllllllllllll

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/23/polit...y-6/index.html

Two West Virginia brothers who brought bats to the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, were sentenced Thursday by a federal judge in Washington, DC.

Eric Cramer, 43, who pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a restricted area and tried to grab a baton from a police officer, was sentenced to eight months in prison. His brother, Country Cramer, 38 – who entered the Capitol for two minutes on January 6 – was sentenced to 45 days of home detention after pleading guilty to unlawfully parading or picketing.

The picture of them is pretty funny, too -



https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/...,c_fill/f_webp

[Breccia]

rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
ooooooooooo
ffffffffffffffffffff
llllllllllllllllllllllllll

Didn't see this, posted it in another thread. It's "almost" a shame Lindell is now crying "Wolf! WOLF!" because he kinda has a point. Carlson shouldn't be the only one with the tapes. And, based on the police response, the correct answer is "nobody should have them yet".

As others have said, Carlson is going through the hours of playback to find pictures that, somehow, support the narrative that this wasn't a murderous insurrection despite the dead bodies and the hundreds of convictions. I expect he'll show some happy singing smiling people in a few hallways and say "that doesn't look violent". Which is a lot like me pointing to 9 and 15 and saying "those odd numbers aren't prime, I guess no odd number is prime".

[Dontrike]

"We're busy working away on trying to figure out how to selectively edit, and spin, whatever we can to create a narrative that shows no issues with Jan. 6" I assume is what they actually mean to say.

I'm sure the evidence Cucker will show will be every shot of them not attacking people, smearing shit on the walls, stealing, and more. Basically any shot of people walking down a hallway.

[Fugus]

I'm sure the evidence Cucker will show will be every shot of them not attacking people, smearing shit on the walls, stealing, and more. Basically any shot of people walking down a hallway.

I wouldn't be surprised if he refused to show any of it and then just lied about what was on it. Fox themselves have already argued in court that no reasonable person takes him seriously, can see him taking that ball and running with it unless Fox worries about it becoming the next Dominion case if/when many of the police who were there press charges against him over it or something similar.

[Tentim]

I know you're gone, but I wanted to make a point.

The law is political. That means police violence is, objectively, "political violence". That includes every order issued, every single arrest, all jails, all detainings, every single traffic stop, all "political violence", because it's all backed by the implicit threat of their firearm and their endorsed ability to use violence against you in pursuit of their duties.

Everyone supports violence. It's a question of the intent behind it.

And worse; there is no equivalence between political violence by non-police by actors on the right or left. The right wing is far more violent, and with far less justification. That's simply an observable fact, and if you're contesting that, you're a right-winger trying to lie about the truth as a form of defense.

This is just arguing that the monopoly of violence is a monopoly of violence. I just don't agree one side is more drawn to it. I simply believe they favor different forms of it.

[Elegiac]

This is just arguing that the monopoly of violence is a monopoly of violence. I just don't agree one side is more drawn to it. I simply believe they favor different forms of it.

You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine.

The reality is that while both sides agree with the Weberian principle of the state having a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence, there is a distinct disparity as to the number of circumstances in which said violence is seen as legitimate; the right wing holds violence to be more acceptable in a greater number of cases.

And as Endus said, extrajudicial violence is by and far a largely right wing phenomenon. You don't have left wing militias plotting to kidnap major political figures or disrupt the power grid.

[jonnysensible]

You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine.

The reality is that while both sides agree with the Weberian principle of the state having a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence, there is a distinct disparity as to the number of circumstances in which said violence is seen as legitimate; the right wing holds violence to be more acceptable in a greater number of cases.

And as Endus said, extrajudicial violence is by and far a largely right wing phenomenon. You don't have left wing militias plotting to kidnap major political figures or disrupt the power grid.

just to back up this comment with something i saw a few mins ago : https://www.adl.org/resources/report...tm_content=e01

[Breccia]

You don't have left wing militias plotting to kidnap major political figures or disrupt the power grid.

Now now, that's not fair.

There also aren't Democrat lawmakers working with Democrat terrorist groups to storm the Capitol, even in 2016.

In fact, it would be very difficult to find since, let's say 1963, an act of political violence by a Democrat that wasn't outscaled or outnumbered 10:1 by Republican acts of political violence. That Snopes article shows someone who tried and they started with Lee Harvey Oswald, who was a Marxist. That's the level of desperation you have to sink to, to "both sides" this shit. Oh, and that same list basically says "anyone who shot at a Republican is a Democrat motivated by politics". Almost all of the list is filled with people who weren't registered voters and there were no political motives found.

The list includes the Virginia Tech shooter. Who was not American.

Not only does it seem like Republicans foster far more political violence than Democrats, they're also far more prone to lie about it or excuse it.

People who try to "both sides" this had better come here with something stronger than "I just don't agree". There were hundreds of convictions from Jan 6th alone, and any attempt to claim that was either not political or not violence can fuck right the hell off, since we already know which political party's leader refused to condemn the KKK or literal torch-carrying Nazis who murdered someone.

But speaking of hundreds of convictions on Jan 6th: we are just now learning that in December Rep. Scott Perry lost the fight to keep the texts he sent on Jan 6th out of the Jan 6th committtee's hands.

Howell wrote in her December ruling that over 90% of the 2,219 documents contained on his phone are not protected by the Constitution’s "speech or debate" clause, which grants sitting members of Congress immunity from criminal investigation.

"What is plain is that the Clause does not shield Rep. Perry’s random musings with private individuals touting an expertise in cybersecurity or political discussions with attorneys from a presidential campaign, or with state legislators concerning hearings before them about possible local election fraud or actions they could take to challenge election results in Pennsylvania," Howell wrote.

"Okay, why are we just learning about it now?"

The FBI shielded this because it related to another warrant.

"So...he texted someone and the FBI went after them, too?"

Yes, possibly because they are an insurrectionist and possible co-conspirator.

"Meadows burned papers after meeting with Scott Perry, Jan. 6 panel told"

Whoa, how did that quote get in here? Here I was looking for information about Meadows because the Atlanta grand jury said someone lied under oath, Mark Meadows being one of the members of Team Trump that testified, and what a coincidence I find a post about Meadows talking with Perry about the same time Perry's phone was s--

[quote]

There's also this: "Breaking: The FBI has seized the cell phone of Republican Congressman Scott Perry a day after executing a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago." which someone else pointed out is the same guy who met with Mark Meadows, after which Meadows reportedly burned papers from the meeting, so maybe Meadows, after hearing them laugh in the press that they were going to leave him twisting in the wind, decided it was time to cooperate. It's all wild speculation at this point, but I agree it would have been such a terrible move to go after him for "merely" stealing classified documents that I think there's probably more to it.

So...while my posting of Perry conspiring with Meadows was complete totes 110% accident u gaiz, it's possible that the timeline, including what we know know about the FBI playing this one quietly, was not. I admit it is possible the FBI went after Perry for a reason unrelated to Mar-a-Lago. However, I also say it is possible that, not only did Meadows and Perry conspire, but Trump took the records of that with him, the FBI found it during the raid, and moved on his phone immediately before he could delete anything.

Perry was a public and strong pro-overturn-the-election member. Amongst other things, he tried to push out acting AG Rosen and replace him with a friend of his, after Barr drew the line at "push election fraud conspiracies from the White House". Proof of a conspiracy between Perry and anyone from Trump to the Proud Boys would be a massive get for the FBI.

[Tentim]

You're entitled to your wrong opinion, that's fine.

The reality is that while both sides agree with the Weberian principle of the state having a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence, there is a distinct disparity as to the number of circumstances in which said violence is seen as legitimate; the right wing holds violence to be more acceptable in a greater number of cases.

And as Endus said, extrajudicial violence is by and far a largely right wing phenomenon. You don't have left wing militias plotting to kidnap major political figures or disrupt the power grid.

No...left wing violence tends to be... I think the word I'm going to have to settle with is disorganized? The right is focused with its violence. A happened so B happened. The left tends to well they tend to be more self destructive, disorganized and baffling with their violence. They will for example burn down a little Cesar because they are upset with law enforcement.

[postman1782]

No...left wing violence tends to be... I think the word I'm going to have to settle with is disorganized? The right is focused with its violence. A happened so B happened. The left tends to well they tend to be more self destructive, disorganized and baffling with their violence. They will for example burn down a little Cesar because they are upset with law enforcement.

Name the left wing violence. Because if you are trying to mention the 2020 protests in response to George Floyd being murdered, then you are sorely mistaken. Since most of the violence and burning shit down started because of White Nationalists like the Boogaloo Boys.

[Endus]

This is just arguing that the monopoly of violence is a monopoly of violence. I just don't agree one side is more drawn to it. I simply believe they favor different forms of it.

The point is the hand-wringing virtue signalling over "violence" at protests. Violence, in and of itself, is not the problem. The problem is whether the violence is unjust. Consider how some police officers engage in abusive conduct and beat or even kill innocent people, and get away with it because they're police officers; their violence is protected as part of the monopoly on violence, even though that violence is unjust. Most of us can agree it should not be protected. The same way, violence at a protest over serious injustice may not be legal, but it absolutely can be ethical. Would any of us negatively judge a Jewish German citizen in '35 for shooting the SS officers who came to take their family to Auschwitz? Or would we see that violence as largely justified, the proper and ethical response to the circumstances?

Once you've acknowledged that violence is justifiable based on the intent and purpose of that violence, you can't point to violent acts as negative in and of themselves, you have to consider their context.

Which is why the violence at the Capitol on January 6 is indefensible, because it had not ethical justification and was just fascy insurrection against legitimate government, whereas the Stonewall Riots were justified by the deep injustices being inflicted upon the gay community by the State. Context always matters, and violence isn't always wrong. Even if it often is.

- - - Updated - - -

No...left wing violence tends to be... I think the word I'm going to have to settle with is disorganized? The right is focused with its violence. A happened so B happened. The left tends to well they tend to be more self destructive, disorganized and baffling with their violence. They will for example burn down a little Cesar because they are upset with law enforcement.

It's real helpful for your position that you don't bother actually citing any data to back up your claims.

Because the reality remains that the right wing is vastly more violent, and for far less justifiable reasons.

And framing the Ferguson protests as people being "upset with law enforcement", rather than "angry at the systemic and continuous killings of black people by police officers without accountability for their actions" is pretty indefensible.

It's further a bad example because protests are often used as cover by people looking to cause harm, because police are busy elsewhere and may not have ready access into the protest area. That doesn't mean those lootings and arsons are part of the protests, or acts done by protesters, it means that criminals used the protest as a cover. And that's without getting into how many of these examples turned out to be actions by right-wing counter-protesters, seeking to have blame for their actions cast upon the protests in which they occurred, intentionally.

[Cthulhu 2020]

No...left wing violence tends to be... I think the word I'm going to have to settle with is disorganized? The right is focused with its violence. A happened so B happened. The left tends to well they tend to be more self destructive, disorganized and baffling with their violence. They will for example burn down a little Cesar because they are upset with law enforcement.

People of the black community rioting and destroying commercial property isn't even strictly politically motivated. At least not in the way you seem to think. They riot and burn down property because people in their community are being gunned down unfairly due to the inherent racism within policing. That thread about police violence against blacks is MASSIVE. We can look back through time and find when police officers overwhelmingly applied excess force, violence, and punishment against blacks vs their white counterparts. It's only natural that white right wingers would never understand the fear people feel in their own communities when you cannot trust the police EVER. When the police cross the line and unjustfully kill someone and then is not held accountable, do you think people are just going to "trust in the process of the law" when that has failed them hundreds of thousands of times already? No man, they're gonna retaliate. Police need to be held more accountable.

Right wing violence is YES, very much focused on people. Harming and killing and terrorizing PEOPLE. Honestly, the fact that left wing violence is more aimed at commercial property is to me a far better form of violence than lashing out onto people. But the right sees commercial violence as worse than people dying. It has to deal with the weird cult that basically is capitalism, that anything that represents capitalism or capital owners is "Sacred". Anyone that represents the proletariat, the people who would hinder the global movement of capitalism is fair game for offing. That seems to be the fundamental difference you're arguing.

One sides sees the people, the workers as more important. The other side sees capital as more important. And considering how right wing violence against people is far more prevalent than left wing property violence, I for sure know which side I value more.

[Ivanstone]

I find it fascinating that the usual cranks aren't trotting out the Steve Scalise shooting. This was a straight assassination attempt of a prominent social conservative by a devoted socialist.

Maybe its because Scalise doubled down on gun rights after almost dying. Saint Reagan definitely disagreed with this stance.

[Tentim]

People of the black community rioting and destroying commercial property isn't even strictly politically motivated. At least not in the way you seem to think. They riot and burn down property because people in their community are being gunned down unfairly due to the inherent racism within policing. That thread about police violence against blacks is MASSIVE. We can look back through time and find when police officers overwhelmingly applied excess force, violence, and punishment against blacks vs their white counterparts. It's only natural that white right wingers would never understand the fear people feel in their own communities when you cannot trust the police EVER. When the police cross the line and unjustfully kill someone and then is not held accountable, do you think people are just going to "trust in the process of the law" when that has failed them hundreds of thousands of times already? No man, they're gonna retaliate. Police need to be held more accountable.

Right wing violence is YES, very much focused on people. Harming and killing and terrorizing PEOPLE. Honestly, the fact that left wing violence is more aimed at commercial property is to me a far better form of violence than lashing out onto people. But the right sees commercial violence as worse than people dying. It has to deal with the weird cult that basically is capitalism, that anything that represents capitalism or capital owners is "Sacred". Anyone that represents the proletariat, the people who would hinder the global movement of capitalism is fair game for offing. That seems to be the fundamental difference you're arguing.

One sides sees the people, the workers as more important. The other side sees capital as more important. And considering how right wing violence against people is far more prevalent than left wing property violence, I for sure know which side I value more.

Capital is more important then people strictly speaking. Obviously there is a scale based on numbers involved but more lives are lost damaging infrastructure long term then singular acts against individuals.