6 Jan 2020 U.S. Events (Split from A Deeply Fractured US)

[Fishbone Jones]

Considering they only had a few weeks at best to put their case together and to be frank, Trumps legal teams seemed to be made up of a few high end lawyers well past their prime with no real support staff. That makes for a hard case to prove. To gather such evidence, you really need about 6 months of evidence gathering and preparation of court documents. I know of several Federal cases here where they rushed in the beginning due to circumstance, only to have a case unravel on them, due to poor prep work.

Most of the cases brought never heard the evidence. The courts just refused to hear them. A number are still active including Powell's Dominion case. The fat lady on irregularities hasn't sung yet. I really don't expect much from a democrat run justice committee on the irregularities. I won't jump to conclusions on that until it's run it's course. The dems may want to steer clear of it during the hearing because it will allow Trumps people to finally present their evidence in public so it can be heard by the whole country without the Big Media filter. Just an off thought. I have no crystal ball to predict anything or present opinion as fact

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It would probably be fairer to say he's a "whomever pays me" activist rather then a BLM activist.

Maybe, but he certainly wasn't there to support Trump. Now to arrest the other 199 and see where the allegiance lay. Maybe he was just the cigarette on the couch fire, to steal a quote from bri.

 

[brihard]

BREAKING: BLM anarchist arrested in connection to Capitol riots​

Black Lives Matter activist John Sullivan, 25, who was caught in a photograph of the Capitol Hill riot on Jan. 6, was arrested Thursday for participating "knowingly and willfully" in illegal conduct when he breached the Capitol, according to a sworn affidavit.

BREAKING: BLM anarchist activist arrested in connection to Capitol riots

Black Lives Matter activist John Sullivan, 25, who was caught in a photograph of the Capitol Hill riot on Jan. 6, was arrested Thursday for participating “knowingly and willfully” in illegal conduct when he breached the Capitol, according to a sworn affidavit.

thepostmillennial.com

Affidavit attached listing his transgressions.

I wonder what part of Trump's speech incited him to action.

Hammer him with the rest of them. Don't let it distract from the very, very clear pattern that has emerged about who the overwhelming majority of those arrested and charged were- hard core Trump supporters, many of them eyeballs deep in a dizzying array of conspiracy theories who bought his nonsense hook, line, and sinker. Those who 'stood back and stood by'. Those who fill their social media with talk of 'the storm', 'civil war', and the like, and who at a minimum are keen to cheer same on from the sidelines if not dive right in themselves. Those who read supposed meaning in the numerological nonsense of 'Q'. Those who told police they had better hope they don't come back with their guns. Etc, etc. And that's exactly what the various police and security agencies will be prepared for on the 20th.

Trump lost but did not accept it. Power will transition, that is beyond his control, but he was determined that it would not be willingly. His party have extracted very grudging appeals to peace from him, but it's not clear or likely that it's heartfelt.

Cults, whether of personality or otherwise, can be dangerous in how completely people fall into them. They will rationalize the fall of a leadership figure in such a way as to not threaten the underlying collective identity and beliefs of the cult. Trump is done and will be effectively out of US politics (as a candidate) one way or another, but the cult of Trumpism (which by NO means includes all or even most of those who voted for him) will be around a while yet. It has shown itself capable of dangerous excesses. There's no reason to believe that simply ignoring them and hoping they go away will be effective. There's no reason to think that letting their leader slink ignominously off into the sunset will change the underlying grievances and perceived injustices that lead people to storm the legislature, beat cops with fire extinguishers, and tear down American flags to be replaced with Trump flags. Not every conflict calls for reconciliation. Some behaviours are fundamentally incompatible with a free and peaceful democratic society, and those engaging in those behaviours do not deserve to be pandered to because their feelings are hurt and they have a collective tantrum over it.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Could it be considered along the same lines as police calling off a high speed pursuit, or hanging back, to not put bystanders at risk of being injured by a fleeing suspect?

Asking because I have no idea, Is impeaching Trump this week the only opportunity the US has to hold him accountable for his behavior and actions? Is he protected and untouchable after the inauguration?

They could even impeach him in absentia, because Im pretty sure he's headed to Israel or a Black Sea Dacha.

 

[Blackadder1916]

A couple of lists of those arrested thus far for actions related to the Jan 6 events at the US Capitol and with links to some of the charging documents.

From a news outlet https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

And from the US DOJ

Capitol Breach Cases

www.justice.gov

There are some differences between the two, likely due to different jurisdictions for some offences.

 

[lenaitch]

Most of the cases brought never heard the evidence. The courts just refused to hear them. A number are still active including Powell's Dominion case. The fat lady on irregularities hasn't sung yet. I really don't expect much from a democrat run justice committee on the irregularities. I won't jump to conclusions on that until it's run it's course. The dems may want to steer clear of it during the hearing because it will allow Trumps people to finally present their evidence in public so it can be heard by the whole country without the Big Media filter. Just an off thought. I have no crystal ball to predict anything or present opinion as fact

I keep hearing this raised, leaving the impression that multiple courts simply waved their hands and shooed the complainants out of the court. The vast majority, if not all, of the cases were civil, meaning that factums (statements of claim) containing the allegations were available to the court, as were statements of defence. I don't know for certain but imagine most were dismissed or denied on summary judgement, based on the factum alone and/or oral arguments by counsel. I suspect the courts either found the allegations lacked merit or perhaps even real prima facie evidence. Allegations of some random person seeing boxes and assuming they were full ballots isn't evidence. Evidence that a state's voting procedure was illegal was perhaps determined to be, in fact, not.

If people believe multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions, operating under multiple state civil court rules, are all part of some grand unified conspiracy, then I suppose I can't help that. It is interesting that only a handful of complainants felt their cases were so strong that they appealed the rulings. I think one was partially successful.

Of course, nobody can know for certain without reviewing the transcripts, but nobody in the aggrieved camp seems to be interested in doing that.

 

[Pelorus]

If one of the best witnesses that Trump's legal team could find was a combative, low-level IT contractor, who was almost certainly drunk during the hearing, is it any surprise that these cases all got tossed out?:

(This was the best video I could find on Youtube highlighting her testimony without commentary overlaid every few seconds. The uploader starts talking at around 5 minutes in, which I can't comment on as I haven't watched it)

Perhaps top shelf representation like this is why Trump is now refusing to pay Giuliani's legal fees. Alternatively, maybe this is just the latest chapter in a long history of stiffing contractors, the majority of whom were the hard-working blue collar tradespeople that Trump convinced back in 2015 that he would fight for in Washington:

At least 60 lawsuits, along with hundreds of liens, judgments, and other government filings reviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK, document people who have accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them for their work. Among them: a dishwasher in Florida. A glass company in New Jersey. A carpet company. A plumber. Painters. Forty-eight waiters. Dozens of bartenders and other hourly workers at his resorts and clubs, coast to coast. Real estate brokers who sold his properties. And, ironically, several law firms that once represented him in these suits and others.

Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage, according to U.S. Department of Labor data. That includes 21 citations against the defunct Trump Plaza in Atlantic City and three against the also out-of-business Trump Mortgage LLC in New York. Both cases were resolved by the companies agreeing to pay back wages.

 

[Pelorus]

BREAKING: BLM anarchist arrested in connection to Capitol riots
Black Lives Matter activist John Sullivan, 25, who was caught in a photograph of the Capitol Hill riot on Jan. 6, was arrested Thursday for participating "knowingly and willfully" in illegal conduct when he breached the Capitol, according to a sworn affidavit.

BREAKING: BLM anarchist activist arrested in connection to Capitol riots

Black Lives Matter activist John Sullivan, 25, who was caught in a photograph of the Capitol Hill riot on Jan. 6, was arrested Thursday for participating “knowingly and willfully” in illegal conduct when he breached the Capitol, according to a sworn affidavit.

thepostmillennial.com

Affidavit attached listing his transgressions.

I wonder what part of Trump's speech incited him to action.

Maybe, but he certainly wasn't there to support Trump. Now to arrest the other 199 and see where the allegiance lay. Maybe he was just the cigarette on the couch fire, to steal a quote from bri.

So despite the desire of the far-right propaganda "news" websites to score an easy win against BLM and/or "The Left" and to sow doubts about the events of 6 Jan, and despite how many conservatives will ultimately disseminate said propaganda without doing any fact-checking or confirmatory research, it would seem that the truth is not as cleanly packaged as professional disinformation peddlers like Charlie Kirk would like.

Below is a 23-part Twitter thread from 26 November from a bona fide far left Seattle-based activist, outing John Sullivan as either a non-aligned anarchist, grifter, crazy person, and/or right-wing agent provocateur:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1331902011147620352

It's worth noting that this account is almost certainly a grassroots true believer in leftist causes. As their thread from November has now made waves, they've pinned the following tweet to their account stating why they won't cooperate with the FBI:

"We are a team of prison and police abolitionists. While we’ve established our concerns about John’s impact on protester safety, we maintain our stance against state violence and incarceration. We have no interest in celebrating cop shit or making light of a Black man's arrest."

I have read the whole thread as well as the screen capped testimonials from others in that world included in the thread, and don't think it's conclusive as to who John Sullivan actually is based off of the information provided. According to the thread, John Sullivan was blacklisted from both the Salt Lake City and Portland protest "scenes" due to his behaviour. In my mind, though, it doesn't really matter why he was at the Capitol riot on 6 Jan:

• Is he a far-left extremist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in order to make conservatives look bad? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
• Is he a true believing anarchist who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in an attempt to destabilize the US Government, without a clean left/right political bias? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.
• Is he a right-wing agent provocateur who aided the Trump insurrection at the Capitol in either attempt to support Trump's insurrection and/or to try to make BLM look like they were involved? If so, fuck him and charge him along with everyone else who broke the law during the events of 6 Jan.

The problem arises when far-right "journalism" intentionally runs half-truths and misinformation in order to score gotcha "He's BLM!" points against "The Left" and drive clicks to their garbage websites, and low-info readers who feel righteous anger reading said articles get conned into sharing and amplifying it without doing any due diligence. As stated by the classic (albeit oft-misattributed) quote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on".

Regardless of the details of who this person actually is, the conspiracy theory that 6 Jan was actually an "Antifa" and/or "Deep State" false flag designed to make Trump supporters look bad has grown wings and taken off thanks to social media sharing and the click-generating algorithms of these websites.

Now maybe it wasn't your intent to propagate US conspiracy theories on a Canadian military website, but given your steadfast defence of Trumpism the last few years and the sentence I highlighted in your second quote, "Now to arrest the other 199 and see where the allegiance lay.", it's difficult to read it any other way, even if I'm being polite and generous.

 

[Halifax Tar]

While I agree that there needs to be consequences for some people, the last thing the US needs next is a Stalinist witch hunt.

This such an astute statement.

What the Dems don't understand is the are opening Pandora's box. Who says the Reps wont be purging them next.

This whole fiasco is doing nothing to heal that country. In fact its only widening divisions. It doesn't matter at all who done it because no one is taking on the task of actually unifying that country.

If a civil war isn't around the corner I am going to be very surprised.

 

[Underway]

You're using The Postmillennial as a legitimate news site? Ouch. Try something that is actually a legitimate news source? That doesn't meet the bar in anything resembling proper journalism. The Onion has higher journalistic standards than The Postmillennial!

 

[dimsum]

You're using The Postmillennial as a legitimate news site? Ouch. Try something that is actually a legitimate news source? That doesn't meet the bar in anything resembling proper journalism. The Onion has higher journalistic standards than The Postmillennial!

I mean, it's not OANN or Newsmax...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I keep hearing this raised, leaving the impression that multiple courts simply waved their hands and shooed the complainants out of the court. The vast majority, if not all, of the cases were civil, meaning that factums (statements of claim) containing the allegations were available to the court, as were statements of defence. I don't know for certain but imagine most were dismissed or denied on summary judgement, based on the factum alone and/or oral arguments by counsel. I suspect the courts either found the allegations lacked merit or perhaps even real prima facie evidence. Allegations of some random person seeing boxes and assuming they were full ballots isn't evidence. Evidence that a state's voting procedure was illegal was perhaps determined to be, in fact, not.

If people believe multiple courts in multiple jurisdictions, operating under multiple state civil court rules, are all part of some grand unified conspiracy, then I suppose I can't help that. It is interesting that only a handful of complainants felt their cases were so strong that they appealed the rulings. I think one was partially successful.

Of course, nobody can know for certain without reviewing the transcripts, but nobody in the aggrieved camp seems to be interested in doing that.

I'm not going to argue legal procedure, of which you sound like a practitioner. I can only assume that what I see Trump’s lawyers say, is true. I'm pretty sure they can't lie in public to the public, as opposed to faceless, unknowns on the internet giving their opinions as fact. I simply repeated what I've heard them say in press conferences. Far from being sub par, as some state, Giuliani smacked down the Mafia in NY and Powell is no slouch either. Both have argued in front of the Supreme Court. No place for sub par counselors. Anyway, thanks for your insight and I'll look into this more.

Given the time line they were working under, I believe having things tossed by the lower courts to move it up to the SC, was part of the plan. I don't know.

Broken election laws by various states. Some of those are still being litigated I believe. Also, some state senates are going to be dealing with their governors and attorney generals.
The Michigan senate has already removed people, I believe, but I can recall who right now and too lazy to go looking. Texas believed enough of what they saw from thier own checking to decide that they had to go after all the swing states and lay their case to the SC. Anyway, that'll all come out in the wash. However, I have to think that maybe all those legal beagles in Texas wouldn't do this on what Trump was saying. If they said there was irregularities, that beats internet chatter.

Thanks for your post, there are points to consider.

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm not going to argue legal procedure, of which you sound like a practitioner. I can only assume that what I see Trump’s lawyers say, is true. I'm pretty sure they can't lie in public to the public, as opposed to faceless, unknowns on the internet giving their opinions as fact.

Why not? If the President can, why can’t his lawyers? If they’re not inside the court, they can be held to perjury.

 

[RangerRay]

While I agree that there needs to be consequences for some people, the last thing the US needs next is a Stalinist witch hunt.

If you are referring to deplatforming, private companies can kick off anyone they like. Perpetuating “The Big Lie”, in particular by politicians and media figures who ought to know that what they were saying would foment insurrection, would seem to me like a good reason to kicked off. As I asked above, if you truly believed that that the election was stolen from your candidate by a widespread fraud scheme the likes of which never seen before in a stable western democracy and democracy was now dead in your country, how would you not react violently? Especially when none other than the “Leader of the Free World” was telling you so?

If you’re referring to going after perpetrators criminally, as someone on the centre-right I say investigate and prosecute all involved to the full extent of the law. Including politicians and media figures inciting their supporters with The Big Lie. This includes impeaching and convicting the Arsonist-in-Chief. This will serve to dissuade other would-be demagogues that think inciting an insurrectionist mob to keep Congress from performing a constitutionally mandatory duty is a good idea.

I am not even go into all the other impeachable acts he’s committed in his time in office...

So, no, I don’t view holding people accountable for incitement or insurrection to be a “Stalinist witch-hunt”.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You're using The Postmillennial as a legitimate news site? Ouch. Try something that is actually a legitimate news source? That doesn't meet the bar in anything resembling proper journalism. The Onion has higher journalistic standards than The Postmillennial!

So, you're saying PM is fake news? I suppose that makes the FBI affidavit fake also?

We've had this discussion a hundred times here. Someone cites a source and someone that just wants to ridicule the poster and source, pops up and does just that, because they are too lazy to defend it properly with sources from their own Big Media. Sad really.

Anyway, you got your laughs, have a nice day.

 

[mariomike]

If they’re not inside the court, they can be held to perjury.

Can they?

 

[Remius]

Why not? If the President can, why can’t his lawyers? If they’re not inside the court, they can be held to perjury.

That’s part of the issue. What they have been saying publicly is not being said in court because they know they could face perjury charges. In fact in many cases they’ve admitted in court they have no real evidence when questioned.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why not? If the President can, why can’t his lawyers? If they’re not inside the court, they can be held to perjury.

So, everyone behind Trump is a liar and the only ones to believe are democrats. Got it. How could I have been so blind?

 

[Remius]

So, everyone behind Trump is a liar and the only ones to believe are democrats. Got it. How could I have been so blind?

Not everyone. But he has quite a group that helps spread the lies. Lies that have led the country into the mess it is in now. 60 odd cases lost and or thrown out due to LACK of any real evidence. And they still cling to the false story that the election was rigged enough to steal the election. The people that stormed the Capitol truly believed that lie. Now some of them are using the defence that the President told them to do that.

The fur-wearing, face-painted 'QAnon Shaman' has asked Trump for a presidential pardon

The 33-year-old faces charges including disorderly conduct, violent entry, and illegally being on restricted spaces within the Capitol grounds.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[RangerRay]

The mob “backed the blue” until the blue enforced the law on them

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/14/politics/police-officers-capitol-riot-hodges-fanone/index.html

"Some of them felt like we would be fast friends because so many of them have been vocal," Hodges said. "They say things like, 'Yeah, we've been supporting you through all this Black Lives Matter stuff, you should have our back' and they felt entitled."


He added, "They felt like they would just walk up there and tell us that they're here to take back Congress and we would agree with them and we'd walk in hand in hand and just take over the nation. But obviously that's not the case and it will never be the case."