January 6th, Just What Was It?

[SkepticThinker]

I did address her points, I disagree with them.

Nah, you didn't.

When Libs can't debate, they cry racism!

Nah, that's just what Fox "News" tells you.
Don't say borderline racist stuff, and nobody will call you a racist. Nobody has ever called me a racist, "Libs" included.

When white men commit murder is that ALSO "systemic racism"?

No, we're talking about your claims about black people.

When White men get shot by the cops is that ALSO racism, poverty, not enough spent on education???

Poverty can affect white people too.

 

[Colt]

Nah, you didn't.

Nah, that's just what Fox "News" tells you.
Don't say borderline racist stuff, and nobody will call you a racist. Nobody has ever called me a racist, "Libs" included.

No, we're talking about your claims about black people.

Poverty can affect white people too.

She ran off after getting challenged. Now you step in to argue for her. You should mind your own business.

 

[SkepticThinker]

She ran off after getting challenged. Now you step in to argue for her. You should mind your own business.

I'm sure that's what you'll tell yourself.
In actuality she wrote a well-written and thoughtful post, deserving of some actual consideration and thought that you instead brushed off so you could double down on your claims.
I'll mind my own business when I'm not on a public debate forum.

 

[Ponder This]

"Prosecutors responded that all but 10 seconds of Capitol surveillance footage, including the clips played by Carlson, had been released to Pezzola, Chansley and all defendants in September 2021. The clips shown by Carlson “are not exculpatory of Pezzola or any other participant in the siege of the Capitol,” prosecutors Jason McCullough and Conor Mulroe wrote."

The problem with the prosecutors claim is that the only footage released until now did not include what Tucker Carlson released. Selectively releasing their footage publically makes it hard to buy the story that they didn't selectively release to the defense.

"At media outlets’ request, prosecutors also made public footage that connects Chansley more directly to rioting than the brief clip aired on Carlson’s program.

And again here they have released selective footage to the media. Maybe both prosecutors and media should have been more transparent to the public from the beginning.

Of course Chansley's lawyers dispute these claims, which means a judge will have to decide.

If you're correct, there should be a successful appeal coming.

I've already pointed out how that is unlikely because Chansley waived the right of appeal in his plea deal.

Yes. Was somebody charged with standing in front of a podium?

I'm glad you agree. If you followed the discussion in this thread, then you would see that @F1fan pushed in bold text the culpability of standing in front of a podium and you chimed in opposition to my response.

Irrelevant. He was charged and convicted of the crimes he was seen doing on video.

You placed the podium in bold text on your comment. You made the podium seem important. I'm glad you are willing to reconsider that position.

The police who appeared to be abetting the insurrectionists should be investigated. Likewise with the congressional Republicans who appeared to be doing the same the day before.

Don't try to deflect. We are talking about the police officers around Chansley in the video footage Tucker released, particularly the two officers escorting him. You can't justify charging those police officers with a crime by saying that there were other police officers elsewhere that ought to be charged with a crime. But if you are simply saying that we ought to investigate more, then I accept that as an appropriate amendment to your remarks.

The officers were hired to perform security, and that included escorting criminal trespassers until they exited the Capitol.

Perhaps you should discuss that point with @It Aint Necessarily So .
I actually pointed out that the officers were likely making the best of a bad situation and I have received push-back on that notion.

The cover-up begins with Republicans calling the insurrection tourism and political speech. Then come the Senate Republicans voting against a bipartisan investigation. The come the House Republicans trying to prevent a House investigation, and then when they couldn't, to subvert it.

I notice that releasing video footage that was kept secret is not part of your description of where a cover-up begins.

Curated. That's what investigators and prosecutors do. They separate the significant evidence from the rest.

They are obligated to release discovery to the defense.

You have video surveillance in your house. A person enters illegally, washes your dishes, does your laundry then robs your house blind.
At their trial why would anyone need to see them wash your dishes and do your laundry? It doesn't changed the fact they where there illegally and commited a crime.

Can you phrase your point in terms of Chansley's activities? Your hypothetical isn't useful. I could go down the rabbit hole of how family members interact with the intruders in various ways, but us going down the rabbit hole of your hypothetical strikes me as being a deflection from actual events.

"provide complete footage"

I take it that you would be for the revelation of complete footage rather than only having selective footage available. I agree with that position.

There was none given the charges were of him being IN the Capitol which caused the interuption of congress.

Are you expressing an opinion as to whether or not the video footage released by Tucker is a cover-up?

He is lucky. There were many others who did act on a conspiracy against the USA, and they are facing many more years.

Again with the conspiracy? But you won't provide substance to confirm that Chansley was part of a conspiracy? So what if "others" were part of a conspiracy and therefore faced more years. That doesn't make Chansley "lucky"; it makes him not a part of the conspiracy theory you are constructing.

I understand what it is. Your posts indicate you having problems understanding that the people who broke into the Capitol were committing crimes.

People who broke into the capitol did commit crimes and Chansley also committed crimes. Problems understanding the situation appear to be on your end of this dialog.

Tucker Carlson is lying. Those who repeat what he is lying about are liars as well, as they should know better than to trust Carlson.

I don't trust Tucker Carlson. For example, I don't accept the narrative from Tucker that Chansley was at the capitol as a tourist.
I also don't trust selective media narrations that Chansley was there to overthrow the government.

The guy obstructed an official proceeding by being IN the Capitol. How does video of him being IN the Capitol help his defense?

You write a lot of words about exculpatory evidence but not a single word about how the video does so.

I will repeat again: the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent and it supports that he was led to the Senate Chamber by Capitol police. It is also suggestive that he was there to protest. I've said this already; you just didn't want to hear it. I also don't deny the existence of inculpatory evidence. Perhaps you should step away from pushing conspiracy theories for a while.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I began my posts in this thread by pushing back against Tucker Carlson's narrative of events. I explained why police officers likely acted the way that they did and why they waited until Jan 9th to arrest Chansley instead of arresting him on Jan 6. But, apparently, people can't get away from the narratives they have already bought into hook, line, and sinker. There has been talk here that releasing video coverage is part of a cover-up, punishing police who were doing their job, conspiracy theorizing, and a general lack of understanding of what exculpatory evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will repeat again: the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent and it supports that he was led to the Senate Chamber by Capitol police. It is also suggestive that he was there to protest. I've said this already; you just didn't want to hear it. I also don't deny the existence of inculpatory evidence. Perhaps you should step away from pushing conspiracy theories for a while.

It is not exculpatory due to other evidence that has been posted in this thread. His lawyer knew that he was getting a good deal. He needs something a lot stronger than a police officer trying to guide him and possibly mislead him to be "exculpatory." That tiny bit of cherry picked video does not refute the other evidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm sure that's what you'll tell yourself.
In actuality she wrote a well-written and thoughtful post, deserving of some actual consideration and thought that you instead brushed off so you could double down on your claims.
I'll mind my own business when I'm not on a public debate forum.

Thanks for the support.

I'm a dude though, by the way.

[Insert some sort of hyper-macho gif here]

The trajectory of that discussion was surprising in how very clear and obvious an example it is of certain people literally not allowing themselves to think about something. It's so bizarre.

Person A: Black people are not unfairly discriminated against! Did you know that black people are only around 13% of the general population but around 50% of violent criminal acts are committed by black people?
Person B: That's very interesting. Why do you think that is?
Person A: Err... Because of culture.
Person B: But culture isn't a racial trait, so that doesn't explain why this particular race is over-represented. Do you think there is something inherent or genetic to black people that makes them more likely to be violent criminals?
Person A: No! I'm no saying that! In fact, I believe black people and white people are the same.
Person B: Okay. So why do you think black people are more likely to be violent criminals in America, then?
Person A: Well, um, it's definitely not because of racism. It must just be because they're poorer.
Person B: I see. But being poor also isn't a racial or genetic trait. So why do you think black people are poorer?
Person A: Er... Uh... Because everyone's an individual and everyone makes their own choices and race has nothing to do with it and statistics don't mean anything!
Person B: So, why did you bring up the statistic to begin with?
Person A: Because... 13/50.

Literally, it's like they're able to walk with you down the road, but when you reach a certain point where they HAVE to acknowledge a conclusion that they don't want to they just shut down their brains and run back to where you started. It's impossible to educate such people.

 

[Colt]

Thanks for the support.

I'm a dude though, by the way.

[Insert some sort of hyper-macho gif here]

The trajectory of that discussion was surprising in how very clear an obvious an example it is of certain people literally not allowing themselves to think about something. It's so bizarre.

Person A: Black people are not unfairly discriminated against! Did you know that black people are only around 13% of the general population but around 50% of violent criminal acts are committed by black people?
Person B: That's very interesting. Why do you think that is?
Person A: Err... Because of culture.
Person B: But culture isn't a racial trait, so that doesn't explain why this particular race is over-represented. Do you think there is something inherent or genetic to black people that makes them more likely to be violent criminals?
Person A: No! I'm no saying that! In fact, I believe black people and white people are the same.
Person B: Okay. So why do you think black people are more likely to be violent criminals in America, then?
Person A: Well, um, it's definitely not because of racism. It must just be because they're poorer.
Person B: I see. But being poor also isn't a racial or genetic trait. So why do you think black people are poorer?
Person A: Er... Uh... Because everyone's an individual and everyone makes their own choices and race has nothing to do with it and statistics don't mean anything!
Person B: So, why did you bring up the statistic to begin with?
Person A: Because... 13/50.

Literally, it's like they're able to walk with you down the road, but when you reach a certain point where they HAVE to acknowledge a conclusion that they don't want to they just shut down their brains and run back to where you started. It's impossible to educate such people.

7/50, Black males are 7% of the total population in America but account for over 50% of all murders. Those murders are almost always other black males. White males are 31% of the TL population in America and account for under 50%. Hence the likelihood of violent interaction with black males by arresting officers which accounts for a disproportionately high fatal force statistic.

When people are unable to accept hard facts, the age-old reality of personal responsibility and the hard-fought achievements of social evolution, they resort to having a philosophical discussion instead. They are the enablers in society.

Leftist don't fix problems, they subsidize them. Those problems continue and even get worse which calls for more subsidizing by a parasitical state. The improvident habitually live off the thrifty.

The "theory" is that the problem isn't that criminals are misbehaving, it's that there's something wrong with the police who arrest them and or they get a pass for having had crapy mentors!

You like anthropology?

"War is the natural state and heritage of evolving man; peace is the social yardstick measuring civilization's advancement. Before the partial socialization of the advancing races man was exceedingly individualistic, extremely suspicious, and unbelievably quarrelsome. Violence is the law of nature, hostility the automatic reaction of the children of nature, while war is but these same activities carried on collectively. And wherever and whenever the fabric of civilization becomes stressed by the complications of society's advancement, there is always an immediate and ruinous reversion to these early methods of violent adjustment of the irritations of human interassociations." UB 1955

 

[Subduction Zone]

7/50, Black males are 7% of the total population in America but account for over 50% of all murders. Those murders are almost always other black males. White males are 31% of the TL population in America and account for under 50%. Hence the likelihood of violent interaction with black males by arresting officers which accounts for a disproportionately high fatal force statistic.

When people are unable to accept hard facts, the age-old reality of personal responsibility and the hard-fought achievements of social evolution, they resort to having a philosophical discussion instead. They are the enablers in society.

Leftist don't fix problems, they subsidize them. Those problems continue and even get worse which calls for more subsidizing by a parasitical state. The improvident habitually live off the thrifty.

The "theory" is that the problem isn't that criminals are misbehaving, it's that there's something wrong with the police who arrest them and or they get a pass for having had crapy mentors!

You like anthropology?

"War is the natural state and heritage of evolving man; peace is the social yardstick measuring civilization's advancement. Before the partial socialization of the advancing races man was exceedingly individualistic, extremely suspicious, and unbelievably quarrelsome. Violence is the law of nature, hostility the automatic reaction of the children of nature, while war is but these same activities carried on collectively. And wherever and whenever the fabric of civilization becomes stressed by the complications of society's advancement, there is always an immediate and ruinous reversion to these early methods of violent adjustment of the irritations of human interassociations." UB 1955

Translation: I found some science, not sure if it applies, but that must mean that I am not a racist.

Anyone buying that defense?

 

[Colt]

Translation: I found some science, not sure if it applies, but that must mean that I am not a racist.

Anyone buying that defense?

Translation: With the Left all people are racist if you disagree with them. Its the strawman diversion when they can't handle facts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

With the Left all people are racist if you disagree with them.

Nope. It just seems that way because today most of the racists are on the right.

 

[Colt]

Nope. It just seems that way because today most of the racists are on the right.

LoL! If you have no problem holding racist responsible for their behavior, then why can't you hold criminals responsible for theirs???

And frankly many people on the Left have true racist believes but they enjoy immunity from scrutiny by association.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LoL! If you have no problem holding racist responsible for their behavior, then why can't you hold criminals responsible for theirs???

And frankly many people on the Left have true racist believes but they enjoy immunity from scrutiny by association.

Some do. In fact most of us have some racist views. It is hard to get rid of them. But to combat it one needs to realize which reactions that one has are due to racism. Merely denying makes one look like even more of a racist.

 

[Colt]

Some do. In fact most of us have some racist views. It is hard to get rid of them. But to combat it one needs to realize which reactions that one has are due to racism. Merely denying makes one look like even more of a racist.

What you call "racist views" may just be an aversion to people whom one has had negative interactions with and even within racial demographics. Intuition informs me when I encounter certain white people, but that isn't racism, that's wisdom born out of experience.

To me real white supremacists are real racists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you call "racist views" may just be an aversion to people whom one has had negative interactions with and even within racial demographics. Intuition informs me when I encounter certain white people, but that isn't racism, that's wisdom born out of experience.

To me real white supremacists are real racists.

Your posts indicate that you may be one. You try to keep it buried but you were unable to answer too many of @ImmortalFlame 's questions. You should have answered them instead of ducking and dodging.

 

[metis]

The problem with the prosecutors claim is that the only footage released until now did not include what Tucker Carlson released. Selectively releasing their footage publically makes it hard to buy the story that they didn't selectively release to the defense.

And again here they have released selective footage to the media. Maybe both prosecutors and media should have been more transparent to the public from the beginning.


I've already pointed out how that is unlikely because Chansley waived the right of appeal in his plea deal.


I'm glad you agree. If you followed the discussion in this thread, then you would see that @F1fan pushed in bold text the culpability of standing in front of a podium and you chimed in opposition to my response.

You placed the podium in bold text on your comment. You made the podium seem important. I'm glad you are willing to reconsider that position.


Don't try to deflect. We are talking about the police officers around Chansley in the video footage Tucker released, particularly the two officers escorting him. You can't justify charging those police officers with a crime by saying that there were other police officers elsewhere that ought to be charged with a crime. But if you are simply saying that we ought to investigate more, then I accept that as an appropriate amendment to your remarks.


Perhaps you should discuss that point with @It Aint Necessarily So .
I actually pointed out that the officers were likely making the best of a bad situation and I have received push-back on that notion.


I notice that releasing video footage that was kept secret is not part of your description of where a cover-up begins.


They are obligated to release discovery to the defense.


Can you phrase your point in terms of Chansley's activities? Your hypothetical isn't useful. I could go down the rabbit hole of how family members interact with the intruders in various ways, but us going down the rabbit hole of your hypothetical strikes me as being a deflection from actual events.

I take it that you would be for the revelation of complete footage rather than only having selective footage available. I agree with that position.



Are you expressing an opinion as to whether or not the video footage released by Tucker is a cover-up?


Again with the conspiracy? But you won't provide substance to confirm that Chansley was part of a conspiracy? So what if "others" were part of a conspiracy and therefore faced more years. That doesn't make Chansley "lucky"; it makes him not a part of the conspiracy theory you are constructing.


People who broke into the capitol did commit crimes and Chansley also committed crimes. Problems understanding the situation appear to be on your end of this dialog.


I don't trust Tucker Carlson. For example, I don't accept the narrative from Tucker that Chansley was at the capitol as a tourist.
I also don't trust selective media narrations that Chansley was there to overthrow the government.


I will repeat again: the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent and it supports that he was led to the Senate Chamber by Capitol police. It is also suggestive that he was there to protest. I've said this already; you just didn't want to hear it. I also don't deny the existence of inculpatory evidence. Perhaps you should step away from pushing conspiracy theories for a while.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I began my posts in this thread by pushing back against Tucker Carlson's narrative of events. I explained why police officers likely acted the way that they did and why they waited until Jan 9th to arrest Chansley instead of arresting him on Jan 6. But, apparently, people can't get away from the narratives they have already bought into hook, line, and sinker. There has been talk here that releasing video coverage is part of a cover-up, punishing police who were doing their job, conspiracy theorizing, and a general lack of understanding of what exculpatory evidence is.

She was with the group who busted out a window and was going to invade the chamber, which endangered those in it. Under such circumstances, the police had an obligation to try and thwart the assault. Under panic conditions, it is always possible an unarmed person may be hit. Thus, she must share a large part of the blame since she did not have to invade the chamber and endanger others.

 

[Colt]

Your posts indicate that you may be one. You try to keep it buried but you were unable to answer too many of @ImmortalFlame 's questions. You should have answered them instead of ducking and dodging.

Thats just your biased opinion as an anti-white Christian Atheist. Using your logic you are one as well.

I provided statistical facts, she provided a philosophy, a theory. "Suddenly" the scientific guy doesn't like math and statistical facts.

 

[Colt]

She was with the group who busted out a window and was going to invade the chamber, which endangered those in it. Under such circumstances, the police had an obligation to try and thwart the assault. Under panic conditions, it is always possible an unarmed person may be hit. Thus, she must share a large part of the blame since she did not have to invade the chamber and endanger others.

Good thing she wasn't black because then Metis wouldn't be able to have such a full-throated defense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats just your biased opinion as an anti-white Christian Atheist. Using your logic you are one as well.

I provided statistical facts, she provided a philosophy, a theory. "Suddenly" the scientific guy doesn't like math and statistical facts.

I am not "anti-Christian" I am only anti abusers of the Bible. Yes, you provided statistical facts as an attempt to hide your racism. You never justified your beliefs. Racists often do that. You should have answered his questions.

 

[F1fan]

The problem with the prosecutors claim is that the only footage released until now did not include what Tucker Carlson released. Selectively releasing their footage publically makes it hard to buy the story that they didn't selectively release to the defense.

As has been explained to you numerous times. Any video that shows people inside the Capitol when it was closed to the public is evidence of their crime.

And again here they have released selective footage to the media. Maybe both prosecutors and media should have been more transparent to the public from the beginning.

Do you think the media is going to show 44,000 hours in their news coverge? No, select bits are sufficient to show America and the rest of the world what Trump MAGAs did to democracy.

I've already pointed out how that is unlikely because Chansley waived the right of appeal in his plea deal.

Wise, what appeal would work when even Carlson shows him INSIDE the Capitol?

I'm glad you agree. If you followed the discussion in this thread, then you would see that @F1fan pushed in bold text the culpability of standing in front of a podium and you chimed in opposition to my response.

You placed the podium in bold text on your comment. You made the podium seem important. I'm glad you are willing to reconsider that position.

The podium was inside the Capitol. If a rioter is standing in front of the podium then they are inside the Capitol and committing a crime.

Don't try to deflect. We are talking about the police officers around Chansley in the video footage Tucker released, particularly the two officers escorting him.

Right, police were escorting criminal trspassers out of the Capitol.

You can't justify charging those police officers with a crime by saying that there were other police officers elsewhere that ought to be charged with a crime. But if you are simply saying that we ought to investigate more, then I accept that as an appropriate amendment to your remarks.

The investigation of certain police is if they allowed rioters in instead of stopping their entry. The Capitol was closed to the public at that time, and the police had a duty to prevent entry. Of course the Trump mod used weapons to attack police and they were injured and overwhelmed.

Perhaps you should discuss that point with @It Aint Necessarily So .
I actually pointed out that the officers were likely making the best of a bad situation and I have received push-back on that notion.

An investigation will find out.

I notice that releasing video footage that was kept secret is not part of your description of where a cover-up begins.

Some video was not recommended to be releasd to the public due to security issues, namely the position of security cameras.

They are obligated to release discovery to the defense.

You keep saying this, but any video that shows a defendant IN the Capitol, and in the act of committing a crime won't have any evidence that helps them. This view that you adopted from Carlson's propaganda show is absurd.

Again with the conspiracy? But you won't provide substance to confirm that Chansley was part of a conspiracy? So what if "others" were part of a conspiracy and therefore faced more years. That doesn't make Chansley "lucky"; it makes him not a part of the conspiracy theory you are constructing.

Was he merely a fool who was duped by Trump and other far right media? Or did he know what he was doing to meet others and disrupt a congressional procedure? What did these aimless folls really think they would accomplish by breaking into the Capitol, keep Trump as president?

People who broke into the capitol did commit crimes and Chansley also committed crimes. Problems understanding the situation appear to be on your end of this dialog.

So what's up with all your blather about the video clip Carlson broadcast? It was just more video of the guy breaking the law. What's the lawyer gong to do with that? "Here's more video of my client breaking the law, let him off the hook."?

I don't trust Tucker Carlson. For example, I don't accept the narrative from Tucker that Chansley was at the capitol as a tourist.
I also don't trust selective media narrations that Chansley was there to overthrow the government.


I will repeat again: the exculpatory video indicates Chansley's mental state was not violent and it supports that he was led to the Senate Chamber by Capitol police. It is also suggestive that he was there to protest. I've said this already; you just didn't want to hear it. I also don't deny the existence of inculpatory evidence. Perhaps you should step away from pushing conspiracy theories for a while.

Showing a clip of him walking doesn't offset all the other video of him doing other types of acts.

He has a lawyer, the lawyer knows what he did, he got the best deal he could, and the kid took it. Maybe the kid is learning something about right wing extremist belief, and how it is not good for the nation or him personally.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

I began my posts in this thread by pushing back against Tucker Carlson's narrative of events. I explained why police officers likely acted the way that they did and why they waited until Jan 9th to arrest Chansley instead of arresting him on Jan 6. But, apparently, people can't get away from the narratives they have already bought into hook, line, and sinker. There has been talk here that releasing video coverage is part of a cover-up, punishing police who were doing their job, conspiracy theorizing, and a general lack of understanding of what exculpatory evidence is.

Your views often defiend reason and the facts. Keep pondering.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your posts indicate that you may be one. You try to keep it buried but you were unable to answer too many of @ImmortalFlame 's questions. You should have answered them instead of ducking and dodging.

They're incapable of answering questions. You saw what happened with me - he basically short-circuited the moment he came to realize he had nowhere to run. So he just stopped answering my questions (not that he was making much of an effort to begin with) and went back to repeating himself.

I strongly recommend ignoring him. He's not here to debate.