Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

LOL, with a scent of Kool-Aid.

 

The guy you are talking to is supposed to be a prosecutor, this is knowledge that you can pick up by watching Law & Order reruns.

Makes me think he is not playing it straight.

 

But but he is a prosecutor.

Allegedly.

I am actually enjoying him being exposed.

 

I know from experience that it's annoying to have muggles argue with you about a subject where you have actual expertise. But it's the funny things about internet forums -- they're like big anti-meritocratic leveling devices. I can opine on any subject I don't know two ***** about and not feel out of place.

 

...here-here...

 

No idea how they got there. There is a hammer there as well, they could have been there as part of construction. They could have been dropped by another rioter, they could have been dropped by a cop. We don't have any evidence of how they got there that I am aware of. We do have evidence that "zip tie guy" didn't bring them in. Remember his picture was the one that represented the grave danger all the congresspeople were in. The big threat was what this guy in black "tactical gear" was going to do with these zip ties.

Technically we only have laws on the books that make seditious conspiracy a federal crime.

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

We don't actually know the intent of each person though, do we. Zip tie guy's intent appears to have been looking after his mother. He was even asking her what her intent was. Presumably some of the people were there to protest, and they are guilty of trespassing. Some of the people may have been their to use force to prevent the certification of the election results. If that can be proved about any of them beyond a reasonable doubt, as well as the fact that they were specifically acting in concert with another to do that, then they would be guilty of seditious conspiracy. I don't think that it everyone that was there. Just like I don't think every BLM protester in St. Louis on June 2 is guilty of murdering David Dorn, nor is every Antifa protester in Portland guilty of Arson for setting fire to the Federal Courthouse. You have to consider each individual on a case by case basis.

I don't find you annoying JV, I enjoy the back and forth. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother.

 

Some here want you to believe the 1/6 Treason Seekers were just a nice church tour group who got lost in the building...

 

But what does it look like to, say, conspire to oppose by force the authority of the Government of the United States? If a guy in a crowd says, "Let's get in that building and stop them from certifying the ballots!" and you follow that guy, are you in a conspiracy now? Or do you just "happen to be there" unless you'd said "Yeah! Let's do it!"?

 

I don't think it is as important whether he brought them in. Why did he pick them up and hold on to them? It is reasonable to presume, and investigate him for having an intention of kidnapping. If he showed up only intending to protest, but then saw a bunch of zip ties and decided to grab them and keep them in his possession it makes sense that it would be to kidnap.

You claim that his intent was to look after his mother. Did he happen to find some stray zip ties and decide they would come in handy while keeping an eye on his mom?

 

Maybe he wanted to keep them out of the hands of other people. Why do you think someone going around saying, "Don't break that. Don't vandalize anything, we're not Antifa." is looking to kidnap someone? Do those actions not seem at all at odds with that theory?

Conspiracy requires and agreement and then overt acts in furtherance of that agreement. So, if a bunch of people are all doing something (like a protest or a riot) that is not a conspiracy because each person is just independently participating in that activity. Think of a house party. There is an event. A bunch of people show up to the event. That doesn't mean any two of those people are acting upon an agreement between them to go to the party. But if people are communicating directly with each other to say hey, there is this house party let's go together, then they go together, that would be "conspiring" to go to the party (in quotes because it is not illegal to go to a party, and conspiracy requires a criminal aim). The stuff they found on some discord servers as communications between some of the people at the Capitol (I think it was the Oath Keepers, but can't remember for sure) could suffice for those people.

 

Well JuanValdez has stolen a lot of my thunder but to answer in my own words. To add my own response From that video though he did say he wanted to "F-- some stuff up" too and that he wanted to take a gavel. Further you've frequently tried to downplay language the people in invading the Capitol used yet why should these comments be taken at face value when clearly Munchell has a reason to argue to a judge that his actions weren't that serious?

Besides that no matter where he found the zipties why would he just decide to carry them around? Why would he decide to dress like that? I mean if I'm caught breaking into someone's home in the middle of the night dressed like a ninja and carrying a katana would you consider that I'm doing so for benign reasons? Come on man..

As it happens I spent the afternoon helping out businesses including a liquor store that were damaged during last summer's protests here in Minneapolis. Yes the damage there does effect them personally and is serious. They aren't the Constitutional seat of our Government.

Obviously symbolically that is very important. The 911 terrorists 4th target was the US Capitol. It was Lake Street Liquors. Besides the symbolic value several people were wounded and one person died directly and two likely died from circumstances related to invading the Capitol. Besides that though we know for a fact that there was sensitive and classified data in the Capitol and documents that would effect the laws and direction of this country. We know for a fact that one of the invaders tried to sell that material to the a geopolitical rival and was only stopped because she was turned in.

I think that's far more serious than someone trying to sell a bottle of Canadian Club they looted out of a liquor store to Ivan down on the Avenue.

 

Him saying that they aren't Antifa just makes him seem unhinged and misinformed.

 

Is trying to stop the certification of an election hindering or delaying he execution of a law of the United States?

As we've discussed before we don't actually know what anyone's intent is short of telepathy unless they tell us. Well in the case of the invasion of the Capitol they told us. They said they were there "To Stop the Steal!" by which they meant the certification of the election. They said they were there "Hang Mike Pence!". They said a lot of other stuff too. They didn't just say this during the invasion but before as many of them have social media posts expressing that intent and even after.

 

Actually he said some word that is censored want to f*** some s*** up. You are assuming he is talking about himself. He may be saying f***ers want to f*** some s*** up, talking about other people, could he not. Wouldn't saying HE wanted to f*** some s*** up directly contradict the other things he said? It is apparently on video, so the prosecutors and defense know.

A lot of these guys like to LARP as commandos. They go to protests dressed like that all the time. I'm surprised you have never noticed. Generally they stand around and do nothing. Sometimes they get in fights with Antifa (who he specifically mentions in a derogatory fashion). He isn't breaking into someone's house in the middle of the night, nor carrying a weapon. He is in a public building (though at a time when the public was barred due to COVID) carrying a camera. As for why carry the zip ties around, who knows. Maybe to keep someone else from using them for a nefarious purpose. Maybe as a souvenir. Since he apparently recorded the whole thing, they should have good documentation of everything he did.

Really? I was confused about what liquor stores and the Capitol are. They also didn't burn down the Capitol. The damage was some smashed windows and doors.

Yes. If they were trying to crash an airplane into it, I would say whoever was trying to do so should be tried as a terrorist and thrown in prison never to be released. They didn't.

Yes, but for some reason everyone seems to think that was okay.

They have backed off on attributing Officer Sicknick's death to the Capitol, haven't they? My understanding is now his death has been ruled as natural causes/stroke of unknown origin. That was just in one article that I read though.

Anyone that tried to sell classified intelligence should be tried as a traitor or for espionage. I believe I already said as much.

Selling classified intel is more serious than selling stolen property? No kidding. Who said otherwise? I said judge each person individually. If all you did was go in and walk around, maybe pick up some zip ties off the floor, where is that on the scale? I view that as less significant that burning down someone's business, charge them with unlawful entry, a misdemeanor. If you assaulted police officers, charge them with assaulting a peace officer, a felony. If you stole classified documents and tried to sell them to the Russians, that would be espionage or treason. If you broke a window, that would be vandalism/destruction of government property.

Yes. Is it illegal? It depends on how they were intending to do it. By protesting? No. By killing the Congresspeople? Yes. By doing a sit in? No. By blowing up the building? Yes.

You look at words and circumstantial evidence. You also look at each person as an individual. As I said above, some of the people (I think it was Oathkeepers, it might have been Boogaloo Boys, I don't remember which, talking before hand online with each other about invading the Capitol together. They could very will be guilty of Seditious Conspiracy.

 

Nothing wrong with conspiring together to go protest on the Capitol lawn. That's their free speech right. But once they were there, they acted in concert to push through barriers and gain forcible entry into the Capitol building while shouting 'stop the steal' and 'hang Mike Pence'. In the first event of lawfully protesting, they organized themselves to go commit a crime together. If someone says nothing but goes with a crowd that was loudly proclaiming their criminal intent ("stop the steal" etc) and goes on to commit crimes that contribute to that proclaimed goal (as mere trespassing does), aren't they still culpable of conspiring together? Proving it in court might be another matter, but I mean morally culpable.

Tangent that's been annoying me. The liquor store and every citizen in the country benefits enormously from having a stable, orderly government and democracy. The liquor store owner is hurt when the government is destabilized. It can make customers feel less secure and hoard their money (buying cheaper liquor -- I'm sure they won't stop drinking), increase lawlessness, drive away investment, increase interest rates or inflation, etc. Not as much as if his liquor store is burned down, but take that more minor injury and multiply it by 330 million citizens. Aside from which, a liquor store owner can hedge against fire risk by buying insurance; there is no hedge to compensate us for the losses incurred from a coup.

By the commission of another crime?

Doubtful.

 

So you're saying that things he said that appear exculpatory are exactly what they appear to be while things he said that appear to be incriminating aren't. And yes it's contradictory but you would admit he has a bias to play up what might be considered exculpatory. For that matter can you show the context that any of those statements were made?

At a time when the public wasn't allowed in the building with a group of people that were engaged in actively fighting LEO and threatening members of Congress. And regarding carrying a camera many of these people actively documented them breaking the law and even bragged about it on camera. In fact from what I know of Munchell's case his own footage is incriminating him.

No one is claiming that they really thought things through.

Well you are the one arguing that what happened to the liquor stores is worse than the Capitol. Also it wasn't just bashing some windows and doors or sitting in Pelosi's chair.

Who thinks it is OK that a lot of people were injured in the invasion of the Capitol?

My understanding is that they backed off attributing Sicknick's death directly to the Capitol invasion but as a contributing factor including problems with getting medical care in time hasn't been ruled out. Also LEO Liebengood and Smith's suicides have been attributed to their experiences from Jan.6th.

Glad you recognize then that the actions at the US Capitol are far more serious than the looting and torching of a liquor store.

Yes. They told us ahead of time, during and even after what they wanted to do.

 

Don't let my verbosity fool you. I can crank out a lot of words but you hit upon the substance of what I was going to say.

 

I attribute the government stance on Sicknick as no more than an admission that they don't have a case that can be proven in court. Dude had a stroke while locked in hand-to-hand combat with protesters. I understand they won't be able to charge anyone with his death, but no way I'm going to say his death was unrelated to the capitol riot.

 

It amazes me that this merry go round just keeps circling and circling and circling and circling between you two guys debating.

 

Yikes. This isn’t over for these peaceful protesters.