4 ms·

If it was a real insurrection it would have been significantly better armed, more violent and more effective. A far more logical explanation is that an unexpec

by elp 5y ago

If it was a real insurrection it would have been significantly better armed, more violent and more effective. A far more logical explanation is that an unexpectedly large group of demonstrators showed up and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them. After that they just took advantage with no thought -- Hey lets proudly get on camera committing a crime. What could go wrong.

krapp 5y ago
Their own social media communications and statements make it clear they intended a real insurrection. Zip-tie guy wasn't there to post on the 'gram.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  But according to the new filing [by the DOJ], Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from within the Capitol building — apparently to ensure the Capitol Police couldn't use them on the insurrectionists — rather than bring them in when they initially breached the building. https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-handcuffs-police-prosecutors-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-han...
  - krapp 5y ago
    OK, fair enough. That doesn't speak to motive or intent. From the filing[0]: MUNCHEL and Eisenhart made no secret of their intentions in traveling to Washington: they told a reporter for The Sunday Times that they made the trip because they “wanted to show that we’re willing to rise up, band together[,] and fight if necessary. Same as our forefathers, who established this country in 1776.” Notably, MUNCHEL told the Times reporter that he had left his guns in Tennessee because of the “strict” guns laws in Washington—the implication being that MUNCHEL would have been armed with a firearm had Washington’s gun laws not been in place. And, as described below, there is evidence that MUNCHEL and Eisenhart were armed with firearms when they came to Washington for the rally. [0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025.8.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85... So they were not simply protestors operating on the spur of the moment without a plan. And that still leaves all of the planning done on social media, and the communications captured by the government. To claim that no one at the Capitol that day went there with the intent to disrupt the certification of the election of Joe Biden would be incorrect.
cryptoz 5y ago
> If it was a real insurrection What's a "real" insurrection? An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Jan 6 fits the bill perfectly. > it would have been significantly better armed, more violent and more effective. Your goalpost-moving is ridiculous. You've made up your own definition for words which are already clearly defined. > A far more logical explanation is that an unexpectedly large group of demonstrators showed up and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them. After that they just took advantage with no thought -- Hey lets proudly get on camera committing a crime. What could go wrong. Were we watching the same event? I'm honestly confused how you could come out of the Jan 6 events with that take. "Far more logical" explanation that totally denies the reality of the raw video footage from that day. > unexpectedly large group Can you cite that it was unexpectedly large? I thought it was smaller than they expected? > and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them Why was there a tiny police force at the capitol? The reason is that the insurrectionists had insiders working with them that specifically held back the National Guard for hours while the insurrectionists took over the Capitol. You are citing examples of why this wasn't a "real" insurrection but your examples are direct results of the "successes" in the planning an execution of their failed insurrection. > After that they just took advantage with no thought What do you mean, "no thought"? These people clearly had this planned out. There were secret underground-tunnel tours of the Capitol given to the insurrectionists the day before, by Republican members of congress. There was significant forethought and planning that went into the event. > Hey lets proudly get on camera committing a crime They didn't think they were committing a crime. They have been very vocal about this. They consider the crime to be our democracy and they were there to stop it. Presumably at the end, they expected to win, and therefore not be criminals, because they'd be in charge of the government and rewarded. The insurrection failed (so far) but that doesn't mean it was fake.
Izkata 5y ago
> and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them ..they're on video being let in by the police.

by elp 5y ago

krapp 5y ago

Their own social media communications and statements make it clear they intended a real insurrection. Zip-tie guy wasn't there to post on the 'gram.

MikeUt 5y ago
But according to the new filing [by the DOJ], Munchel and his mother took the handcuffs from within the Capitol building — apparently to ensure the Capitol Police couldn't use them on the insurrectionists — rather than bring them in when they initially breached the building. https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-handcuffs-police-prosecutors-2021-1 https://www.insider.com/zip-tie-guy-capitol-riot-plastic-han...
- krapp 5y ago
  OK, fair enough. That doesn't speak to motive or intent. From the filing[0]: MUNCHEL and Eisenhart made no secret of their intentions in traveling to Washington: they told a reporter for The Sunday Times that they made the trip because they “wanted to show that we’re willing to rise up, band together[,] and fight if necessary. Same as our forefathers, who established this country in 1776.” Notably, MUNCHEL told the Times reporter that he had left his guns in Tennessee because of the “strict” guns laws in Washington—the implication being that MUNCHEL would have been armed with a firearm had Washington’s gun laws not been in place. And, as described below, there is evidence that MUNCHEL and Eisenhart were armed with firearms when they came to Washington for the rally. [0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85025.8.0.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.tnmd.85... So they were not simply protestors operating on the spur of the moment without a plan. And that still leaves all of the planning done on social media, and the communications captured by the government. To claim that no one at the Capitol that day went there with the intent to disrupt the certification of the election of Joe Biden would be incorrect.

cryptoz 5y ago

> If it was a real insurrection What's a "real" insurrection? An insurrection is "a violent uprising against an authority or government." Jan 6 fits the bill perfectly. > it would have been significantly better armed, more violent and more effective. Your goalpost-moving is ridiculous. You've made up your own definition for words which are already clearly defined. > A far more logical explanation is that an unexpectedly large group of demonstrators showed up and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them. After that they just took advantage with no thought -- Hey lets proudly get on camera committing a crime. What could go wrong. Were we watching the same event? I'm honestly confused how you could come out of the Jan 6 events with that take. "Far more logical" explanation that totally denies the reality of the raw video footage from that day. > unexpectedly large group Can you cite that it was unexpectedly large? I thought it was smaller than they expected? > and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them Why was there a tiny police force at the capitol? The reason is that the insurrectionists had insiders working with them that specifically held back the National Guard for hours while the insurrectionists took over the Capitol. You are citing examples of why this wasn't a "real" insurrection but your examples are direct results of the "successes" in the planning an execution of their failed insurrection. > After that they just took advantage with no thought What do you mean, "no thought"? These people clearly had this planned out. There were secret underground-tunnel tours of the Capitol given to the insurrectionists the day before, by Republican members of congress. There was significant forethought and planning that went into the event. > Hey lets proudly get on camera committing a crime They didn't think they were committing a crime. They have been very vocal about this. They consider the crime to be our democracy and they were there to stop it. Presumably at the end, they expected to win, and therefore not be criminals, because they'd be in charge of the government and rewarded. The insurrection failed (so far) but that doesn't mean it was fake.

Izkata 5y ago

> and when faced with a tiny police presence ended up overrunning them ..they're on video being let in by the police.