The Rise and Fall of Donald Trump

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
Yes I am not actual interested in any speculative arguments, not making them, the indictment is an accusation. All my discussion is limited to one point. Dowie is claiming x and claiming this is what the F.B.I concluded.

Which if true would mean the D.O.J could not have brought the charge. Simple observation, requires no speculation, actually its blindingly obvious.

Have you considered that the FBI and DOJ can disagree regarding the approach to getting a conviction here, given the list of counts and possible ways of making each stick play out in court?

Likewise FBI can conclude that there is limited evidence for central coordination of the capitol riot as a whole, while having enough testimony and self-incriminating interviews by OK members looking for a platform to go for Seditious Conspiracy. There's no contradiction here. Hence the DOJ brings concrete charges against the 10 OK members with focus on sedition, as per the indictment, and lesser charges against the disorderly throng of people present.

Could you explain how proving that 10 OK members are guilty of seditious conspiracy prove that the mob as a whole was centrally coordinated?
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
Likewise FBI can conclude that there is limited evidence for central coordination of the capitol riot as a whole, while having enough testimony and self-incriminating interviews by OK members looking for a platform to go for Seditious Conspiracy. There's no contradiction here.

That's the point that I think he's missed a few times, even re: the comments about the militia guys themselves from the FBI source there isn't some inherent contradiction - I've still not seen evidence of serious plans for what they'd do once inside or coordination with insiders? All I've seen presented re: these indictments is the same sort of stuff that was already known about at the time the FBI source had made those comments. That stuff in itself, AFAIK, might well have been sufficient for the DOJ to believe it is worth pursuing these charges.

eFish has taken the charges of seditious conspiracy as some sort of contradiction re: the comments from the FBI source that the militia guys didn't appear to have any serious plans re: what to do if they made it inside but hasn't demonstrated where the contradiction is.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Could you explain how proving that 10 OK members are guilty of seditious conspiracy prove that the mob as a whole was centrally coordinated?

No. But why would I want to do that? I also can't prove that 10 members are guilty of seditious conspiracy nor have I any interest in doing so.

Could you explain how a conspiracy charge is spatially constricted?

Say for example you planned to conspire to overthrow the government in you're living room but determined you had no plans to do so by the time you entered the bathroom.

Or the oath keepers conspired to engage in an act of seditious conspiracy but only as far as the door of the capital building and after entering the threshold no longer had a serious plan.

'Plan' here refers to a conspiracy that.

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 or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

As that is dowies thesis.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
No one has claimed that conspiracy charges are "spatially constricted" - stop making up straw man esq points to argue against...

This is the article:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-attack-exclusive-idCAKBN2FL10X

There are say 4 points I've focused on from that article, they seem to be corroborated by what we've seen in the evidence seen at that time and since then.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1: That the FBI found little evidence that the Capitol attack was coordinated - for the vast majority of participants it wasn't, they were protestors and for them it was sporadic.

2: There were militia members who did closely coordinate and they had conspiracy charges filed against them as they did engage in some degree of planning prior to the event

3: There isn't evidence of coordination with any insiders.

4: They don't appear to have any serious plans for what they'd do once inside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The DOJ have now announced some "seditious conspiracy" charges, I don't see that that contradicts what is outlined above.

The seditious conspiracy charges don't apply to ordinary protestors

The seditious conspiracy charges apply to militia members (militia members were already hit with some conspiracy charges last year and that some might be hit with seditious conspiracy charges is not new.)

AFAIK there is still no evidence of coordination with insiders.

AFAIK there is still no evidence of serious/coherent plans for what to do if they made it inside.

If you believe otherwise then show me... What sort of evidence is there re: the last two points that is dramatically different to the evidence we saw around the time of the article?
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
Could you explain how proving that 10 OK members are guilty of seditious conspiracy prove that the mob as a whole was centrally coordinated?
For centrally coordinated some of the indictments posted listed how the Oath Keepers met up with other groups beforehand to form an alliance and arranged to work together. The mob as a whole was not in on it but there was mob leaders directing groups which in turn led the mob. Which is a part of the many indictments, they where not going along with the mobs but moving ahead of the mob and directing them along with taking down barricades e.c.t ready for the mob and using bullhorns and having pre planed areas for the groups e.c.t. From what I recall there was over 50 mob leaders each with there own members.

Some of the mob leaders talked about "“getting the normies” around them “all riled up,”" they served as at the rallies leading up to the riot, serving as speakers. From the indictments.

“I’ll keep working on overall contact between Natl/congress team and stop the steal team for scheduling etc.,” Oath Keeper Kelly Meggs wrote,”

““This week I organized an alliance between Oath Keepers, Florida 3%ers, and Proud Boys,” Meggs wrote in a Dec. 19 message “
““We have decided to work together and shut this **** down.””


As the indictments show there is a growing amount of evidence the Oath keepers coordinated their Capitol entry and rallied.

The recent weeks unsealed court documents go into a lot of details on their plans for example how one stack went in search to capture Nanacy Pelosi. Another stack went to control the Senate Chamber. How they had a planned perimeter to hold with weapons. How they had enough supplies for 30 days. They even attempted drones for recon use. They clearly had a detailed plan that they prepared for and know what to do once they got to and into the building. Its all in the unsealed court documents and links posted over the past weeks. There was even brief talk about insiders in the recent unsealed court documents. "have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be."

The new unsealed court documents from last week clearly show evidence of coordination, details plans for getting to and what to do inside the building and hint at insiders. As per the links provided before. There has been a lot of new evidence unsealed in January 2022 and it changes the picture and invalidates 2021 viewpoints.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
No. But why would I want to do that? I also can't prove that 10 members are guilty of seditious conspiracy nor have I any interest in doing so.

To at least try to engage with what was said. Otherwise it just looks like you dropped in the thread to make general statements, which tangentially touch on legal language, conspiracies and US politics. This whole tangent is now only tentatively sitting here in the thread about the Rise and Fall of Donald Trump in the first place.

Could you explain how a conspiracy charge is spatially constricted?
...
As that is dowies thesis.

That's not what he argued at all.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
The new unsealed court documents from last week clearly show evidence of coordination, details plans for getting to and what to do inside the building and hint at insiders. As per the links provided before.

@Pottsey you seem to make some dramatic claims, last July you made this claim for example:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/34967901/
Pottsey said:
Likewise if the government member sent the activation signal they expected all the extra heavily armed fast responce teams and weapon caches would have been activated which would have very likely lead to a blood bath. They where one activation word away. The weapons and weapons cache's had been smuggled into place, the teams and fallback plans had been put in place. They where deadly serious and they really expected to be activated as the court document's show.

Would you care to clarify where that came from?

So far it seems rather muddled - the militia were going to take the building and then call in armed people? Potentially start a blood bath once some shadowy government insider gave the activation signal? But what happened on the day?

These claims about militia guys having all sorts of hair-brained plans isn't exactly new... they're deluded fantasists and I don't think they did have any serious or coherent plans here, they had a vague plan to get inside and cause disruption and we've got claims of all sorts of crazy nonsense.

IIRC there is also the pipe bomb, not sure if that is related to the militia loons or some other nutter engaging in a potential terror attack.

There doesn't appear to be any serious plot here or coordination with insiders, there seem to be lots of fantasists who, on the day, despite all the chat about weapons and QRFs etc.. appeared to turn up without any firearms. That there was some degree of coordination and plotting has ended up with them getting hit with conspiracy (and now some with seditious conspiracy charges), beyond that it all seems to be a bit of a mess.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
That's not what he argued at all.

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said..... But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious, politically-loaded charges that the sources said had been initially discussed by prosecutors, such as seditious conspiracy or racketeering.

The article, least one oath keeper charged with a minor conspiracy charge a month before, Merick Garland was not happy about bringing more serious charges, this was the news at the time, that discussions and arguments about sedition charges were not a high priority but their was a focus on the lesser charges, been a number of arrests.


I've still not seen evidence of serious plans for what they'd do once inside or coordination with insiders? All I've seen presented re: these indictments is the same sort of stuff that was already known about at the time the FBI source had made those comments.

So, enough at the time to charge with seditious conspiracy but that relates to the attack on the building and nothing much else.

Recent reporting

The latest accusations -- with a charge that had not previously been brought in the department's US Capitol attack prosecutions -- remove any sense that prosecutors believe the riot emerged from just a group of overzealous protestors, with new details about the planning and logistics alleged to have predated the Capitol breach.

can also see how the investigation happened

Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.

Been calls for seditious conspiracy charges in the days after the attack, first half of the year, then a focus on the less serious charges, with a number of arrests in the months before the article was written, as Garland was not happy in this period. Months after a case was constructed and that is what can now be read in the indictment.

Been a significant change its massive news. What I tried to do was simple give the actual outline of what happened. Rather than Dowies who wants to use an old newspaper article to insist that nothing has changed.

that the groups had no serious plans about what to do once they made it inside

Focus on this line, suggesting sedition charge relates to the storming of the capital.

The Oath Keepers’ plot didn’t stop at the Capitol siege, according to the indictment. On the evening of Jan. 6, Rhodes and other members met to celebrate the attack and discuss their next steps. In the following week, members continued to communicate about their plans and Rhodes allegedly spent around $17,500 on weapons and ammunition. And prosecutors claim that, around Inauguration Day, Rhodes contacted other members to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration.

Dowie thinks the sedition charge relates the the attack on the capital, once inside no serous plan do much further.

Safer read is simple the F.B.I just did not have the evidence, D.O.J. had no plans for prosecution at the time, and the more serious charge (requiring a serious plan) was simple not on the cards. That is also what is being reported.

Its also important to get this straight as frankly no one knows where this is heading, been described as a 'shake of the tree', this is standard practice of using the charges to see if the defendants can provide evidence to arrest bigger fish.

I assume what built these charges may have been co-operation by those caught and charged in the lesser conspiracy round up. But that is a guess co-operation was one the two investigative leads that opened, but not F.B.I practice to comment on its informants or how to got the internal communication.


But it does not require all the backflips with the history or simply denial, go read any articles from the period, changed over time as I have outlined and as its changed were people can use the word insurrection or coup validly.

The counter argument is to claim nothing has changed.

You don't need to deny what happened previously to state the reality of where the investigation is now and what is speculative. Its not necessary.

But enough from me.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
The article, least one oath keeper charged with a minor conspiracy charge a month before

The article mentions 40 were hit with conspiracy charges. We've now seen 11 also hit with seditious conspiracy charges.

What I tried to do was simple give the actual outline of what happened.

Where have you done that? What have you provided that is significantly different from the sort of evidence we'd seen last year?

Rather than Dowies who wants to use an old newspaper article to insist that nothing has changed.

Another straw man argument... you brought up the article a few days ago, my position was that what I've seen so far hasn't contradicted it. I've not used the article to insist that nothing has changed, the article was written months ago!

I assume what built these charges may have been co-operation by those caught and charged in the lesser conspiracy round up. But that is a guess co-operation was one the two investigative leads that opened, but not F.B.I practice to comment on its informants or how to got the internal communication.

go read any articles from the period, changed over time as I have outlined

Where have you done that? I'm looking for facts here not assumptions/speculation I've literally asked you direct questions, more than once, on this point only a few posts ago and you ignore them, you throw in replies with disjointed commentary* and straw man arguments but you don't address the criticism or questions.

*your latest one has a mix of quotes, mostly unattributed, from myself, another poster and the article itself.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
Been a significant change its massive news
Right, but what has fundamentally changed in the case that hasn't gone to trial or reached a verdict? What you're talking about is a change in the approach the prosecution will take and have formally logged on the basis of evidence, as best as can be seen, that they had for a while, including interviews with the people questioned. It is a risky strategy given the burden of proof required for count 1, hence the news. But this news is not new evidence or foregone conclusion. Just because the prosecution is now more confident in what they have and convinced the AG to give it a shot, doesn't mean it will stand up in court.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
The article mentions 40 were hit with conspiracy charges. We've now seen 11 also hit with seditious conspiracy charges.

Like the last one about space.

The Oath Keepers’ plot didn’t stop at the Capitol siege, according to the indictment. On the evening of Jan. 6, Rhodes and other members met to celebrate the attack and discuss their next steps. In the following week, members continued to communicate about their plans and Rhodes allegedly spent around $17,500 on weapons and ammunition. And prosecutors claim that, around Inauguration Day, Rhodes contacted other members to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration.

They planned to break into the Capitol no? I suspect it relates to that!

Or you're belief the seditious conspiracy charge must relate to what happened previously as the F.B.I found no serious plan what do when in the building.

I don't want to have an argument simply agree on the facts and not get

assumptions/speculation

This constant claim. No evidence beyond the small number so far charged, but what they are charged with is serious.

They planned to break into the Capitol no? I suspect it relates to that!

I knew this was wrong when you stated it but even when stuff is presented dowie you simple say

assumptions/speculation



Its not clear exactly what happened but we know the planning and conspiracy was not simply confined to the building, you're reaching these conclusions based on using much older sources.

You also do not have to suggest no further evidence of wider involvement here. So far its confined to one group.

Where have you done that?

We discussed this.

Attorney General Merrick Garland had balked at the earlier efforts to bring the seditious conspiracy charge. But in the months since, people briefed on the matter say FBI investigators and DC federal prosecutors have spent much time building the case, at least in part with the help of cooperators and the benefit of internal communications among the Oath Keepers.

This was one of the sources I used along with others. Used another article from a month before the routers article, which elaborated more full on Garlands concern at the time.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
There has been a lot of new evidence unsealed in January 2022 and it changes the picture and invalidates 2021 viewpoints.

New evidence to whom? It had to be logged with the court in the first place and gathered by the FBI several months ago for the AG to even look at it in a structured way. The prosecution then spent months since last summer interpreting the evidence and building a case for AG to even consider the count 1 charges.

Whatever the media narrative at any given point, a court case doesn't go from indictment to verdict upon publication of the former.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
Its not clear exactly what happened but we know the planning and conspiracy was not simply confined to the building, you're reaching these conclusions based on using much older sources.

No, I'm not, stop making things up, I've literally just corrected you on this point. Go ahead and quote me if you're going to dispute it.

If you've got some evidence you'd like to draw attention to then perhaps just go ahead and present it. I'm not particularly interested in speculation/assumptions, commentary about narratives re: Garland etc.. If you want to claim contradictions then show them clearly - I've laid out the points I had previously drawn attention to re: the article and what I've seen since then hasn't contradicted them.

What sort of evidence have you seen that is dramatically different from the sort of evidence that was available around the time the article was published?

That the DOJ has decided to pursue some charges (which were speculated upon for a year now) doesn't necessarily imply that the decision to do that is based on significant new evidence - that would be an assumption on your part. That they've decided to file these charges doesn't in itself contradict the comments I drew attention to from the FBI source in that article.

Perhaps they have convinced some members to testify against others, perhaps they're just running with what they had already and are willing to take a risk that it might not be successful.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
No, I'm not, stop making things up.

If you've got some evidence you'd like to draw attention to then perhaps just go ahead and present it. I'm not particularly interested in speculation/assumptions, commentary about narratives re: Garland etc..

What sort of evidence have you seen that is dramatically different from the sort of evidence that was available around the time the article was published?

They planned to break into the Capitol no? I suspect it relates to that!

Sorry that is you (above). Did you not spot it and note the similarity to what you think?

The Oath Keepers’ plot didn’t stop at the Capitol siege, according to the indictment. On the evening of Jan. 6, Rhodes and other members met to celebrate the attack and discuss their next steps. In the following week, members continued to communicate about their plans and Rhodes allegedly spent around $17,500 on weapons and ammunition. And prosecutors claim that, around Inauguration Day, Rhodes contacted other members to organize local militias to oppose the Biden administration.

The indictment covers charges beyond the attack on the capital. Its not in the article. Its only now known. As I noted and you appear to have missed.

I was in a hurry I thought you would recognize you're own statement and idea.

What sort of evidence have you seen that is dramatically different from the sort of evidence that was available around the time

The above for example the news that the charges extended beyond Jan 6th were a surprise. But you missed that.

They planned to break into the Capitol no? I suspect it relates to that!

I'm not particularly interested in speculation/assumptions

Yes its always good when new stuff emerges if you have read six month ago that no serious plan exist for anything happening in the building, its safe to make the assumption. Only evidence available.

But that has now changed.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,247
Sorry that is you (above). Did you not spot it and note the similarity to what you think?

Sorry but you're borderline incoherent sometimes - do you not understand the distinction here? I'm not using the article to argue that nothing has changed, I'm arguing that what we've seen now doesn't contradict the points I highlighted from the article.

If you think otherwise then go ahead and quote me, throwing in some unrelated quote doesn't demonstrate anything.

The above for example the news that the charges extended beyond Jan 6th were a surprise. But you missed that.

What does that have to do with the article? I'm asking you about Jan 6th. Some claims about vague planning to do other things beyond Jan 6th isn't particularly informative re: any serious plans for what they hoped to do if they got inside the Capitol on Jan 6th.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
28,291
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
More spicy shenanigans are afoot!

'U.S. Supreme Court spurns Trump bid to keep Capitol attack records secret.'

WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - The US Supreme Court on Wednesday (Jan 19) rejected former President Donald Trump's request to block the release of White House records sought by the Democratic-led congressional panel investigating last year's deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters.

The decision means the documents, held by a federal agency that stores government and historical records, can be disclosed even as litigation over the matter continues in lower courts. Only one of the court's nine members, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, publicly noted disagreement with the decision.

You love to see it.

:cool:
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Right, but what has fundamentally changed in the case that hasn't gone to trial or reached a verdict? What you're talking about is a change in the approach the prosecution will take and have formally logged on the basis of evidence, as best as can be seen, that they had for a while, including interviews with the people questioned. It is a risky strategy given the burden of proof required for count 1, hence the news. But this news is not new evidence or foregone conclusion. Just because the prosecution is now more confident in what they have and convinced the AG to give it a shot, doesn't mean it will stand up in court.

Significant shift of focus, to making a seditious conspiracy charge, yes it will have been months in the making, the charging document, details that, snap shot of the legal and investigative teams worked through the evidence and related it to the charge.

Rhodes never entered the Capitol

Most significant shift highlighted by legal experts I have seen, is the way these charges focus attention away from old charging pattern, breach and occupation of the capital, turn away from the building and the conspiracy charges are the most serious. No longer requires a physical presence at the event. Indeed if you notice that is what the older article is most pessimistic about focuses instead on charges that could be made and already had in relation to the lesser conspiracy charges of the time.

Yes its an accusation, yes no further charging so far, but this is a significant change. It is important to draw attention to that or certainly that is what the focus was from the experts I saw explaining the importance when the charges first dropped. Fine to argue against that, focus elsewhere but not to rubbish it and dismiss it.

Particularly as its the conspiracy charge that is the news aspect and this is the new aspect. All eyes move away from the building.

Politically the older arguments based on definitions no insurrection/ coup, taken a big hit. As the political spin was to highlight the oppositions outrageous use of language not supported by the charging evidence.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
Significant shift of focus, to making a seditious conspiracy charge, yes it will have been months in the making, the charging document, details that, snap shot of the legal and investigative teams worked through the evidence and related it to the charge.



Most significant shift highlighted by legal experts I have seen, is the way these charges focus attention away from old charging pattern, breach and occupation of the capital, turn away from the building and the conspiracy charges are the most serious. No longer requires a physical presence at the event. Indeed if you notice that is what the older article is most pessimistic about focuses instead on charges that could be made and already had in relation to the lesser conspiracy charges of the time.

Yes its an accusation, yes no further charging so far, but this is a significant change. It is important to draw attention to that or certainly that is what the focus was from the experts I saw explaining the importance when the charges first dropped. Fine to argue against that, focus elsewhere but not to rubbish it and dismiss it.

Particularly as its the conspiracy charge that is the news aspect and this is the new aspect. All eyes move away from the building.

Politically the older arguments based on definitions no insurrection/ coup, taken a big hit. As the political spin was to highlight the oppositions outrageous use of language not supported by the charging evidence.

Nobody's dismissed the charges against the ten people charged in this thread, or Rhodes, as not serious. The tenuous link is from a centrally planned group of over 500 people on 6 Jan, to possibly 10 people present taking opportunistic advantage of the situation to their own ends, to one person possibly being caught out in his version of events and getting hammered legally and stands accused of running around with a premeditated plan with the other nine.

Even if all ten people are convicted, including Rhodes, it does not prove anyone was in control of anything on 6 January in and of itself, especially after people got into the building and the violence broke out.

Politically, yes, being associated with an event with even a single violent militia member present is damaging. Legally, the guilty will need their day in court to prove their guilt, and any wider connections to either the riot, its planning or any external links, hinted or otherwise. There really isn't much more to say before then.

The political spin may sound like it's all a foregone conclusion, the guilty have been found and all links proved, but practically that's not the case.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
New evidence to whom? It had to be logged with the court in the first place and gathered by the FBI several months ago for the AG to even look at it in a structured way. The prosecution then spent months since last summer interpreting the evidence and building a case for AG to even consider the count 1 charges.

Whatever the media narrative at any given point, a court case doesn't go from indictment to verdict upon publication of the former.
New evidence for us there is tons of new evidence that is massively different then what we had in 2021. As for the FBI some of its new to them although they would have had access to it before us. Some of the evidence didn't come to light until September 2021 onwards. Like the phones and logs on those phones that was in September. Plus later in the year a number of them flipped, one only flipped I think it was in December 2021 and started to cooperate with law enforcement and start sharing information which again has provided more new evidence. This is why so much changed and articles from last year are no longer valid.

"The tenuous link is from a centrally planned group of over 500 people on 6 Jan, to possibly 10 people present taking opportunistic advantage of the situation to their own ends,"
While the total numbers are debatable are you aware they have the meeting notes of 3 large groups forming an alliance and working together with multiple teams. Some of them have already pleaded guilty to conspiring with other members. Its not just 10 people.
 
Top