The Rise and Fall of Donald Trump

Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
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 This is why so much changed and articles from last year are no longer valid.

This clarifies what new evidence actually means in this thread.

New to the public record rather than the FBI, except for some flipped testimony used to build the case against specific people as per the indictment and its reports this year.

Note, I didn't exclude the indictment text earlier or the follow up coverage. It appears on balance when you compare what was known during after the event and during discovery was not much changed. The flipped testimonies still refer to the events and by extension the evidence available very early on. The more the people talked under pressure of questioning, the more they implicated themselves of a serious crime. Hence the prosecution adopted a more aggressive stance.

"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.

Yes. Once again, on balance you have 30% of attendees of the protest and subsequent riot participants charged with assaulting the police, 12% of the people involved with conspiracy with links to far-right groups, and 2% of seditious conspiracy as above. Have they had any meaningful control over the situation and what was achieved? How does proving that the minority had some kind of mad scheme implicate the other people doing criminal damage and rioting, or nothing at all beyond hooliganism and vandalism, in a wider conspiracy?

This is why it is argued the significance of the OKs and, if you must stretch the window the PDs, and their influence on the state of democracy in the US, has been blown out of proportion before the trial even got started.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,851
Which is pretty sloppy of them but either way it certainly doesn't refute the point I made before this event occurred that talk of a coup or civil war was nonsense, just wasn't plausible in the USA at that time.

Perhaps, but then so is your use of "LARP". They're both shorthand phrases that fail to convey the full meaning of what they're being used to encapsulate. This, as I said, has led to a year of pointless semantic argument.


That post contains the two most chilling words ever written.

"dont larp"

:eek:

I think this is my favourite post in this thread. :D

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 one has made that claim, so why should they have to try and explain it?
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
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.

I can't and also the charge really separates out the oath keepers from the mass of Trump/ Q anon rioters.

I don't want to return to it but where things have not been so useful, is just in noting something that should have been dealt with without issue and this level of dispute.

Change I am noting is just down to chance, I was reading the Reuters article carefully, and by chance the indictment hit, my response and question was exactly the same as Dowie, the only difference was my level of surprise was far higher, I could not understand why the charge had been made as their was nothing to indicate anything serious happened in the building. The other thing no plans to make the charge at the D.O.J, like you're back six months ago when the article was published, then the next day its totally contradicted.

Pattern matching, I had to watch an interview with George Conway to actual start making full sense.

My initial read was based on what I had just read, took some time to work out possible solutions. Unusual not normally so sceptical, so really just posted back noting, article nothing wrong with it, but in regard to sedition charges, I don't think its a reliable guide (or could become very misleading).

Sedition and conspiracy, really no accurate predictors, it dropped recently, it is good to get up to speed as fast and as accurately as possible. It may be of no interest to anyone else but as a general rule I would apply older sources, with extreme care.

This one took notable longer to work out, as the old and the new, less correspondence as you are reading out of context, the arguments change rapidly.

But I can leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,347
Perhaps, but then so is your use of "LARP". They're both shorthand phrases that fail to convey the full meaning of what they're being used to encapsulate.

Not in the same way, the coup claim is or was central to the argument, LARP is being used as a descriptor in relation to the behaviour of some fantasists playing out something that might be a symptom of a coup but that isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for one to occur. And I've been quite clear in stressing several times that I'm not trying to claim the rioting wasn't real etc..

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.

But no one is disputing that the charges have changed... I'd ask again, in the future, that if you're going to take issue with claims you're attributing to me that you read my posts more carefully and if unsure then quote the claim and ask. You've repeatedly argued against points I've not made and your recent posts just draw attention to the change in charges which weren't something in dispute in the first place.

New to the public record rather than the FBI, except for some flipped testimony used to build the case against specific people as per the indictment and its reports this year.

Note, I didn't exclude the indictment text earlier or the follow up coverage. It appears on balance when you compare what was known during after the event and during discovery was not much changed.

Exactly - this should have been quite a simple point, the change being highlighted re: the charges doesn't imply that the evidence has significantly changed nor does it negate the various points from the article that I'd focused on and which I've outlined here:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/35379869/

Notably, I'm still not seeing evidence of collaboration/shadowy plots with insiders, nor serious plans for what would happen if they got inside. What we have seen is that a subset of the militia idiots/fantasists/LARPers, 40 of whom were already hit with conspiracy charges, now have 11 members hit with seditious conspiracy charges. Not something that you'd expect from the article (albeit not ruled out completely by it) but not as much of a surprise if other sources, news reporting had been read. We're yet to see if any plead deals are still available there or if those charges stick (I understand that it's a difficult charge to prosecute thus the explaining why it wasn't applied right away/some uncertainty over whether they'd run with it) but that those charges have been brought doesn't necessarily imply some dramatic change in the evidence.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
But no one is disputing that the charges have changed... I'd ask again, in the future, that if you're going to take issue with claims you're attributing to me that you read my posts more carefully and if unsure then quote the claim and ask. You've repeatedly argued against points I've not made and your recent posts just draw attention to the change in charges which weren't something in dispute in the first place.

Sorry if that is how it came across, as the funny side of this, I was asking you questions not because I thought you had made an error but because I had made a huge one. I had no idea, the D.O.J were going to release the indictment, week before hand we are both reading the same source, my conclusion was a lot more sceptical in regard to a sedition charge as I was basing that conclusion from the article.

Something not really thought about, but was doing so from the article just as the charge was announced.

I was not optimistic, the article was not optimistic.

So when the D.O.J made the announcement I was extremely, surprised to say the least and immediately asked the same question as you but far more strongly i.e no serious plan, how cant that be?
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
6,304
Fair enough. I think far-right militia discussion could do with its own thread.

No one has made that claim, so why should they have to try and explain it?

To show what has fundamentally changed about the nature of the protest that turned into a riot, ergo have a discussion with dowie on what he posted. If that wasn't the intention, then you treat the OKs' charges and the riot on their separate merits and move on with the thread about Trump's rise and fall and your life.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,347
I had no idea, the D.O.J were going to release the indictment, week before hand we are both reading the same source, my conclusion was a lot more sceptical in regard to a sedition charge as I was basing that conclusion from the article.

Fair enough, I'd personally separate somewhat the speculation of possible DOJ charges at the time from the comments re: what the FBI had found. That the DOJ might change their mind re: policy, desire to pursue particular charges, uncertainty about whether they would or not doesn't necessarily mean the views espoused by the FBI source are now changed - those are separate aspects of the article. Has the evidence base significantly changed since then etc...

So when the D.O.J made the announcement I was extremely, surprised to say the least and immediately asked the same question as you but far more strongly i.e no serious plan, how cant that be?

I guess I don't really see a contradiction, aside from perhaps some additional testimony from other militia members looking to reduce their charges I'd not be surprised if they're going to try and make the case for these seditious conspiracy charges based on the same sort of evidence the FBI source had access to back then. It was a huge investigation going on for months and they'd already built up a decent picture of events by then.

The point I was trying to make was; that these charges have been brought (decision made by the DOJ - possible taking a risk, not necessarily easy charges to prosecute) doesn't mean we can necessarily infer much else. That's ultimately a policy decision and not necessarily a reflection of substantial changes in the underlying facts.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,851
Not in the same way, the coup claim is or was central to the argument, LARP is being used as a descriptor in relation to the behaviour of some fantasists playing out something that might be a symptom of a coup but that isn't a necessary or sufficient condition for one to occur.

Depends who you’re referring to. Plenty of people ITT have acknowledged that it doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of a coup; that it was a farcical attempt to keep Trump in power; and yet still disagree with describing it as a LARP.

And I've been quite clear in stressing several times that I'm not trying to claim the rioting wasn't real etc.

You have, and I accept that. I haven’t attempted to conflate your use of “LARP” with “no violence occurred” etc.

To show what has fundamentally changed about the nature of the protest that turned into a riot, ergo have a discussion with dowie on what he posted. If that wasn't the intention, then you treat the OKs' charges and the riot on their separate merits and move on with the thread about Trump's rise and fall and your life.

You’ll have to excuse my confusion then because you were replying to efish when you asked the question, suggesting that efish needed to explain a position that they hadn’t taken.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Fair enough, I'd personally separate somewhat the speculation of possible DOJ charges at the time from the comments re: what the FBI had found. That the DOJ might change their mind re: policy, desire to pursue particular charges, uncertainty about whether they would or not doesn't necessarily mean the views espoused by the FBI source are now changed - those are separate aspects of the article. Has the evidence base significantly changed since then etc...

Yes lot of not to know, also a seriously difficult charge to bring. To end the solution for me, as I had exactly the same issue and question, no series plan in the building?

Only thing I learned you don't have to be in the building. Its not space dependant.

prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States

Inside covered (what you have to demonstrate as part of this conspiracy charge)

seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof

storming the property etc.

one thing missing is

conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States

Guns, F.B.I does not have this data and is stating that the oath keepers are facing conspiracy charges (but not the most serious).

I don't see an F.B.I agent when you have in the building the Vice president etc, describe a situation like this were weapons have formed part of the conspiracy and plan (for what ever reason) as not serious.

Take anything from a loon wielding a pitchfork seriously given the location.

But that's how I worked to out, says very little other I can understand why you could bring such a charge without all the players being in the building. They just have to be within a reasonable proximity.

Engaging in a very stupid act and being very stupid or delusional, not an excuse or defence.
 
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
one thing missing is



Guns, F.B.I does not have this data and is stating that the oath keepers are facing conspiracy charges (but not the most serious).

I don't see an F.B.I agent when you have in the building the Vice president etc, describe a situation like this were weapons have formed part of the conspiracy and plan (for what ever reason) as not serious.

Take anything from a loon wielding a pitchfork seriously given the location.

But that's how I worked to out, says very little other I can understand why you could bring such a charge without all the players being in the building. They just have to be within a reasonable proximity.

Engaging in a very stupid act and being very stupid or delusional, not an excuse or defence.
That one thing is not missing. They do have the data to show by force. The detailed serious plan they had including organizing deadly weapons to aid in the conspiracy, multiple heavily armed QRF teams just minutes away. Contingency plans went into so much detail they even had a plan to ferry lethal weapons via boat if the bridges got closed.

That’s part of why they have been hit so hard with chargers. They had multiple heavily armed QRF teams, loaded with weapons and ammo minutes away from the capital building. Each team had cases of rifles, creates worth of ammo, essential supplies for 30 days.

There was no playing about or pretending here. They were very serious, had mass amounts of heavy firepower, had a detailed plan they prepared for, trained for and attempted to execute. They clearly had a plan and goal for when they entered the building with each team heading off in different directions to attempt to achieve their own set goals. The fact it all went wrong and they failed to capture the people they wanted doesnt change the fact they had a detailed plan with enough detail to contain contingencies, the plan was a serious attempt and they meant every bit of what they did.

With all the new evidence there is probable cause to believe they had a plot to oppose by force.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
55,347
Depends who you’re referring to. Plenty of people ITT have acknowledged that it doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of a coup; that it was a farcical attempt to keep Trump in power; and yet still disagree with describing it as a LARP.

Well, I guess objection to that depends on what their disagreement is specifically.

I don't particularly care too much if someone wants to, for the sake of arugment, say that they classify any violent protest involving trying to disrupt a process in the Senate or storm the Capitol as a coup, they can if they like but I wouldn't and doing so isn't an argument against my positon.

I don't see an F.B.I agent when you have in the building the Vice president etc, describe a situation like this were weapons have formed part of the conspiracy and plan (for what ever reason) as not serious.

He's referring to the plans themselves not being serious, perhaps "coherent" is a better word as in they didn't seem to have much of a coherent plan re: what they'd do if they made it inside. After all the chat about weapons and QRFs they turned up with empty holsters and once inside what did we see them do? Scream and shout and take selfies in politicians' offices or in the Senate chamber etc...

"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."

It isn't a comment that storming the Capitol or having these loons risk getting in close proximity to Senators, the VP etc.. isn't a serious thing in and of itself.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
Well, I guess objection to that depends on what their disagreement is specifically.

I don't particularly care too much if someone wants to, for the sake of arugment, say that they classify any violent protest involving trying to disrupt a process in the Senate or storm the Capitol as a coup, they can if they like but I wouldn't and doing so isn't an argument against my positon.



He's referring to the plans themselves not being serious, perhaps "coherent" is a better word as in they didn't seem to have much of a coherent plan re: what they'd do if they made it inside. After all the chat about weapons and QRFs they turned up with empty holsters and once inside what did we see them do? Scream and shout and take selfies in politicians' offices or in the Senate chamber etc...

"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."

It isn't a comment that storming the Capitol or having these loons risk getting in close proximity to Senators, the VP etc.. isn't a serious thing in and of itself.

its very common for people to get a different sense, that is you'res, I arrived at the idea that the building must be relevant to a sedition charge from the article this way.

But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans

But so far prosecutors have steered clear of more serious.....charges..... seditious conspiracy.

I assumed no serous plan in the building matched the serious charge mentioned and plus read a number of articles from the time all stating the same thing D.O.J had no plans to charge at this point in time.

Its really difficult to call and make 100% determination, anonymous sources, reading it out of its time period and also the issue Journalists may have just slipped up with the line. Impossible to call, impossible to use to make the accurate determination in matters like this.

+ I have seen nothing from the journalists who wrote the article or in the media generally (on this point now the charges have dropped), if its important it will get picked up. On much safer ground at that point.


That is my take, yours is different. I think we have taken this one as far as it can go and then some;)

p.s one thing I find useful is to have the law, rule based thing, I was looking closely at what you said but also at the rules you were following. I think that caused a bit of confusion with you and one other commentator, I did not think to say. 3 parts to this one that is where the article is a bit odd as the building aspect. Heart of the matter the attempt to block the election.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Jan 2014
Posts
2,754
That one thing is not missing. They do have the data to show by force. The detailed serious plan they had including organizing deadly weapons to aid in the conspiracy, multiple heavily armed QRF teams just minutes away. Contingency plans went into so much detail they even had a plan to ferry lethal weapons via boat if the bridges got closed.

That’s part of why they have been hit so hard with chargers. They had multiple heavily armed QRF teams, loaded with weapons and ammo minutes away from the capital building. Each team had cases of rifles, creates worth of ammo, essential supplies for 30 days.

There was no playing about or pretending here. They were very serious, had mass amounts of heavy firepower, had a detailed plan they prepared for, trained for and attempted to execute. They clearly had a plan and goal for when they entered the building with each team heading off in different directions to attempt to achieve their own set goals. The fact it all went wrong and they failed to capture the people they wanted doesnt change the fact they had a detailed plan with enough detail to contain contingencies, the plan was a serious attempt and they meant every bit of what they did.

With all the new evidence there is probable cause to believe they had a plot to oppose by force.

Yes referring to a much older source.

Weapons and demonstrating force significant to the successfully prosecution, the need to show intent as with a conspiracy speech is protected so really high bar.

But the insurrection/ coup/ weapons, now the first serious conspiracy charge, nothing proven but its a game changer.

Really focuses in on how serious this event was (and still is)

Politically also symbolically, no matter the small number charged, central to the charge is being in that building on that day attempting to keep Trump in power.

Part of Trumps political legacy. Part of our nightmares.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Dec 2007
Posts
28,321
Location
Adelaide, South Australia
Now we know why Trump was so desperate to keep his presidential documents sealed.

Among the records that Donald Trump’s lawyers tried to shield from Jan. 6 investigators are a draft executive order that would have directed the defense secretary to seize voting machines and a document titled “Remarks on National Healing.”

POLITICO has reviewed both documents. The text of the draft executive order is published here for the first time.

The executive order — which also would have appointed a special counsel to probe the 2020 election — was never issued. The remarks are a draft of a speech Trump gave the next day. Together, the two documents point to the wildly divergent perspectives of White House advisers and allies during Trump’s frenetic final weeks in office.

It’s not clear who wrote either document. But the draft executive order is dated Dec. 16, 2020, and is consistent with proposals that lawyer Sidney Powell made to the then-president.

On Dec. 18, 2020, Powell, former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump administration lawyer Emily Newman, and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne met with Trump in the Oval Office.

In that meeting, Powell urged Trump to seize voting machines and to appoint her as a special counsel to investigate the election, according to Axios.

(Source).

They never thought he could lose. And when he finally did, he could not accept it. To this day, he still can't comprehend that Biden destroyed him.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,282
Location
Surrey
I disagree. They knew they would lose. Risking impeachment, again, trying to collude with another country to get dirt on Biden was because they knew that they'd likely lose.

He barely beat hillary, the amount Biden needed to win was very small and trumps team rightly knew this so had to set it up that when they lost, they had a plan b.

Look at the postal vote, removing drop off points in democrat voting areas.

Causing a problem with the national postal service.

Creating doubt we'll before the election took place.

This wasn't a frantic last minute idea but one in the making for years.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 May 2006
Posts
4,814
Now we know why Trump was so desperate to keep his presidential documents sealed.

(Source).

They never thought he could lose. And when he finally did, he could not accept it. To this day, he still can't comprehend that Biden destroyed him.
That's only half a surprise as that order is only one small part of the detailed plan Trumps team had to stage a coup.
 
Soldato
Joined
3 Oct 2007
Posts
7,511
Location
London, UK
I disagree. They knew they would lose. Risking impeachment, again, trying to collude with another country to get dirt on Biden was because they knew that they'd likely lose.

He barely beat hillary, the amount Biden needed to win was very small and trumps team rightly knew this so had to set it up that when they lost, they had a plan b.

Look at the postal vote, removing drop off points in democrat voting areas.

Causing a problem with the national postal service.

Creating doubt we'll before the election took place.

This wasn't a frantic last minute idea but one in the making for years.

^^This! This plan was in the making for months if not years. He would do anything to hold on to power, be that coercing an ally to interfere in US elections or simply ignoring the vote of the citizens and so many steps in between. The US is hanging on to democracy by its finger nails at this point. All it would take is for a few more people to take a different path and its over.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,282
Location
Surrey
And all it would take to sort it is one strong period of Democrats to get rid of the junk that allows the republicans to block and attempt to steal with no consequence.

Whether the Dems would see it through though who knows.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,964
Location
New Eltham, London
And all it would take to sort it is one strong period of Democrats to get rid of the junk that allows the republicans to block and attempt to steal with no consequence.

Whether the Dems would see it through though who knows.

Is that true though? The make-up of the Senate is dictated not by population votes but by the number of red states with low populations equalling the number of blue states with huge populations. Unless the Senate make-up is changed the Republicans will be able to continue to stonewall any Democrat proposals. On top of that, the SCOTUS is now 6-3 to conservatives and that is already resulting in the possible overturn of Roe vs Wade and also the cancelling of presidential executive orders.

I can completely understand why California is heading towards independence as the rest of the country is completely at odds with it: yet with its enormous economy and population it still only gets the same number of Senators as Montana.

In the UK, the "upper house" can only send laws back to the "lower house" for amendment and cannot block laws for long. In the US, the "upper house" can completely block laws passed by the democratically elected "lower house". Th US Senate has a role to play but not the one it currently has.
 
Soldato
Joined
12 Feb 2006
Posts
14,282
Location
Surrey
In the UK, the "upper house" can only send laws back to the "lower house" for amendment and cannot block laws for long. In the US, the "upper house" can completely block laws passed by the democratically elected "lower house". Th US Senate has a role to play but not the one it currently has
Really makes me grateful for how we have it here.

My point was that a strong democrat result e.g 70 senators for Dems, allowing them to change how supreme Court works such as max length of term, or can't ever be an imbalance of more than 1 to either party, whatever to make it so that a party that is not in power can't completely stop the ruling party for the entire 4 year period.
 
Top Bottom