Mike Johnson calls to blur Jan. 6 video to protect rioters from DOJ

[Hans Blaster]

I mean, these are facts determined in court @Hans Blaster...it's not really a question of whether or not large numbers of people were literally allowed inside by police who opened doors.

They weren't.

Redirect Notice

If you aren't aware of that by now....well, hopefully you understand my point.

Your point is false.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm sure you're aware there was more than 1 entrance to the building.

And the rioters created a few new ones of their own. Rioters entered through around a dozen doors. Each of those entrances was opened by a rioter. Every last one.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here....that I didn't see the footage with my own eyes?

I would suspect that some source is feeding you false impressions.

Old news really.

FBI Whistleblower: Deputy Director Threatened Us For J6 Dissent

A whistleblower claimed Abbate threatened FBI employees concerned about the bureau's overblown response to the Jan. 6 riot.

thefederalist.com

As you can see, he isn't questioning guilt, just response from the FBI and categorizing these people as "domestic terrorists".

That's *ONE* dude. (And I know of none others who got a judge to accept that claim. [As best I can recall, the judge/jury was confused in this case by angles or something. At most this is an anomaly and anomalies don't make the case.] )

 

[wing2000]

Cheney is hawking a book on her book tour right now. Anything and everything she says should be taken with a grain of salt. Her voters didn't even believe her back home.

"Cheney’s defeat appears to be the second worst for a House incumbent in the last 60 years, when you look at races featuring only one incumbent. As of Wednesday afternoon, she trailed Hageman by 37.4 points, which is just worse than California Rep. Marty Martinez’s loss by 37.2 points to fellow Democrat Hilda Solis in a 2000 blanket primary."

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/17/politics/liz-cheney-worst-defeat-house-incumbent/index.html

Typical. You can't or won't address what one of the most conservative members of Congress has to say.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think Speaker Johnson chose mostly "nothingburger" footage to imply the rest (the other 99%) was equally benign. I don't trust that man in the slightest.

I can understand that...but given the fact that some people weren't aware of the fact that many police gave no resistance to the crowd, even while other police were clearly fighting back a mob, has led those people to believe "anyone who was inside the building was guilty" as another poster said.

As you can see from the ruling I cited, everyone in the building was not guilty. That man and others were there and acquitted of all charges.

So until the rest of the footage comes out...I'm going to assume he's just trying to spare anyone innocent of public hatred and judgment. It's clearly still a self serving decision in some ways since they're all likely Trump supporters.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I can understand that...but given the fact that some people weren't aware of the fact that many police gave no resistance to the crowd, even while other police were clearly fighting back a mob,

Police in areas where the crowd had already breached and were not fighting them did stop for a brief period trying to stop the crowd directly, but that wasn't permission to enter.

has led those people to believe "anyone who was inside the building was guilty" as another poster said.

It was perhaps a poorly chosen phrase given the legal definition of "guilty", but as I have said before, anyone who entered the building from the crowd was violating the law.

As you can see from the ruling I cited, everyone in the building was not guilty. That man and others were there and acquitted of all charges.

I checked the database that I use for these things and Martin is the *ONLY* Jan6th defendant to be acquitted of all charges as of 6 months ago when the DB stopped being updated. Perhaps there is another, but I am unable to easily find such a case. Feel free to find one of your own and I can check the details in the hard to search dockets of the court.

So until the rest of the footage comes out...I'm going to assume he's just trying to spare anyone innocent of public hatred and judgment.

There is plenty of footage available and around 1000 persons inside the FBI/DOJ parameters (inside the Capitol or committing violence) have been identified and reported to the FBI according to the sleuth collectives based on other footage available including footage released by the courts that was used in a proceeding. The collectives don't do "doxxing" and those in the footage aren't that innocent.

It's clearly still a self serving decision in some ways since they're all likely Trump supporters.

The jan6 defendants when examined closely (case by case) are very much the nuttiest and most fanatical of Trump supporters. Creme de la creme.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And the rioters created a few new ones of their own. Rioters entered through around a dozen doors. Each of those entrances was opened by a rioter. Every last one.

Sure....if you want to think that.

I'd say we could ask the police themselves but an odd number decided to kill themselves.

Do we have any testimony from the police? Particularly that one in the footage who clearly fired his tear gas at his fellow officers and caused them to fall back? Did he ever explain what happened?

I would suspect that some source is feeding you false impressions.

No that really happened.

That's *ONE* dude.

Look, you either want whistleblowers holding people in power accountable or you don't. He raised what sounds like a reasonable objection. He was threatened for it.

For the record, there were 3 I think in the FBI, and I just chose to highlight this one because he's describing concerns he claims many FBI offices held, and that multiple people heard this threat...

And instead of doing something like....I dunno...investigating it, they smeared the whistleblower and ran him out of a job.

For the record....the same generally applies to police. Don't get upset at them for not squealing on their partner. They know that despite whatever the public says, they'll just have their reputation ruined, their allegations denied, and at least half the nation will swallow it like chumps.

(And I know of none others who got a judge to accept that claim. [As best I can recall, the judge/jury was confused in this case by angles or something. At most this is an anomaly and anomalies don't make the case.] )

You don't know of anyone else who was acquitted?

Here's another one...

In rare move, federal judge acquits Jan. 6 defendant

James Beeks, who was arrested while playing Judas in a touring production of

www.courthousenews.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Police in areas where the crowd had already breached and were not fighting them did stop for a brief period trying to stop the crowd directly, but that wasn't permission to enter.

Yeah I can't say based on the current footage that all cops were fighting. It doesn't look that way....but its incomplete footage. Perhaps they were all fighting at some point...but again, it doesn't look that way.

It was perhaps a poorly chosen phrase given the legal definition of "guilty", but as I have said before, anyone who entered the building from the crowd was violating the law.

A misdemeanor. You know, like the misdemeanor violations that happened at least a million times during BLM riots....or if you prefer, like the 9 million illegals who crossed the border.

I checked the database that I use for these things and Martin is the *ONLY* Jan6th defendant to be acquitted of all charges as of 6 months ago when the DB stopped being updated.

A 10 second Google search turned up the other example above. Apparently he was aquitted despite being associated with the oath keepers. Unlike Ray Epps...he seems to be possibly uninvolved. It's not like we have footage of him trying to convince the crowd to breach the Capitol, or assaulting officers, or breaking property....and it's not as if his association with the Oath Keepers was as long or serious as Ray Epps...

But oddly, left wing media ran heavy defense for Epps...in spite of his obvious crimes.

There is plenty of footage available and around 1000 persons inside the FBI/DOJ parameters (inside the Capitol or committing violence) have been identified and reported to the FBI according to the sleuth collectives based on other footage available including footage released by the courts that was used in a proceeding.

And quasi legal bank records offered up without any resistance.

The collectives don't do "doxxing" and those in the footage aren't that innocent.

I'm sorry...you're talking about left wing citizens engaged in hunting down Jan. 6th protesters when you say "collectives"?

Did these "collectives" also hunt down individuals who burned down police buildings, or assaulted police, or took control of "free zones" where multiple crimes were committed like extortion and murder (besides the obvious treason)?

The jan6 defendants when examined closely (case by case) are very much the nuttiest and most fanatical of Trump supporters. Creme de la creme.

Well if that's all your told....and you're given a very one sided biased opinion...I can understand that conclusion.

How many actually were convicted of some seditious conspiracy to overthrow the election? Not just stop an official proceeding....people do that every day.

 

[Ana the Ist]

They weren't.

Again...I've seen it. Would you prefer I post videos?

If you think that 5 minutes is too long...don't worry, you're proven wrong in the first minute.

Your point is false.

Well you aren't giving me much reason to think you're correct. After all....I have eyes.

I'm not dismissing the possibility that footage is altered or manipulated....but it seems more likely that your perceptions and biases were manipulated.

As a "scientist" I'm sure you can understand why I think the latter is more likely.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Look, you either want whistleblowers holding people in power accountable or you don't. He raised what sounds like a reasonable objection. He was threatened for it.

For the record, there were 3 I think in the FBI, and I just chose to highlight this one because he's describing concerns he claims many FBI offices held, and that multiple people heard this threat...

And instead of doing something like....I dunno...investigating it, they smeared the whistleblower and ran him out of a job.

For the record....the same generally applies to police. Don't get upset at them for not squealing on their partner. They know that despite whatever the public says, they'll just have their reputation ruined, their allegations denied, and at least half the nation will swallow it like chumps.

What are you talking about? We were talking about that *one* guy who convinced a judge that he didn't really see the evidence that he shouldn't enter and was acquitted in a bench trial.

 

[Say it aint so]

I can understand why you would think that...but a lot of the footage doesn't look very criminal at all, and in the interest of justice, it seems like a good idea to not put them in the danger of a corrupt DOJ.

Great. I agree. A lot of the video is not criminal. Those who smartly remained outside, who held their powder, didn't use their sharpened flag poles against police, and kept their bear spray in their camo pants for example. Blurring faces is not the "transparency" that Johnson said America needed to see now is it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Great. I agree. A lot of the video is not criminal. Those who smartly remained outside, who held their powder, didn't use their sharpened flag poles against police, and kept their bear spray in their camo pants for example. Blurring faces is not the "transparency" that Johnson said America needed to see now is it?

I think some people have so completely swallowed a rather exaggerated narrative of what happened that day, and feel justified in persecuting people for their politics, that it's a smart idea.

After all, nobody here seems at all upset at the fact that several thousand hours aren't included in the footage for "security concerns" and they seem to trust that reason entirely. Yet for some reason, they don't trust the same guy's reasoning for blurring faces.

I would say I wonder why, but I don't. I think the thread proved it's entirely justified. A lot of angry people still hold some false beliefs about that day.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again...I've seen it. Would you prefer I post videos?

It's unlikely to contain footage I haven't seen before and this one was no exception. (Though the misleading narrative was new as I haven't seen this knob's edit before.)

If you think that 5 minutes is too long...don't worry, you're proven wrong in the first minute.

And yet I wasn't. The moment I saw the flash frame on that YT video I knew *exactly* what it was about and the claim that would be made.

In the opening minute the police clearly make an error. 5 men are being shooed out of the building through a door and the officers either forget to consider the possibility that someone could catch the door and more people could enter than exited (the thing that happened) or they thought the area outside the door was clear and there was no one to reverse the entry. They were wrong. After that the video clearly shows a handful of officers (about 5) who are not only overwhelmed by the crowd entering that door, but know that there are other unknown persons behind them. What follows looks like pretty standard police practice involving mass, non-violent law breaking while outnumbered.

If they had followed the last rioter to the door they might have gotten it closed before more entered without violence, but it might have still failed.

My favorite part was when (at 4:30) the narrator states that the cops turn their back and escort the mob in, the footage immediately cuts to the interior corridor where the officers closest to the crowd do not turn their backs and instead walk backward toward the interior door the whole time with the mob in their line of sight. Either the narrator/editor doesn't know the difference between a tactical retreat and a police escort or he is blatantly dishonest. (It's the latter and not even doubtful.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yet for some reason, they don't trust the same guy's reasoning for blurring faces.

Johnson stated his reason for blurring faces and I accept his claim. He doesn't want the unarrested members of Trump's mob to pay any price for their breach of the Capitol, either criminal or social.

 

[Say it aint so]

I think some people have so completely swallowed a rather exaggerated narrative of what happened that day, and feel justified in persecuting people for their politics, that it's a smart idea.

After all, nobody here seems at all upset at the fact that several thousand hours aren't included in the footage for "security concerns" and they seem to trust that reason entirely. Yet for some reason, they don't trust the same guy's reasoning for blurring faces.

I would say I wonder why, but I don't. I think the thread proved it's entirely justified. A lot of angry people still hold some false beliefs about that day.

What's that Rasheed Wallace meme? "ball don't lie", well real time "video doesn't lie." If the concern is "thousand hours aren't included in the footage", then do what Kevin McCarthy said he was going to do but never did, and what Mike Johnson said he is going to do for the sake of "transparency" and release the video in it's entirety. When you blur out faces, that is the opposite of transparency.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's unlikely to contain footage I haven't seen before and this one was no exception. (Though the misleading narrative was new as I haven't seen this knob's edit before.)

Ok.

And yet I wasn't. The moment I saw the flash frame on that YT video I knew *exactly* what it was about and the claim that would be made.

Ok.

In the opening minute the police clearly make an error.

Police are making an error.

What's the error?

5 men are being shooed out of the building through a door and the officers either forget to consider the possibility that someone could catch the door and more people could enter than exited (the thing that happened) or they thought the area outside the door was clear and there was no one to reverse the entry.

Wait a minute....I'm not asking about your speculation of the events. Unless this cop specifically testified to what he was doing there...I'm simply stating facts.

You claimed that all doors and entries were broken into. That police didn't open doors for anyone.

I'm not engaging in some mind reading competition here with you. I'm simply stating the facts.

We agree that police opened doors for people in at least some instances, correct?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

She's the only one of the lot who has ethics and a backbone. A true patriot and the party didn't want her. That says a lot about the current state of affairs.

Actually quite the reverse. When she lost her election, she quickly took whatever tactic would bring in the bucks. She has been promoting her big lie that Trump = Hitler and "the greatest danger to democracy" ever since - despite the current president, which she apparently can't see actually being an actual danger to democracy, having opened the borders, abdicated the borders, and had social media act as his arm to silence dissent during the pandemic.

Ridiculously Cheney has claimed that "Trump will never leave" if he gets elected again, even though he actually DID leave, vacating right on time in 2020. That stupid lie should be put to rest but the minions have repeated it nonstop, since they have no substance to run on. Instead of "I will actually do this and that for the American people", the only campaign statement is "Trump is BAD".

Liz Cheney warns Trump will never leave office if he's elected president again

Cheney said she would “do whatever it takes to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in 2024," including potentially voting for Biden.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[wing2000]

Actually quite the reverse. When she lost her election, she quickly took whatever tactic would bring in the bucks.

Or maybe she really cares about the future of our country? {The Cheney's hardly need money from book sales}

She has been promoting her big lie that Trump = Hitler and "the greatest danger to democracy" ever since - despite the current president, which she apparently can't see actually being an actual danger to democracy, having opened the borders, abdicated the borders, and had social media act as his arm to silence dissent during the pandemic.

When did Cheney state "Trump-Hitler"?

Ridiculously Cheney has claimed that "Trump will never leave" if he gets elected again, even though he actually DID leave, vacating right on time in 2020. That stupid lie should be put to rest but the minions have repeated it nonstop, since they have no substance to run on. Instead of "I will actually do this and that for the American people", the only campaign statement is "Trump is BAD".

Liz Cheney warns Trump will never leave office if he's elected president again

Cheney said she would “do whatever it takes to make sure that Donald Trump is defeated in 2024," including potentially voting for Biden.

www.nbcnews.com

Obviously, it's Cheney's opinion that Trump will not leave office if he should win another term. That isn't a lie. It's an opinion.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Johnson stated his reason for blurring faces and I accept his claim. He doesn't want the unarrested members of Trump's mob to pay any price for their breach of the Capitol, either criminal or social.

This point is actually moot. The FBI and all relevant law enforcement already has the video without blurring. The only prevention will be from the nut job vigilantes who decide it's a great idea to appear at someone's home or at least dox the person.

FBI has everything it needs.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's that Rasheed Wallace meme?

I don't know. Who is Rasheed Wallace?

"ball don't lie", well real time "video doesn't lie."

Video does lie....all the time. I would have expected people to understand that ever since the Nick Sandman incident. A pic and short video of a kid staring at a "native American" and suddenly 50 million morons believe whatever they're told because of his hat choice.

Nathan Phillips problematic slander of the Covington Boys

Let me say in the beginning of this post that I’m not Catholic (I strongly think their view of salvation is wrong) nor did I vote for Trump. Also I am not a racist, being a minority myself n…

veritasdomain.wordpress.com

Probably the most accurate breakdown of that incident...

But I digress...stupid meme. It's counterintuitive but video doesn't tell the entire story...and much of that video is not sequential. Even in the video I showed, there's no clear context or perspective of the individuals provided (I don't really care what the narrator thinks). I'm not saying that the cops did anything wrong, nor the protesters, nor am I saying that they are innocent of any crimes. I'm not engaging in some mind reading exercise.

If the concern is "thousand hours aren't included in the footage", then do what Kevin McCarthy said he was going to do but never did, and what Mike Johnson said he is going to do for the sake of "transparency" and release the video in it's entirety. When you blur out faces, that is the opposite of transparency.

You think it would be wise to release potentially sensitive video that reveals security information?

How about this....have you considered that Mike Johnson is protecting the integrity of the investigation by not tipping off suspects who think they are in the clear?

Or perhaps he's protecting the identity of undercover assets, federal agents, police, of which the Capitol police stated there were 40-50 of present?

No?

I mean...this is why they call it TDS. I'm not accusing anyone here of being afflicted, but the level of malice and hatred and suspicion based on just an endless loop of biased media is capable of turning what would normally be reasonable and decent people into vicious and bitter conspiracy theorists.

It's weird to watch.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ya, blurring their faces, it is too late for that. Those videos are out there for all to see, mostly.

And why protect them?

This might technically make Johnson an accessory to the fact, but as mentioned above, it's too late for him to protect the criminals. Law enforcement already has the videos.