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

[Hans Blaster]

How about this....

How about we stick to the topic?

 

[stevil]

Just out of curiosity...why do you think the weaponization of the DOJ is a nonsense narrative and what would the weaponization of the DOJ look like if it were happening?

Well here you go, since you asked.
I have just created a new thread, just for you, so this fine thread here doesn't get derailed.

Weaponisation of the DOJ

"Weaponisation of the DOJ" seems to be a hot phrase being parroted about in USA right wing circles. But what does that actually mean? It comes down to levels of weaponisation. It isn't just yes its weaponised or no it's not. I don't even like that term "weaponisation" It's very hyperbolic and...

www.christianforums.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are lots of us that agree with her that a sitting President trying to overturn an election he lost by promoting a falsehood that he won is, indeed, a threat to democracy.

If you have to tear apart the democracy to prevent it...you protected nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not being able to follow simples rules for what is “on topic” undermine one’s righteousness when pining for a “civil war”.

I pointed out a violation of civil rights that is widespread, and political in nature.

The Speaker mentioned he was protecting the public from the DOJ.

We're watching Congress hold hearings on the weaponization of the federal government.

If you don't understand the connection between these things...I can make you a chart but it will look like a straight line.

I'm not going to derail the thread by arguing the merits of the worst violation of free speech in US history by this administration, but that was the ruling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well here you go, since you asked.
I have just created a new thread, just for you, so this fine thread here doesn't get derailed.

Weaponisation of the DOJ

"Weaponisation of the DOJ" seems to be a hot phrase being parroted about in USA right wing circles. But what does that actually mean? It comes down to levels of weaponisation. It isn't just yes its weaponised or no it's not. I don't even like that term "weaponisation" It's very hyperbolic and...

www.christianforums.com

So when discussing the motives of the speaker in regards to why he blurred the faces of the January 6th protesters....

Despite the fact that he said it was to protect them from the DOJ, I can't even suggest that is related to the weaponization of the federal government?

What do you think he meant by that? Do you think he meant the DOJ is potentially corrupt?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I replied about intent because you wrote: "The charges of most individuals involved in January 6th require no intent, and no argument of intent has saved many of them...." which is wrong

Oh...ok.

Because I was going off of when you said this earlier in the thread.

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

That's a statement that disregards intent.

So you were wrong... and we agree intent matters?

(This was about reporters) The "protest" was never legal.

Reporters were there at many protests...

And why wouldn't it be legal to hold a protest there?

They knew it was happening in advance, so clearly it was legal when it started.

The west lawn regions and the hardscaping were all marked off as "restricted area"s.

Ok.

Reporters with congressional press passes were authorized to be there, "protest" or not.

Are you under the impression that a press pass gives a person free reign to go wherever they want regardless of what the situation or circumstances are in the Capitol?

Because I can be certain that's not true.

Many of the most well known images from the Capitol that circulated early (the first day or two) were recorded by reporters there to cover the proceeding that some in the crowd obstructed.

Ok. That's not a first either. I watched reporters assaulted and cameras ripped from hands at BLM protests.

Hardly.

Well....if you keep flip flopping I'm not certain why you think you're holding a reasonable position.

But I'll wait to see if you still think intent matters.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not being able to follow simples rules for what is “on topic” undermine one’s righteousness when pining for a “civil war”.

To be clear again...I wasn't pining. I'd much prefer, as unlikely it seems, all guilty parties held accountable without discrimination.

We don't actually have any apparatus for that besides the military and the president has to be willing to enforce it.

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.

www.brennancenter.org

Invoking the military to enforce federal law is an option....but not one this administration would use on itself. Joe is unlikely to have a full or clear grasp of what's happening. I mean, most people on this thread seem oblivious and they aren't enfeebled like Biden.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about we stick to the topic?

Well...the topic appears to be the speaker protecting people from political persecution at the hands of the DOJ, which is why the GOP is investigating the administration and its weaponization of the federal government. They already have multiple federal judges agreeing they grossly violated the first amendment rights of the citizenry.

But....you don't want to talk about that. You seem to think that this is...about something else?

I'm not seeing where I'm off topic here.

I didn't even read the article and multiple posters seem to think the Speaker was trying to protect the public from the DOJ.

We can either discuss the validity of that....or you can stick your head in the sand.

I understand everyone on the left is used to not having their views challenged and prefers to have any dissenting opinions censored....

But that doesn't mean fine posters like yourself and others on this thread can't consider the possibility of the Speaker being correct.

Are we discussing the Speaker's reasoning or not?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How about we stick to the topic?

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,”

I already explored the possibility he was trying to protect innocent people from being needlessly prosecuted. We seem to be in agreement that intent matters so....

If you're still objecting to the blurring....why?

 

[stevil]

So when discussing the motives of the speaker in regards to why he blurred the faces of the January 6th protesters....

Despite the fact that he said it was to protect them from the DOJ, I can't even suggest that is related to the weaponization of the federal government?

What do you think he meant by that? Do you think he meant the DOJ is potentially corrupt?

He was lying to his base, to Trump's base. He was not blurring faces to protect anyone from the DOJ, if he was manipulating evidence to protect criminals then he would be guilty of committing a crime himself. Accessory after the fact.
But he didn't do that at all. Instead he was just feeding the lie, feeding the conspiracy narrative that the DOJ is corrupt and that the Republicans, D Trump and himself were working to thwart them. Making himself appear as a hero to the resistance. But in reality, it was smoke and mirrors.

 

[stevil]

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,”

I already explored the possibility he was trying to protect innocent people from being needlessly prosecuted. We seem to be in agreement that intent matters so....

If you're still objecting to the blurring....why?

Most people don't care about the blurring, Most people see it for what it is, just political theatre. People care about the lie that Johnson offered as to why he was blurring.

 

[Ana the Ist]

He was lying to his base, to Trump's base.

Ok...

But he didn't do that at all.

Seems like he blurred faces.

Instead he was just feeding the lie, feeding the conspiracy narrative that the DOJ is corrupt and that the Republicans, D Trump and himself were working to thwart them. Making himself appear as a hero to the resistance. But in reality, it was smoke and mirrors.

I understand that's your opinion. My opinion is that his claims about the DOJ have merit.

I have a pile of evidence for my opinion.

How about you? Do you have something for me to consider as evidence he's lying?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most people don't care about the blurring,

I don't think you have the slightest clue what most people think.

Regardless, you're making an ad populum argument. It doesn't actually matter what everyone thinks...they can all be wrong.

Most people see it for what it is, just political theatre.

How do you know? Do you have any evidence he's lying?

People care about the lie that Johnson offered as to why he was blurring.

How do you know its a lie?

 

[Ana the Ist]

He was lying to his base, to Trump's base. He was not blurring faces to protect anyone from the DOJ, if he was manipulating evidence to protect criminals then he would be guilty of committing a crime himself. Accessory after the fact.

The short explanation of why this is both logically, and coherently wrong, is the DOJ has all the footage. There's absolutely nothing to prevent them from releasing the footage unblurred if they wanted to.

They could literally put up a website accessible to the public, and put up the same footage.

So the idea that the Speaker is interfering in any investigation is nonsense. The DOJ has had this for years. For whatever reason....they didn't put it out.

The Speaker isn't impeding the investigation.

But he didn't do that at all. Instead he was just feeding the lie, feeding the conspiracy narrative that the DOJ is corrupt and that the Republicans, D Trump and himself were working to thwart them. Making himself appear as a hero to the resistance. But in reality, it was smoke and mirrors.

I'll wait and see if you have any evidence for your opinions....but I'll hope it's actual evidence and not speculation.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh...ok.

Because I was going off of when you said this earlier in the thread.

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

That's a statement that disregards intent.

So you were wrong... and we agree intent matters?

You are insufferable, aren't you.

 

[stevil]

I understand that's your opinion. My opinion is that his claims about the DOJ have merit.

Basic logic and basic thoughts easily refute your opinion.
1. FBI and DOJ don't wait for someone to release evidence to the public
2. FBI and DOJ don't wait for someone to alter evidence before providing it to them, if they need it, they demand the raw footage.
3. If a person provides altered footage to protect the criminal acts then they themselves become criminals "accessory after the fact"
4. FBI and DOJ already have the raw unaltered footage that the House has.

 

[stevil]

I don't think you have the slightest clue what most people think.

Regardless, you're making an ad populum argument. It doesn't actually matter what everyone thinks...they can all be wrong.

I'm no making an ad populum argument. I'm not saying because most people think it therefore it must be true. I'm just pointing out to you that the problem is the lie, not the obscuring of faces. Because for some reason you are mischaracterising the other side by trying to say they are all tortured by Johnson blurring faces.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are insufferable, aren't you.

@Hans Blaster, their your words.

I didn't look up the details of every charge....I took your word for it.

Are you conceding the original point that plenty of people who were there may have had no malicious or corrupt intent?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you conceding the original point that plenty of people who were there may have had no malicious or corrupt intent?

As you might recall, the key word in the relevant statute is "knowingly". Malice or corrupt intent aren't needed. Just enough awareness to realize that perhaps you shouldn't really be entering a government building while the alarm blares and there is broken window next to the door.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Basic logic and basic thoughts easily refute your opinion.
1. FBI and DOJ don't wait for someone to release evidence to the public

Ok.

2. FBI and DOJ don't wait for someone to alter evidence before providing it to them, if they need it, they demand the raw footage.

Ok...

3. If a person provides altered footage to protect the criminal acts then they themselves become criminals "accessory after the fact"

Given points one and two, the DOJ and FBI have the same footage.

The Speaker is not altering the footage currently in possession of the FBI or DOJ.

As a member of the majority party in Congress, the Speaker is obligated by duty to oversee any corruption or competence of the federal government.

4. FBI and DOJ already have the raw unaltered footage that the House has.

Yeah...he hasn't provided the footage to protect criminals. He provided the footage to provide transparency....something badly needed in this administration. He blurred the faces to protect identities.

If the DOJ or FBI wants to present the unblurred footage....they can. They don't seem to want the public's help in catching the blurred individuals.

I wonder why?