The January 6 "Tourist Event"

[fredonly]

This is a continuation of my conversation with member "1213" on the crimes committed on and before Jan 6 2021, associated with Trump's attempt to steal the election. 1213 referred to the Capitol break-in as a "tourist event".

[Difflugia]

FYI, the evidence is outlined here: https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-tarrio

Thank you! Sounds like they forgot the innocent until proven guilty, when it is said: "...charges against Tarrio and that he has not offered sufficient evidence to rebut it... ...While that evidence does not say much about Tarrio's personal involvement ...". I don't think there was said any real evidence against the person.

You're not reading enough. The bit you quoted is only relevent to a specific subset of the evidence, which is evidence that a conspiracy existed between Tarrio and his codefendents in the first place. That's the evidence that "does not say much about Tarrio's personal involvement," but the following paragraph does begin the cascade of evidence for Tarrio's specific conduct and involvement in that conspiracy ("The parties here understandably focus on Tarrio's alleged role.").

Maybe I just didn't notice it, so could you please tell what was the biggest actual evidence against him?

The rest of the document is absolutely damning evidence that Tarrio was not only involved in the conspiracy, but was instrumental in its orchestration and coordination. If you "didn't notice it," it's because you weren't looking for it. The "biggest actual evidence" is that he was in communication with other members of the organization in the days before the "tourist event," instead calling it a "revolution." As part of these communications, he was implicated both by his codefendents and himself as being part of the overall conspiracy. He was then in communication with the members during the event, relaying tactical information to them and instructing them where to go and what to do, including calling himself and his codefendents "a militia" and "revolutionaries" while relaying that members were illegally in one of the buildings.

Note that all of this took place after he was arrested and charged for a separate crime involving destruction of property.

[fredonly]

...Seditious Conspiracy, vandalism and stealing aren't serious?

I don't think there is any proof, not sufficient evidence for Seditious Conspiracy.

They were convicted by a jury who judged that the evidence proved their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. One of the men charged with this was not found guilty of this particular charge.What's your basis for believing the jury (who saw all the evidence) got it wrong?

Are you this skeptical of all criminal trials? My guess is you aren't, and are applying a double standard.

But, I think all of those are wrong. And everyone who commits those, should be judged the same way, this means also the looters that seems to be very common in riots democrats approve.

Your prejudice is transparent: you could provide zero evidence of inconsistent treatment, and zero evidence of Democratic leaders "approving" looting or rioting.

I'll also remind you that Trump said he'd consider pardoning the guys convicted of seditious conspiracy- this is the only clear example of a double standard by a politician that has come up.

They WERE proven guilty in court, per the judgement of a jury. Do you always assume juries get it wrong, or are you applying a double standard?

If there is no good evidence, they are making a wrong judgment. And in this case it looks very much like what I would imagine soviet show trial looks like.

You have no rational basis for this accusation.

Thank you! Sounds like they forgot the innocent until proven guilty, when it is said: "...charges against Tarrio and that he has not offered sufficient evidence to rebut it... ...While that evidence does not say much about Tarrio's personal involvement ...". I don't think there was said any real evidence against the person. Maybe I just didn't notice it, so could you please tell what was the biggest actual evidence against him?

You should read more carefully.This was not the jury trial that found him guilty! It was a judgement of a motion to release him before the trial. The legal standard for such a motion is "clear and convincing evidence", not "beyond a reasonable doubt", as in a criminal trial.

The judgement was: "the government has met its burden of establishing, by clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination of conditions can be imposed that would reasonably assure the safety of the community if he were released pending trial. "

I had pointed you at this only because it summarized the evidence, since you said you hadn't seen any evidence. But of course, you aren't persuaded by facts- not if they contradict your biases.

You have basically confirmed the worst things I've thought about Trumpists. I sincerely hope Trump is defeated, and that helps shift the GOP toward candidates that don't cater to the irrational to get power.

[1213]

....The rest of the document is absolutely damning evidence that Tarrio was not only involved in the conspiracy, but was instrumental in its orchestration and coordination. If you "didn't notice it," it's because you weren't looking for it. The "biggest actual evidence" is that he was in communication with other members of the organization in the days before the "tourist event," instead calling it a "revolution." As part of these communications, he was implicated both by his codefendents and himself as being part of the overall conspiracy. He was then in communication with the members during the event, relaying tactical information to them and instructing them where to go and what to do, including calling himself and his codefendents "a militia" and "revolutionaries" while relaying that members were illegally in one of the buildings....

So, being in contact with other people is now a crime. Calling the event a revolution doesn't necessary mean it was a conspiracy to overturn the government. Can his words be seen or heard? The actual evidence means not the accusations of what he has done, but the actual recordings or writings from the accused person.

[1213]

....What's your basis for believing the jury (who saw all the evidence) got it wrong?

I have not seen the evidence.

Are you this skeptical of all criminal trials?

Yes, today I don't believe anything government, or its representatives say, nor what the media says, unless sufficient evidence or intelligent reasons are given.

...I had pointed you at this only because it summarized the evidence...

Hmmm... so, please tell, what exactly is the evidence for seditious Conspiracy? I don't think there was any, but perhaps I just didn't notice it.

[Difflugia]

So, being in contact with other people is now a crime.

It is if you're contacting those people to plan the commission of another crime.

Calling the event a revolution doesn't necessary mean it was a conspiracy to overturn the government.

Of course. It would take something more, like planning to engage in criminal trespass or helping coordinate people that were illegally in one of the congressional buildings.

Can his words be seen or heard?

Yes. Many of them are reproduced in the document we're discussing.

The actual evidence means not the accusations of what he has done, but the actual recordings or writings from the accused person.

Are you sure you're defending him? I could imagine the prosecutor using your exact words as part of his case.

[fredonly]

....What's your basis for believing the jury (who saw all the evidence) got it wrong?

I have not seen the evidence....l don't believe anything government, or its representatives say, nor what the media says, unless sufficient evidence or intelligent reasons are given.

You haven't seen the evidence, because you haven't sought it. You believed police opened the Capitol doors, without evidence - using an excuse you obtained from a right-wing news organization (AOC said "police opened doors"), and were unaware there was video of rioters opening the doors to the Capitol. You took at face value, the claims that the trespassers didn't know they weren't allowed in, and ignored the context I provided from court documents that proved this to be an absurd claim.

You've given no basis for assuming DOJ prosecutors are lying. Bizarrely, you haven't displayed skepticism at anything Trump has said (proving you apply a double standard). You say you don't trust the media, but you've shown you trust right-wing media.

...I had pointed you at this only because it summarized the evidence...

Hmmm... so, please tell, what exactly is the evidence for seditious Conspiracy? I don't think there was any, but perhaps I just didn't notice it.

Read the document I gave you and look for it yourself. Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

[1213]

...You believed police opened the Capitol doors, without evidence....

Why do you think left wing news are more believable than right wing news?

I think this video is evidence for that police opened the doors and that there was no real attempt to overthrow government. And it can't even be called trespassing, when the police lets them come in peacefully.

https://rumble.com/vcjzsn-capitol-polic ... ite-t.html

But, it is probably true that on the other part of the building there were people who did brake a window. It was most likely just a distraction to make the event look like "democratic" riot, because as this video shows, there was no need for it, at least not for Trump supporters.

Read the document I gave you and look for it yourself. Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

Thanks, that defines what is the crime. But, it doesn't show any evidence that the accused people did that.

[fredonly]

...You believed police opened the Capitol doors, without evidence....

Why do you think left wing news are more believable than right wing news?

I never said that. News reporting is equally credible irrespective of whether it's from a conservative source (e.g. Fox News, WSJ) or a liberal source (e.g. CNN. MSNBC). By that, I mean that facts can be discerned from their stories, but one needs to read/watch with a critical eye to separate spin/interpretation from facts. One shouldn't mistake opinion for facts, and one should recognize that every source is selective in what they report - and this is partly due to bias. I regularly read reporting from Fox and WSJ, in addition to NYTimes and CNN. I also look more deeply than basic reporting, when it's something I consider important - e.g. I've read Trump's indictments; and a good bit of the transcripts of court proceedings. You've demonstrated ignorance of facts in various cases, while echoing accusations (based on speculation) made by right-wing pundits (Mark Levin is not a journalist), without considering their nature, without fact-checking, and without seeking a fuller set of facts by researching outside your bubble.

I think this video is evidence for that police opened the doors and that there was no real attempt to overthrow government. And it can't even be called trespassing, when the police lets them come in peacefully.

This doesn't show police opening doors; it shows them passively standing by as droves of people came in (in the midst of shouts of "traitor" from the crowd). They aren't shown welcoming them.

They may have opened the doors, but if they did, we'd don't know the context. Maybe they had received orders to not prevent entry because many were already in, and it was pointless to risk more injuries to policemen. This is speculation, of course, but the conclusion to which you've jumped is also speculation.

But, it is probably true that on the other part of the building there were people who did brake a window. It was most likely just a distraction to make the event look like "democratic" riot

"Probably" true? There's video showing the window being broken? It's a certainty.

Worse, I see you assume the event was staged, which is an irrational conspiracy theory by Trump supporters who refuse to accept what the evidence actually shows. I'm not surprised.

Thanks, that defines what is the crime. But, it doesn't show any evidence that the accused people did that.

The evidence was summarized in the other document.

[1213]

....
Worse, I see you assume the event was staged, which is an irrational conspiracy theory by Trump supporters who refuse to accept what the evidence actually shows. I'm not surprised.
...

The reason for the "conspiracy theory" is that there was no good reason to brake the window, when the "insurrectionists" got inside otherwise already.

[fredonly]

....
Worse, I see you assume the event was staged, which is an irrational conspiracy theory by Trump supporters who refuse to accept what the evidence actually shows. I'm not surprised.
...

The reason for the "conspiracy theory" is that there was no good reason to brake the window, when the "insurrectionists" got inside otherwise already.

Dominic Pezzola, a member of the Proud Boys, admitted to breaking the window (using a riot shield he had taken from a police officer). He was convicted for this, and other crimes. See: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/p ... -trump-won