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".

[fredonly]

... but that has absolutely nothing to do with your unsupported implication that there's a double standard in the justice system.

Sorry, I remembered that the video showed also part of the Kenosha riots, where people did many bad things, but didn't get the same judgment than people in Jan6 tourist event.

Lots of individuals who participated in the Jan 6 criminal activities were identified via video and cell phone location. Some bragged about their participation on facebook. The evidence of their guilt was beyond a reasonable doubt.

Point me at individuals at Kenosha that were clearly identified with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, who were not prosecuted. If you can't, then it's clear you are making a false equivalence.

You label the 1/6 crimes ia "tourist event". You are in denial of the facts I listed:

-100%of the people who entered the Capitol were gulity of trespassing.

-Some of the trespassers vandalized and/or stole objects.

-Some entered the Capitol by breaking (a window) and entering.

-Some broke through an interior door (including Ashlii Babbitt) that was locked to protect members of Congress.

-Some injured police officers.

I have not painted with a broad brush and claimed 100% are guilty of the worst crimes. Everyone who entered the Capitol are guilty only of trespassing Those who didn't enter the Capitol committed no crime at all.

....on two lies: that the election was stolen, and there was something they could do about it that day....

I think it is wrong to call it a lie, because it is possible still that it is true.

It's possible you are a brain in a vat, receiving false images of a world through your sensory cortexes. But it would be insane to take this possibility seriously. You need more than to claim "it's possible". You need evidence, that stands up to scrutiny.

Had Trump merely claimed he was suspicious of fraud, that could be defended. But he forcefully made the general assertion that the election was stolen, despite receiving no verified evidence of it, and despite investigations by the DOJ and two private research groups that investigated all allegations Trump brought up (and Trump withheld from the public). How do you account for making the assertion, if not a lie? Stupidity? Delusion?

We know with near certainty that Trump lied, because we know of many specific allegations that he brought up to the DOJ they they explained to him were erroneous- and yet, he repeated these - stating them as facts. If that's not lying, then what is it?

Here's testimony about one very specific, easily established lie: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNwSoobV/
There many like this. Also keep in mind that I tried to get DOJ officials to lie.

And there was a small chance for to get the government to check the claims before making the decision.

Wrong. All fraud allegations had been investigated. Furthermore, all states had certified their results - so there was no legal basis to reject those submissions. White House Counsel told him this.

The way he DID stop it...2+ hours later, when he tweeted: ""I know your pain. I know your hurt," he begins. "We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You've seen the way others are treated. ... I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace." Immediately after, the throng started leaving the Capitol.

Why do you think that was the thing they listened, when they were clearly not listening Trump earlier?

They DID listen to him earlier. They listened to his lies about a "stolen election", that Pence could do something about it, and that by "fighting like hell" the certification could be stopped.

Why are you evading my point: he got them to leave 2 hours later, and this proves he could have gotten them to leave earlier.

And please note: I have not claimed Trump ordered them to break into the Capitol and commit violence. I know he made a statement about going "in peace". But he inflamed them - they shared the anger he clearly expressed, after inducing them to come to D.C. on Jan 6, based on lies.

quote=fredonly post_id=1155492 time=1724862049 user_id=5541]He could also have called out the National Guard when the barricades were breached. It was Mike Pence who did that (see this).

Interesting, by what I know, Trump had asked national guard to the place before the event , but apparently Pelosi didn't approve it, probably because it would have ruined the false insurrection.

Kellogg testified under oath that Trump gave no such order on Jan 6. The Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security testified the same. Had there been an order, Pelosi would have had no power to reject it, so Trump is lying again. Trump has also lied in claiming Pelosi is responsible for Capitol Security. Capitol Security is the responsibility of the Capitol Police. Decisions are made by the Capitol Police board. The Speaker and Senate Majority leader each appoint one member of this board. That is the extent of her involvement; it doesn't involve direct oversight or governance. Trump lied.

[Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/0 ... testimony/

Kellogg has indicated that Trump had made an informal comment about having National Guard on site days earlier (Jan 3), but it's been established that no order was given. Had an order been given, there would have been documentation, and it would have occurred because no one has the authority to overrule the commander-in-chief.

...planned in advance to break into the Capitol (and do worse). Epps didn't do that.

Do you have the evidence? Epps did that on the video.

Never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? You are treating him as guilty unless proven innocent.

The only evidence of Epps doing anything wrong was his telling a small crowd the day before to go into the Capitol. That's the only negative evidence against him. There's also exculpatory evidence- Epps did not enter the Capitol, and he cautioned other protesters that the police were just doing their job. It's also established he was pro-Trump, through his social media history.
So again: what crime would you charge him with, and based on what evidence?

By contrast, there's a series of text messages and testimony of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers planning violence - which started after Trump's Dec 19th tweet: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/13/11113411 ... l-on-jan-6

[1213]

....Point me at individuals at Kenosha that were clearly identified with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, who were not prosecuted. If you can't, then it's clear you are making a false equivalence.

Sorry, I can't point any individuals, I can only tell what is seen in the news, there was for example destroying property, burning cars... ...by what I know, no one got any penalty for those crimes, apparently because they are on the side of "democrats".

-100%of the people who entered the Capitol were gulity of trespassing.

If that is true, why were they let in to the house?

I have not painted with a broad brush and claimed 100% are guilty of the worst crimes. Everyone who entered the Capitol are guilty only of trespassing Those who didn't enter the Capitol committed no crime at all.

But media has painted them insurrectionists.

...
There many like this. Also keep in mind that I tried to get DOJ officials to lie.

Please show the evidence that they tried to make others to lie.

I have not claimed Trump ordered them to break into the Capitol and commit violence.

Ok, that is good enough for me. So, it was not Trump's fault.

Kellogg has indicated that Trump had made an informal comment about having National Guard on site days earlier (Jan 3), but it's been established that no order was given.

And now the question is, why not?

Never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? You are treating him as guilty unless proven innocent.

No, the video shows that he is guilty.

So again: what crime would you charge him with, and based on what evidence?

I wouldn't charge any of them, except maybe the possible undercover agents.

[1213]

....He was president. It's just evasion to blame someone else for not stopping it. They followed is instructions all the time, to start it and stop it when eventually he was pressured to say so.

What instructions?

You just repeat Maga lies, and ignore the actual evidence.

All evidence that I can see, points to that the election was not honest.

Already an election steal is being put in place at state level in case trump loses,

Please explain what do you mean with that?

...They know that US democracy is under threat.

Unfortunately I think that is too late, I don't believe there is any democracy left, they sent it all to Libya, Iraq, Syria... ...with their bombers.

I think it is ridiculous when "democrats" say their democracy is under threat, when they are the biggest threat to freedom and democracy.

[fredonly]

....Point me at individuals at Kenosha that were clearly identified with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, who were not prosecuted. If you can't, then it's clear you are making a false equivalence.

Sorry, I can't point any individuals, I can only tell what is seen in the news, there was for example destroying property, burning cars... ...by what I know, no one got any penalty for those crimes, apparently because they are on the side of "democrats".

The point is. there is no factual basis for claiming Kenosha criminals weren't prosecuted because of their politics, while the crimes at the Capitol WERE prosecuted for political reasons. That's just a conclusion some Republicans have jumped to based on the same false equivalence - pointing only to convictions. The
discrepancy is a consequence of the reasons I explained: actions by people on 1/6 were captured on video (security video + videos people took on their phones) and people exposing themselves through social media with pictures and bragging about their actions. No such easy pickings were available for Kenosha, or other events. Now that you know this, can you admit there's no evidentiary basis for claiming these events entail a double standard?

-100%of the people who entered the Capitol were gulity of trespassing.

If that is true, why were they let in to the house?

People who climbed in the window opened doors, not Capitol police. There were police who were behaving passively as the throng came in (choosing not to risk their lives in an impossible circumstance). As I pointed out, there were barricades (bicycle racks) surrounding the Capitiol that had to be breeched before even entering. Sirens were blaring, and tear gas deployed. Read this appellate court ruling on a case involving a couple of trespassers who claimed to not know they weren't allowed in. The defendants claimed they weren't aware that they weren't allowed in because the door was open, but despite admitting they'd walked past barricades breached by others before them, heard sirens, flash bangs, and seen tear gas deployed. The context demonstrates how ludicrous this defense is.

I have not painted with a broad brush and claimed 100% are guilty of the worst crimes. Everyone who entered the Capitol are guilty only of trespassing Those who didn't enter the Capitol committed no crime at all.

But media has painted them insurrectionists.

You're debating ME, not the media or semantics. What I said is true. Why have you ignored the evidence that Trump lied?

...
There many like this. Also keep in mind that [Trump]tried to get DOJ officials to lie.

Please show the evidence that they tried to make others to lie.

Here it is again: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTNKEKEW7/
Please watch the whole thing.

I have not claimed Trump ordered them to break into the Capitol and commit violence.

Ok, that is good enough for me. So, it was not Trump's fault.

Every fraud claim he listed in his 1/6 speech had been debunked DIRECTLY TO HIM. Why do you ignore that? Trump is responsible for convincing supporters the election was stolen, which is why they went to D.C. in the first place He fired up their anger with this falsehood, before and on Jan 6. He failed to call them off for 2 hours, despite the entreaties of senior advisors, and his buddies at Fox News. The indictment charges him with exploiting the Capitol break-in as part of the broader conspiracy to overturn the election. Soon after the break-in, multiple senior staff urged him to issue a calming message, Trump refused, instead repeatedly remarking that the people at the Capitol were angry "because the election had been stolen." Instead, he released this statement (11 minutes after the break-in, and contrary to the urging of advisors): “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!” This was throwing fuel into the fire, when he should have done everything possible to end it.

When he finally issued his statement urging supporters to leave, he said "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long." Why repeat the big lie that inflamed them other than to exploit it? After the crowd left, Trump continued to pressure Senators to reject their legal duty to certify the election.

Kellogg has indicated that Trump had made an informal comment about having National Guard on site days earlier (Jan 3), but it's been established that no order was given.

And now the question is, why not?

Why didn't Trump order the National Guard to deploy on Jan 3? He alone had the authority. I could speculate that he hoped the crowd would do something that could disrupt the certification- that's certainly consistent with the fact that he exploited their actions when the break-in occurred. But I won't push a speculation (as you invariably do). The innocent explanation is that he wasn't made aware of the intelligence that had been collected from FBI & Homeland Security who were monitoring the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers plans for violence on that day. (This came out during the Jan 6 committee hearings, and in the trials of Proud Boys & Oath Keepers). Certainly the Speaker and Senate Minority leader weren't aware of the intelligence.

Never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? You are treating him as guilty unless proven innocent.

No, the video shows that he is guilty.

For the 4th time: guilty of what crime? Why keep repeating something that I've proven to be absolute nonsense?

So again: what crime would you charge him with, and based on what evidence?

I wouldn't charge any of them, except maybe the possible undercover agents.

Not even the ones who injured police officers? Not even the ones who broke through an external window? Not the ones who joined Ashlii Babbitt in breaking through an internal, locked passageway? Not the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers who planned violence on 1/6?

Why not charge even the trespassers, if they committed crimes and the evidence establishes this beyond a reasonable doubt? You've tried to argue a double standard, but could present no evidence that supports this. Should they be absolved of crimes just because you agree with their politics? Give me an objective reason. Failure to prosecute implies it's perfectly fine to flout the law. FYI, as of July 2023 (the most recent data I could find), only 335 have been sentenced to incarceration. This includes those who assaulted police officers, vandalized and/ or stole from the Capitol, and worst of all: the Proud Boys & Oath Keepers who were convicted of seditious comspiracy (source1, source 2)

What evidence is there of undercover agents being involved with instigating the crimes? Don't give me more speculation. Don't point me at a Rumble video that makes some allegation and challenge me to prove the allegation false. Make a positive, case based on unambiguous evidence.

[1213]

....Point me at individuals at Kenosha that were clearly identified with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, who were not prosecuted. If you can't, then it's clear you are making a false equivalence.

Sorry, I can't point any individuals, I can only tell what is seen in the news, there was for example destroying property, burning cars... ...by what I know, no one got any penalty for those crimes, apparently because they are on the side of "democrats".

The point is. there is no factual basis for claiming Kenosha criminals weren't prosecuted because of their politics, while the crimes at the Capitol WERE prosecuted for political reasons. That's just a conclusion some Republicans have jumped to based on the same false equivalence - pointing only to convictions. The
discrepancy is a consequence of the reasons I explained: actions by people on 1/6 were captured on video (security video + videos people took on their phones) and people exposing themselves through social media with pictures and bragging about their actions. No such easy pickings were available for Kenosha, or other events. Now that you know this, can you admit there's no evidentiary basis for claiming these events entail a double standard?

If for example Kamala Harris stands with Kenosha rioters, I think there is a great double standard, especially when they were more violent.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-har ... -pandemic/

People in Kenosha riots did worse things. Yet I don't know any of them got more serious punishments as the Jan 6 tourists. It may be possible that it is just because they did not get caught. I just don't think it is probable.

People who climbed in the window opened doors, not Capitol police.

That is not true.

"....dozens of suspected rioters who claimed to be unaware they were not allowed inside -- some of whom argued that they were actually ushered in by officers..."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-dozen ... d=75976466

AOC says Capitol Police were 'opening the doors' for Jan. 6 rioters

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... 6-rioters/

Why didn't Trump order the National Guard to deploy on Jan 3? He alone had the authority. I could speculate that he hoped the crowd would do something ...

Trump asked it, and clearly someone said it is not necessary and changed Trumps mind. I think that person is the guilty for the "insurrection".

[fredonly]

....Point me at individuals at Kenosha that were clearly identified with evidence beyond reasonable doubt, who were not prosecuted. If you can't, then it's clear you are making a false equivalence.

Sorry, I can't point any individuals, I can only tell what is seen in the news, there was for example destroying property, burning cars... ...by what I know, no one got any penalty for those crimes, apparently because they are on the side of "democrats".

The point is. there is no factual basis for claiming Kenosha criminals weren't prosecuted because of their politics, while the crimes at the Capitol WERE prosecuted for political reasons. That's just a conclusion some Republicans have jumped to based on the same false equivalence - pointing only to convictions. The
discrepancy is a consequence of the reasons I explained: actions by people on 1/6 were captured on video (security video + videos people took on their phones) and people exposing themselves through social media with pictures and bragging about their actions. No such easy pickings were available for Kenosha, or other events. Now that you know this, can you admit there's no evidentiary basis for claiming these events entail a double standard?

If for example Kamala Harris stands with Kenosha rioters, I think there is a great double standard, especially when they were more violent.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-har ... -pandemic/

People in Kenosha riots did worse things. Yet I don't know any of them got more serious punishments as the Jan 6 tourists. It may be possible that it is just because they did not get caught. I just don't think it is probable.

The article quotes Harris saying this: "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter, who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice. " How's that a double standard?

By contrast, Trump has indicated he'd pardon those who committed crimes on Jan 6:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... town-hall/
He even said he'd consider pardoning the Proud Boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, for plotting violence at the Capitol. That's more like a double standard than anything you've brought up.

People who climbed in the window opened doors, not Capitol police.

That is not true.

"....dozens of suspected rioters who claimed to be unaware they were not allowed inside -- some of whom argued that they were actually ushered in by officers..."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/defense-dozen ... d=75976466

I already addressed this idiotic defense:

People who climbed in the window opened doors, not Capitol police. There were police who were behaving passively as the throng came in (choosing not to risk their lives in an impossible circumstance). As I pointed out, there were barricades (bicycle racks) surrounding the Capitiol that had to be breeched before even entering. Sirens were blaring, and tear gas deployed. Read this appellate court ruling on a case involving a couple of trespassers who claimed to not know they weren't allowed in. The defendants claimed they weren't aware that they weren't allowed in because the door was open, but despite admitting they'd walked past barricades breached by others before them, heard sirens, flash bangs, and seen tear gas deployed. The context demonstrates how ludicrous this defense is.

AOC says Capitol Police were 'opening the doors' for Jan. 6 rioters

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... 6-rioters/

LOL! There's video of the doors being opened by rioters:

AOC was reacting hyperbolically to a Capitol Police internal investigation. That investigation found that none of the officers had committed a crime. Had one opened a door, he would have committed a crime. Rather, 6 officers did some inapproriate things, that led to them being disciplined. These were the infractions:
Three for conduct unbecoming, One for failure to comply with directives, One for improper remarks, One for improper dissemination of information.
Here's the press release: https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press ... stigations. So both you and AOC are wrong.

Why didn't Trump order the National Guard to deploy on Jan 3? He alone had the authority. I could speculate that he hoped the crowd would do something ...

Trump asked it, and clearly someone said it is not necessary and changed Trumps mind. I think that person is the guilty for the "insurrection".

Wrong. Trump never asked for National Guard to go to the Capitol.

According to the Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, Trump only asked for National Guard to be present to protect the "free speech rights" of the protestors, and this was in response to a request from the D.C. Mayor. National Guard were "stationed at 30 traffic control points and subway stations to 'demonstrate a law enforcement presence,' direct traffic and intervene in disturbances "if required," according to Miller's written testimony. Miller said he intentionally didn't station troops at the Capitol so as not to fuel the narrative that they could be "co-opted" into overthrowing the government."

On Jan 6, there were multiple pleas to get Trump to send the Guard to the Capitol, and he refused.

[1213]

The article quotes Harris saying this: "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter, who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice. " How's that a double standard?

Ok, so, if some of the Jan 6 tourists murdered someone, he should also be treated like a murderer, not the others who did nothing serious.

By contrast, Trump has indicated he'd pardon those who committed crimes on Jan 6:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... town-hall/
He even said he'd consider pardoning the Proud Boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, for plotting violence at the Capitol. That's more like a double standard than anything you've brought up.

Never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? I have not seen any evidence for seditious conspiracy and for plotting violence at the Capitol. Where are the plans and who made them?

AOC was reacting hyperbolically to a Capitol Police internal investigation. That investigation found that none of the officers had committed a crime. Had one opened a door, he would have committed a crime. Rather, 6 officers did some inapproriate things, that led to them being disciplined. These were the infractions:
Three for conduct unbecoming, One for failure to comply with directives, One for improper remarks, One for improper dissemination of information.
Here's the press release: https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press ... stigations. So both you and AOC are wrong.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

Wrong. Trump never asked for National Guard to go to the Capitol.

Sorry, Keith Kellogg is more convincing than you.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/0 ... testimony/

On Jan 6, there were multiple pleas to get Trump to send the Guard to the Capitol, and he refused.

Any evidence for that?

[fredonly]

The article quotes Harris saying this: "We must always defend peaceful protest and peaceful protesters. We should not confuse them with those looting and committing acts of violence, including the shooter, who was arrested for murder. And make no mistake we will not let these vigilantes and extremists derail the path to justice. " How's that a double standard?

Ok, so, if some of the Jan 6 tourists murdered someone, he should also be treated like a murderer, not the others who did nothing serious.

Seditious Conspiracy, vandalism and stealing aren't serious?

By contrast, Trump has indicated he'd pardon those who committed crimes on Jan 6:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2 ... town-hall/
He even said he'd consider pardoning the Proud Boys who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, for plotting violence at the Capitol. That's more like a double standard than anything you've brought up.

Never heard of "Innocent until proven guilty"? I have not seen any evidence for seditious conspiracy and for plotting violence at the Capitol. Where are the plans and who made them?

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

AOC was reacting hyperbolically to a Capitol Police internal investigation. That investigation found that none of the officers had committed a crime. Had one opened a door, he would have committed a crime. Rather, 6 officers did some inapproriate things, that led to them being disciplined. These were the infractions:
Three for conduct unbecoming, One for failure to comply with directives, One for improper remarks, One for improper dissemination of information.
Here's the press release: https://www.uscp.gov/media-center/press ... stigations. So both you and AOC are wrong.

Sorry, I don't believe you.

I gave you a video of the rioters opening the doors to the Capitol, and you're still in denial!

Wrong. Trump never asked for National Guard to go to the Capitol.

Sorry, Keith Kellogg is more convincing than you.

Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/0 ... testimony/

According to your article, Kellog said, "On 3 Jan the President asked the Def Dept to deploy NG troops’ into DC for J6 contingencies," which is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!

Kellog's statement is consistent with Christopher Miller's testimony - troops were deployed within Washington D.C., but NOT AT THE CAPITOL BUILDING, and Trump's purpose was to protect the demonstrators.

On Jan 6, there were multiple pleas to get Trump to send the Guard to the Capitol, and he refused.

Any evidence for that?

There is a lot of testimony of people asking Trump to do SOMETHING, and evidence of people asking for the National Guard to be deployed, but no direct testimony that anyone spoke directly to Trump about deploying them. There is also a lot of testimony that Trump did NOT deploy them, but that he lied in his Jan 7 address in which he he claimed he "immediately deployed the National Guard and federal law enforcement to secure the building and expel the intruders.” We know this from testimony given by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley. See: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/d ... -on-jan-6/, backed up by statements from Mike Pence: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence ... 1-20-2022/

Others testified similarly: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/1 ... -00152757S

Here's video of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer asking for the National Guard to be deployed:

[1213]

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

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

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.

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