Trump supporters, how do you square this?

[PCHawk]

I suppose he could have been an FBI plant...all the stuff you mention is circumstantial, and Epps was eventually convicted of his role in J6 (given probation because he did not enter the Capitol). Other explanations could also explain his behavior (e.g. he got cold feet, or as the violence intensified he re-thought the whole endeavor, which is what he claims). I cannot prove those motivations, any more than you can prove yours; we cannot get inside of his head. If we adhere to Occam's razor, him backing out once things got violent seems more realistic than him being part of a vast conspiracy.

Let's also keep in mind that at this stage the FBI was being run by Trump appointees, so you are suggesting all of this was done to hurt Trump and was being orchestrated by his own people. Kind of fails the sniff test, don't you think?

Also, Epps' life has been awful since that day. If he was truly an FBI-plant, why doesn't he come out as a whistleblower and clear his name? Another FBI-informant testified for the defense in the Proud Boys case (Proud Boys leadership was still found guilty by a jury of their peers). Certainly the death threats he is receiving from Trump supporters, which he has said have completely up-ended his life, would subside if he came out as a whistle-blower. But he hasn't...because it isn't true. I suppose you could say he is worried about the US Government executing him for revealing a secret...that would just be another conspiracy theory not supported by facts (e.g. the other whistleblowers have not been executed).

But if I assumed everything you are saying about Epps is true, it would not excuse any of the behavior that Trump exhibited leading up to and during the day of J6.

He was charges with kid's gloves after the heat was put on him. The leader of the proud boys wasn't even in the state and he got decades(?) In prison for doing precisely what Epps did. But here's the thing. Every single person that was anywhere near the capital or had anything to do with that day are vilified so hard by the left. People can disagree on whether or not that vilification is warranted, but the fact that they're all vilified isn't disputable. I don't think anyone would even want to dispute that. So why was Epps instantly defended by the left/media? Based on how everyone else was viewed, logic suggests Epps would get viewed in a very negative way the moment that video circulated. But instead, he was defended by the same people who calls everyone else insurectionists. Even if he got cold feet like you suggest, he'd still spend jail time based on the punishment everyone else received.

 

[PCHawk]

Thanks. Hadn't seen that, but you have to wonder if the delay in charging him was in part related to the attention he received after his actions were exposed (?). He may not have entered, but his inciting behavior was particularly egregious. At the very least, you would think he would have been one of the first to be thoroughly investigated.

If he truly is simply a guy who used very poor judgement and somehow escaped early scrutiny, then the threats and ongoing accusations are unfortunate and shouldn't happen. Nevertheless, in the setting of our current overreactive social media climate, there is a long, long list of people that have been cancelled and/or subjugated for the wrong reasons, many of which were completely innocent. He's far from innocent, so we'll see if his lawsuit is found to have merit.

Admittedly, I haven't spent much time delving into January 6. With almost 1300 people charged with crimes, outside of the leaders of Proud Boys, etc., I wonder how many didn't enter the Capitol, and how their actions were interpreted relative to Epps?

His video circulated, and slowly got more and more attention while everyone who is against the rioters(regardless of their rolls) defended him. The story refused to go away and eventually he was charged with something way more minor than people who did way less.

 

[PCHawk]

Trump just suggested that Liz Cheney should have guns trained on her face

“Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

Yeah, let's put him in a situation with his finger on the Nuclear Trigger

I've gotta see the whole video on that one. If someone has it it would be much appreciated.

 

[Hay Man]

I've gotta see the whole video on that one. If someone has it it would be much appreciated.

Trump on Liz Cheney

www.youtube.com

 

[PCHawk]

Legally, he probably does not bear responsibility for the riot, he has always been a master of plausible deniability ("I said peacefully and patriotically!"). He is also a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling one side what he wants them to here, while also throwing in other conflicting statements to create said deniability. The "very fine people on both sides" comment, which you also describe as a hoax, is a good example, as is, "Stand back and stand by."

But morally, he absolutely bears responsibility. The only reason his followers suspected shenanigans is because he told them he was cheated, over and over and over. To my earlier point about agreement on what is true, there is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went down. If there had been evidence, it would have been presented. The best he could come up with was procedural stuff (changes in voting process without state legislative approval), which went down in both red states and blue states because of COVID. These challenges were generally thrown out because they were not raised in a timely manner (objections were made after results tallied, even though procedures were put into place months prior) and the remedies requested were extreme and unconstitutional (throwing out the votes from entire precincts, generally from large, urban areas).

So, he lied about the election being rigged, he invited people to DC for a "wild" rally, he told them to march down the capitol to protest, and he primed them by telling them "if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore"...while out of the other side of his mouth saying "peacefully and patriotically" somewhere along the way for plausible deniability.

Then, when they started rioting, he stoked the situation by refusing to condemn it immediately. Even after he knew windows were being kicked in, explosions were reported on the Capitol steps, and Capitol Police were being assaulted, he sent his "Mike Pence didn't have the courage" tweet that escalated matters. He sent another 15 minutes later that included "stay peaceful!" and another 35 minutes after that with "...remain peaceful. No violence!". Again, he is good at the plausible deniability thing. When he finally released a video message over and hour later, he repeated the lies about the election being stolen and the other side being "so bad and so evil" while asking his supporters to go home in peace (again, talking out of both sides of his mouth). While he was recording this, some of the most intense skirmishes were still taking place at the Capitol.

None of the information above is in dispute, these are matters of fact (my interpretation of Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth is, of course, my opinion). At no point on this day did Trump live up to the moral expectations of his office, whether he is legally liable or not.

I am sure you will respond with, "But Ray Epps!" While there is no hard evidence for this conspiracy theory, even if we assumed it was true, it would not exculpt Trump in any way from his actions. So please, if you reply, focus on why you believe Trump's actions on that day were appropriate for the office of the President, not anything related to a conspiracy theory that FBI agents instigated the riot.

All of that stuff that you said is indisputable is in fact indisputable. But you can also say if Trump's plan was to protest the certification of the election to try to get it delayed, then you can say he has every right to do it. I talked before in another thread about my opinion on the rigged election depending entirely on Trump's information he had (which we unfortunately will never know). There were three options.

In option one, he knows it wasn't rigged and was completely lying. If that's the case, in my opinion he should never hold office again. You simply can not lie about something like that. Because of that, I understand why other people think that about him now. Because they are convinced he was straight up lying.

In option two, he thinks he won but isn't 100% sure. If that's the case, what he did was damn near exactly what he should have done. Try to delay the process of certification for as long as possible and eventually conceide due to lack of options.

In option three, he has information the public doesn't and is 100% certain that Biden stole the election. If that was the case, he didn't do near enough. If ever a president knows the election was stolen, the right thing to do is whatever it takes. You can't just say "aw shucks you got us". But again, that's only if there was some way for him to know without a doubt. And even if he did, the optics would be terrible because there's no way for the people to be as certain is him. There would always be people who doubted a president in that situation.

For the record, I believe the most obvious option is option two and I think he handled it about exactly how he should have.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

He was charges with kid's gloves after the heat was put on him. The leader of the proud boys wasn't even in the state and he got decades(?) In prison for doing precisely what Epps did. But here's the thing. Every single person that was anywhere near the capital or had anything to do with that day are vilified so hard by the left. People can disagree on whether or not that vilification is warranted, but the fact that they're all vilified isn't disputable. I don't think anyone would even want to dispute that. So why was Epps instantly defended by the left/media? Based on how everyone else was viewed, logic suggests Epps would get viewed in a very negative way the moment that video circulated. But instead, he was defended by the same people who calls everyone else insurectionists. Even if he got cold feet like you suggest, he'd still spend jail time based on the punishment everyone else received.

As I pointed out, I admittedly haven't done a deep dive in the events surrounding January 6 so am far from an expert, but at first glance - with everything I have seen or read - something seems very odd with how the Epps story unfolded.

When you factor in the level of rage and disgust that the event triggered, the decision by many in the media to come to his defense, and the long delay in bringing charges, defy logic and the ultimate conclusion is a non sequitur.

 

[PCHawk]

Trump on Liz Cheney

www.youtube.com

Thank you. Exactly what I assumed. He's saying she is a war monger and it's easy to send other people to their deaths from the comfort of Washington but it's a different story when you're the one with guns pointed at you. The meaning is blatantly obvious to me, so I'm not sure if it went over your head or for some reason you think it's still bad to say. I think it's the best point you can possibly make when talking about a politician who likes to start wars.

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Trump on Liz Cheney

www.youtube.com

I'm not a Trump supporter at all, but when I watched the full footage of that portion of the interview, it was fairly obvious that what he was talking about was that's it's easy for decision makers behind the scenes to put troops in harms way when they're not the ones standing there with weapons of the enemy pointed back at them.

I despise Trump, so I don't like to come to his defense, but he is frequently the victim of exaggeration and/or lack of proper context.

Stop Making Me Defend Donald Trump! | We The Internet TV

Meet Gary. He dislikes Donald Trump. But he also dislikes when people blatantly misrepresent Trump's words, actions, and policies in order to further their o...

www.youtube.com

 

[CP87]

Thank you. Exactly what I assumed. He's saying she is a war monger and it's easy to send other people to their deaths from the comfort of Washington but it's a different story when you're the one with guns pointed at you. The meaning is blatantly obvious to me, so I'm not sure if it went over your head or for some reason you think it's still bad to say. I think it's the best point you can possibly make when talking about a politician who likes to start wars.

I agree that was his point...but the very specific imagery he evoked of 9 rifles pointed at her sure sounds a lot like a firing squad. With his history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, combined with earlier suggestions that Liz Cheney face a military tribunal, you can see how some find this worrisome. But like I mentioned yesterday, I think this is another example of people making a big deal out of everything, which obscures some of the stuff that I feel should be getting more attention.

 

[PCHawk]

As I pointed out, I admittedly haven't done a deep dive in the events surrounding January 6 so am far from an expert, but at first glance - with everything I have seen or read - something seems very odd with how the Epps story unfolded.

When you factor in the level of rage and disgust that the event triggered, the decision by many in the media to come to his defense, and the long delay in bringing charges, defy logic and the ultimate conclusion is a non sequitur.

The Epps story is definitely weird. But hearing the FBI director testify in front of congress is even more weird. He refuses to answer if there were FBI agents in the crowd when the answer should be an easy no. If there was an FBI presence there, there are two points that should be made about it. One is that they very well may have instigated the crowd to cause a riot (Epps could certainly fall into that category). But that point is way harder to prove. I think the main point is that if there was an FBI presence there, that means they knew it was going to happen in advance and they could have easily beefed up security and stopped it from ever happening. That's where the whole "Trump tried to get extra security there and was denied by Pelosi" conversation comes in.

Now back to the instigating the crowd point. I heard Rogan talking about this once and found his point interesting. He says that a very common practice for dealing with protests is to plant agitators in the crowd to turn a harmless protest (one that could garner negative attention) into a riot. Once it's a riot, the cops can clean it up and everything they were protesting gets brushed under the rug. Rogan talked about certain events he named by name where the government and/or corporations used that method to eliminate resistance. Any good the protestors were trying to gain gets overshadowed by the riot that they "caused". I don't know enough about the situations he was directly referring to enough to form any opinion on whether they're known fact, conspiracy theories, or somewhere in the middle. But the logic for how it would work is very sound, and it would work so easily that I'd be shocked to find out it's actually never been tried.

So using that logic here, let's say for argument sake that's what happened. The democratic party knew of a huge protest that was going to take place during the election certification. The two options to deal with it would be to beef up security and just live with the optics of that many Americans having no trust in election integrity, or, provoke it into a riot and use it as political gain. Simultaneously stunting any negative optics a peaceful protest brings, and crushing Trump beyond repair in the eyes of millions of Americans.

Now, whether or not that's what actually happened, the results are exactly what they would want to achieve if they did decide to go that route. They completely shut down the negative optics towards them and brought all the negativity onto Trump. And if you think about it, that outcome was the only possible outcome of that riot. That scenario could play out a million times and in all million times, Trump walks away the loser and the villain. Not one time would he ever win there. Not without guns, which no one remembered to bring.

 

[PCHawk]

I agree that was his point...but the very specific imagery he evoked of 9 rifles pointed at her sure sounds a lot like a firing squad. With his history of talking out of both sides of his mouth, combined with earlier suggestions that Liz Cheney face a military tribunal, you can see how some find this worrisome. But like I mentioned yesterday, I think this is another example of people making a big deal out of everything, which obscures some of the stuff that I feel should be getting more attention.

It's very similar to the "I'm going to protect women whether they like it or not" quote. In no world is that a bad thing to say, but his team knows how the media works and advised him not to say it that way. Trump obviously doesn't care about that, and as a president, he really should.

 

[CP87]

A lawyer was sued for 148 million for claiming election interference (an astronomical amount I might add) and you're surprised no other lawyer will call stuff out? Also are you saying the laptop story was really suppressed for only a day or are you exaggerating for affect? Because it was suppressed from before the election until after in a direct effort to affect the outcome of the election by people agencies who are supposed to not care who wins elections. And don't make promises you can't keep. Especially ones I don't want you to keep.

He was found guilty for libel for spreading lies about individuals that had no basis in fact. That is much different from making a claim of election interference. Those lies led to death threats and harassment. If I spread heinous lies about you related to child sex trafficking, and then you received death threats, but I claimed I wasn't lying, but just fighting against sex-trafficking...would you be cool with that?

Other Trump surrogates were sanctioned by courts for bringing cases that had no merit. You can't just make shit up in court.

Throughout this dicussion, I have been providing direct quotes, videos, news reports from primarily centrist or non-partisan sources, and DOJ filings...and you just say stuff. You are going entirely on your gut feelings and your ignorance of the involved systems. How can you not see that these things are not equal?

Any direct evidence I present you counter with conspiracy or by bringing up an unrelated matter. In order to believe stuff such as "J6 was an inside job" or "the 2020 election was fraudulent", you need to either not understand how the world works, or you need to weave a conspiracy so grand it involves almost all of the free press, the judiciary (evenly split between R and D, and Trump's cases were thrown out by both, including by Trump appointees), the DOJ (headed by Trump officials), disconnected election officials from across the country (election administration is completely decentralized), CEOs from major social media platforms, and a large portion of Trump's cabinet and political appointees. All of this was occuring while Trump was in charge of the executive branch and Republicans were in control of the Senate. Republicans were also in charge of election administration in many of the disputed states/precincts.

Man, you are in super deep. Obviously I am not making any progress on convincing you that evidence matters, and your arguments are sorely lacking in this department. I hope someday you figure it out, and I sincerely mean that. If you don't, I am sure you will still continue to be a good friend, husband, father, neighbor, etc. But as it currently stands, people are manipulating you to act in ways that are probably not consistent with your values.

 

[CP87]

It's very similar to the "I'm going to protect women whether they like it or not" quote. In no world is that a bad thing to say, but his team knows how the media works and advised him not to say it that way. Trump obviously doesn't care about that, and as a president, he really should.

That was a bad (or at least stupid) thing to say. No matter the context, why would he ever say, "whether you like it or not." A big gaffe, the kind of thing Biden constantly gets harangued for, and Trump deserves the criticism, too. As you said, he should know better and have more discipline.