« Georgia | Main | Loose Ends »

January 05, 2021



Yeah, well THAT didn’t happen.


The thing that boggles me is that 1. this whole thing was advertised ahead of time, 2. Trump refused national guard defense of DC when asked for it in advance, 3. Trump told his rally to go and fight, and they did, and yet 4. some Republicans are saying that those who broke into the Capitol were Antifa (despite, you know, names and Trump-supporting histories for many of those photographed).

I mean, "oh, yeah, I told someone to break into my uncle's house on that particular night, and yeah, I turned off the alarm system at his house for that night, and yeah, I complimented the burglar afterwards..."

*HOW* can you get from there to this being cooked up by anti-Trump people?


KC - it is staggering. At first I thought, “if it was all over Twitter then why didn’t the media let us know,” but of course there were then be 10,000 storming the capitol not 1,000. I just keep telling. myself only a small percentage went in to the capitol itself, most stayed outside. Still, Jesus.


Did the media seriously not tell people that Trump was holding a Big Wild rally coinciding with the counting, where the purpose was labeled as to fight and "stop the steal"?

I mean, *I* assumed that the national guard would be protecting the heck out of that building and thus that there would probably be injuries and likely bloodshed (see: 2nd amendment people who get confused about their 1st amendment rights), but that they'd be let in instead of blockaded out was a surprise to me (I mean: remember the wall they built around the White House? And it's not like they don't have access to concrete barricades a la highway road repair instead of just the little metal gates that one person can move by hand?). I was assuming that Trump's general "plan" was probably to have enough people fight, shoot, and die so that Trump could have a go at suspending the Constitution and stay in power, but whatever the end goal, the "people are being told to show up and protect the election [note: not to protest the election results, but to Do Something]" part was made abundantly clear.

So, that a whole bunch of people were being told to show up and fight for the election: surely that was covered by regular media? Or did they somehow skip that? (I mean, people were saying "look, don't go and counterprotest; let it just be them and the police" - and then *the night before* in DC there were clashes between police and rally people - surely this was covered?)

I'd also like to know the numbers as to how many people actually entered (and would also be curious as to what percentage of the rally dispersed or stayed put at the starting location instead of marching on the capitol), but obviously it wasn't the whole crowd (although it is, of course, unclear how many held of those who held back did so due to 1. cowardice, 2. compunction, or 3. capacity limits). But I'm 100% sure that while many may have showed up not quite knowing what they could do but trusting that Trump would have a Very Good Plan, at least some, and probably many, of those would *not* have been on board with just plain murder of the congress & VP.

I'm curious as to whether there are lots of security cameras in the building or whether there specifically aren't so as to protect confidentiality, etc. - I'm hoping there are a lot, though... Also, I don't think I've ever been so glad, during this pandemic, to see lots of people not wearing masks in photos; that should make identification and prosecution a fair bit easier. (although hopefully they'll keep the names from the president so he can't just pardon the whole batch)

Which, also: remove this president? It is... way past time, and no, we should not wait for another bad "something else" to happen, and we should not be waiting *while* bad "something else"es in the form of transmission of state secrets, etc. might be happening. He should have been 25-ed before the end of day on Wednesday...


KC - yes, I very much want data. How many were there, who didn’t go in, and why.
Gary is telling me everyone who went in had a plan: abduct this person, zip tie that person. Of course, it’s not like they are reliable narrators. I expect them to lie.


Yeah, I would not expect that everyone who went in had a plan; when you start with a rally and then send a mob, you will pick up a few over-enthused people who had no real prior intention of doing anything.

That some of them had definite plans and intentions is very clear between their individual and collective before-hand statements (as well as what they yelled while going in), the equipment they already had (some of which was used, like the tear gas), and that they went to several strategic places that apparently it's well-nigh impossible to find unless you know in advance where they are.

But yes. It's entirely reasonable to expect them to lie. But it was a lynch mob, and even if some within it would have demurred at specific actions or stopped at the sight of actual blood, and others were intending to "only" threaten, they used adequate rhetoric that stupid and easily-inflamed people would have Done Bad Things, and it's pretty clear that some of these individuals had very clear and specific prior intentions to Do Bad Things themselves. Fortunately, they didn't succeed at getting at the representatives; unfortunately, they did kill a police officer and get away with we-don't-even-know-what in terms of state secrets. AUGH.


KC - good lord, I didn’t even think about state secrets. Still, I know my workplace has policies about our non-state secrets. I don’t think a mob could break in and find any personal information at all. No doubt the government is as strict.


Very rapid emergency evacuation, with some likely leaving their logged-in laptops/whatever in the room? (two computers are AWOL and being presently hunted for, although I don't know which ones they are)

I do not think that most policies have "at any moment, this computer could be taken over by an armed individual who has invaded the building" baked into their security considerations, although it's possible that they log you out automatically after 10 minutes or something (but also I do not know what the lag time was between them getting out and the others getting in - it seemed to be... pretty tight). Ditto for computers abandoned by staffers from offices during evacuation, etc. Some people would think of that and hit the power button or slap down the lid on their way out; others would want every last second of their lead towards the "not being shot" goal, I would expect?

But yeah. They also may have either provided cover for someone to mess with national security *or* may have messed with national security stuff themselves. (in addition to the pipe bombs, I mean, which are kind of also a national security threat in themselves; but I was thinking installing hidden cameras/microphones/keyloggers/whatever and/or removing items from the buildings.)


KC - there are rules and security protocols, but there are ways around them. I will bet you anything those missing laptops have porn on them. That will come to light.


The odds of any given laptop in the world owned by a male having porn on it: very high. (not sure what the stats are on women, but: not as high)

That said, after the whole probably-a-total-fraud "Hunter Biden child porn" thing, and after all the self-refuting election fraud claim pictures (admittedly, only self-refuting if you look closely enough at the pictures; at a glance some of them look maybe-reasonable; and then a few are just unclear rather than self-refuting), I'll be pretty dubious about "scandalous evidence" from anyone who megaphoned any of those "alternative facts" until the presented evidence is confirmed by the FBI or similar (or, say, any of the agencies who *prosecute* for child porn, etc.).


(okay, *or* if someone protests in a manner that clearly indicates that the heart of the argument about the evidence is accurate, as Trump helpfully confirmed the accuracy of the Georgia Secretary of State phone call recording by suing him for releasing it, instead of suing him for libel or whatever the appropriate thing would be if it was a fake. If there are self-convicting lawsuits or explanations like "there are actresses who are over 18 who are dressed up and made up to look like they're 10 years old, but it's totally legal because they're over 18!" - then I would also tend to believe laptop content claims.)


KC - I wasn’t thinking about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Now that you mention child porn I’m thinking about Anthony Weiner’s laptop, though.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)