Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

projects.propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 45 posts

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#31

Post by deeviant »

hajile wrote: post #29
deeviant wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different. Yes, let's talk about history. Let's see, was there another case study in history where you have a failed coup attempt spurred on by a egotistical leader whose shtick was to scapegoat sections of the population and play "us vs them" politics? How did that turn out?

If you're going to make claims as serious as attempting a coup, you'd better have evidence. NOBODY was charged with rioting, let alone sedition or insurrection. Less than 30 in a crowd of a couple hundred thousand got charged with anything more serious than some variant of unlawful entry (and only about 100 people are wanted at all). If such charges could be reasonably made, don't you think they would make them? The…

I'm using the same standard of evidence as those that claim the election was "stolen", "rigged", "totally rigged election I won bigger than the biggest winner of all time".

If you want to clamor for higher standards of evidence, start with them.

Also the mob's purpose was to disrupt the electoral process and to coerce Pence to subvert the will of the American people. The evidence is plastered all over the internet in the many videos posted by said insurrectionists.

Insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Let's see 5 people dead(check, violent).

Attempting to destroy democracy in American by attempting to nullify the vote of the people (check, definitely an uprising against the government).

Edit: And... conspiracy charges just filed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/first-conspiracy-charges-filed-.... Be real, there are going to be many charges related to this event, it's a common practice to use a limited set of charges to begin the arrest and prosecution process and filling in more charges as the investigations progresses.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#32

Post by hajile »

heavensgateboy wrote: post #17
colpabar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can clearly see It's not clear to me, could you elaborate?

https://imgur.com/rJ2RSH8

Of all the arguments to be had, this seems the weakest. 75M people voted for Trump. Of those, almost 80% believe the election was stolen. According to Politico, there's still 10% (higher by some other polls) of Democrats who also believe the election was not legitimate.

Getting just 1% of them (the serious believers) to show up would be around 700,000 people. Most claims are under half that number. That's not a lot when considering true believers who think it's their last chance to save America.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#33

Post by dragonwriter »

hajile wrote: post #27
kthejoker2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of those didn't have large groups just standing around waving signs and chanting -- almost everyone was involved in the violence and destruction This is demonstrably false, and you should retract it. Second, it is qualitatively different to riot and break into one of our main bodies of government and threaten the lives of anyone (even if it was just a select few out of the larger whole) during an important par…

There were 100-200,000 people. Less than 100 were wanted for entering the capitol. Less than 30 of those got charged with more than some variant of unlawful entering. NONE got charged with the stuff people have been talking about (I go into the details in another post on this thread). Even with the National Guard and the anger at being disrupted, they still left and the violence didn't hold a candle to most protests…

> Less than 30 of those got charged with more than some variant of unlawful entering.

You say “got charged” as if we were at the point where either a criminal grand jury would have completed its work indicting on any but the most readily-apparent-from-circumstances felonies or defendants would have completed plea bargaining (which is typically the only time they would waive indictment.)

We’ve only just started to see the first of the follow-on charges after the ones that are trivially established by the circumstances of arrest or video evidence, such as the conspiracy charges against a grop of Oath Keepers.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#34

Post by dragonwriter »

dudeithinkBLM wrote: post #11

Doesn't exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. A stark contrast over the story being pushed in the media. Yet this event will be used as a scapegoat to push those very things in the near future. Just know that any laws passed or precedents set will be used first on the "radical right", will undoubtedly be used on the anti-vax and conspiracy crowd but will eventually…

> Doesn’t exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over.

No one has suggested it is, so I’m not sure why you are beating that strawman.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#35

Post by dragonwriter »

hajile wrote: post #29
deeviant wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I don't understand is how people still don't know their history, and think this time it's somehow different. Yes, let's talk about history. Let's see, was there another case study in history where you have a failed coup attempt spurred on by a egotistical leader whose shtick was to scapegoat sections of the population and play "us vs them" politics? How did that turn out?

If you're going to make claims as serious as attempting a coup, you'd better have evidence. NOBODY was charged with rioting, let alone sedition or insurrection. Less than 30 in a crowd of a couple hundred thousand got charged with anything more serious than some variant of unlawful entry (and only about 100 people are wanted at all). If such charges could be reasonably made, don't you think they would make them? The…

> NOBODY was charged with rioting

You do realize that riot in the D.C. code is a (trivially—180 days vs. 6 months—but still) less serious offense than the minimum offense charged for anyone who entered the capitol, “Unlawful entry on public property”, right?

And that initial charges are often whatever is easiest to get to withstand a probable cause hearing based on the conditions of arrest, and “unlawful entry” is pretty easy to pin on anyone caught in, or videotaped in, the Capitol building during the event. Like, open-and-shut.

> (and only about 100 people are wanted at all).

As of two days ago, 116 had been charged (74 in US District Court, 42 in D.C. Superior Court) and more than 300 were being investigated.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-releases-photos-sus...

> If such charges could be reasonably made, don’t you think they would make them?

No, I wouldn’t expect indictments or plea bargains for any but the most trivially-apparent offenses to be announced right away, because they both take time to present to a grand jury (or to negotiate with the defense to get an agreement to proceed without indictment), and because they tip the hand to others under investigation and risk destruction of evidence.

> The prosecutor isn’t an idiot.

Correct, which is why when they have an easy charge to arrest on, they don’t see the need to tip their hand on much else prematurely, and there is nothing easier than the unlawful entry charges.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#36

Post by kthejoker2 »

hajile wrote: post #27
kthejoker2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of those didn't have large groups just standing around waving signs and chanting -- almost everyone was involved in the violence and destruction This is demonstrably false, and you should retract it. Second, it is qualitatively different to riot and break into one of our main bodies of government and threaten the lives of anyone (even if it was just a select few out of the larger whole) during an important par…

There were 100-200,000 people. Less than 100 were wanted for entering the capitol. Less than 30 of those got charged with more than some variant of unlawful entering. NONE got charged with the stuff people have been talking about (I go into the details in another post on this thread). Even with the National Guard and the anger at being disrupted, they still left and the violence didn't hold a candle to most protests…

I mean, just as a basic counterpoint, there are way more than 100 people inside the Capitol in these videos; and hundreds more trespassed at least onto the Capitol steps.

Heck, you can see way more than 100 people pushing against Daniel Hodges and his team, the guard in the infamous "crushing" video

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/video-shows-dc...

They are all committing assault. Of course most of them aren't wanted or charged or ever will be. But they are certainly not a small number.

And to blithely suggest the people standing 200 or 500 or even 1,000 feet away from them cheering them on wouldn't have gladly pushed on that officer as well ... based on the videos here, you're clearly wrong.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#37

Post by heavensgateboy »

hajile wrote: post #32
heavensgateboy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://imgur.com/rJ2RSH8

Of all the arguments to be had, this seems the weakest. 75M people voted for Trump. Of those, almost 80% believe the election was stolen. According to Politico, there's still 10% (higher by some other polls) of Democrats who also believe the election was not legitimate. Getting just 1% of them (the serious believers) to show up would be around 700,000 people. Most claims are under half that number. That's not a lot w…

Are you arguing that because there are hypothetically a million mobilizable supporters of Trump that the image doesn’t clearly contain deep fake crowd size expansion? Refer to the image. It is as clear as day.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#38

Post by deeviant »

hajile wrote: post #5
trident5000 wrote: post #3

This is great but its been posted 5 times in the last 2 days. https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=propublica.org Regardless, Id like to see this with other events as well, even casual events.

Five times and no comments on anything. I wonder why such a trove isn't worthy of discussion? I suspect because if people watched those videos, they'd come away with a very different perspective. Pretty much all you see is people standing around waving signs and chanting -- literally textbook non-violent protesting. Once you see them enter the Capital, you still don't see waves of violence and destruction. There are…

> As I said before, I have zero tolerance for the violent people at the Capital.

As you spend your entire comment denying the huge amount of violence that happened that day. Man you are really sold on ignoring any of the violence that happened that day, aren't you?

https://d2hxwnssq7ss7g.cloudfront.net/x2GqSN2kAGY3_cvt.mp4

There are a great many more videos of violence happening that day, but really you only need one video of insurrections, in the capitol building after they broke in, fighting as a mob against an out-numbered group of frantic police officers, to conclude the event was violent. You can't have a group of people nearby or inside the capitol building literally beat a police officer to death and "undo" said violence by having a lot of people outside the building standing around outside innocently shouting, "Hang Mike Pence!"

Also, although it seemed like everybody posted every video they took that day, that probably isn't true. It's reasonable to believe that these people had some inhibition from posting videos in which their side obviously looked bad, which would bias the corpus of videos to be that much more "friendly" to the insurrectionists.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#39

Post by dragonwriter »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #36
hajile wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 100-200,000 people. Less than 100 were wanted for entering the capitol. Less than 30 of those got charged with more than some variant of unlawful entering. NONE got charged with the stuff people have been talking about (I go into the details in another post on this thread). Even with the National Guard and the anger at being disrupted, they still left and the violence didn't hold a candle to most protests…

I mean, just as a basic counterpoint, there are way more than 100 people inside the Capitol in these videos; and hundreds more trespassed at least onto the Capitol steps. Heck, you can see way more than 100 people pushing against Daniel Hodges and his team, the guard in the infamous "crushing" video https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/video-shows-dc... They are all committing assault. Of course most of them…

Also, over 100 people have already been arrested in connection with the attack, virtually all of them people who were detained or identified from video within the Capitol. And, per the FBI, there are more than 300 current active investigations, and that number is increasing. The “less than 100 wanted” simply doesn’t map in any reasonable way to reality.

Re: What Parler Saw During the Attack on the Capitol

#40

Post by dudeithinkBLM »

dragonwriter wrote: post #34
dudeithinkBLM wrote: post #11

Doesn't exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. A stark contrast over the story being pushed in the media. Yet this event will be used as a scapegoat to push those very things in the near future. Just know that any laws passed or precedents set will be used first on the "radical right", will undoubtedly be used on the anti-vax and conspiracy crowd but will eventually…

> Doesn’t exactly look worthy of losing our collective freedom of speech and right to assemble over. No one has suggested it is, so I’m not sure why you are beating that strawman.

Unfortunately it's not exactly spelled out for you like that. Can you imagine though?

As seen on a hypothetical NBC Nightly News broadcast: "The government is using its influence over corporate media to shape public opinion in an effort to remove constitutionally protected rights like free speech and the right to assemble.. Now is the time to protest if you want to have any chance at keeping them"

That would never happen. Efforts like this much more hidden and shrouded in secrecy. Out of necessity... They don't want protesting.

The theft of your most sacred rights will not be broadcasted to you before it happens. All of a sudden you'll wake up one day, and they'll be gone. Unless you resist of course.

Post reply on HN