January 6th Capitol Building Security Footage

[Bootstrap]

ChatGPT just parrots back what is the current, mainstream consensus on a topic, with a significant amount of political bias added in. I don't think that adds any value to a debate or discussion at all.

Honestly, I think that a lot of people here are just parroting political talking points from Twitter without doing a lot of their own thinking. And I think ChatGPT is much better at summarizing facts than most of us. I use quotes to make it obvious when I am quoting ChatGPT versus writing my own thoughts.

But you aren't responding to the things I say without ChatGPT either. Or correcting any errors in facts.

Once again, I am questioning why you think it's a bad thing that Speaker Johnson released additional footage.

I haven't actually said that. Perhaps you could respond to something I did say? I don't actually know precisely what he has released or how careful he is about the implications of what he is releasing. I have definitely said that the public does not generally get to see whatever security video the government has.

There is no evidence the footage he released was faked, edited, or is otherwise inaccurate in some way. The footage is there for anyone to review, and it tells a quite different story than the footage the 1/6 committee released that was highly edited.

What I responded to was on Twitter. Do you consider Twitter videos a reliable source? I didn't even mention the possibility that a Twitter video could be faked, edited, or inaccurate, but of course that's true. I did say that the video doesn't prove what the tweet claims it proves.

Precisely how does the story that the footage shows differ from the January 6th account? If anything has been disproven, can you say what, with what evidence? Not Twitter and talking points. I have asked you very basic questions about the Twitter video:

- When was that footage taken? How does that fit into the January 6th timeline?
- Where? Where were the people coming from and where were they going to?
- Who are the police in these videos? What did they say in their testimony?
- The Capitol Police says that videos of this sort show them defusing the situation, not letting people in. Is there evidence that says this is not true?
- This seems to imply that the police would have let the rioters in while the election results were being tallied. Do you really believe that? Has that ever happened in the past? How does that square with their responsibility to protect Congress members and restore order?

I don't know if Mike Johnson is making the same claims as the Twitter video or not. I haven't said anything about that. Perhaps you could respond to what I am saying?

[temporal1]

The releasing of the surveillance footage should be all or none.
But that train already left the station when the Jan. 6 Committee released some video footage and now there is no turning back.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
The committee were the first to release footage and the Democrats, and the media were salivating over that report.
Now that Mike Johnson is releasing more, they are having a fit.

Did they think for one minute that theirs would be the only footage the public would ever see?

How arrogant and presumptuous?

Some love their tidy little boxes and hate when anything threatens to upset their plans.
However, as scriptures describe, life on earth is not tidy. Proverbs 16:9 https://biblehub.com/nlt/proverbs/16-9.htm

[Grace]

But the government often uses some video from security cameras in court. And I have never, ever heard the claim that this meant that all of their security video therefore needed to be released to the general public, unedited. And I have never seen that happen. Why is that different now?

Jan 6 is not about a court hearing nor is about one single private person. Why should what happened on January 6, to this nation and in the nation's capitol, be hidden from the general public? Why should only edited, carefully curated parts be released, and why only by biased politicians? Why should the country's people not be afforded full transparency about what all happened that day?

[Bootstrap]

But the government often uses some video from security cameras in court. And I have never, ever heard the claim that this meant that all of their security video therefore needed to be released to the general public, unedited. And I have never seen that happen. Why is that different now?

Jan 6 is not about a court hearing nor is about one single private person. Why should what happened on January 6, to this nation and in the nation's capitol, be hidden from the general public? Why should only edited, carefully curated parts be released, and why only by biased politicians? Why should the country's people not be afforded full transparency about what all happened that day?

What do you think was hidden? Do you think anything on these videos could prove that January 6th was made up by Democrats and was really just a church picnic? Is there any significant finding of the January 6th commission that could be disproved using these videos? If so, what, and how?

Why do you think "full transparency" is about releasing raw, unedited security video?

What else do you think "full transparency" would include? All text messages among people involved in coordinating January 6th, for instance? Perhaps including Mike Johnson?

[Bootstrap]

Jan 6 is not about a court hearing nor is about one single private person.

But there are LOTS of court hearings about January 6th. Do you think "full transparency" should include testifying in court about these things? Including presidents and lawmakers who were allegedly involved? Including Mike Johnson?

If "full transparency" is the goal, that seems to be pretty important.

Mike Johnson voted against establishing a national commission to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection. I suspect that commission would have been a good move for transparency.

[GaryK]

But the government often uses some video from security cameras in court. And I have never, ever heard the claim that this meant that all of their security video therefore needed to be released to the general public, unedited. And I have never seen that happen. Why is that different now?

Jan 6 is not about a court hearing nor is about one single private person. Why should what happened on January 6, to this nation and in the nation's capitol, be hidden from the general public? Why should only edited, carefully curated parts be released, and why only by biased politicians? Why should the country's people not be afforded full transparency about what all happened that day?

What do you think was hidden? Do you think anything on these videos could prove that January 6th was made up by Democrats and was really just a church picnic? Is there any significant finding of the January 6th commission that could be disproved using these videos? If so, what, and how?

Why do you think "full transparency" is about releasing raw, unedited security video?

What else do you think "full transparency" would include? All text messages among people involved in coordinating January 6th, for instance? Perhaps including Mike Johnson?

Are we seeing your predefined narrative here? Are you speculating that Mike Johnson might have been involved in coordinating Jan 6? If so, how is that any different than some of the things Grace is speculating about that seemed to prompt this thread. I thought you wanted to only talk about things that are factual.

I guess they don't think the American people deserve transparency, accountability, and answers supported by facts instead of a predetermined political narrative, given by a select group of people.

Suppose we take this out of your predefined narrative, which I just quoted. What facts are we talking about here?

What facts depend on the release of all of the security video? Which conclusions do you think they may contradict? Do you think that ANY of the convictions of the people found guilty will be invalidated by this video? On what grounds?

Have any of the defendants in the trials claimed that they needed video that they were not granted in order to defend themselves? If so, who?

[Ken]

Are we seeing your predefined narrative here? Are you speculating that Mike Johnson might have been involved in coordinating Jan 6? If so, how is that any different than some of the things Grace is speculating about that seemed to prompt this thread. I thought you wanted to only talk about things that are factual.

I would suggest that the more appropriate question is whether Johnson was involved in Trump's overall attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

The events of 1/6 were just one front in that effort. 1/6 was the noisiest part of the effort but perhaps not even the most consequential. There were many others including the false electors scheme in Georgia and several other states, the attempts to squelch the counting of ballots and disqualify ballots in various states, the pressure on the Georgia SOS to fraudulently disqualify enough votes to put Trump over the top (for which he is currently standing trial in Georgia), the attempts to pressure Mike Pence to reject the electoral college count, plans to mobilize national guard and Army troops to seize election machines in various states and squelch dissent, efforts to pressure congressmen to discard the electoral college vote in various Democratic states. Specious lawsuits attempting to gin up grounds for the Supreme Court to hand the election to Trump. All of it was part of a vast and coordinated effort to overthrow the results of the 2020 election of which Trump was at the center but also involved large numbers of lackeys of which Johnson was a key player..

For example: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre ... rcna122081

Well before he was elected House speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., played a key role in efforts by then-President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Joe Biden’s electoral victory in the 2020 election.

Johnson, who was the GOP caucus vice chair and is an ally of Trump, led the amicus brief signed by more than 100 House Republicans in support of a Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate the 2020 election results in four swing states Biden won: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The lawsuit, filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, called on the Supreme Court to delay the electoral vote in the four states so investigations on voting issues could continue amid Trump’s refusal to concede his loss. It alleged that the four states changed their voting rules without their legislatures’ express approval before the 2020 election.

Johnson at the time sought support from his GOP colleagues for the lawsuit, sending them an email with the subject line “Time-sensitive request from President Trump.”

“President Trump called me this morning to express his great appreciation for our effort to file an amicus brief in the Texas case on behalf of concerned Members of Congress,” Johnson wrote in the December 2020 email, which was obtained by NBC News.

“He specifically asked me to contact all Republican Members of the House and Senate today and request that all join on to our brief,” he continued. “He said he will be anxiously awaiting the final list to review.”

The lawsuit swiftly drew backlash from battleground state attorneys general, who decried it as a “publicity stunt” full of “false and irresponsible” allegations. Legal experts also pointed to a series of hurdles the lawsuit had faced, saying Texas lacked the authority to claim that officials in other states failed to follow the rules set by their legislatures.

Johnson’s role in pursuing efforts to overturn the 2020 election results has regained attention recently amid his speakership bid. On Tuesday, the political team of Republican former Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming — who broke with Trump over his baseless claims of a stolen election — circulated a New York Times article that called him “the most important architect of the Electoral College objections” on Jan. 6, 2021, aimed at keeping Trump in office even after he lost.

The Times reported last year that many Republicans who voted to discount pro-Biden electors cited an argument crafted by Johnson, which was to ignore the false claims about mass fraud in the election and instead hang the objection on the claim that certain states’ voting changes during the Covid-19 pandemic were unconstitutional.

As rioters were overtaking the Capitol on Jan. 6, Johnson told Fox News in an interview that there was "nothing unusual" about Republican lawmakers' objections to the Electoral College certification and that "there’ve been many objections over the years.”

“I’m here as one of the advocates on the Republican side, stating our concerns about this election and the allegations of fraud and the irregularity and all that," he said.

[Bootstrap]

What else do you think "full transparency" would include? All text messages among people involved in coordinating January 6th, for instance? Perhaps including Mike Johnson?

Are we seeing your predefined narrative here? Are you speculating that Mike Johnson might have been involved in coordinating Jan 6?

We know that Mike Johnson was involved in the attempts to overturn the election. That's not speculation. How did the various people who were trying to overturn the election communicate around January 6th? If we really want "full transparency", wouldn't that be good to know?

https://apnews.com/article/congress-hou ... 24cc78e5c5

Mike Johnson, the Louisiana congressman who was elected speaker of the House of Representatives on Wednesday after a three-week standoff among Republicans, took the lead in filing a brief in a lawsuit that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win. That claim, widely panned by legal scholars of all ideologies, was quickly thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the 2020 election, Johnson also echoed some of the wilder conspiracy theories pushed by then-President Donald Trump to explain away his loss. Then Johnson voted against certifying Biden’s win even after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

[Ken]

We know that Mike Johnson was involved in the attempts to overturn the election. That's not speculation. How did the various people who were trying to overturn the election communicate around January 6th? If we really want "full transparency", wouldn't that be good to know?

That is, in part, what the conspiracy trial in Fulton County Georgia is investigating. As well as the Federal trial over the 1/6 events in Washington DC.

Already a half a dozen or so defendants have pled out and owned up to their activities and testified and we don't yet know all of what they have said or all of what investigators know.

The part that is not at question is Trump himself. His fingers were in all of it. Others may have been bit players. But all threads lead directly back to Trump.

[GaryK]

What else do you think "full transparency" would include? All text messages among people involved in coordinating January 6th, for instance? Perhaps including Mike Johnson?

Are we seeing your predefined narrative here? Are you speculating that Mike Johnson might have been involved in coordinating Jan 6?

We know that Mike Johnson was involved in the attempts to overturn the election. That's not speculation. How did the various people who were trying to overturn the election communicate around January 6th? If we really want "full transparency", wouldn't that be good to know?

https://apnews.com/article/congress-hou ... 24cc78e5c5

Mike Johnson, the Louisiana congressman who was elected speaker of the House of Representatives on Wednesday after a three-week standoff among Republicans, took the lead in filing a brief in a lawsuit that sought to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election win. That claim, widely panned by legal scholars of all ideologies, was quickly thrown out by the U.S. Supreme Court.

After the 2020 election, Johnson also echoed some of the wilder conspiracy theories pushed by then-President Donald Trump to explain away his loss. Then Johnson voted against certifying Biden’s win even after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

As I think you know, my main point wasn't about Mike Johnson. It doesn't appear that Grace is the only one who has "pre-defined" narratives.