Election Investigations

[Ken]

I’ll take bogus analogies for $900, Alex

No, it is the same exact thing as Speaker Johnson taking 44,000 hours of videotape of the Capitol and showing 90 hours of it and asserting that it meant anything at all.

Is it the same as the J6 Committee that showed a highly edited 2 minute clip to suggest that the entire event was like that?

I will take the 90 hours over the 2 minutes and wait with expectation for the rest to be released. If the rest is not released, then I will agree with you.

No, it is the opposite of the same thing.

If there are crimes happening you show the crimes, not endless tape of nothing. If someone robs a convenience store you show the 5 min period of time in which they committed the crime on camera, not the other 23:55 min period of time that day when someone wasn't robbing the store. And if there are multiple cameras, you show the one which shows the crime happening, not some footage from another camera in the back room where nothing was happening.

The mob is not a unitary entity on its own. Specific people committed specific crimes at specific times and places and video is just one of multiple types of evidence used to make that case. There are also witness statements, communications, and so forth. Clearly there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that crimes occurred given that dozens if not hundreds of different people have were convicted in front of many different judges and juries using this evidence. And the fact that there are hundreds or thousands of hours of videotape showing nothing happening doesn't change any of that.

[Bootstrap]

Are you asking them in good faith? I don’t recall you asking any of these questions of the material released by the original 1/6 commission.

Yes, I am asking them in good faith. That's precisely what I am doing. And I think I had the same standards for them that I have here - if they had tweeted this kind of stuff out without evidence I would have been equally skeptical.

Josh, are you discussing in good faith? Are you turning attention towards establishing the facts, or are you making insinuations about the motives of people who are trying to do that? Are you throwing out accusations that are impossible to disprove based on what you say you do not recall, or discussing specific facts?

Here are the questions I am asking:

So when exactly was this particular video taken? What time of day, and how does it fit into the overall timeline? And where? Was this police trying to defuse the situation with people who had already broken in, as the Capitol Police have said, or was this the police letting "tourists" into the building to take pictures, as some people seem to be claiming? Who were the officers in the clip? What did they say about what they were doing?

Without that, we can all make up stories. Other people can too. And tweet them out next to this video. And they have a lot to gain by doing that, whether or not their story is true.

Are you distracting from these questions or trying to help answer them?

Asking a question in good faith means that the person posing the question genuinely seeks to understand or learn something, rather than trying to provoke, trick, or embarrass someone. That's precisely what I am trying to do.

Would you like to help? Perhaps provide some answers to those questions?

[Josh]

Boot, here’s how I see it. A minute or so clip was released by the 1/6 committee. They refused to release anything and fought tooth and nail against releasing more.

Speaker Johnson finally can get 90 minutes releases and pledges to release more.

And… the person you have a problem with is the person who finally got anything substantial released at all?

[Ken]

Boot, here’s how I see it. A minute or so clip was released by the 1/6 committee. They refused to release anything and fought tooth and nail against releasing more.

Speaker Johnson finally can get 90 minutes releases and pledges to release more.

And… the person you have a problem with is the person who finally got anything substantial released at all?

That is not correct. The 1/6 committee's final report contains at least 100 separate video exhibits, many of them long. And the House under Pelosi released additional video after it had been screened for security reasons (to not give away camera angles, camera locations, possible blind spots, etc. to others seeking to do harm).

Speaker Johnson was up to his eyeballs in Trump's lies and attempts to overthrow the 2020 election. He was an actual ringleader. He can do whatever he wants with the video footage that is now under his control. But no one believes he is a disinterested actor in all of this. And no one believes he isn't acting for partisan political reasons.

[Bootstrap]

Boot, here’s how I see it. A minute or so clip was released by the 1/6 committee. They refused to release anything and fought tooth and nail against releasing more.

Speaker Johnson finally can get 90 minutes releases and pledges to release more.

And… the person you have a problem with is the person who finally got anything substantial released at all?

Are you responding to something I actually said? If so, could you please quote what you are responding to? I don't know if you are reading anything I am writing.

If you don't want to respond to what I am saying, could you simply ignore it?

By the way, is your claim about the January 6th committee true? How many minutes of video evidence did they release? Has Mike Johnson proven anything the January 6th committee concluded was wrong? If so, what, and with what evidence?

[Josh]

security reasons (to not give away camera angles, camera locations, possible blind spots, etc. to others seeking to do harm).

The Capitol is a public building and anyone can go and and take videos and pictures. It's not like camera angles, etc. are a big secret.

[Josh]

Are you responding to something I actually said? If so, could you please quote what you are responding to? I don't know if you are reading anything I am writing.

I'm responding to your general excessive scepticism of this, with claims like, we can't trust these videos, they might have been edited, and on and on. Yet I didn't see you display the same scepctism for the 1/6 committee's release, which was very obviously edited.

By the way, is your claim about the January 6th committee true? How many minutes of video evidence did they release?

They did not come anywhere close to releasing full, unedited footage.

[Bootstrap]

Are you responding to something I actually said? If so, could you please quote what you are responding to? I don't know if you are reading anything I am writing.

I'm responding to your general excessive scepticism of this, with claims like, we can't trust these videos, they might have been edited, and on and on. Yet I didn't see you display the same scepctism for the 1/6 committee's release, which was very obviously edited.

Actually, no. You are responding to things you assume I must have said, not responding to things I actually said. Could you please stop that? It keeps you from actually taking the time to read what I say and respond to it. It's not a good faith discussion.

I have said some very specific things. Do you know what they were? Please quote them and respond to them. And please stop saying whatever and claiming that I said it. Better yet, let me express my opinion, and you can express your opinion. Provide the reasons for your views.

[Ken]

security reasons (to not give away camera angles, camera locations, possible blind spots, etc. to others seeking to do harm).

The Capitol is a public building and anyone can go and and take videos and pictures. It's not like camera angles, etc. are a big secret.

Parts of it are open to the public. Parts of it are not.

But all of the security technology and procedures from alarms, camera placements, access codes, locks, gates, sensors, network technologies, etc. are all most definitely NOT public for the very obvious reason that you don't give potential enemies a security blueprint of the place.

[Grace]

No, it is the opposite of the same thing.

If there are crimes happening you show the crimes, not endless tape of nothing. If someone robs a convenience store you show the 5 min period of time in which they committed the crime on camera, not the other 23:55 min period of time that day when someone wasn't robbing the store. And if there are multiple cameras, you show the one which shows the crime happening, not some footage from another camera in the back room where nothing was happening.

That analogy isn’t applicable with the capitol protests. A convenience store that is robbed is privately owned by a private individual.

The Capitol is NOT a private place and not owned by private people. It is often referred to as “the people's house” and is owned by the public. It was built and paid for with public funds collected from tax payers. It is maintained by the public’s taxes. The congress and others that use the building are working for the public.

Because the activities on Jan 6 were conducted on the public’s land, in the public’s building, against public workers who are paid by the public's taxes, etc, all the surveillance for that day should be released to the public and not just a few clips. Even the cameras that took the footage are owned by the public. It is very revealing and interesting that the Jan 6, committee is so against releasing what should be public information, to the public. It is about controlling their narrative/propaganda and the only way that can be done is hide the facts and information from the very people who pay their salaries, who pay for the facility they use, who pay their cushy perks, etc.

As far as I know we still live in a free Republic, not some socialistic/communist country that wants to control the people by only releasing the information that the government wants the people to know.