# So, GOP lawmakers Collaborated with the Organizer on January 6th



## Deleted User (Jan 16, 2021)

So yeah this happened.
Honestly, at this point, I'm more disappointed in humanity and people that angry at this point.


----------



## chrisrlink (Jan 16, 2021)

and i doubt they'll be charged with treason then again dems control both senate and house now so maybe they will be


----------



## notimp (Jan 19, 2021)

Sorry, but all I can see is people being incredibly stupid, and the intercept reporter playing under speed not to see it. So the messaging can stay the same.  Imho this is creating a narrative thats not necessarily there.

First "the organizer of the march" sounds like a front to me (considering the groups that participated, and the average age of protesters) - someone you put in front of an action, then fill him with the believe that he caused the largest part of it, to then get off on a mind trip how well connected he is.

The Twitter/Parler difference in messaging is within bounds - the same conservative could have said both - there is no controversy. Interesting bit, maybe is, that those 'climbing' photos  - as far as I've seen were merely photo ops to begin with, and nothing else (people could have just walked around and up the steps at that point) - meaning that posting more likely was PR - but so was the other one on twitter - addressing different audiences.

You know - like what happens with microtargeting before every election, since facebook allowed people the opportunity. Why the Intercept goes all moral about this one? Ask them. Seriously.

The voice piece of a senator on a public radio (?) format saying "If people dont trust in the voting process, what else can they do...." sounds like pandering, and not riling people up.

So - all of this is covered by 'organizing a protest'.

Where suddenly the two dumb politicians, or the mouthpiece for the youth are stylized up to be the instigators of violence - for no discernable reason.

Have that podcast honcho play the entire intercept clip (which we know of a s a group of people that decided to play ball - and do PR instead of investigative journalism, when push came to shove), and then say a bunch of 'interesting - interesting' nonsense afterwards.


Here is something worth looking into instead of extrapolating from 'the senators who organized it planned a coup'. Members of congress (probably the same ones) greenlit 'bustours' to the Capitol, to get more of the rioters in. They were under Covid restrictions, so there were no bus tours otherwise.

The FBI ignored the whole thing - so now dont start "The intercept - fishing expeditions", where they through investigative reporting found out which senators were supporting.... They held speeches. Everyone could tell you which ones supported the insurrection the day after.

Once again - the FBI did NOTHING, as even those groups were on the invite list:


--

So here is a translation. People - including the senators played with fire - but likely didnt know that people would get violent to that extent. How they couldnt know - I dont know, but the FBI matched them in the assessment 1 for 1.

Then 'some' splitter group seized the day - and in everyone went.

But dont construct me a story where that senator is  a cruel mastermind, because he ignored the blood on the floor --- because everyone did, and it was championed as them getting back to normal - when it was not one of those senators.

So foul play - in one direction or the other - all the way. If you can prove to me, that one of the senators had a plan to have this lead to an insurrection attempt - than feed me this story. Otherwise, dont playact like this was the natural flow of things - you know, because they fit your story best.

More Journalism, less storytelling.

Also someone find out who greenlit the "bustours" on that day - and how they organized with groups bringing ultras in by the busload. Theres the story. Not in a podcast comment, someone made in passing to pander.




Or alternatively - sticking to that magic form of journalism, that doesnt even have to look at things to know how they all developed. That watches the Trump speech, gets emotionally flustered over him mentioning 'the strong ones in the GOP which we have on our side' - and then follows their instinct of their social media education to dig out a radio speech from a few weeks ago, and start to assassinate the two congress men in that circle - you know - "journalism". The ones that were publicly ousted on day one. Fishes for fragments of public appeasement, that back then wasnt even worth a story to them, and then tells everyone its the devil. No need to actually listen to the paroles that were shouted at the capitol, or for looking up who went there - and how. No - lets pin it on the 80 IQ social media person they used for 'organizing it all' - and make the story about a congressman being connected, because they had a prerecorded thank you voice mail from them  - which they just "had to play" in front of a crowd, because they were such good organizers - or charismatics!

You almost had an insurrection in the US, but I guess it was just that radio speech that senator made, and that thank you voicemail, that serves as enough of an explanation, to just call it a day. What a fluke - haha!

Thank you for all the civic education.

Also - that guy at the intercept, Ryan Grim, is their DC bureau chief - which normally stands for chief at always bringing you the governments perspective on anything. Those are the actual folks that have to play ball - or otherwise all their exclusives are done and over with. In addition to that, in every interview situation I've seen him in, he has to constantly play below his intellect. He is like a depressed ball of sorrow, when he has to hear the Saagar guy on The Hill tell the audience "its always such a fun time, when we two have a segment together" AND THEN LIES INTO CAMERA HOW FASCINATING THAT ALIEN SIGHTING STORY IS, and that hes so happy that Saagar only picked the most credible sources.

But you dont even trust in them - no you trust in the neckbeard podcaster, that literally shows you entire clips of other peoples reporting on his channel, and then tells you what to think about it. The youtube podcaster that doesnt get flagged, when he shows you entire segments of other peoples reporting, and then adds 'wow, this is so interesting, wow".

And then the comment pertaining to responsibility (that couldnt be proven), is "what a system - where they can do that and not go to jail" - what a system where people can be made to believe someone is liable for organizing a coup, but not legally liable - because they are a politician!

It never crossed your mind - that all of this is defamation by association? Worth nothing in court. But something in the court of public opinion. No, now the judicial system has to be bad as well?


"Their disloyalty to america is clear" says the opinion section in the NYT - and you just eat it up without questioning.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/05/opinion/trump-republicans-election.html

Doesnt matter, that noone thought so when they held their speeches, but in hindsight - oh boy... So good then that they gave those radio speeches in public - understanding, that they are giving them to loose their job and any chance of a political carrer! How nice of them... Maybe not the best insurectionists - but hay A class scapegoats.

https://web.archive.org/web/2021010...01/05/opinion/trump-republicans-election.html

Oh, and Ted Cruz? Oh, well - he is too well connected. Lets say for him association was just a faux pas.



> For America to be healthy again, decent Republicans — in office and in business — need to break away from this unprincipled Trump-cult G.O.P. and start their own principled conservative party. It is urgent.


What a feat of logic from the NYT - who can argue with that!

Aside from, that it is true, and was true for months, maybe years _this_ is how you tell people why shunning them is needed? Because healing?


Do you also support the public opinion of 'nothing in the head, but I have to say it?'?

Third and fourth most popular comments on the video on youtube:






If this was a media literacy check - you saw 'good guys' and failed a bunch of them in a row.

edit: My bad, the intercept didnt even watch the Trump speech to get an idea for the story, they read their twitter feed:
https://twitter.com/ajc/status/1349741819706404865


----------



## notimp (Jan 23, 2021)

Needs to be put in here - also because I was partly wrong (there seems to be a wired QAnon angle, where they saw those politicians as leaders, and are now retaliating against them).

Please dont ban me for double posting.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/20/trump-qanon-inauguration-day-460926

https://www.dailydot.com/debug/qanon-capitol-riot-families/


----------



## Deleted User (Jan 29, 2021)

notimp said:


> So here is a translation. People - including the senators played with fire - but likely didnt know that people would get violent to that extent. How they couldnt know - I dont know, but the FBI matched them in the assessment 1 for 1.



ehhhhhhhh
they knew. And I'm putting the video here since he does talk about even more links between some members of the GOP and the whole event on the 6th.


----------



## notimp (Jan 30, 2021)

I still maintain, that on part of motivation, its still more likely - that those people were interested in 'taking over the helm' on Trump populism, and gaining/maintaining followers - rather than to actually bet their careers on a coup, that has to be constructed to exist.

The entire 'if Pence declares those specific electoral votes illegal' thing just doesnt add up - so how can you construe an attempt to overthrow, or threaten to overthrow the government, if you never did?

This is a culminating event in in fake reality peddling, give them a real world event, that actually never meant what it was played up to be - then exit through the 'the entire thing was too stupid to go to jail for' door but having gained max adoration from folks that actually are that stupid.

Imho. So the entire argument, never ventures into 'how stupid this actually was' and 'what reason those congressmen had to risk their dayjobs' - "Four more years" doesnt necessarily hold. I'm basically trying to say, that I dont see a 'cui bono', for an actual insurrection.

Or the other way around, what was their plan? And if its 'to delay' this still can be seen as 'playing with fire' and not as an insurrection attempt.

So - for their utterly stupid plan, the Ultras (proud boys, or similar ilk), actually messed it up - but at the same time THEY were baited to mess it up, by arguments Trump made, his son made, Guiliani made, ...

That tells me that they were more interested in a 'culmination' style event, rather than going forward with a coup attempt. Because there were no "we march on Capitol Hill, and we take over the government" speeches. There only were - we march to move forward our stupid plan, that hinges on Pence doing the cowardly, easy thing, because the President told him, look - its cowardly and easy - so just perfect for you.

The entire thing is 'dadaesque'.

Vladislav Surkov worthy.


----------

