How Republicans defended the House on Jan. 6

I discovered a fascinating Politico article about defenders of the House chamber. I'll quote extensively from the article and not clean up all the quote marks. 

“The idea was just to try to delay. I honestly didn’t believe we were going to keep them out of the chamber. I was 100 percent convinced that we were going to pile up at the door,” said Mullin. “It is all about time.”

Nehls (R-Texas), a former sheriff and military officer with five decades of military and law enforcement experience, ran over to Mullin, asking if he needed help.

“We have a choice. I’m with you, brother,” replied Mullin.

Mullin then broke two wooden upright hand sanitizer stations and handed a block of the wood to Nehls, giving both of them makeshift weapons...

“We didn’t know if it’s three people 30 people or 200 people. You just don’t have any way of knowing, and not knowing was unsettling,” said Fallon, who previously served in the U.S. Air Force.

“I thought, ‘We’re going to get in a street fight on my third day in Congress because we’re going to defend this place,” Fallon added, noting that they began shoring each other up...

Nehls looked through a cracked door window where rioters were attempting to break in and saw a man carrying a flag on a long wooden pole that was sharpened on the end, which he believes penetrated the window and caused the sound.

“It took an enormous amount of force to shatter that glass. You can see some remnants on top of the furniture — the little white sprinkling of dust from where the glass came in,” Nehls said.

Mullin then confronted the insurrectionists on the other side of the door through the tiny holes broken in the glass: “I said, ‘Is it worth it?”

When one rioter expressed confusion, he yelled again: “You almost got shot. You almost died. Is it worth it?’”

While some of the rioters paused temporarily after hearing Mullin’s warning, it wasn’t long until an agitator in the group began shaking the door again, yelling obscenities and shouting: “This is our House. This is our House. And we’re taking our House back.’”

Mullin shot back: “This is our House, too. That is not going to happen.”

Nehls then stepped in to attempt to deescalate the tense situation.

“I told the individuals on the other side of the door that they shouldn’t be doing this. ‘This is not the way we should be handling business. This is un-American, unnecessary and dangerous.’ And there’s no reason they should be doing this,” Nehls recalled. “I said, ‘You should be embarrassed of yourselves.’”

One of the rioters remarked that Nehls was wearing a Texas face mask and yelled at him: “You should be with us! You should be with us!”

To which Nehls replied: “No, sir, I cannot support what you’re doing right now.”

At about the same time, roughly 100 feet away, an officer shot and killed 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a former Air Force veteran who kept trying get inside the speaker’s lobby — where several lawmakers were — despite warnings that a gun was drawn.

The speaker’s lobby where the officer fired is directly adjacent to the House floor. People inside the chamber could clearly hear the gunshot.

Mullin said the officer who fired the fatal shot later entered back into the chamber and appeared “visibly distraught.”

“I hugged him and I said, ‘Sir, you had to do what you had to do,’” Mullin said.

Mullin and others who fought off the insurrectionists say if rioters had reached more doors leading into the House chamber, rather than just the one, then the situation could have ended far differently.

“He had to take someone’s life, but in return he probably saved a whole bunch of people’s lives,” Mullin said, praising law enforcement as the heroes that day...

Also reported is how one congressman decided to call his wife with a possibly final 'I love you.' Probably many others did that too. 

My big question now: Are these Republicans still talking this way about Jan. 6, or have they whitewashed it? Are they still supporting Trump? Probably most of them are. 

This is a sick outcome. The courage and principles that were so necessary on Jan. 6 were forgotten. It seems the partisan power is more important at the end of the day. 

Image: Politico

Fake polling to fuel a talking point

Talking point creation is an industry. No doubt some are paid very well for it. So here's one: Twitter closed down discussion of Hunter Biden's laptop for a week before the 2020 election. It probably wasn't a full lockdown because that would be very hard to do, but the New York Post twitter account was suspended. 

So how much effect could that blackout have? The conservatives have been trying to supersize the effect and actually did some polling to check on it, or to manufacture the data they wanted. 

Here is typical conservative reporting on the poll: 

WaPo reporting on the wording of the poll question. Wow. 

"According to our poll," the organization wrote a few weeks after Trump lost, "full awareness of the Hunter Biden scandal would have led 9.4% of Biden voters to abandon the Democratic candidate, flipping all six of the swing states he won to Trump, giving the President 311 electoral votes."

This is the poll question. Look at how stilted it was:

"At the time you cast your vote for president, were you aware that evidence exists, including bank transactions the FBI is currently investigating, that directly links Joe Biden and his family to a corrupt financial arrangement between a Chinese company with connections to the Chinese Communist Party that was secretly intended to provide the Biden family with tens of millions of dollars in profits?"

So this is more talking point manufacturing. The electorate already knew Hunter was a crackhead and had a cushy job that paid too well. We in the electorate didn't really care. No candidate is perfect--not even close. 

Image: Daily Mail

Extras. Politifact, if it helps any. NBC news from 10/30/20. I guess there was some coverage in MSM. 

What did the left actually say about Trump and collusion?

I read it all the time from conservatives: The left was sure Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election. 

Did the left actually believe that? Ok, I'll use google to find out. Looking at June 2016 until mid-September, I don't see declarations that Trump was colluding. I see discussions of Trump's financial ties, his statements about Russia, his choices of advisers, and how Russians apparently hacked the DNC and gave the documents to Wikileaks. I don't see claims that Trump colluded with Russians. 

CNN 7/26/16. Discussion on Russian meddling, no accusation of collusion or conspiracy involving Trump. 

Lawfare 7/27/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

Washington Post 7/29/16. Q&A, no charges of conspiracy or collusion.

The Guardian 7/30/16. Long article. Direct collusion "probably not happening."

Vox 8/15/16. Conspiracy theorizing is wild but grounded in Trump's Russia ties. 

Reuters 8/25/16. Focus on Carter Page, who was one of many advisers who had close Russian ties. 

Politico 9/5/16. Russia is interfering, but no accusation against Trump except for spreading hate. 

After leaks of the Steele dossier

So now I'll look for how it was discussed after parts of the Steele dossier was leaked to Yahoo, and was published in its entirety in January 2017. 

NPR 1/10/17. Reports on the dossier, which was published that day by Buzzfeed. "NPR is not detailing the contents of the brief because it remains unverified....." but characterized it as discussing efforts to cultivate Trump, blackmail possibilities, and secret mettings with aides. 

NYT 2/14/17. Unnamed sources say Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence. Alarming, but sources say no evidence of collusion this far. 

USA Today 2/15/17. Timeline of contacts. Not veering into speculation. 

Politico Magazine March/April 2017. Trump/Russia connections in 7 charts. Looks solid and not veering into speculation. 

The Guardian 3/22/17. Comey testifies that Trump is being investigated. Speculation on effect of that news, but not about possible actions by Trump and his campaign. 

Politico 3/22/17. Schiff claims the evidence for collusion is more than circumstantial. He can't say what it is. 

PRI 3/30/17. Very accusatory tone, but still couched as investigations and suspicions. 

CNBC 4/6/17. Clinton says potential collusion should be looked into. 

The Guardian 4/13/17. British spy services warned US intelligence dating back to 2015. An unnamed source states there is "concrete.... evidence of collusion" and that's the strongest statement in the article. 

Reuters 5/18/17. More contacts between Trump officials and Russians disclosed. Sources say no evidence of wrongdoing or collusion. 

I also checked some further left media. Many have told me that Rachel Maddow pushed the collusion story night after night. This video would be one example. I didn't watch her so I don't know how representative it is, but it does push the story hard, with statements like the evidence is growing and the Repubs were meeting with Russians just as Russians were hacking the elections. 

Keith Olbermann was always a human flamethrower and he continues it, though from a very shoddy video studio with terrible lighting. He latches onto the accusations from Louise Mensch, a name I had forgotten. Well, she was a bit correct but also going deep into nutcase territory. 

Personal memories

What I recall about the Russian collusion story: I was tentative on it, preferring to wait for hard evidence. Evidence was being uncovered frequently, so it was very reasonable to wait and see. I was dubious about the Steele dossier and the way it was released encouraged wariness. It was labeled as unverified from the very beginning. 

In contrast, most of the information covered in the Mueller report had been leaked beforehand, and the solid news organization were right on most of it. I read the indictments as they came out, and they were loaded with info. So I never had to correct mistaken claims I made because I was cautious and conservative. The Mueller report wasn't a relevation. The good MSM sources continued being fairly good, including when they reported that the Steele dossier was financed by the Clinton campaign. Now that was quite an Aha! moment. 

So I was cautious in what I believed, and I recall most on the left being that way too. Maybe because I don't watch MSNBC or Keith Olbermann. My conclusion is that conservatives downplay the actual events of Russian interference and overhype the collusion/conspiracy speculation on the left. 

Image: The Intercept

Intelligence for Jan. 6

Reading some sources today that are trying to say that Jan. 6 happened because Dems let it happen, and their goal was to make Trump and his supporters look really bad. It could have been prevented. People like Pelosi and the intelligence community had the info but decided not to act because they benefited more if it went forward. 

There are some problems with that, but I decided to look into the intelligence and try to sort through it.

Tucker Carlson interview with the disgraced chief of capitol police who was forced to resign one day later. He seems to think he was set up. He's got some good points, but there's a lot questionable there. Transcript of his testimony to the Jan. 6 committee. 

Long piece about the Oathkeepers. I'm particularly wondering what their plan or plans were and how much was known about it in advance. They were highly involved in the Stop the Steal rhetoric and protests, emphasizing that they were willing to due Trump's bidding and defeat the deep state. Rhodes used rhethoric like "if we don't, there will be no more republic." They did appear to have a plan to infiltrate Congress and intimidate the elected officials and stop the peaceful, orderly transfer of power based on the certified election results. It wasn't a good plan or a successful plan, but it was a plan, and that is sedition. Testimony here. 

Just Security timeline of the intelligence failure. Very meaty with tons of links. In-depth reporting from WaPo on the intelligence failure. NBC news on the intelligence failure. 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) archive on what they gathered on the intelligence. Only two of 10 agencies correctly forecast that the capitol or Congress was going to be targeted.

Image: Live 5 news

Update 12/15/24. Here's a report from an Inspector General on the FBI response to Jan. 6. Inspector Horowitz is largely position on the FBI and mentioned only one oversight. 

Here's raw data (comments) from FBI agents about the FBI response. Many comments have a conservative bent that the reaction to Jan. 6 was much greater than to the race riots during the previous summer. Also a lot of comments on how the crisis teams could have done better. Either way, lots of on-the-ground response.

My take on the Georgia indictments

Fascinating. Nineteen people are indicted so this is a contrast to the federal charges where Trump was the only named defendant. There is a lot of common territory though because Trump's plans to get states to overturn their elections results happened in Georgia as one of the primary places. These indictments are state-level charges, not federal, because states (unsurprisingly) also have laws against election hijinks. Nineteen defendants, 41 counts, and an average of over 7 counts per defendant since many counts have multiple offenders listed. 

Some of the charges:

A Rico conspiracy to do a bunch of bad shit with many threads and tentacles. 

Solicitation of violation of oath by public officers - trying to get officials to do illegal or unethical shit. 

Impersonating a public official, forgery, false statements for pretending you're an elector when you're not. 

Perjury and false statements galore - to the GA legislature, to investigators, committees. I assume that the perjury charges are based on lying when under oath in a legal proceeding. 

Can the Rico charges stand? Can defendants be charged in Fulton county with offenses that occurred in Coffee County? Is it a criminal false statement to wrongly characterize action in a video, or just a mistake that isn't criminal? This applies to statements about video of counting from the State Farm Arena. However before the State department of GA clarified the actions shown in the video, it may reasonably have been misinterpreted. 

When does conferring with a witness cross the line to the criminal act of influencing witnesses? 

Some of the incidents: Lying about the State Farm Arena video. Lying about election workers. Harassing election workers. Pressuring election workers over their testimony. Falsely saying and signing documents as a presidential electors. Unsanctioned access to voting machines in Coffee County. Lying about what you were doing with those voting machines. Pressuring the secretary of state of GA to find 11780 votes. 

These are the most satisfying indictments yet because the major players will be having to answer for their acts, unless they decide not to mount a defense. It's less complicated when Trump is the sole defendant, but it's fully complete when his henchman are there too. It's also great that they all had to come in and get mug shots. 

Image: PBS

Extras. The report from the investigative grand jury. They were considering indicting Sen. Lindsay Graham too. 

McCarthy is voted out of the speaker position

Of course there is going to be lots of drama in Congress when there is just barely a majority. Add in grandstanding fantasy-based reps, and it will be even more nail biting. 

Some of the play-by-play of the debate and the vote. A day before the vote, before Gaetz' motion to vacate was even filed, a pundit writes that McCarthy had fucked up all the goodwill he might have had from the Dems. Two days before the vote, this was the lay of the land, just after the surprise continuing resolution that avoided a government shutdown. 

The reasons why the Dems didn't save McCarthy's bacon. The less fun official version of it. A list of who's angry at whom, with the most interesting resentment in the second half of the article. Moderate GOPers thought the Dems would save McCarthy. The bipartisan ProblemSolvers caucus may actually dissolve over this, which would be a shame. 

The editorial board of WaPo recommends that House Dems vote present so that the new speaker doesn't have to make so many promises to the holdouts. We'll see...

My analysis

My own prediction was that the Dems would save McCarthy because they need him to pass appropriation bills and/or CRs, or there will be a shutdown of unknown length, and certainly longer because this leadership issue has to be settled first. That's what I thought and I was wrong. Reality didn't follow my logic, so I've been trying to understand the reasons. 

Here's my guess now: The Dems didn't think McCarthy was going to be able to deliver compromise appropriation bills. He was going to cave to the rightwing and pass big cuts, and then it would be a stalemate. There's a good chance that's how it would have played out. Well, in that case, you might as well dump McCarthy and try someone who might be more open to reality. Based on how McCarthy behaved, they had little to lose. 

Plus there is the issue of timing. If Dems were hoping to ax McCarthy, they can't do it at their convenience. They have to do it when a GOPer raises the motion. So if everything gets settled, maybe there's no disgruntled GOPer to make the motion and follow through, so the Dems have to continue dealing with McCarthy for months more and maybe straight through to the 2024 election. "Nobody trusts Kevin" was a quote I read from more than one representative. When enough in the House feel that way, you are OUT.

There have been so other twists and turns on this issue. A couple GOPers said they would nominate Trump. That's ludicrous because Trump doesn't have the work ethic or temperament for the job. But he's also a glutton for attention, so he said that he'd consider it for a short time. That set off warning sirens and the possibility has been shut down. Now on Friday, Trump has endorsed the slimy Jim Jordan for speaker. This is a major liar, a J6 coward, and a former coach at Ohio State University who didn't report all the sexual harassment that was going on. The other major contender is the next in the GOP leadership, Steve Scalise. I hate to think a scumsucker like Jordan can win. If he loses, it is a slap in the face to Trump, so all the more reason for it to happen. 

To be continued in the Extras...

Image: Newsmax

Extras. Trump was nominated as speaker back in January too with hilarious results. Lots of ridicule on certain networks. 

Unexpected Ukraine/Russia developments

I don't know that anyone predicted this. The head of the Wagner group (the Russian mercenaries) had been loud in his criticism for a while, but to head into revolt and threatening the government--that wasn't foreseen. And that lasted just 24 hours before it was settled, though it's probably not really settled. 

Here's one of the best early analysis. 

I've seen so much speculation. That Putin is playing 5D chess and it's part of a brilliant plot. That the Wagner general is experienced and daring, but didn't have a plan for air cover, so that was a huge hole in his planning. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

Prigozhin's private jet was downed with much of his high command and himself on board on August 23. That's what happens to traitors even if Putin assured otherwise. 

Image: Sky News