January 6th, 2021

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I get what you’re saying, but while he might have changed parties, he’s still a neo-conservative. The change doesn’t involve a pledge of allegiance to liberal or progressive principles; he and people like him will drag the Democrats back to the right if they can get away with it. Frankly, I don’t trust any of them. At ALL.
I like Steve, but not his ideology so much, you are right, a lot of former republicans are now democrats, at least the one's with principles and brains. The democratic party tent is getting bigger and the classic fight between right and left will be fought out inside the democratic party, but with one key difference, there won't be the usual baggage and bullshit attached to their motives and intentions. I'm left of center, but I can tolerate genuine rightwing beliefs, even if I don't agree.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I like Steve, but not his ideology so much, you are right, a lot of former republicans are now democrats, at least the one's with principles and brains. The democratic party tent is getting bigger and the classic fight between right and left will be fought out inside the democratic party, but with one key difference, there won't be the usual baggage and bullshit attached to their motives and intentions. I'm left of center, but I can tolerate genuine rightwing beliefs, even if I don't agree.
I agree with bagginski. Those people, including Schmidt supported Republican political leaders who might not have been as bad as Trump but they were racist, authoritarian and corporatist in their choice of leaders and policies.

We allied with them in what I view as a rogue's bargain. We will cooperate so long as we have a mutual reason for doing so. Watch your back when those reasons go away. They will turn on us when they feel it is in their own interest.

It is the Leopards eating People's Faces Party, even if some have left it, that's still who they are.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I agree with bagginski. Those people, including Schmidt supported Republican political leaders who might not have been as bad as Trump but they were racist, authoritarian and corporatist in their choice of leaders and policies.

We allied with them in what I view as a rogue's bargain. We will cooperate so long as we have a mutual reason for doing so. Watch your back when those reasons go away. They will turn on us when they feel it is in their own interest.

It is the Leopards eating People's Faces Party, even if some have left it, that's still who they are.
I think time will tell. I wouldn't vote for them or anything, but I can see how having a spot light held up to the scam that the Republicans have been pulling on our society because of Trump, could wake them up to who they have been supporting in the past.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Oath Keeper Leader Jon Schaffer Pleads Guilty in Capitol Attack & Agrees to Cooperate w/Prosecutors

One of the self-described co-founders of the Oath Keepers Organization, Jon Schaffer, pleaded guilty in federal court in DC to felony charges for attacking the US Capitol with the intent of stopping Congress's certification of the election results. Importantly, Schaffer has agreed to assist the prosecution in its ongoing investigation and to testify in any and all trials against other insurrectionists.

This case is being prosecuted by the US Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, where I worked for nearly quarter of a century. Here is a behind- the-prosecutorial-scenes look at how prosecutors decide whether to extend a cooperation plea agreement to a defendant.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
I wonder if he's going to try and pull the Trump-buddy thing where he says he'll cooperate to get the benefits, but then attempts to remain loyal by hiding info. I guess that, per the video, investigators must be happy with what they're getting out of him. Either way, it sounds like he's going to end up serving at least three years in a federal prison no matter what.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I wonder what is bringing on the flurry of Lincoln Project ads lately? Guess I'll have to check out one of their recent YouTube streams. Maybe they are testing ads for effect? An infusion of corporate cash? They must be just running them on YouTube for now to give the assholes a taste of what's to come in 2022. The capital attack seems to have triggered them and they sense it will hurt the republicans badly with independents in the election.
Hawley Complicit
 

injinji

Well-Known Member
They've been producing a lot of video ads lately. Now that they have their house in order and have reorganized they appear to have an influx of cash. I wonder if corporate America is backing them to put the heat on the GOP, "we can fuck you right back Mitch"! Run these ads in republican districts and vulnerable democratic ones to soften them up on voter's rights and to lay the psychological ground work for the coming election in 2022. They are more to excite the democratic base and shift independents IMHO than for the republicans, they are a write off. Trump owns them and can rip them off at will by blowing the dog whistle and the suckers will come running with their wallets open.
Once all the equipment if bought, the actual making of the videos won't cost that much. Social media is free. But you are right. They are putting out a lot of new material of late.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-media-journalism-riots-social-media-70192823f35380b860b6f2708904bc5c
Screen Shot 2021-04-18 at 8.38.25 AM.png
The Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol in January created a trove of self-incriminating evidence, thoroughly documenting their actions and words in videos and social media posts. Now some of the camera-toting people in the crowd are claiming they were only there to record history as journalists, not to join a deadly insurrection.

It’s unlikely that any of the self-proclaimed journalists can mount a viable defense on the First Amendment’s free speech grounds, experts say. They face long odds if video captured them acting more like rioters than impartial observers. But as the internet has broadened and blurred the definition of a journalist, some appear intent on trying.

At least eight defendants charged in the Jan. 6 riot have identified themselves as a journalist or a documentary filmmaker, including three people arrested this month, according to an Associated Press review of court records in nearly 400 federal cases.

The insurrection led to the deaths of five people, including a police officer, and there were hundreds of injuries. Some rioters manhandled and menaced the reporters and photographers who are credentialed to cover Congress and were trying to cover the mayhem that day. A group of AP journalists had photographic equipment stolen and destroyed outside the building.

One defendant, Shawn Witzemann, told authorities he was inside the Capitol during the riot as part of his work in livestreaming video at protests and has since argued that he was there as a journalist. That explanation did not sway the FBI. The plumber from Farmington, New Mexico, is charged with joining in demonstrating in the Capitol while Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s electoral victory over Donald Trump.

“I seek truth. I speak to sources. I document. I provide commentary. It’s everything that a journalist is,” Witzemann told a New Mexico television station after his arrest April 6. He did not respond to a social media message and email from the AP.

Witzemann’s nightly news show is titled the “Armenian Council for Truth in Journalism” — satirically, his attorney says. On its YouTube page, which has just over 300 subscribers, the show says it “delivers irreverent and thought provoking commentary and analysis, on an eclectic range of subjects.”

Another defendant works for Infowars, the right-wing website operated by conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Others have fringe platforms named “Political Trance Tribune,” “Insurgence USA,” “Thunderdome TV” and “Murder the Media News.”

But while the internet has given more people a platform to use their voice, the definition of a “journalist” is not that broad when put into practice in court, said Lucy Dalglish, dean of the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism, who used to practice media law as an attorney.

She said it is an easy case to make that Capitol riot defendants were not journalists because reporters and photographers must have credentials to work there. She said any defendant captured on video encouraging rioters cannot credibly claim to be a journalist.

“You are, at that point, an activist with a cellphone, and there were a lot of activists with copyrighted videos who sold them to news organizations,” Dalglish said. “That doesn’t make them journalists.”

Even credentialed reporters and news photographers are not immune from prosecution if they break a law on the job, said Jane Kirtley, who teaches media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota.

“It’s not a get-out-of-jail-free card,” Kirtley said.

Samuel Montoya, an Infowars video editor, was arrested Tuesday in Texas on charges including impeding passage through the Capitol grounds. Montoya spoke on an Infowars show about witnessing a police officer shoot and kill a woman inside the Capitol.

Montoya also recorded and narrated a video while walking through the building, occasionally referring to himself as a journalist while wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.

“We’re gonna do whatever it takes to MAGA,” he said, according to the FBI.

Montoya told a judge on Wednesday that he works for Infowars and mentioned that Jones also was in Washington on Jan. 6. Jones has not been charged in the riot, but Montoya asked if returning to work or contacting his boss could violate his pretrial release conditions.

“I certainly understand what you’re asking because this was also a news event and you work in the news or information business, but this is a line that you’re going to have to be careful of on your own,” U.S. District Judge Susan Hightower said.

Far-right internet troll Tim “Baked Alaska” Gionet,who was arrested less than two weeks after the riot, streamed live video that showed himself inside the Capitol and encouraging other protesters to stay. Investigators say Gionet also profanely called an officer an “oathbreaker” and chanted, “Whose house? Our house!”

Prosecutors dispute that Gionet is a journalist. His lawyer said the former BuzzFeed employee only went to Washington to film what happened.

“That is what he does. January 6th was no different,” defense attorney Zachary Thornley wrote in a court filing.

Another defendant, John Earle Sullivan, leads the protest organizing group “Insurgence USA” and identifies himself as an activist and journalist who films protests, the FBI said. Defense attorney Steven Kiersh challenged court-ordered restrictions on Sullivan’s use of the internet and social media.

Sullivan “is legitimately self-employed as a documentarian and it is oppressive to require that he not be allowed to continue his primary area of employment for an extended period of time,” Kiersh wrote in court papers, attaching receipts for work Sullivan has done for CNN and other news outlets.

Sullivan is accused of saying, “Let’s burn this (expletive) down,” after the mob breached a security barrier, entering the Capitol through a broken window and telling officers inside to back down.

Witzemann’s lawyer argued that prohibiting him from traveling outside New Mexico would violate his First Amendment rights as a freelance journalist. The charges against Witzemann include violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

After his arrest, Witzemann told KOB-TV that others had breached barricades outside the Capitol before he arrived.

“My only goal was to get right up to the front of the action, so to speak, to film it,” he said.

Other defendants identifying as journalists have been tied to an extremist group or movement by federal authorities.

Nicholas DeCarlo told the Los Angeles Times that he and another alleged rioter, Nicholas Ochs, are journalists. But the FBI said Ochs and DeCarlo are self-identified Proud Boys and content producers for an online forum called “Murder the Media News.”

Prosecutors say DeCarlo wrote “Murder The Media” on a door in the building. When authorities later searched DeCarlo’s home, they found a framed photo of DeCarlo and Ochs posing in front of the door with a thumbs-up.
 

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I like Steve, but not his ideology so much, you are right, a lot of former republicans are now democrats, at least the one's with principles and brains. The democratic party tent is getting bigger and the classic fight between right and left will be fought out inside the democratic party, but with one key difference, there won't be the usual baggage and bullshit attached to their motives and intentions. I'm left of center, but I can tolerate genuine rightwing beliefs, even if I don't agree.
what's in a name? what ultimately matters is the vote- that defines you. kind of like Matt Gaetz recently. when people tell you who they are believe them.

'don't listen to what people say; watch what they do'.
 
Last edited:

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
I wonder what is bringing on the flurry of Lincoln Project ads lately? Guess I'll have to check out one of their recent YouTube streams. Maybe they are testing ads for effect? An infusion of corporate cash? They must be just running them on YouTube for now to give the assholes a taste of what's to come in 2022. The capital attack seems to have triggered them and they sense it will hurt the republicans badly with independents in the election.
Hawley Complicit
people have short memories and the fight for 2022 began after Uncle Joe won.
 

injinji

Well-Known Member

TacoMac

Well-Known Member
I used to watch a lot of 1st Amendment Auditors on You Tube. One of the main ones posted lots of video from inside the Capitol. I expressed concern for him when he posted. Not sure if he has been questioned, but he hasn't posted anymore Capitol riot videos. In his defense, he did record all the protests last summer too.
If he was inside the capital that day, he was breaking the law.

That said, they aren't charging everybody that went in. They're charging people they have evidence of breaking things, defacing things, entering people's offices, etc.
 
Top