# "Hijack" in the Jan 6th thread **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [July 7, 2022, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576 "2022-07-07T20:16:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mordecaiB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mordecaib/32/7725_2.png) [@mordecaiB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mordecaiB)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/21 "2022-07-08T16:54:16Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > The thing is, though, the parameters of the thread had not, as far as I can tell, been clearly established with the boundary “this is for discussing the facts of what has been testified to, and the legal and political implications of those facts.” Up to that point, the discussion had naturally revolved around that gravitational center, but it had been pretty squishy around the edges. > > So when another squishy edge topic is raised, and it’s quashed as a “hijack,” it feels a little arbitrary, that it’s based on an assumption that had not been explicitly articulated previous to that (unless I missed something). > > Consider, instead, a moderator note expressed thusly: “In the interest of maintaining a manageable focus in this thread, we will narrow the topic from this point forward to ‘what has happened, who has appeared, what has been said, and what it might mean.’ Speculative subjects should be covered in a separate thread, perhaps under the heading ‘who else _should_ be called, what _might_ they offer, why is the committee _not_ calling them, etc.’” > > Then it would have felt like a course correction, and not a criticism. This is a really good take on the situation. Thanks for spelling that out so well. > [@DavidNRockies](#): > > I was a bit surprised by the @Senegoid warning, too, but on general principles. Me too. If it needed moderation, a simple note would have done just as well. It sometimes irks me that some posters don’t read the whole thread before commenting, but it happens all the time here, especially in long threads like that one. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/22 "2022-07-08T20:08:39Z")
Thank you, @Mean_Mr.Mustard , @DavidNRockies , and @mordecaiB , for defending me. Permit me to clarify my point(s): First, yes I did see the earlier mod note. My own post was obviously (I thought) a rather facetious joke, and I assumed everyone (moderators included) would recognize that. Clearly, nobody — not even the J6 Committee — really believes, or ever believed, that Lindell has evidence to put 300M Americans in jail. I rather half-expected maybe a mod note for that. Maybe. A full-on warning seems like an over-reaction there. (OTOH, this is only my second warning in 8+ years here, so it’s not like I’m really worried about it. Yet.) (Note also, BTW, if my post were to be taken seriously, it offered a reason why the Committee would NOT call Lindell to testify, not a reason why they would or might.) I think the original mod-note, which is the main topic of this ATMB thread, is still the real issue in point here. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the moderator is expressing some personal views on the topic, and then issuing moderator orders on the basis of that. Witness comments like this one, from this ATMB thread: > [@Aspenglow](#): > > But Mike Lindell is never going to be called by the Committee as he doesn’t serve any purpose whatsoever to be there. > > I think there is a lack of understanding about what the Committee is trying to accomplish. It’s trying to get at what Trump knew about the _legality_ of what he, Trump, was doing on January 6th, when he orchestrated the insurrection. Lindell offers no insight into that whatsoever. Mike Lindell is not a lawyer. He was not a member of Trump’s administration. He was not in a position to advise Trump in any way as to legal matters. All he can do is gas bag about the Witch Hunt and muddy the waters. That’s why he won’t be called. There’s a full paragraph of commentary about the appropriateness (or not) of Lindell’s testimony. This is proper _thread participant_ material that would have been perfectly appropriate _in that thread_ and not here in ATMB, from a _participant_ and not from a moderator wearing the mod hat. Let’s remember that in the recent history of this Board, a certain former moderator (who is still an active participant, though no longer a mod) was criticized repeatedly for injecting his personal commentary into threads _while acting as a moderator_ and giving orders as to what may or may not be discussed accordingly. We had one or more ATMB thread(s) about that. It seems to me that something similar has happened here. This moderator has some plausible arguments to be made that Lindell will never be called to testify, and is citing those views to justify a moderator order forbidding anyone else to discuss it. We’ve seen this before, and I think there was a consensus that moderators should not be doing this. As to whether this was actually a hijack anyway, I don’t think it reached that stage. There were several responses about it, but it hadn’t reached the stage of derailing the thread yet, and I don’t think it was about to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/23 "2022-07-08T20:24:32Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > It’s a huge, unwieldy thread and I mean, why not call Roger Stone? Why not call Peter Navarro? The committee issued subpoenas to both Roger Stone and Peter Navarro. They are trying to get to the bottom of the coup attempt and these guys might have useful information so the J6 committee wants to ask them questions. Same goes Mike Lindell. He was trying to convince Trump to invoke the insurrection act in a meeting on January 15th. The committee could probably get some useful info from him as well. Of course, none of these guys should be allowed to testify live before the committee has questioned them privately. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/24 "2022-07-08T20:31:54Z")
@Aspenglow, clarification please. Oath Keepers chief Stewart Rhodes has offered to testify. People in the thread are discussing his potential testimony. There’s no indication that the committee wants him to testify. Is this speculation also forbidden? If not, what is the difference? > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1715): > > If I ran the committee, I’d let Rhodes testify live if and only if he first testifies under oath on tape in a closed room that he had contact with the White House to plan the insurrection. If he wants to disavow any connection between him and the DJT orbit, no live testimony. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/25 "2022-07-08T20:40:55Z")
The J6 committee issued Stewart Rhodes a subpoena. They definitely want him to testify. [https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211123%20Rhodes%20Letter.pdf](https://january6th.house.gov/sites/democrats.january6th.house.gov/files/20211123%20Rhodes%20Letter.pdf) Of course, he shouldn’t be allowed to testify live before the committee has questioned him privately. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/26 "2022-07-08T20:44:35Z")
The J6 committee subpoenaed Mike Lindell’s phone records. > **[Jan. 6 committee subpoenas MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell's phone records](https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/05/jan-6-mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-subpoena-526582)** > > He filed a lawsuit to block the panel’s request. I’m sure they’d love to have a private chat with him as well. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/27 "2022-07-08T22:36:25Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Not to speak for anyone else, but I think it’s more a matter of how the moderation was communicated than of the moderating decision itself. I fully agree that Lindell’s testimony would be a circus and that there would be no value in having him make a public appearance in that context. At the same time, I believe that “what he _might_ offer” is a debatable question. Ultimately, though, I agree that it would not be appropriate for that particular thread. > > The thing is, though, the parameters of the thread had not, as far as I can tell, been clearly established with the boundary “this is for discussing the facts of what has been testified to, and the legal and political implications of those facts.” Up to that point, the discussion had naturally revolved around that gravitational center, but it had been pretty squishy around the edges. > > So when another squishy edge topic is raised, and it’s quashed as a “hijack,” it feels a little arbitrary, that it’s based on an assumption that had not been explicitly articulated previous to that (unless I missed something). > > Consider, instead, a moderator note expressed thusly: “In the interest of maintaining a manageable focus in this thread, we will narrow the topic from this point forward to ‘what has happened, who has appeared, what has been said, and what it might mean.’ Speculative subjects should be covered in a separate thread, perhaps under the heading ‘who else _should_ be called, what _might_ they offer, why is the committee _not_ calling them, etc.’” > > Then it would have felt like a course correction, and not a criticism. > > Just my spectator’s perspective. I do view this as a valid criticism. However, I’d ask you consider a few things. First, we never know how a thread is going to go when it starts. It’s very difficult to anticipate what the parameters for a thread should be until it gets underway. Original posters don’t know this any better than moderators do, so it’s not really fair to expect them to establish boundaries before knowing what is going to happen. I agree yours is a better way of stating what it was I was trying to accomplish and with your permission, I will post it as you stated when the next hearing starts on Tuesday. Remember, please, that I issued 4 separate mod notes within the thread asking people to stay on topic as much as possible. > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/720): > > Moderating: Ok, and I’m guilty of it, too, we’re far afield of the topic of this thread. I understand that political threads can wander and have tried to be lenient about it, but let’s get back to the topic of this thread now that the hearings are again underway. Thanks. > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1412): > > Moderating: I appreciate this discussion arose out of the January 6, 2021, events. And it is a laudable debate to have. But this thread is for the purpose of discussing the hearings, not the finer points of defining Treason. Please remove your debate to elsewhere on the forum. Thanks. Barely a mod note, and definitely no warnings. To all: Please try to stick to the topic at least to some extent. A little hijacking is fine, but if you’re getting into the weeds, probably best to start … > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1441): > > Moderating: Ok, I realize the discussion over the alleged Trump Lunge and Clavicle Grab™ originated with the January 6th Committee hearing of June 28, 2022, which is why I’ve let it run on for so long. But it has become a distraction from the totality of that proceeding. I think all that needs to be said has already been said on the subject. Anyone who feels otherwise is welcome to start a new thread to discuss this narrow issue, which has occupied now nearly 500 posts since the beginning of… > [@Jan 6 Hearings Follow-Along & Commentary Thread (Starts Jun 9, 2022)](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jan-6-hearings-follow-along-commentary-thread-starts-jun-9-2022/965940/1696): > > Moderating: It’s not going to happen, so let’s stop hijacking this thread with idle speculation about non-events. To all, please, again, let’s try to keep the discussion tied to actual January 6th hearing events in some way, and at least within the realm of possibility. Thanks. This is a unique thread. It arises out of a series of hearings all pertaining to a particular course of conduct by one man, culminating in an insurrection on January 6, 2021. We don’t usually have threads like this one, and moderating it is an especial challenge. I was dismayed at how out of control the steering wheel/clavicle grab got and derailed the thread. For that reason, I was determined to stop hijacks sooner than I had previously. I can see how it may have seemed to some that I was being arbitrary, but it wasn’t that. The notion that Mike Lindell would testify is absurd, and you don’t need a wealth of experience in the legal system to understand this. First, the Committee has never called anyone they haven’t vetted privately first. They’ve never even interviewed Lindell. Second, they always announce who is appearing for the next hearings. Lindell’s name has never been raised. Neither has Roger Stone’s or Peter Navarro’s. All defied their subpoenas. We can therefore safely assume that none of these are not going to be called to testify before the Committee. _Should they be? That’s a whole different discussion_. Third, there are only 2 remaining hearings about which we are aware, and we know that the final hearing will be held in prime time to tie the whole course of corrupt conduct together into a final narrative. Does Mike Lindell play any role in this? He doesn’t. So again, while inartfully stated, I was simply trying to head off a Lindell hijack before it became another lengthy colloquy off in the weeds. > [@Senegoid](#): > > First, yes I did see the earlier mod note. My own post was obviously (I thought) a rather facetious joke, and I assumed everyone (moderators included) would recognize that. Clearly, nobody — not even the J6 Committee — really believes, or ever believed, that Lindell has evidence to put 300M Americans in jail. I rather half-expected maybe a mod note for that. Maybe. @Senegoid, permit me to say that I never like giving out warnings. I really dislike it, and I must feel pretty strongly about something before I’m moved to do it. I was open to the notion that perhaps you had missed the mod note and had you said that, I was prepared to consider reversing it. But you didn’t say that. I reiterate that I issued no fewer than 4 mod notes within the thread asking participants to at least attempt to stay on topic. You admit that you actually saw the mod note that directed @Peter_Morris to drop the subject of Lindell. How could I permit you to make a joke about it when he was unable to respond? There’s a point where ignoring mod instructions becomes very problematic, and I felt you exceeded that limit. I can understand why you may feel I’m interjecting my personal feelings into the thread and then using my mod hat inappropriately. There are posters who I think believe this is often true. Their belief doesn’t make it true. Understand that there is _nothing_ I take more seriously than trying to stay entirely neutral when making moderator decisions. For that reason, I tend to double-check moderation decisions with other mods before acting – which has not prevented accusations of bias. But this instance seemed clear cut to me, and I did not involve other moderators before taking action. Please also be aware that the staff here knew I was a very active participant in political threads when they asked me to consider being a moderator, and P&E was the first forum they asked me to moderate. > [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Oath Keepers chief Stewart Rhodes has offered to testify. People in the thread are discussing his potential testimony. There’s no indication that the committee wants him to testify. > > Is this speculation also forbidden? If not, what is the difference? There is a difference. Stewart Rhodes was asked to testify. He complied. When he did testify, he stood on the Fifth numerous times. Now he’s revisiting his decision and asks for reconsideration by the Committee to testify. I doubt they’re going to grant his request, but it is pertinent because he did in fact comply with the earlier subpoena. As @Lance_Turbo points out, Lindell blocked his subpoena with a lawsuit. So big difference. _Again, all I have asked is that discussions not pertaining directly to what’s happening with the Committee’s work be discussed in a separate thread. This doesn’t seem like an unreasonable ask to me, and still doesn’t._ Two final points: If you feel it is best for another moderator to handle the January 6th thread, I can certainly ask around. No guarantees there will be any takers. I made a commitment when I accepted the job to be accountable to the community and I have tried to do that. But if you think I suck as a moderator, please just say so. I will take your views onboard as I think about if doing this gig was the right decision for me. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/28 "2022-07-08T22:56:56Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > with your permission Happily. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2022, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/29 "2022-07-08T23:00:02Z")
Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2022, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576/30 "2022-07-09T00:23:33Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > If you feel it is best for another moderator to handle the January 6th thread, I can certainly ask around. No guarantees there will be any takers. You are doing a great job, and there are certainly many hijacks. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hijack-in-the-jan-6th-thread/967576.md?page=1)