You’re not even trying. It’s not like this is difficult to check for yourself. Again, this is a arguing in bad faith.
There was no cleaning until all of the insurrectionists were gone. Thus the broken glass, broken doors, and broken barricades remained until everyone left. So anyone who entered did so with multiple broken doors, broken windows, and broken barricades scattered about.
Unless they enterered through open doors which which were not near the broken windows. The capitol building is massive, with many different rooms and corridors.
Broken office door.
Broken exit door:
Another broken door:
I think you’d need to produce a cite to support an argument that anyone in that crowd managed to enter the capitol on Jan 6th while somehow entirely ignorant of the live fire conflict (complete with gunshots, teargas, glass breaking, and many other events that would be loud enough to be heard by anyone within several hundred yards, if not more) and breaking-and-entering going on. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim, and I don’t find it credible at all.
Why would you assume that, given that we have video of large groups physically attacking the police officers, breaking doors and windows, chasing members of Congress and the Vice President while calling for violence against them, and looting offices? What’s your rationale for suggesting that it was likely only a “small minority” of the crowd acting violently?
I mean, if you mean “a small minority of the total people present in the vicinity of the Capitol that day”, then sure, only a few hundred of the thousand present were actively involved in the assault on the building and the law enforcement officers inside and outside. Most of the protesters stayed in the street and just protested (although some erected a gallows). But by that metric only a “small minority” of any group does anything. It’s not a meaningful statement unless one is looking to handwave away the severity of what happened.
Still, “a few hundred” is still a far cry from “one guy with pepper (or bear) spray” or “only three guys”. I’m sure that, given your protestations that you aren’t looking to minimize the violence or be seen to be arguing in bad faith that you’d agree that it’s important to maintain this distinction.
And is it your view that the charges filed are an accurate summary of the crimes committed? That does seem to be what you’re suggesting.
OK. I would note again the video cited by the OP of this thread. Also, the OP of this thread.
From the video I’ve seen, there was an enormous amount of noise and commotion from people shouting all sorts of things, and I highly doubt if everyone would hear glass breaking especially over a large area. Perhaps more importantly, I don’t think the crowd arrived at nearly the same time, and many people arrived after the capitol had already been breached, at which time the police had retreated and the doors were open and people could peacefully enter.
Doors may have been open, but the glass, debris, and downed barricades hadn’t yet been cleaned up. This is an extraordinary claim (that anyone could have entered the Capitol on Jan 6th without realizing they weren’t supposed to), and I don’t think you have any evidence for it.
It wasn’t an assumption, it was a conclusion that Joey_P came to based on his points. That you’re ignoring.
The whole perimeter had police lines and barricades. The crowd entered by fighting the police, including using lead pipes and chemical agents. So, what is even your conjecture here, that some people arrived there by clicking their heels together 3 times, and therefore never noticed the broken barricades or the fighting that preceded it?
Actually, I just remembered that some people got in via ropes or ladders. So sure, not everyone got in via broken doors and windows, but I’m going out on a limb and suggesting that anyone climbing a ladder to get in is probably aware they are not an invited guest.
Remember, kids: only the first guy was guilty of “breaking and entering”. Everyone after that was just “peacefully entering”, like a normal tourist visit.
This is odd. Not only did I explain my rationale in the first post in which I made the claim, but I’ve had an ongoing exchange with you WRT the rationale since, including in this very post. It’s based on the number of people arrested and what the charges against them were.
Why would you just ignore a rationale which you were discussing in the same post in order to ask “why would you assume …?” What could possibly expain this?
It’s partly about the overall crowd, but in particular the crowd which entered the capitol building.
Yes, that’s what I’m suggesting.
As a great political satire put it, “The Law of Inverse Relevance, the less you intend doing about something the more you have to keep talking about it.”
Perhaps there will be more charges related to the insurrection if Congress is allowed to investigate it.
Why would you say that? Do you think the police and DOJ are being handicapped in some manner? By who?
Incredulity at the extent to which your ongoing assertions are at odds with the substantial video and witness evidence of the day, mostly, but also:
…you have offered no reason whatsoever to hold this position other than completely unsupported assertions, many of which are (again) at odds with the substantial video and witness evidence of the day.
And why would you suggest that?
See, the thing is about a large violent masked mob committed a mass assault is that it’s often difficult to ascertain who specifically struck which blow. As such, it can be quite hard to bring specific individual charges against every guilty party, whereas for trespassing all you need is to place the individual inside the building. So a reasonable assumption would that the charges made are the ones for which evidence sufficient to present a case in court exists, not that the charges brought represent the sum total of crimes committed.
Someone assaulted all those police officers and it wasn’t one guy with bear spray. Someone broke down all those doors, threatened those legislators, looted those offices, and not all of them were stupid enough to post pictures of themselves doing it on Facebook. And we don’t yet know even who all of them are, let alone which members of the angry mob committed serious assault.
So the only reason to suggest that the main crime committed was “trespassing” is to minimize the events of the day. And the only reason to do that over and over again while ignoring all evidence to the contrary is if one is arguing in poor faith.
You may say you’re not a duck but there’s an awful lot of waddling and quacking going on.
Because the whole point of investigating something is to learn things that you didn’t already know. And when the thing being investigated is an illegal act, those new facts may lead to new charges.
I don’t know; an investigation could look into that, as well. Congress’s role is definitely being handicapped by Republicans.
I also addressed the video, in noting that the videos circulating would naturally focus on the violent encounters, even if those were actually a small percentage what actually happened. (Do you disagree with this? If so, why?)
But even if you were incredulous at my rationale, that’s not a reason to pretend that I’ve not offered one.
Without actual evidence that someone entered or could have entered the Capitol on Jan 6th, before the insurrectionists were driven out, without being aware that they weren’t supposed to enter, I don’t think there’s any point to even responding. It’s an extraordinary claim made without evidence.
This seems silly to me. I suppose it’s not out of the realm of possiblity that it congress inverstigates there would be more charges. Then after that, if the CIA investigates, maybe there would be even more charges. And if after that the Illuminati investigates, perhaps even more.
But the point is that this was a very publicly done crime and the agencies which are charged with investigating and prosecuting crimes did the investigation, most likely with high priority, and it’s reasonable to assume the charges after 4 1/2 month represent a good percentage of the actual crimes committed.
If there were members of Congress colluding with insurrectionists (i.e. sharing the layout or otherwise aiding/abetting them before or during the insurrection), a Congressional investigation would greatly increase the chances of discovering this.
I will point out that Congress is known to do things that ruin criminal investigations (up to and including grants of immunity to get folks to testify).