ymeskhout
9mo ago
So, no harm, no foul? Government abuse is fine so long as the person persevered in any case?
No. You made a claim that the FBI tried to intimidate him into silence but provided no citations for this assertion. I googled his name to see if I could find this evidence of intimidation on my own and instead the first thing that popped up was the Amazon link to his book with hundreds of favorable reviews. Both the high SEO listing and the number of reviews are contrary to the claim that he was intimidated into silence, and since I haven't seen evidence to the contrary, I'm forced to conclude that whatever attempts that may have been made (which again, hasn't been established) were inconsequential. If they did try to intimidate him into silence, that's very bad even if it was unsuccessful, but the intimidation would be far worse if it was successful.
I would at a minimum be subject to the smears of people far more powerful than I am and who would be motivated to deny any wrong doing.
I appreciate you outlining the reasons why you were averse to reporting what you saw. Do you have any reasons to believe that TTV would have felt similarly stymied? Their work received extensive media coverage and widespread endorsements from powerful figures with deep pockets. If TTV is inadequately equipped to do something about the fraud they claim to have uncovered, is there anyone who is?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Oh wow, yeah that's my bad. I did not know details about this incident and just repeated what Newsmax/AP said in their article. I looked up the court of appeals decision that reversed the contempt finding and it describes an absurdly vindictive district court judge. The judge granted a preliminary injunction which is based on emergency arguments, but the judge included a requirement to disclose the identity of individuals involved and then almost immediately spun up contempt proceedings before anyone could get their bearings. Contempt findings are fairly rare, contempt jailings are extremely rare, and this is one of the most bonkers contempt jailings I've ever heard of.
I agree with you completely that this incident is too weird to tells us much of anything about TTV and their honesty. I edited my post above to reflect that.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Clearly they are a bit of a weakman though, which is why I'm not super-interested in going through their claims to assess plausibility. Are they the ones who did a bunch of locational data analysis showing (?) suggestive behaviour around ballot drops? They probably aren't lying about that, but of course it doesn't mean their analysis is correct.
Yes that's them. They were willing to share their data with D'Souza, but not law enforcement. I'm curious though, what exactly establishes them as a 'weakman'? What standards do you rely on to make that determination on any given topic? If a BLM group made a wildly popular documentary full of lies about the dangers of being black in America and it received favorable media coverage, do you believe that discussing the lies would not be relevant?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I haven't looked into this in a very long time so I don't know if and what part of the FBI's conduct was illegal. The "illegally spy on an opposition candidate" part was too ambiguous for me to parse, compared to "several members of Trump's campaign were surveilled". Everyone is entitled to editorialize, although I would caution about using verbiage that leaves a misleading impression because the involvement between Trump associates and Russia that kickstarted the surveillance is very well-documented and resulted in multiple convictions and didn't come from nowhere. You're of course still absolutely and completely free to argue it was politically-motivated persecution.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
He wrote a whole book so it doesn't seem like the silence intimidation worked very well. What property was seized, are you talking about the laptop?
What reasons would TTV have to believe that election authorities in Arizona and Georgia would not cooperate with them in good faith? Why would TTV lie in court and tell a judge that they don't have evidence if they actually did have evidence?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Truth the Vote is the group that provided the data and the allegations outlined in the Dinesh D'Souza 2000 Mules documentary, which is by virtually any measure the most popular and talked about expose into stolen election claims. The film was watched by millions of people and received widespread media coverage and promotion within conservative media, and also was extensively endorsed by Trump (for what it's worth) and continued to be regularly cited by politicians and other stolen election believers. This wasn't just some obscure fringe group.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Yeah that's true, I agree no one needs my permission! Do you have any opinions about whether TTV is lying or not?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
That's interesting, how do you know that Giuliani actually had evidence to present instead of just bluffing? Assuming he had evidence, why didn't Giuliani just release the evidence elsewhere? I think the reason he didn't release evidence is because he was lying about having had evidence. Which part of my conclusion do you think is unreasonable?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
false statements that the speaker may or may not have actually had the relevant information and intent to deceive.
I draw intent to deceive through their strident refusals to cooperate with authorities once they're required to show their evidence, including their willingness to go to jail over it. The alternative theories are 1) they're telling the truth or 2) they're mistaken but don't know it. If they're telling the truth, I've seen no explanation for why they've refused to cooperate with election authorities. Presumably if you have extensive evidence of serious election fraud, you'd want to do something about the fraud itself besides just making a documentary. If they're mistaken but don't know it, I would still expect them to fully cooperate with election authorities who then would be in a position to further investigate their claims and thereafter inform them that they were mistaken. Instead, TTV's consistent refusals to share their evidence showcases they must be aware that their evidence is bullshit and that sharing it would expose that it's bullshit.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
But what convinced me that there was more than the usual fraud (over and above election rules changes) going on was the whole Georgia water main thing.
Rudy Giuliani had the perfect opportunity to present evidence of his claims when he was sued by the Georgia election workers for defamation, but he instead sandbagged and stumbled towards a default judgment. I think he acted that way because he knew he had no defense against defaming them. Do you think my conclusion is unreasonable?
I think a lot of the support for dramatic fraud theories comes from people recognizing that something is badly wrong, and defaulting to the scripts that society and the media have provided them for what "wrongness" looks like.
This is likely the interpretation with the highest amount of charitability I'd be willing to co-sign on. But I do have a quibble about "the FBI really did break the law to illegally spy on an opposition candidate", are you talking about Trump? Edit: I got confused and forgot you were talking about 2020 instead of 2016, so I don't know what you're referring to here.
He walked back his claims about his campaign being wiretapped, claiming he didn't mean it literally. He said "I used the word ‘wiretap,’ and I put in quotes, meaning surveillance, spying you can sort of say whatever you want" and also that his allegation wasn't really based on any actual evidence but more on "a little bit of a hunch". His DOJ confirmed in a court filing they had no evidence of wiretapping.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
If I'm making an argument about TTV, it would be nice if the responses are about TTV so I don't see what's irrelevant about that. I can't control what people say but my interest here is wanting to avoid time-wasting Gish gallops and motte-and-bailey diversions, because an unfortunately common rhetorical trick used by some when they encounter arguments inconvenient to their position is to try and change the subject.
You're welcome to suggest an alternative disclaimer wording, and you're also welcome to challenge my premise for why I even included a disclaimer.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
The reason you get ire and downvotes is because you conspicuously highlight which side of the friend-enemy distinction you've chosen.
How have I done that and which friend-enemy distinction are we talking about? From my perspective, I'm making an argument that TTV is lying about the election evidence they claim to have. I can see how that would earn me no love from TTV but antagonism is expected when you accuse someone of lying. The relevant question here would be whether my allegation is true or not, and your response doesn't actually address my argument and instead changes the subject. If you don't care about TTV, why respond to a post about TTV?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
These guys seem to exaggerate fudge provable fraud.
Why do you think TTV has been so resistant with offering evidence? I think it's because they were lying about having any and that their primary interest was grifting rather than actually uncovering fraud. Is there any part that you disagree with?
ymeskhout
9mo ago
What do your examples have to do with whether or not TTV is lying? Your post is ambiguous so as best as I can tell (please correct me), you're not disputing that TTV was lying or that they've hoodwinked millions of people, but offering an explanation for why certain demographics would be susceptible to gullibility. Dissecting the reasons behind the gullibility is an interesting topic for sure, but it seems downstream to my argument about whether or not TTV was lying/grifting.
True The Vote, the group behind the wildly popular "2000 Mules" film that purported to document extensive election fraud in Georgia, has admitted to a judge that it doesn't have evidence to back its claims.
Y'all know I love my hobby horse, even if it's beaten into an absolute paste, and I admit at having ongoing puzzlement as to why 2020 stolen election claims retain so much cachet among republican voters and officials. TTV has a pattern of making explosive allegations of election fraud only to then do whatever it takes to resist providing supporting evidence. TTV has lied about working with the FBI and also refused to hand over the evidence they claimed to have to Arizona authorities. In Georgia, TTV went as far as filing formal complaints with the state, only to then try to withdraw their complaints when the state asked for evidence. The founder of TTV was also briefly jailed for contempt in 2022 because of her refusal to hand over information in a defamation lawsuit where TTV claimed an election software provider was using unsecured servers in China. Edit: @Walterodim looked into this below and I agree the circumstances are too bizarre to draw any conclusions about the founder's intentions.
I have a theory I'm eager to have challenged, and it's a theory I believe precisely explains TTV's behavior: TTV is lying. My operating assumption is that if someone uncovers extensive evidence of election fraud, they would do whatever they can to assist law enforcement and other interested parties in fixing this fraud. TTV does not do this, and the reason they engage in obstinate behavior when asked to provide evidence is because they're lying about having found evidence of election fraud. It's true that they file formal complaints with authorities, but their goal is to add a patina of legitimacy to their overall allegations. TTV's overriding motivation is grifting: there is significant demand within the conservative media ecosystem for stolen election affirmations, and anyone who supplies it stands to profit both financially as well as politically. We don't have direct financial statements but we can glean the potential profitability from how 2000 Mules initially cost $29.99 to watch online, and the millions in fundraising directed towards TTV (including a donor who sued to get his $2.5 million back). There's also a political gain because Trump remains the de facto leader of the conservative movement, and affirming his 2020 stolen election claims is a practical requirement for remaining within the sphere.
I know this topic instigates a lot of ire and downvotes, but I would be very interested to hear substantive reasons for why my theory is faulty or unreasonable! I believe I transparently outlined my premises and the connective logic in the above paragraph, so the best way to challenge my conclusion could be either to dispute a premise, or to rebut any logical deduction I relied on. You could also do this by pointing out anything that is inconsistent with my theory. So for example if we were talking about how "John murdered Jane", something inconsistent with that claim could be "John was giving a speech at the time of Jane's murder". I would also request that you first check if any of your rebuttals are an example of 'belief in belief' or otherwise replaying the 'dragon in my garage' unfalsifiability cocoon. The best way to guard against this trap would be to explain why your preferred explanation fits the facts better than mine, and also to proactively provide a threshold for when you'd agree that TTV is indeed just lying.
I'm excited for the responses!
Edit: I forgot I should've mentioned this, but it would be really helpful if responses avoided motte-and-bailey diversions. This post is about TTV and their efforts specifically, and though I believe stolen election claims are very poor quality in general, I'm not making the argument that "TTV is lying, ergo other stolen election claims are also bullshit". I think there are some related questions worth contemplating (namely why TTV got so much attention and credulity from broader conservative movement if TTV were indeed lying) but changing the subject isn't responsive to a topic about TTV. If anyone insists on wanting to talk about something else, it would be helpful if there's an acknowledgement about TTV's claims specifically. For example, it can take the format of "Yes, it does appear that TTV is indeed lying but..."
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I appreciate the links, I looked up his 8-page resignation letter where he went into detail immediately after J6. Regarding the timeline on Sund calling the National Guard, he says:
Given these factors, it was clear to me at 1:00 p.m. that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. I called MPD and requested assistance and they responded immediately. I also requested assistance from the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division and other law enforcement agencies. I notified the two Sergeant at Arms by 1:09 p.m. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a State of Emergency and authorize the National Guard. I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command. I continued to follow up with Mr. Irving, who was with Mr. Stenger at the time, and he advised that he was waiting to hear back from congressional leadership, but expected authorization at any moment. At approximately 1:50 p.m., not yet having authorization from CPB, and noting the extreme urgency of the situation, I notified General William Walker that I should have approval shortly and that we had an urgent request for the National Guard. At 2:10 p.m., I finally received notification from Mr. Irving that the CPB authorized me to request the National Guard. However, as explained below, I soon learned that our request would also need to be approved by the Department of Defense.
So that's a delay of 70 minutes that was under the purview of the two Congressional Sergeants at Arms. Then it went into the hands of the Pentagon who asked for a conference call at 2:28pm where they delayed further and it wasn't until 5pm or so that they approved it. General Walker (commanding officer of the D.C. National Guard.) had previously told Sund on January 4th he could have 125 National Guard troops ready on J6, but the first 150 showed up at the scene at 5:40pm. Meanwhile, Sund received support from 1700 officers from nearby law enforcement agencies by 1:51PM.
So the bailey here would be "On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support" while the motte is "Congressional Sergeants at Arms (who report to Nancy Pelosi) took 70 minutes to approve and forward to the Pentagon a request for 125 National Guard troops." All this indicates that @DradisPing was either engaging in stylish hyperbole or simply mistaken. If the former, it would've been helpful to have known that in advance.
This is collateral, but on the topic of Sund intelligence briefing, he said:
As previously mentioned, the IICD intelligence assessment indicated that the January 6th protests/rallies were expected to be similar to the previous Million MAGA March rallies in November and December 2020, which drew tens of thousands of participants. The assessment indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the January 6th event and that they may be inclined to become violent. This was very similar to the intelligence assessment of the December 12, 2020, MAGA II event. In addition, on Monday, January 4, 2021, the USCP IICD published the Daily Intelligence Report which provided an assessment of all of the groups expected to demonstrate on January 6, 2021. The IICD Daily Intelligence Report assessed the level of probability of acts of civil disobedience/arrests occurring based on current intelligence information, as Remote to Improbable for all of the groups expected to demonstrate on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. In addition, the Daily Intelligence report indicated that The Secretary of Homeland Security has not issued an elevated or imminent alert at this time
I don't have Sund's book, but the video you linked to doesn't explain what intelligence he was missing except to vaguely describe it as "significant intelligence".
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I'm not saying it's certain they're going to go after his law school, but he's in a uniquely vulnerable position right now, with very few allies in a position to help him
I think this concern is highly exaggerated. Trace has visibility on his side, and a longstanding relationship with two prominent journalists who have shown no aversion to controversy. For what it's worth, I'd devote my full legal practice to defending him if he faces any retribution I can do something about.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I don't think the Deep State segment would've have gone any differently if this is the theory that was deployed. A bunch of books claiming the death of a political movement are the norm for any era, and the NPR program you mention appears to be the one responsible for eliminating over 250,000 federal jobs. I would've asked very similar clarifying questions because I don't see how you go between "250k federal jobs eliminated" to "also older workers were replaced by younger democrats" (citation needed) and then to "these new federal employees continued to pursue Democratic Party goals for the next 20 years, including during Bush era" (citation needed) and then "this Clinton era group was particularly activated in opposition to Trump because of fears he'd shuffle LGBTQ and brown people into camps" (citation needed) and so on. This illustrates the benefits of a real time conversation in dissecting these claims.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support.
I keep hearing this repeated as a bare assertion but what's the evidence for this? I'm only aware of the Bowser letter on January 5th that said DC "is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment *without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD". It would be helpful if you proactively cited evidence for your assertions.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
I agree what you propose is much more plausible compared to a widespread cover-up but this illustrates the obvious tension between simplicity of proof and the magnitude of impact. Leeroy Jenkins theory is relatively easy to defend, but one rogue informant is not likely able to motivate a crowd of thousands into doing something they would not have otherwise done.
ymeskhout
9mo ago
Thanks! I too admired Shakesneer's composure against my admittedly aggressive manner, and I can't commend him enough for being open to conversation and scrutiny. He's a friend and someone I genuinely respect as a person and so I don't think this could've taken place had we not already established rapport.
You're not the only one to have criticized the first hour. In the extensive notes I had prepared, I only had 3 perfunctory questions on this topic (who organized the entrapment scheme, why, and how) and I definitely did not expect it to go so long. I really didn't know where the answers were going to go and my questions were primarily motivated with satisfying my own curiosity (the biggest question I had ahead of time is probably why the anti-Trump Deep State would jeopardize Biden's certification vote).
I thought it was important to marinate on this topic because a common pitfall with discussing "conspiracy theories" is when someone tries to straddle both sides of the motte/bailey line and I wanted to nail down some specifics from the get-go. Had Shakes simply said "the FBI has an interest in investigating conservative groups" I probably would've agreed, but with the "J6 entrapment" theory we're not talking about a run-of-the-mill law enforcement endeavor here. If someone is alleging a widespread entrapment scheme that is being intentionally covered up, one of my gut-reactions to determine how plausible this theory is is to sketch out motives and capabilities. This came up elsewhere but "FBI tried to blackmail MLK" is more plausible on its face than "NASA tried to blackmail MLK" because the latter lacks the former's motive and capacity.
I admit I don't understand your meaning of weakman. I tried to sketch out how to define the term a while ago and Julian Sanchez's description seems the most fitting:
I don't see how weakman would fit for TTV unless I'm using them to somehow make a claim about all stolen election allegations. I'm not doing that and I already said that would be an invalid argument.
More options
Context Copy link