site banner
ymeskhout  10mo ago (text post)   2989 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E035: Ray Epps Does Jay Six

Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.

In this episode, we talk about the deep state, J6, and Ray Epps.

Participants: Yassine, Shakesneer.

Links:

Jack Posobiec's Pipe Bomb Allegation (Twitter)

Pipe Bombs in Washington DC (FBI)

Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol (Revolver)

Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign (DOJ)

'I started a riot for the sitting president': Why Ali Alexander won't go to jail for his role in Jan. 6 (Raw Story)

J6 Select Committee Interview of Ray Epps

Ray Epps Defense Sentencing Memo (Courtlistener)

Proud Boys Sentencing Memos (Courtlistener)

Wishing For Entrapment (Yassine Meskhout)

Recorded 2024-01-19 | Uploaded 2024-01-22

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A few points that I think are salient to the issues presented, but I don't think were appropriately discussed.

  1. The FBI, prior to J6 had many directives to investigate conservative orgs. There really was no rational and reasonable reason to be doing this, so it is very strong evidence (alongside the cornucopia of evidence discussed here) that there is serious anti-conservative bias at that organization, which obviously is a key cog in the "deep state" as defined in the discussion.

  2. Yassine didn't think entering the Capitol Building/encouraging that was all that dispositive, and I don't think this was pushed back against enough. Entering the Capitol IS why J6 is "JANUARY SIXTH". If no one enters the building its a boring protest outside the Capitol that has no political value to Democrats at all.

  3. More buttressing of the problems with J6 is how, if there is no inside job, its just a demonstration of outright incompetency. I will describe a generic building to you: Large masonry structure, at the top of a hill, with armed guards. What have I described? A fort. Julius Caesar could have held the Capitol building against the J6 crowd with 8 men in sandals equipped with no more than some sticks and a few shields. An the Capitol police lose it with dozens of times that manpower? That is, indeed, suspicious.

  4. Also, chronically under-discussed is how incredibly valuable "JANUARY SIXTH" has been to Democrats. Not only has it been an excuse to prosecute thousands of conservatives in connection to it, not only has it been an excuse to prosecute an opposition candidate for the office of the President, but its been nearly their only political argument for 3 years now. Without J6 they have nothing. That protesters were allowed into the Capitol has resulted in the largest political victory for either party in my lifetime. And that really should mean something to anyone discussing the events of that day.

That protesters were allowed into the Capitol has resulted in the largest political victory for either party in my lifetime. And that really should mean something to anyone discussing the events of that day.

The problem is that says too much. Under this metric any action that gives ammunition to one side of the other is suspect. Increased immigration at the border is an opportunity for Trump to use against Biden, does that mean Trump is secretly funding caravans in Mexico? Did Democrats organize Trump getting enough SCOTUS seats so they would overturn Roe V Wade and thus bring abortion back on the table to energize their base?

In other words there are so many things that happen that look bad for one side or the other that you have to have something other than that to be useful for this determination. The fact it can be used as ammunition tells you nothing about whether it was manufactured or simply a mistake that was then exploited.

To consider, what would look different in a world where J6 was a frame and a world where it was not? From a media and attacking Trump point of view, I would contend nothing. The media would jump on it either way, his opponents would jump on it either way. So those actions after the fact don't give you any actual information about whether it was an inside job or not.

I don't really have any quibbles with any of your points, I'm just saying its something that needs to be on the table. Particularly when paired with the testimony from the head of the Capitol Police who, essentially, said he was sabotaged by Pelosi, McConnell, the DOD, and the FBI.

Under this metric any action that gives ammunition to one side of the other is suspect.

Yes! It is! Not that everything is a false flag, obviously many things are not, but it is absolutely worth taking a look at things that are incredibly powerful ammunition through the lens of whether the side benefitting did anything to tip the scales in favor of the thing that would help them massively. To look at your immigration example, I certainly do see Democrats alleging that Republicans are happy to have it this way because it makes for a powerful campaign issue. Whether they're right or wrong, I don't think they're wrong to at least raise the point.

Sure, Republicans may be happy to have immigration as a campaign issue, but that doesn't mean its evidence they are creating the problem, rather than just taking advantage of it.

Absent some evidence of them creating the problem, its just conspiratorial thinking.

I would love it if you were willing to record a Bailey episode! You and I had many disagreements over the years so there's plenty of topics to pick from.

Just so everyone is aware of the process behind the curtains:

  • I'm the one who ends up editing the final cut, but it's to get rid of ums, silences, or (rarely) dead-end discussions that didn't go anywhere. Everyone ever involved in an episode has always had full access to the raw audio files, and I've always made sure they get a chance to listen to the final cut and offer feedback/suggestions before it's posted publicly. Sometimes we've even re-recorded or added passages. Thus far no one has ever claimed that I selectively or misleadingly edited their statements.
  • Before any episode, I ask everyone to post links/articles that they think everyone should be familiar with before a discussion. If it's bound to be particularly contentious conversation, I make sure that everyone has reviewed ahead of time what will be cited in recording. The goal here is to avoid the very boring "my studies are better than your studies" duels that are very common in mainstream debate, and also to allow people to research the sources ahead of time instead of getting ambushed off-guard.
  • I've also accommodated requests to mask/modify voices, including that time we hired a Nigerian voice actress to redub the whole track.

Regarding your points:

  1. I'm not very familiar with this point but it would've been relevant to bring up. I then would have been curious to see whether the targeted conservative orgs had any other common elements besides just being conservative. If not, then it would indeed be strong evidence of a serious anti-conservative bias from the FBI.
  2. It is of no relevance to me whether something has political value to Democrats. I don't think someone entering the Capitol and peacefully wandering around is a big deal, I only care to the extent someone engaged in violence or somehow actually meaningfully obstructed the proceedings that day. If someone disagrees and wants to be hyperbolic about it and compare wandering around to Pearl Harbor or whatever, it's on that person to defend that position.
  3. I agree there was definitely incompetence involved. The Caesar comparison is odd because he wouldn't be telling his men to rely on non-lethal weaponry in their defense of the fort. Capitol Police have used their M4s to hold off the crowd if no one cared about the ensuing massacre.
  4. This would have been interesting to dissect, because it would illustrate the underlying assumptions in play. On my end, as someone who largely accepts the mainstream J6 narrative, there's nothing particularly interesting about "members of a political movement have humiliated themselves by their own actions, and their opponents are benefiting from this." I suppose the "J6 has been valuable to Democrats" discussion would have more salience if you already accept that J6 was an inside job, but we didn't get there.

Regarding a podcast, I would be wiling to do one, but it would probably not be on this topic, which I am not passionate about. That being Ray Epps status as a fed or no.

Regarding the specific subsections my points would be:

  1. The Whitmer case presents a prima facie case that needs to be rebutted by an equally ridiculous prosecution of left wingers to rebut. See also, the abortion cases (protesters at clinics vs. at pro life clinic protesters). Until the FBI entraps lefties by conjuring a kidnapping plot out of whole cloth of a Republican governor you will never satisfy the level of scrutiny you asked for in this interview.

  2. The value to Democrats is literally the whole game. If you dont care about this point you don't care about the most important thing.

  3. I am simply saying that it was trivial to prevent J6 from being "a thing". So the fact that it is "a thing" is odd.

  4. I did not want to invoke this because its silly, but the best analogy of J6 is the Reichstag fire. Maybe it was Commies, maybe it was Nazis. But we know who it benefited. And in many ways it is worse. There is testimony on the record from the former chief of the Capitol police being denied backup.

Do I think a podcast would be beneficial? Maybe. It would take an exorbitant amount of time to assemble the sources, of course, because they are mostly suppressed by search engines. So, it would only really be of benefit to talk about things where you don't stipulate to facts if you have some unpaid interns that can go out and get the transcripts from testimony and bookmark them for us. Otherwise I am going to be saying things and you will be asking for citations that are onerously burdensome to provide.

  1. This is a recurring dynamic with these conversations that I've referred to as "pulling a Kendi". I would hope that it's obvious that you can't just point to disparate treatment and herald it as proof of discrimination. A recent example is how the Seattle subway changed how it enforces fare evasion because it decried the old system as racist because blacks received a disproportionate number of citations. Is it proof that the fare enforcement was racist? Maybe! But of course none of the reporting I came across even entertained the idea that it could also be because black people evaded fares more often. Similarly, maybe the FBI intentionally targets conservative groups for prosecution...or maybe lefties are less likely to hatch kidnapping plots, or maybe they're more suspicious of FBI infiltration, or maybe they're more likely to cover up their tracks, or maybe it's for some other reason.
  2. I admit I don't know what this means. As best as I can guess, it seems to mirror your point about J6 being valuable to Democrats.
  3. Capitol police unloading assault rifles on a crowd doesn't sound "trivial". I also don't know what they could've done differently in protecting entrances like the one in the tunnel.
  4. Again, if a political movement does something humiliating, it's going to benefit their political opponents. That's just standard cause & effect, it's not evidence that the opponents somehow marionetted the movement into humiliating themselves. If we adopt your logic, where does it stop? Did Republicans cause Bill Clinton to get a blowjob from an intern?

Quibble: disparate treatment is not only evidence of discrimination, it is discrimination. Disparate treatment of similarly situated individuals without sufficient justification is the literal definition of illegal discrimination. "Pulling a Kendi" would be saying disparate impact alone is evidence of discrimination. I.E., any differences in group outcome must be the product of discrimination.

You're right, I was not sufficiently precise with my language.

Similarly, maybe the FBI intentionally targets conservative groups for prosecution...or maybe lefties are less likely to hatch kidnapping plots, or maybe they're more suspicious of FBI infiltration, or maybe they're more likely to cover up their tracks, or maybe it's for some other reason.

Sure, give me a set of plausible reasons equivalent to IQ and criminality. Or even close? Leftist protests are routinely more violent. Leftists have higher rates of mental illness. There are well respected leftists that participated in bombings of government buildings. Its an odd idea to think there is an innocent explanation.

I admit I don't know what this means. As best as I can guess, it seems to mirror your point about J6 being valuable to Democrats

Entering the Capitol building is why J6 is anything, right. You can agree to this idea. Correct? Democrats only can make hay out of the event because of this. Thus, why that happened is really important when discussing the event.

Capitol police unloading assault rifles on a crowd doesn't sound "trivial". I also don't know what they could've done differently in protecting entrances like the one in the tunnel.

Like I said. 8 guys in sandals with sticks led by the proper man would have stopped J6. That entrance was a bit of a weak point. Should have simply been locked and barricaded beforehand. It provided no strategic value. Capitol police were also deployed to indefensible positions like the aluminum barricades that were deployed around the top level. Even without a riot most of those positions would have been overrun because that is not what those are even for. They are for directing the flow of very orderly people waiting to get onto a ride at Six Flags. The response time of the national guard was also delayed by over 6 hours because of the speaker's office. Its a series of very bad screw ups.

But you also make my point for me I think. Had the Capitol Police simply massacred all of the J6 protestors who wins? Traditionally, in American politics, losers win. This is bad. But it is known.

Sure, give me a set of plausible reasons equivalent to IQ and criminality. Or even close? Leftist protests are routinely more violent. Leftists have higher rates of mental illness.

Sure, assuming arguendo that conservatives are targeted/prosecuted more than leftists with these types of infiltration. I don't think there's any dispute that conservatives are less likely to have gone to college, which can correlate with intelligence. There's also a sizeable portion of the conservative movement that is selected on gullibility based on how many believe in delusional worldviews like QAnon (and related/overlapping 2020 stolen election machinations). The specific delusions this demographic is susceptible to includes an element that makes them believe they're doing the right/lawful thing, as is evident by how many J6 rioters who earnestly believed the use of force was justified to keep Trump in power. Dumb gullible people who believe they're doing the right thing are much easier to hoodwink.

Entering the Capitol building is why J6 is anything, right. You can agree to this idea. Correct?

No, not on its own. The reason I believe it's a thing is the number of people involved, their intent to obstruct especially critical government proceedings, and the level of violence directed towards that end. The protestors would not have been able to enter the Capitol had they not had the numbers, the motivation, and the willingness to get violent. Had the Capitol been open that day and J6 protestors entered and acted peacefully, there's no reason it would've have been a thing.

The protestors would not have been able to enter the Capitol had they not had the numbers, the motivation, and the willingness to get violent.

See here's a key point of disagreement. On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support. Then Capital Police security was running at half their usual numbers, "due to covid messures". Then they started getting agressive with the protestors at the front. Then the line broke because Capital Police fired tear gas upwind and gassed their own lines.

If security had been run in a normal fashion then no one would have entered the capital.

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.

The former Chief of Capitol Police testified to Congress on this point.

https://cha.house.gov/2023/9/top-takeaways-from-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-on-january-6-security-failures

He makes fairly explosive allegations, including that he requested additional deployment of Capitol Police and the National Guard before J6 that was denied (request made Jan 3); that there was intelligence from other federal agencies about the potential for a riot that was not shared until after J6 (his deputy that he alleges was briefed and never reported to him, suspiciously was promoted to his position after he was forced to resign); that he asked, on the day of J6 for the National Guard to respond both before the riot broke, before the building was breached, and after, and this was not approved (he alleges he made 32 calls to congressional leadership, particularly the House Sergeant at Arms, who at the time reported directly to Nancy Pelosi requesting National Guard Backup, all denied or not responded to) . At one point he stated that off duty police from New Jersey arrived before the National Guard (which he alleges only showed up for, essentially, a photo op). He said he was not informed ahead of time that there were informants for other agencies at the Capitol, of which he confirms there was at least one.

Also he stated he was not allowed to publicly testify for the J6 committee, which he requested after the private session, which he also then claims that leaks mischaracterized his testimony.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?530535-1/capitol-police-chief-testifies-january-6-security-failures

It seems quite clear that there was a lack of interest in keeping the Capitol Building safe on that day from a lot of parties. And again, cui bono? The same people who had no interest in protecting the Capitol!

More comments

No, not on its own. The reason I believe it's a thing is the number of people involved, their intent to obstruct especially critical government proceedings, and the level of violence directed towards that end. The protestors would not have been able to enter the Capitol had they not had the numbers, the motivation, and the willingness to get violent. Had the Capitol been open that day and J6 protestors entered and acted peacefully, there's no reason it would've have been a thing.

This appears to be a huge point of disagreement IMO. I think that the J6 protestors entering the Capitol is very key to the depiction of the events. Without them entering the building, I think there is no rhetorical leg to stand on for the "insurrection" narrative.

Moreover, I don't think there was any violence necessary for them to enter the building, even though it was ostensibly closed. Indeed, it was on the lower ends of violence when we are talking about large groups that turn into a riot. IMO, given the incompetence at defending the building, no violence at all was needed for the J6 crowd to eventually end up in the Capitol, and had that happened with it being technically closed, the mainstream narrative would have remained the same. Most of the people in the Capitol were nonviolent after all, and still given misdemeanors, when a civil charge is probably more appropriate.

Had the Capitol been open there would still be great consternation, but I suppose there would be no leg to stand on in prosecuting them. But that strikes me as too wild of a hypothetical to really muse on.

I’ve long maintained there is no J6 if the people’s house was open to the people. Sure, they get loud in the rafters. But that’s basically it.

Fun quote from the Congressional Globe (precursor to the Congressional Record) for December 6, 1860 (after Lincoln's election but before his inauguration):

Mr. Garnett: I rise to a question of order. I trust that, in consideration of the great importance of the deliberations of this House, the Chair will, at the very commencement, stop applause, whether on the floor or in the galleries. I give notice that I shall move that the galleries be cleared, if applause is received. [Hisses from the galleries.] They hiss me; and I now move, as a measure of self-respect, that the galleries be cleared; and that these disgraceful blackguards, who are violating the rules of the House and the decorum and respect due to the Representatives of this Confederacy, be expelled from the galleries of the House. [Renewed hisses from the galleries.]

Mr. Lamar: I hope my friend from Virginia will not insist on his motion. It is utterly impossible to suppress hissing here, for it was even heard in Eden. [Laughter and applause.]

The Speaker: The Chair desires to state that order must be observed in the galleries, or they will be cleared. I have no doubt that this suggestion will be sufficient to the respectable auditory in the galleries. It is wrong that there should be any manifestation one way or the other, and I hope this notice will be sufficient. If not, I shall feel constrained to order the galleries to be cleared.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats