[Tom Bishop]

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there. Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building. Claiming that it's not Joe Biden's problem is a ridiculous excuse making. So Joe Biden, the incoming president, sat around for hours watching the Capitol of the nation being invaded and he did nothing? By your very logic of Trump being an insurrectionist for calling for it to end at the time he did, Joe Biden is an insurrectionist for waiting around to call for it to end.

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

What you posted just says that someone wanted to alert the Guard. Yet the guard wasn't deployed until 5:08 PM:

05:08 PM   Natl. Guard Cmdr. Gen. William Walker   receives deployment order                                    

By your logic the everyone who failed to alert the National Guard are also insurrectionists, including Mike Pence who didn't ask for the National Guard until 4:30. Where was everyone the hours prior while the capitol was being invaded according to you?

Not discredited yet. She was under oath. When the SS guys go under oath with the threat of perjury, that’s when you get to claim that.

Wrong. The Secret Service doesn't have to be under oath to make a statement. They said that the story was false. They also said that the Jan 6 Committee didn't even bother reaching out to them to confirm the story.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/29/jan-6-hutchinson-secret-service-00043164

[honk]

Wrong. The Secret Service doesn't have to be under oath to make a statement. They said that the story was false.

That's not true and you know it. A few anonymous sources have claimed to the media that the agents involved are prepared to deny the story, but the agents themselves have notably not done so, and the Secret Service certainly hasn't made any kind of official statement on the matter.

[Tom Bishop]

The source claiming that secret service are available to testify on this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542115347561603072?s=20&t=tPDFt0-iM-PcUveojFWq5A

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

[Rama Set]

The source claiming this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

Well, indirectly, since it is directly from Peter Alexander.

[honk]

The source claiming that secret service will testify this is not anonymous. It comes directly from the Secret Service spokesperson and chief of communications, Anthony Gugliemi.

https://twitter.com/PeterAlexander/status/1542120825960251392?s=20&t=zG0JOCMROsX4QI-xJAkNbQ

Read that tweet again, and then read the one above it. They're saying two different things. One is from Gugliemi saying that the agents are prepared to testify. The other is "a source close to the Secret Service" saying that the two agents dispute Trump grabbing the steering wheel or assaulting one of them.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, he was asked about their denial and indicated that they were willing to testify under oath about it. The Secret Service is not disputing their claims and is apparently backing them. The Telegraph also indicates the same thing here:

The Telegraph - https://archive.ph/HHG6D#selection-1331.1-1335.138

Secret Service agents to testify in Donald Trump’s favour against ‘fraudulent’ Cassidy Hutchinson assault claim

The two men will swear under oath that former president did not attack them when they refused to let him travel to scene of Capitol riots

Two US Secret Service Agents are prepared to testify under oath that Donald Trump did not lunge at their throats and attempt to grab the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when they refused to let him go to the Capitol on January 6.

The astonishing claims were made on Tuesday at the Capitol riots hearing by Cassidy Hutchinson, a little-known former White House aide, who described an angry, defiant president trying to let armed protesters past security screenings at a rally that morning to protest against his 2020 election defeat.

But that version of events is now under dispute.

Bobby Engel, the agent who was driving “The Beast”, and security official Tony Ornato have reportedly admitted that the president was irate and demanded they drive towards the Capitol building to join his supporters.

Anthony Gugliemi, a Secret Service spokesman, told NBC that the agents who were in Mr Trump’s presidential SUV were “available to testify under oath, responding to Hutchinson’s new allegations.”

In blockbuster testimony, Ms Hutchinson told the Congressional Committee set up to investigate the events on January 6 that Mr Trump said: "I'm the effing president, take me up to the Capitol now."

“Bobby responded: ‘Sir, we have to go back to the West Wing’,” she said.

“The president reached up towards the front of the vehicle to grab at the steering wheel. Mr Engel grabbed his arm, and said ‘sir you need to take your hand off the steering wheel - we’re going back to the West Wing, we’re not going to the Capitol.’

“Mr Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel and when Mr Ornato recounted this story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles.”
However, both men deny that he grabbed the steering wheel or attempted to assault them, according to sources cited by local media.

Responding to the claims, Mr Trump said: “Her fake story that I tried to grab the steering wheel of the White House limousine in order to steer it to the Capitol Building is ‘sick’ and fraudulent.”

In a statement, the Secret Service said it was cooperating fully with the committee and would continue to do so.

“We learned of the new information shared at today’s hearing and plan on responding formally and on the record as soon as they can accommodate us,” it added.

Clearly, the Secret Service seems to be backing the positions of the secret service agents denying the story. They could have cleared it up for us if they were not, but they are.

[Tom Bishop]

For the main claim, Metro says that NBC and the New York Times cited sources in the Secret Service. That's not an anonymous claim.

https://metro.co.uk/2022/06/29/donald-trump-tried-to-grab-steering-wheel-and-join-us-capitol-riots-16911924/

[honk]

We seem to be going in circles here. Gugliemi said that the agents were willing to testify in response to the story, not that the story was false. These two things are objectively not the same. I really can't put it any more simply than that. I also think that Gugliemi is being very careful with his words to avoid outright claiming that the story is false, which leads me to believe that the situation is more complicated from the Secret Service's perspective than it would be if the story were simply false.

For the main claim, Metro says that NBC and the New York Times cited sources in the Secret Service. That's not an anonymous claim.

Yes, it is. That is quite literally an anonymous claim.

[Tom Bishop]

Yes, it is. That is quite literally an anonymous claim.

Incorrect. If a newspaper says that "sources said" then it's anonymous. If they specify that their source in the Secret Service said it, then it's not totally anonymous. They are indicating that it's a source in the Secret Service. It's not a source which is "lacking individuality, distinction, or recognizability" according to that definition, since there is distinction and recognizability. Nor is is a source which is "not named or identified", since they are identified to a degree. They are indicating that the Secret Service said this and it's not left to the imagination that it might be from a random guy who works for Taco Bell.

Journalists.org says that an anonymous source is someone who the journalist doesn't know the identification of -

https://ethics.journalists.org/topics/confidential-sources/

Often among journalists and especially among our critics, the term for sources we don’t name is “anonymous sources,” or we explain in a story that the source requested “anonymity.” But this term can be misleading or even inaccurate in ways that undercut the news organization’s credibility. The truth is that few, if any, news stories ever actually use any information from truly anonymous sources: people whose identities are unknown to the journalists or the news organization.

Truly anonymous sources would be people who call us on the telephone with tips and refuse to give their names, anonymous commenters on our websites or someone contacting us through email or social media (or even in person) who refuse to identify themselves to us. Journalists get valuable tips in these ways but shouldn’t publish anything based on these sources. If you publish a story at all, you should use the tip as a starting point and find sources you trust — whether they will go on the record or not — on which to base a story.

They explain that it's called a confidential or "unnamed source" -

This may appear a matter of semantics, but anything involving unnamed sources affects the credibility of your stories. And every tiny step you can take to assure the reader or viewer that you have tried to use reliable sources is important. Using terms such as “confidential” sources probably doesn’t build much confidence, but the word “anonymous” or “anonymity” can hurt your credibility, and isn’t accurate from your standpoint. So consider avoiding those terms.

Journalists using unnamed sources usually know the sources well. If they are not sources you have used before, you should question them extensively about how they know what they are telling you and why they can’t go on the record. You might research their credentials to judge their veracity. Because of your pledge of confidentiality, you generally can’t vet sources by asking others about their credibility, but sometimes a confidential source can put you in touch with a trusted contact of yours who can vouch for her credibility.

So again, it's not an anonymous source.

[Lord Dave]

I thought the claim was that Trump "Attempted" to grab the steering wheel(and failed).
Which is true in that tweet, which claims the Secret Service says he didn't grab it, not that he didn't try.

So whats the problem?

[stack]

CNBC clearly depicts both Joe Biden and Trump issuing their statements almost simultaneously in response to people freely roaming the interior of the building. By your logic Joe Biden was also pro-insurrection.

For one, it was the POTUS’ rally and mob, not Biden’s. Like the mob would listen to the one person who they thought stole the election and the whole reason why they were there. Ludicrous logic on your part.
For two, by my logic it took the president elect to prompt DJT to actually do something. Sad that it had to come to that

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building. Claiming that it's not Joe Biden's problem is a ridiculous excuse making.

I never said "it wasn't his problem." However, Biden certainly didn't create the problem.

So Joe Biden, the incoming president, sat around for hours watching the Capitol of the nation being invaded and he did nothing? By your very logic of Trump being an insurrectionist for calling for it to end at the time he did, Joe Biden is an insurrectionist for waiting around to call for it to end.

Umm, I think you forgot what Jan 6 was all about. It started with an all-star Trumpian rally billed as "Stop the Steal". And the rally was all about how Biden was an illegitimate president. How they all, with Mike Pence's help, could interrupt the proceedings scheduled at the Capitol that day and have the electoral votes sent back to the States for false electors to recast votes for Trump. You know, full-on anti-Biden. So what message could Biden have said to a mob that was expressly there to stop him from becoming President? "Hey everyone, I know you're all here to prevent me from becoming President and you think I stole the election, but could you please just stop what you're doing and chill out..."

So Biden comes out with a message after Trump has done nothing for hours after the breach and posts a President Elect video message imploring Trump to put a stop to it all because he was the only one who could. But had thus far refused to do anything.

Biden's message:

"I call on President Trump to go on national television now, to fulfill his oath and defend the Constitution and demand an end to this siege. This is not a protest — it is an insurrection," Biden says."

He was asking him to finally do something. Because only DJT had sway over the mob. No one else. Yet DJT was doing nothing to stop it, only encouraging it.

Incorrect. From the timeline you posted, minutes even before Trump ended his speech:

01:09 PM   Capitol Police chief to House & Senate Sergeant at Arms; wants emergency declaration & call in the Guard
01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

Trumps video was still 2.5 hours away.

What you posted just says that someone wanted to alert the Guard. Yet the guard wasn't deployed until 5:08 PM:

05:08 PM   Natl. Guard Cmdr. Gen. William Walker   receives deployment order   

You initially said Trump called in the Guard. He didn't. What is it about this sentence you don't understand - Someone just "wanted" the Guard? No they made a call to get the Guard, not just wanting them to show up at their leisure:

"01:49 PM   Capitol Police chief makes "frantic" call to Maj. Gen. Walker for Guard citing "dire emergency"

A request was made to call in the guard to Maj. Gen. Walker, the guy responsible for ordering the Guard. It's not like you can dial a 1-800 number to call in the Guard. You call Maj. Gen. Walker. Capitol Police Chief did so at 1:49.

Why the Guard didn't receive deployment orders until later is neither here nor there. The fact of the matter, a "frantic" call was made to call in the Guard because of a "dire emergency".
                        

By your logic the everyone who failed to alert the National Guard are also insurrectionists, including Mike Pence who didn't ask for the National Guard until 4:30. Where was everyone the hours prior while the capitol was being invaded according to you?

No, not my logic at all. The Capitol Police Chief first called for the Guard at 1:49. Pence was hunkered down in hiding with his family, probably a little busy at the time, you know, fearing that the mob may string him up. Not to mention Meadows freaked out about Pence calling the Guard saying to DJT that they shouldn't take it like Pence is calling the shots. There's a direct quote on this fact.

Who else should have called in the Guard? The only person I can think of is DJT. And he didn't.

[Lord Dave]

Biden could have stopped the crowd.  All he'd have to do is declare Trump the winner and himself a cheater who would stand, unarmed and unprotected, at the Washington Monument.  They'd have left the building to kill him instead.

Probably.

[AATW]

Actually, it's not Trump's Capitol building.

No, it was Trump's angry mob. Why do you keep ignoring that?

[AATW]

And if you're talking about what I think you're talking about then my complaint is merely the apparent lack of effort to get aligned.

What I'm talking about is your desperate attempts to artificially legitimise your complaints about people you disagree with.

Holy shit, you do like a bit of hyperbole.

If they're aligned, that's bad - how dare they think the same thing while claiming they're free thinkers.

Not bad, ironic.
It's like raiaaain on your wedding day [which isn't ironic, Alanis. Well, unless you're a meteorologist and you carefully planned your wedding on a date and in a location to minimise the chances of rain...and then it rains..

If they're not aligned - how dare they not have aligned themselves in their free-thinking; clearly they should have done that so I can complain about how aligned they are.

Again, it's not the lack of alignment, it's the lack of effort to become aligned. I literally explained that in the post you're replying to.

That, of course, is combined with the fact that what's "apparent" to you is severely limited by you never looking in the first place. Not many things are apparent to the blindfolded.

Where should I look? You famously refuse to show your workings, document your methods and results - I have asked to see all this and you explicitly told me that these conversations go on in places I'm not allowed to see and won't be allowed to. And now you're saying I'm not looking?

It would be a better look if you were honest about it. You don't like what these people are thinking. And hey, neither do I. But there's nothing more to it than that.

I don't like people who jump on every conspiracy theory going, who pride themselves on being a "free thinker" and call people who believe the more mainstream view "sheeple". So I'm a sheep because I "blindly believe" the mainstream narrative (which I don't, but neither do I blindly disbelieve it like they do). But you're* the independent thinker because you blindly believe some bloke on YouTube who by complete coincidence spouts stuff which confirms your worldview. And yeah, I do find it ironic that most of them end up believing the same stuff.
*the you there isn't you personally, it's my imagined rant at the sort of person I'm talking about.

[Tumeni]

Although this is clearly biased, a more detailed timeline is here, with the video in bold:

WHY is it "clearly biased" ?

So Trump waited around to tell the protestors to leave, but Joe Biden didn't wait around to call for it to end?

Which one of them was Commander-in-Chief at the time, and which was not? Biden was merely President-elect at the time, wasn't he? Who was the actual President?

[Pete Svarrior]

Where should I look?

I didn't say you should look, or even that you can do so easily - merely that you have no knowledge by which to make your judgements.

These communities are quite hermetic, and it is "apparent" that you've "made no effort" to join them. Quelle fucking surprise you don't get to see their efforts or any degree of nuance. This is no different from MRAs concluding that "all feminists think this or that and they want to destroy men" in how fundamentally flawed it is.

I don't like people who jump on every conspiracy theory going, who pride themselves on being a "free thinker" and call people who believe the more mainstream view "sheeple". So I'm a sheep because I "blindly believe" the mainstream narrative (which I don't, but neither do I blindly disbelieve it like they do). But you're* the independent thinker because you blindly believe some bloke on YouTube who by complete coincidence spouts stuff which confirms your worldview. And yeah, I do find it ironic that most of them end up believing the same stuff.

There we go! Yes, that's how I thought you were feeling, but it's much easier to swallow when you don't wrap it around in layers and layers of complaints about "alignment".

The only issue remaining is that, again, you ignore the conspiracy-minded people who don't align with others of the same persuasion (and I'm not only talking about FE here). The conspiracy theorists' sphere (ohoho!) is much broader than you think, although it might not look so if the only visibility you get of them is from Twitter and tabloids.

[AATW]

These communities are quite hermetic, and it is "apparent" that you've "made no effort" to join them.

Is there a password? I've asked to. I've suggested you should probably allow friendlier RE people in to avoid them becoming an echo chamber. (Whether you think I am one of those is beside the point). It was a pretty hard no, I don't know what other effort I could make. My only proxy for the progress being made is updates to the Wiki and there don't seem to have been fundamental changes to that since I've been here.

The only issue remaining is that, again, you ignore the conspiracy-minded people who don't align with others of the same persuasion

Well ok, I was generalising a bit. But I tell you one thing, I bet almost all the anti-vaxxers would trot out the same tripe about "doing their own research" and "thinking independently".
They would certainly all rail against the "mainstream media". They conflate a healthy distrust of the mainstream with a belief that everything the mainstream says is a lie, which is demonstrably bollocks.

And it's stuff like that which leads you to Trump. The particularly dangerous thing about him is the way he managed to persuade so many people that it was the mainstream media lying to people and not him. When you manage to do that - discredit the very people who are supposed to hold you to account - then you can basically do and say what you like and people will believe it. Anything in the media calling out the lies - well, they're part of it. I like to think things are better here but we still have a complete shit-show in Number 10 and the people around him. All rather amusingly but depressingly summed up by this Tweet



What a mess...

[Pete Svarrior]

It was a pretty hard no, I don't know what other effort I could make.

I don't know how many times I need to respond to your "BUT FE!!!!" posts clarifying that I'm not exclusively talking about FE before it lands, but here it is once again for you.

As for you being a "friendly" anti-conspiracist: there are different levels of that. You're just barely "friendly" enough not to get repeatedly banned from the most public FE forum out there. You know, the one repeatedly accused of being CIA shills by some of the more hardcore conspiracists. You're complaining to the wrong people: we're not the gatekeepers of such communities, especially bearing in mind that we're predominantly talking about something other than FE (I swear to God™, if you reply with "BUT FE BAD!!!!!"...)

Well ok, I was generalising a bit. But I tell you one thing, I bet almost all the anti-vaxxers would trot out the same tripe about "doing their own research" and "thinking independently".

You're flipping the script on its head. Your argument so far was that all people who do their own research reach the same conclusions, and that that's a bad thing (except when they don't reach the same conclusions, in which case that's a bad thing too). However, your argument now is the other way around - that all people who reached the conclusions you dislike claim to have done their own research. Basic formal logic tells us one does not imply the other.

Could you at least settle on what it is you're actually trying to bash here? You're getting pretty close to covering all of humanity with your description.

And it's stuff like that which leads you to Trump. The particularly dangerous thing about him is the way he managed to persuade so many people that it was the mainstream media lying to people and not him.

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement. If you think it's Trump's fault for capitalising on it, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[BillO]

The MSM lie about everything, all the time. This is not a controversial statement.

Just a passing comment here Pete.  I would go as far as saying ALL media lie about everything, all the time.  That's not  paranoia or believing there is some weird conspiracy either.  Media needs to do what's best for media and there is nothing they won't do to improve their audience.  They have a vested interest in keeping the lights on and paying their way.  To do that they decide on a target audience and "tailor" the "news" to suit.

[Pete Svarrior]

Just a passing comment here Pete.  I would go as far as saying ALL media lie about everything, all the time.  That's not  paranoia or believing there is some weird conspiracy either.  Media needs to do what's best for media and there is nothing they won't do to improve their audience.  They have a vested interest in keeping the lights on and paying their way.  To do that they decide on a target audience and "tailor" the "news" to suit.

Yup, I reckon we're on the same page here.