CEO Arrested in Capitol Riot Calls It ‘Worst Personal Decision of My Life' | Hacker News Reader

CEO Arrested in Capitol Riot Calls It ‘Worst Personal Decision of My Life'

wsj.com

37 pointsjimmy202053 comments

Paraphrased: “I deeply regret getting caught”.

It’s always the way... they’re sorry about how bad things are for them but not sorry before despite apparently being intelligent enough to run a company.

I genuinely hope he gets 10 years in prison, plenty of time to feel sorry.

Cogensia 100 W. Hillcrest Blvd., Ste. 406 Schaumburg, IL 60195

Anytime you see a Suite number, it’s a pretty small firm.

Confirmed by

https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Customer-Asset...

So basically a glorified department head, if there are less than 50 employees.

Before you pile on too much, remember the employees who are going to be impacted. Someday, it might be a small firm you are working at...

I am a right winger. I don't live in the US but I would've voted for Trump. I have my reasons, I liked a lot of the stuff he's done and I very much disliked other things.

That said. Storming into the capitol is not something that comes out of an "extremely poor judgement". If you have any kind of respect for democracy you don't storm into one of the most important public buildings in the country. There's absolutely no excuse for that, just as you can't kill a person out of an "extremely poor judgement". It's a no-no. It goes beyond any red line you should not cross.

I truly hope everybody who got inside get to be prosecuted for insurrection.

The unfortunate truth: prepare for Trump to pardon a lot of these people.

Trump pardons his inner circle, not the foot soldiers who can't give him anything except for their vote.

He's pardoned a lot of low-level people in an effort incite people. You can look at all of the war criminals as an example.

I bet he'd pardon all of these people just to hear people bitch about it.

You can't pardon someone that hasn't been convicted. Any guilty verdict happening on January 20th or later is out of bounds.

Not true. Carter gave a blanket pardon to all Vietnam draft dodgers, many of whom fled the country before being convicted.

We already seen hundreds of people escaped any consequences for hundreds of similar offences happened earlier this year.

But Trump won't pardon them. It won't be a president to the time of conviction.

But if you are so sure Trump is going to pardon them, let's make a bet?

You don’t have to be convicted of a crime to be pardoned. I’m not even sure you have to be formally charged.

Nixon was pardoned by Ford without being charged. But it was more of a symbolic gesture.

I don’t believe that we have any court cases that speak to that one way or another. It’s only theory right now.

OK, let's bet money on it.

You can only pardon people by name. There will be many more arrests to come after Trump leaves office when the FBI have gone through all the social media posts.

That is 100% not true. In 1868 President Andrew Johnson pardoned all Confederate soldiers. He definitely didn't do it by name.

Didn't Carter blanket-pardon Vietnam deserters without naming them?

"In a statement, Mr. Rukstales said he regretted his participation, saying he exercised “extremely poor judgement” in following others into the Capitol..."

He regrets getting caught. Big difference!

I agree. Honestly I don't grasp the value in such stories except the typical clickbaiting via emotional content.

Putting statements like the one in the article out there as fast as possible can be classified mostly as self preservation, that in itself is natural.

While I do believe that there are people among them that actually finally got a wakeup call and regret their actions, I do not think there is any reason to accept the signaling of regret of an individual person that participated in this as genuine.

> I agree. Honestly I don't grasp the value in such stories except the typical clickbaiting via emotional content.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but this story has some value in disrupting the stereotypes many people probably have about the mob members (e.g. low education/rural people).

> this story has some value in disrupting the stereotypes many people probably have about the mob members (e.g. low education/rural people)

That is a good point actually, thanks for bringing it up.

Go figure: he's the CEO of a marketing company.

He--of all people--might know a thing or two about spinning negative PR.

It's a trespassing charge (on "public" property), not embezzlement or insider trading or any sort of crime that directly benefitted him.

I'm as cynical as it gets but even I can see how easy it is to get swept up in mob mentality.

You too can see it play out in venues as innocuous as Sunday church. Nobody ever knows which hymns to stand up for, but everybody else goes along with it when the first person stands.

>You too can see it play out in venues as innocuous as Sunday church. Nobody ever knows which hymns to stand up for, but everybody else goes along with it when the first person stands.

I see people using such damage-reduction parallels on Twitter and Reddit, but it's strange to see it on HN.

Is this the best comparison you came up with? Trespassing on private property with an armed mob :: standing up for the wrong hymn at a church?

I dont think it is meant as an absolvement of his actions but rather a sensible explanation how certain people cooperated with the crowd without obvious benefit.

That still doesn't hold water. A closer parallel would be breaking into the church with a group of armed people with the intention of disrupting the proceedings.

Standing up for the wrong hymn doesn't necessitate a lawyer-approved 'statement' to the press.

Yeah I mean the key difference is if you get caught up in the actions of a mob of armed insurrectionists, that means you were in a crowd of armed insurrectionists in the first place.

Examples must be made.

He regrets being part of a failed coup attempt planned and executed by halfwits.

Do you believe it was a coup?

I don't think the people that got there would be capable of overthrowing a unstable 3rd world government. Probably not even a small rural town.

You don't have to be successful to have committed a crime, and you definitely don't have to be competent

I'm not denying that they have committed a crime. They did. But a coup requires manpower, military power and very intelligent people behind. They didn't have any of that.

So it was an incompetent coup.

Just because they're incompetent doesn't change the fact that they were illegally invading the capitol, with the hopes of overturning the election (thereby installing their leader into power for 4 more years).

If you look at it that way, yes. But I don't think it was a coup as it wasn't even planned. Maybe some of them actually wanted to get in but I still don't see it as a coup but as insurrection.

> But I don't think it was a coup as it wasn't even planned

What? It just so happened to magically line up when the Senators / Congressmen were tallying the electoral votes? It was a planned march. It happened on the day of the electoral tally for a REASON. This is beyond symbolic: they wanted to overturn the election.

And they still do. The next march is Inauguration day, but this time I think people will be more prepared and better defended against it.

With luck, maybe we can knock enough wind out of their sails and prove to them that this behavior is unacceptable. But this is not the time to feign ignorance or become apologists for their cause.

They are still proud of what they accomplished (!!!). They were harassing Senator Graham just a few hours ago (https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1347616155394043904). (EDIT: Twitter has removed comments. Good move, but it means you aren't seeing the planning that's going on from those crazies anymore)

Now is the time to prepare and defend. They're throwing down the gauntlet for Inauguration day, so we need to defend ourselves and our democracy. (EDIT: DC National Guard is debating M4 rifles or 9mm Berettas. They're taking this threat seriously)

> Maybe some of them actually wanted to get in

They live-streamed themselves getting in and bragged about it on Twitch and Youtube. By their own words they're trying to keep Trump as President.

Wait what? So you don't have any argument against what I said and now you change the subject?

The same senators and congressmen that objected were interrupted from doing so because of the mob. None of the elected officials did anything illegal by objecting. Did they have anything to back their claims? No, but that's another discussion.

I don't see neither how harassing a senator today has anything to do with the other day events. I don't support that just as I don't support the ones who almost beat Sen. Rand Paul.

Any of this makes me become an apologist. I only stated that a coup wasn't the idea behind the Capitol assault.

> Wait what? So you don't have any argument against what I said and now you change the subject?

Take a step back and breath. Lets cover things.

1. You're clearly not seeing the big picture here. Planning for this event has taken place over social media. A large portion of Americans were ignoring thedonald.win, and other websites, but the events on Wednesday means we can no longer ignore these fringe sites.

2. The intent of these trespassers is clear. They're not saying "Some anomalies in some votes", they want Trump to remain president. This is a far more extreme view.

3. They are now harassing Graham because Graham was supposed to support them in the electoral college tally. But Graham changed his tune after the events of Wednesday and is now arguing that the protesters be arrested.

From the perspective of the insurrectionists / would-be coup, Graham has betrayed them and their cause. That's why they're harassing him.

-------

And yes: arguing that they are "not a coup" is the very definition of apologist. You are trying to whitewash their actions by using a weaker word to describe their illegal actions.

My point to you is this: they were not defeated on Wednesday. All that has happened is that they have revealed themselves on the national stage. As we move forward, we need to take them into account in our planning. Calling them for what they are: a coup, a dangerous insurrection mob who wishes to literally take over the country, is the bare minimum.

We need to properly describe the nature of the threat before we can plan against them.

They are a coup. They WILL be back. Hopefully we will be ready next time.

I'm not trying to whitewash anything. I'm saying I don't consider it a coup because it wasn't planned as such. I can plan a move like that with my friends and it wouldn't be a coup.

With a dozen officers they wouldn't have been able to get inside, which is something that blows my mind. Thank god suicide bombers didn't know how easy was to get inside.

> With a dozen officers they wouldn't have been able to get inside

You're grossly understating the manpower needed to beat back the mob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOgGsC0G9U

I'm guessing at this point that you didn't watch any of the livestreams, showing the shear strength of the crowd and their vitriol.

I can't reply to your other comment so I'll leave it here.

I'm pretty well aware of the force they needed to get them out. I said they wouldn't have entered with a dozen officers there, which is completely different. The situation wouldn't have escalated that much. But well, that's only a conjecture.

Anyway, I don't want to keep this discussion going which is basically more about the semantics than the facts.

> I'm pretty well aware of the force they needed to get them out. I said they wouldn't have entered with a dozen officers there, which is completely different. The situation wouldn't have escalated that much.

Apologist:

a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

You're literally trying to defend the honor of the mob right now. At least you're shifting your argument as I present video footage, so you're smarter than most. But yes, you're an apologist at this point. I only hope you're playing "Devil's Advocate" right now in the interest of spurring discussion.

-----

For your actual discussion point:

They killed an officer and injured dozens more. They were taking the barricades and shoving them against officers. 12 cops sitting at the front asking them to be nice would have done jack diddly squat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtPmi4BShNM

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/watch-pro...

These people were willing to steal the riot-shields from the officers stationed there, and then use them to break windows elsewhere. They were scaling the building, attacking from multiple floors simultaneously.

There's more than 12-windows in the US Capitol. They needed tons of officers at every entrance, on the top floor, on the base floor, covering all windows and doors. US Capitol police simply didn't have the resources to defend the building.

All of this would be obvious if you spent 30 minutes looking at a few livestream videos. Seriously: look them up. They're still all over Youtube and Twitch. The mob literally livestreamed themselves invading the Capitol. All this information is out there for you to see yourself.

I'm not calling it a coup because it was not a coordinated attempt to overthrow the government. I'm only trying to be as objective as I can.

Maybe you're the one who should look at more videos. Like this one https://twitter.com/christina_bobb/status/134759627858319769... where you can see how police officers didn't do anything. They opened the doors. All the violence started later. You can also check how 3 German police officers made sure nobody could enter a government building.

Have a good day.

> I'm not calling it a coup because it was not a coordinated attempt to overthrow the government.

* It was __coordinated__ with the Electoral College tally. The size of the mob proves the coordination in of itself, and we have proof of conspiracy on thedonald.win, Twitter, Twitch, Youtube, and more.

* It was aiming to install Trump for another term as President (aka: overthrow the Biden administration before they took office)

Do you disagree with either of the two facts above?

Parent wrote "coup attempt", not "coup". There's a difference.

A coup attempt absolutely, just not a very competent one.

There was no coup attempt by large margin.

Try looking at histories of successful and unsuccessful coup attempts. They require several orders of degree better planning, coordination and execution.

That was just hooligans, not different from hundreds of other riots happened in the US last year.

I'm reminded of a case my civics teacher mentioned. A lady was convicted of felony theft. She walked into a store grabbed a mink coat and tried to run out with it. Not realizing it was chained to a pole.

Appeals court ruled that just because it wasn't possible doesn't mean it's not a crime to attempt.

These guys tried to prevent congress from transferring the presidency from Trump to Biden. That's a coup attempt. Being an idiot isn't an excuse.

OK, sure, technically you are right.

If some drunken man threw a TV out of the windows and shouted let's overthrow the government, that is technically a coup, and a good reason to write about it again and again in social networks and MSM.

Technically you are right. But it would be misleading at best.

Whats the difference between a group of people tresspassing the capitol versus a group of people attempting to overthrow the government? Can your explanation be falsifiable?

Given that it was done as part of a protest against the election results, and at the perceived direction of somebody trying to keep their office, I think a jury could make a reasonable interpretation.

What exactly do you think would have happened to the Congresspeople had they this mob encountered them? The mob sure looked prepared to take some of them into "custody." And some of them clearly had no qualms with beating that Capitol Police officer to death.

Clearly Congresspeople, regardless of party affiliation, were not interested in finding out.

When it was immediately preceded by a rally in which an ousted president ranted about how the election was stolen and they should march on the Capitol and prevent the election results from being certified.

He regretted going into the Capitol not getting caught.

So let me get this straight. Weeks of protests which started against racism and police brutality but in many places degenerated into mass looting and burning of whole buildings (often in both cases having no connection to perpetrators of violence against minorities) gets swept under the rug as justified social anger and legitimate social protest (not to mention the medical community performing clinical contortions to keep itself on the woke side of things despite its previous criticisms of those who were irresponsible in not socially distancing in public) But this bunch of people deserve lengthy prison sentences, all the hate that can be tossed on them and every nasty thought it's possible to generate?

Talk about absurd double standards. No fan of Trump and these protestors strike me as idiotic, but if you're going to hate on them this much, it's worth analyzing why other fairly recent protests somehow deserved a free pass because of their supposed social justice credentials...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com