What logical fallacy is this concerning Jan 6th?

What about the claim that it was all staged? Is there a fallacy there?
https://odysee.com/@True_World:f/Capitol-actor-fake-shooting---paid-actors---flase-flag---Jan-6-2021---fake-strelba-v-kapitolu:8

Probably the conspiracy theory fallacy, driven the denial biases that are attached to identity and tribalism. 

I watched the intro to get a feel for the types of arguments they were making, and most of what I saw were what I'd consider non sequitur . Some piece of evidence was presented, and it being staged wasn't the only explanation, nor the most logical one in many cases. For instance: there were hundreds of professional photographers on site. The weeks of buildup to the event attracted a lot of journalists, and it's pretty common for hobbyist photographers to have similar cameras to pros.

The other I saw was appeal to false authority . Attendees on site claimed the event was staged, but provided weak reasoning as to why they thought so, like the blood looked fake. We're expected to believe them just because they were there. But, considering that the event drew people who were already prone to believing conspiracy theories and pro-Trump narratives, it seems their opinion was neither informed nor objective.

And currently there are over 1000 "actors" who have criminal records or are in prison for their "acting job." Talk about a bum gig :)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

P1) That mob on Jan 6th couldn't have been MAGA [supporters].

P2) If that mob really wanted to burn the capitol down, they would have destroyed the whole damn thing [but they did not].

Implicit P) MAGA supporters would have burned down the Capitol building.

C) Therefore, it couldn't have been MAGA [supporters].
 

Dr Bennett, I think you answered the question too quickly.   I agree that this is not a coherent argument, but it is not a non-sequitur.   A non sequitur is where the Conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.  Here, the Conclusion follows from P1.  In fact, it merely repeats P1.   An argument in which the conclusion repeats a premise is a tautology—always valid.  

Such an argument, however, though always valid, is nonetheless a trivial argument.  For that reason, in informal logic it’s considered a fallacy-begging the question (or circular reasoning).

Also, your comment that P2 doesn’t follow from P1–premises aren’t supposed to follow from other premises.   Only the Conclusion is supposed to follow from any other part of the argument.  

The conclusion still doesn't follow from the premises - it might be the same as P1, but taken together (P1 & P2), it doesn't follow.

I can see the tautology there. I have not encountered something like this where p1 + conclusion = tautology, but there is a p2.

In your initial answer, you say (correctly) that the argument is “valid but not sound”.   Yet in your response to me you say “the conclusion still doesn’t follow from the premises.”   Obviously if the argument is valid, the conclusion must follow from the premises.  In fact, saying an argument is valid means that the conclusion must follow from the premises.   

If you have an argument of the form P1.  P2. therefore P1, that argument is always valid.  Being valid means if you assume P1 and P2 are true, P1 must be true.  Obviously if you assume P1 and P2 are true, P1 is true.

It still commits the fallacy of begging the question.  And the argument about MAGA is incoherent (sounds like rambling).  But it is valid—the opposite of a non sequitur.  

My thought on this was the OP was not technically an argument (I called it incoherent). Tautologies usually exist as statements, not as arguments. I see the initial premise as a repeat of the conclusion:

Conclusion
Premise
Conclusion

What does not follow, in my view, is the conclusion from the one premise. Wouldn't consider the above form a valid argument anymore that would consider "conclusion = conclusion" a valid argument. An "argument", at least the way it is most commonly used, contains support or reasons for a conclusion. Bad reasons can result in a non sequitur but no reason (just a repeat of the conclusion) results in the absence of an argument, not a valid argument.

I think the confusion arose because  non sequitur  is often used to refer to an unnamed formal fallacy. The presence of a formal fallacy though, suggests an argument - albeit one that is (formally)  invalid . However, we agree that the argument is valid, just unsound, so I think Darren was surprised by the use of  non sequitur  here.

If it's an unsound argument, it'd be a problem of premises, not logic. If it's not an argument, then there are no fallacies.

(Do correct me if I'm wrong - I might not have grasped the OP or your replies.)

Correction. You didn’t say Jason’s argument was valid. But for the reasons stated above, it clearly was.  

[To Darren]

For the record, this isn't my argument. Its someone Im arguing with lol. I would never make such a irrational nonsensical argument. It's so mangled I couldn't even figure out what was wrong with it exactly. 

The person making this argument further clarified. They are suggesting that the mob was so big that it could have easily destroyed everything if it was truly a bad crowd of people. But since they didn't destroy the entire building then that means they weren't bad people or insurrectionists.... Equally as irrational and again, I am confused as to the exact errors being made. 

P1) If the mob were bad people, they would have destroyed the Capitol.

P2) The mob did not destroy the Capitol.

C) Therefore, the mob are not bad people.

P1 - that unless the mob destroys the Capitol, it cannot be made up of bad people - is a false premise. The mod does not  have  to destroy the Capitol for it to be bad. They could have done so anyway, but it's besides the point.

The argument sets an arbitrary standard for 'badness', notes that the mob doesn't meet that standard, and calls it a day.

[To TrappedPrior (RotE)]

Thanks! I think I'm seeing that the arbitrary standard was subconsciously set that way bc of the BLM protests that burned and destroyed buildings. MAGA is defined as the good guys, BLM and Antifa are defined as the bad guys in the biased subconscious that was shaped this way by right wing propaganda messaging.