That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
Proud Boys leader admits plan to storm Capitol, will testify against others
60,697 Views |
752 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Osodecentx
Good luck with that.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
You don't get a free pass for rebellion just because you're stupid about it. Them's the rules, and everyone knows them.Oldbear83 said:Good luck with that.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.
You don't get to demand someone accept a label just because you want to accuse someone.Sam Lowry said:You don't get a free pass for rebellion just because you're stupid about it. Them's the rules, and everyone knows them.Oldbear83 said:Good luck with that.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
No guns, no evidence of cooperative force, etc. There's just nothing to support the claim.
Them's logic, and you just don't have it on your side. Also, that kind of silly talk is started and fed by the Left, so if you are really a 'conservative', why on earth would you channel Schumer and Pelosi?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
It's never possible until it is. We don't know who contemplated what, or who might next time.4th and Inches said:are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.
Quote:
"We gather due to a selfish man's injured pride," said Mitt Romney, another GOP Senator who consistently put his duty to his country and its constitution before partisan advantage, "and the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months, and stirred to action this very morning. What happened was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States."
Insurrection, like treason, might seem a strong word, but it is hard to think of how else to describe an attempt to overturn a democratic election. In the run-up to the violence, an Arizona Republican leader called Kelli Ward started using the hashtag #CrossTheRubicon to rally other Trumpsters against certifying the poll. It was a telling phrase. The crossing of the Rubicon river was the moment when Julius Caesar violated the fundamental laws of the Roman Republic, bringing armed force against the Senate to establish himself as a dictator. America's Founding Fathers were obsessed with that period, and were determined to establish guarantees against similar "Caesarism" in their new country. Donald Trump was precisely the kind of menace they had in mind.
In the end, their safeguards held. The guardrails bent, but did not break. Senators in both parties voted to certify the result, and the Vice President discharged his duties correctly. But the fact that the United States did not succumb to a coup in the way that, say, Thailand or Bolivia might have done, is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Those dented guardrails will be weaker next time. The precedent has now been set that any losing candidate can challenge the result in ways that would, as recently as the beginning of this century, have been unthinkable.
Sunder Katwala
Association fallacy.Oldbear83 said:You don't get to demand someone accept a label just because you want to accuse someone.Sam Lowry said:You don't get a free pass for rebellion just because you're stupid about it. Them's the rules, and everyone knows them.Oldbear83 said:Good luck with that.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
No guns, no evidence of cooperative force, etc. There's just nothing to support the claim.
Them's logic, and you just don't have it on your side. Also, that kind of silly talk is started and fed by the Left, so if you are really a 'conservative', why on earth would you channel Schumer and Pelosi?
word salad of feelings.. fact is and will always be there was no real coup/insurrection, just some misguided nut jobs. Keep reading those pretty words that hold up your sand castle of "insurrection" Ask somebody from the top brass around the hill, there was no chance at allSam Lowry said:It's never possible until it is. We don't know who contemplated what, or who might next time.4th and Inches said:are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.Quote:
"We gather due to a selfish man's injured pride," said Mitt Romney, another GOP Senator who consistently put his duty to his country and its constitution before partisan advantage, "and the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months, and stirred to action this very morning. What happened was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States."
Insurrection, like treason, might seem a strong word, but it is hard to think of how else to describe an attempt to overturn a democratic election. In the run-up to the violence, an Arizona Republican leader called Kelli Ward started using the hashtag #CrossTheRubicon to rally other Trumpsters against certifying the poll. It was a telling phrase. The crossing of the Rubicon river was the moment when Julius Caesar violated the fundamental laws of the Roman Republic, bringing armed force against the Senate to establish himself as a dictator. America's Founding Fathers were obsessed with that period, and were determined to establish guarantees against similar "Caesarism" in their new country. Donald Trump was precisely the kind of menace they had in mind.
In the end, their safeguards held. The guardrails bent, but did not break. Senators in both parties voted to certify the result, and the Vice President discharged his duties correctly. But the fact that the United States did not succumb to a coup in the way that, say, Thailand or Bolivia might have done, is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Those dented guardrails will be weaker next time. The precedent has now been set that any losing candidate can challenge the result in ways that would, as recently as the beginning of this century, have been unthinkable.
Sunder Katwala
The way the mob looked, the chaotic execution, the ultimate failure, and political bias all contribute to the feeling that it wasn't a real coup or insurrection. The fact is that they went there with the intent to forcefully install a government of their own choosing contrary to the law and the Constitution. And Katwala is precisely right about the precedent they set. When the left acts similarly, Republicans will cry out with indignation only to have their own excuses served back to them.4th and Inches said:word salad of feelings.. fact is and will always be there was no real coup/insurrection, just some misguided nut jobs. Keep reading those pretty words that hold up your sand castle of "insurrection" Ask somebody from the top brass around the hill, there was no chance at allSam Lowry said:It's never possible until it is. We don't know who contemplated what, or who might next time.4th and Inches said:are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.Quote:
"We gather due to a selfish man's injured pride," said Mitt Romney, another GOP Senator who consistently put his duty to his country and its constitution before partisan advantage, "and the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months, and stirred to action this very morning. What happened was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States."
Insurrection, like treason, might seem a strong word, but it is hard to think of how else to describe an attempt to overturn a democratic election. In the run-up to the violence, an Arizona Republican leader called Kelli Ward started using the hashtag #CrossTheRubicon to rally other Trumpsters against certifying the poll. It was a telling phrase. The crossing of the Rubicon river was the moment when Julius Caesar violated the fundamental laws of the Roman Republic, bringing armed force against the Senate to establish himself as a dictator. America's Founding Fathers were obsessed with that period, and were determined to establish guarantees against similar "Caesarism" in their new country. Donald Trump was precisely the kind of menace they had in mind.
In the end, their safeguards held. The guardrails bent, but did not break. Senators in both parties voted to certify the result, and the Vice President discharged his duties correctly. But the fact that the United States did not succumb to a coup in the way that, say, Thailand or Bolivia might have done, is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Those dented guardrails will be weaker next time. The precedent has now been set that any losing candidate can challenge the result in ways that would, as recently as the beginning of this century, have been unthinkable.
Sunder Katwala
not even our worst capital breech.. they were there with fantasy ideas that wouldnt even work. And they left their guns in a motel room in another state..Sam Lowry said:The way the mob looked, the chaotic execution, the ultimate failure, and political bias all contribute to the feeling that it wasn't a real coup or insurrection. The fact is that they went there with the intent to forcefully install a government of their own choosing contrary the law and the Constitution. And Katwala is precisely right about the precedent they set. When the left acts similarly, Republicans will cry out with indignation only to have their own excuses served back to them.4th and Inches said:word salad of feelings.. fact is and will always be there was no real coup/insurrection, just some misguided nut jobs. Keep reading those pretty words that hold up your sand castle of "insurrection" Ask somebody from the top brass around the hill, there was no chance at allSam Lowry said:It's never possible until it is. We don't know who contemplated what, or who might next time.4th and Inches said:are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.Quote:
"We gather due to a selfish man's injured pride," said Mitt Romney, another GOP Senator who consistently put his duty to his country and its constitution before partisan advantage, "and the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months, and stirred to action this very morning. What happened was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States."
Insurrection, like treason, might seem a strong word, but it is hard to think of how else to describe an attempt to overturn a democratic election. In the run-up to the violence, an Arizona Republican leader called Kelli Ward started using the hashtag #CrossTheRubicon to rally other Trumpsters against certifying the poll. It was a telling phrase. The crossing of the Rubicon river was the moment when Julius Caesar violated the fundamental laws of the Roman Republic, bringing armed force against the Senate to establish himself as a dictator. America's Founding Fathers were obsessed with that period, and were determined to establish guarantees against similar "Caesarism" in their new country. Donald Trump was precisely the kind of menace they had in mind.
In the end, their safeguards held. The guardrails bent, but did not break. Senators in both parties voted to certify the result, and the Vice President discharged his duties correctly. But the fact that the United States did not succumb to a coup in the way that, say, Thailand or Bolivia might have done, is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Those dented guardrails will be weaker next time. The precedent has now been set that any losing candidate can challenge the result in ways that would, as recently as the beginning of this century, have been unthinkable.
Sunder Katwala
If it was a legitimate attempt, we'd call it an attempt. We aren't declaring Marshall law over 2 dozen whack jobs. Now if those whack jobs had military or police forces with them, then we might be on to something.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
C'mon. Forcibly install? They had neither the means or authority to do so. All they could do was literally disrupt a proceeding that still wouldn't have stopped the government or the transfer of power. These are fantastical projections.Sam Lowry said:The way the mob looked, the chaotic execution, the ultimate failure, and political bias all contribute to the feeling that it wasn't a real coup or insurrection. The fact is that they went there with the intent to forcefully install a government of their own choosing contrary the law and the Constitution. And Katwala is precisely right about the precedent they set. When the left acts similarly, Republicans will cry out with indignation only to have their own excuses served back to them.4th and Inches said:word salad of feelings.. fact is and will always be there was no real coup/insurrection, just some misguided nut jobs. Keep reading those pretty words that hold up your sand castle of "insurrection" Ask somebody from the top brass around the hill, there was no chance at allSam Lowry said:It's never possible until it is. We don't know who contemplated what, or who might next time.4th and Inches said:are you new here?, it isnt possible to succeed. It had ZERO shot and was a much of misguided nut jobs.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
The people needed for a real coup attempt were not willing to even think about it. Our govt and our military are not designed to be dismantled and overcome easily.Quote:
"We gather due to a selfish man's injured pride," said Mitt Romney, another GOP Senator who consistently put his duty to his country and its constitution before partisan advantage, "and the outrage of supporters who he has deliberately misinformed for the past two months, and stirred to action this very morning. What happened was an insurrection, incited by the President of the United States."
Insurrection, like treason, might seem a strong word, but it is hard to think of how else to describe an attempt to overturn a democratic election. In the run-up to the violence, an Arizona Republican leader called Kelli Ward started using the hashtag #CrossTheRubicon to rally other Trumpsters against certifying the poll. It was a telling phrase. The crossing of the Rubicon river was the moment when Julius Caesar violated the fundamental laws of the Roman Republic, bringing armed force against the Senate to establish himself as a dictator. America's Founding Fathers were obsessed with that period, and were determined to establish guarantees against similar "Caesarism" in their new country. Donald Trump was precisely the kind of menace they had in mind.
In the end, their safeguards held. The guardrails bent, but did not break. Senators in both parties voted to certify the result, and the Vice President discharged his duties correctly. But the fact that the United States did not succumb to a coup in the way that, say, Thailand or Bolivia might have done, is hardly a cause for rejoicing. Those dented guardrails will be weaker next time. The precedent has now been set that any losing candidate can challenge the result in ways that would, as recently as the beginning of this century, have been unthinkable.
Sunder Katwala
But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
Translation: Sam can't back his claims, so - like Biden - he tries to pass the buck.Sam Lowry said:Association fallacy.Oldbear83 said:You don't get to demand someone accept a label just because you want to accuse someone.Sam Lowry said:You don't get a free pass for rebellion just because you're stupid about it. Them's the rules, and everyone knows them.Oldbear83 said:Good luck with that.Sam Lowry said:That's irrelevant. If a coup attempt succeeds, we wouldn't call it an attempt.4th and Inches said:like I said, a couple of nut jobs. Anybody with a lick of sense knows that he didn't have the military generals behind him for an uncomstitutional coup. They were public statements from the military generals. No matter who discussed what, Trump was never going to order martial law unless it was to protect the people of Congress so they could do their jobs. They had no chance like succeeding because our government doesn't work that waySam Lowry said:More than a couple. This was a public interview. Along with statements on the Oath Keepers website, Twitter, and other media, it's part of what drew the mob to the Capitol.4th and Inches said:Like I said, crazy talk from a couple of nut jobs. Put them in jail.Sam Lowry said:
Just Security has located and reviewed appearances by the Oath Keepers on the podcast -- Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock -- and reviewed four episodes that feature members of the Oath Keepers including Vallejo and Rhodes.
Morning of January 6th, 2021: Vallejo and Kandaris describe their arrival in Washington DC, participation in events including serving as security for prominent figures, and plans for the day ahead. Listening to the audio reveals the intensity of Vallejo's expressed intent to escalate if events do not work in Trump's direction, and the two discuss the important role of the U.S. military.
Kandaris says: "We have a little bit of inside information with the powers that would oppose the powers that be, but this is a tinderbox. It just is a question of what is the precipitating event."
Vallejo: I'm just praying to God that Trump has his head on ****ing straight and he knows what he's doing. He's got the machinations behind him. He's got all the proof in the world, and he's gonna bring the hammer down.
Kandaris: This is, as we say, that moment of truth. … The people who controlled Rome controlled the army, okay. They controlled the military. If you have the loyalty of the military, then the rest doesn't matter. And we can make anything pretty and modern about it. But that brutal truth is still the determining factor about who controls what. So if he has the military behind him, Trump will win. If he does not, he won't.
Hancock: Well, what do you think?
Vallejo: I don't have enough inside information to know, but my inclination is that he probably does.
https://www.justsecurity.org/79889/exclusive-the-oath-keeper-podcast-interviews-new-insights-into-jan-6-and-continued-threats/
No guns, no evidence of cooperative force, etc. There's just nothing to support the claim.
Them's logic, and you just don't have it on your side. Also, that kind of silly talk is started and fed by the Left, so if you are really a 'conservative', why on earth would you channel Schumer and Pelosi?
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
that's pretty good spin. last time you addressed this national guard issue, you said he did nothing, zip, zilch, nada.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
What I did last time was debunk your claim that Trump made 10K troops available for Pelosi. He did not.whiterock said:that's pretty good spin. last time you addressed this national guard issue, you said he did nothing, zip, zilch, nada.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
no mention of the video he put out that was taken down by social media sites? He told them to go home but nobody saw it cause it was taken down.. why was it taken down?Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
I think that's the one we're talking about.4th and Inches said:no mention of the video he put out that was taken down by social media sites? He told them to go home but nobody saw it cause it was taken down.. why was it taken down?Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
ah, thats what i get for jumping in without reading everything. Ignore my post and carry on!Sam Lowry said:I think that's the one we're talking about.4th and Inches said:no mention of the video he put out that was taken down by social media sites? He told them to go home but nobody saw it cause it was taken down.. why was it taken down?Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. Is three hours reasonsble? Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable.
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? I can't stand Trump. I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. None of which is a crime. He ended up doing what he was supposed to. It does not matter if he was happy.
Reasonableness is an objective standard.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. Is three hours reasonsble? Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable.
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? I can't stand Trump. I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. None of which is a crime. He ended up doing what he was supposed to. It does not matter if he was happy.
The mayor didn't refuse assistance. She requested and received a few hundred unarmed troops to operate at other locations around the city. She had nothing to do with whether there was a military presence at the Capitol.
Sam Lowry said:Reasonableness is an objective standard.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was addressing Trump's motives because others brought them up. For example, if you're using his stand-down order as evidence of good faith, the fact that he waited three hours to give it is absolutely relevant.RMF5630 said:Ok, you are a lawyer. In Court, which is what we are talking here, whether someone does something "belated" or was "forced" to makes them guilty of not doing it? You would be tearing your argument apart. Belated? According to whom? Is that an opinion? Is there a written standard in place? Forced? How so? My God, you can go about a thousand different variable and scenarios. You have no case, Counselor. I think you know it, but if you keep throwing enough opinion laden circumstance and what you think may have been it will stick.Sam Lowry said:That's incorrect as to Pelosi and the National Guard. Most of the other actions you mention were done either belatedly or because he had no choice. He had reason to know the situation at the Capitol wouldn't be peaceful. And Trump's actions have nothing to do with whether there was an insurrection or coup attempt.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.RMF5630 said:Sam Lowry said:
Controlling the site wasn't the point. It was an attempt to trigger martial law and military action to halt the transfer of power.
That is absolutely foolish, martial law would not have stopped peaceful transfer of power. If anything it would have ensured it.
It was a demonstration turned into a riot by misguided lunatics. They should and will be prosecuted. No matter how you cut it insurrection or coup is a stretch. You saw it, it was televised that looked like an organized coup???
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
Did Trump turn over power and leave on Inauguration Day? Yes
Did Pence try and stop the Certification? No
0Who is in charge of the Capital Police Force for Congressional protection? Speaker of the House
Did Trump tell the people to be peaceful? Yes
Did Trump tell them to stand down? Yes
Did he authorize the National Guard? Yes
Did he pardon the people that broke in? No
Were people arrested and tried for breaking in? Yes
You may not like his bluster, you may not like his timeline, and you may believe someone should have done better. But that does not make a conspiracy, insurrection or collusion. Everyone did what they were supposed to do with the exception of Pelosi. Nobody seems to be asking why such a sparse Capitol Police presence when they knew the environment. Gonna be hard to prosecute Trump when ultimately everything was done to stop it. Can you answer one of those differently? That doesn't include I don't think he should of...
As for National Guard, I stand corrected. Trump offered 10,000 the night before and the Mayor of DC said no. Misremembered. Miller also testified, under oath, that Trump told him to fill Bowser's Jan 6th request to protect the demonstrators. Where is the problem?
The Capitol Police is a bit of a stretch. See I admit when I mis-state. You should try it some time. : )
But again this is a separate issue. It's funny how the discussion keeps defaulting to Trump, almost as if defending him were the overriding concern driving everyone's reasoning.
But it is subjective. Is three hours reasonsble? Well, if not asked or being told by the Mayor they don't want a Federal presence would make it reasonable.
My point is that we are wasting effort and resources playing politics.
Defending Trump? I can't stand Trump. I think he is an ******* and toxic. I do not want him to run again. That does not make him guilty of what the Jan 6th Commission is fishing for. That is bothering me as well, this is a fishing expedition to find a crime.
He acted crass, sore loser, and selfish. None of which is a crime. He ended up doing what he was supposed to. It does not matter if he was happy.
The mayor didn't refuse assistance. She requested and received a few hundred unarmed troops to operate at other locations around the city. She had nothing to do with whether there was a military presence at the Capitol.
Reasonable to who? Maybe for critique or a ops after action, maybe. But to prosecute? Or to accuse of treason, which is what the Jan 6th group is doing. This isn't to see if we can respond better, it is to blame a sitting President of insurrection. Reasonableness stands to convict ?????
She said she did not want a Federal presence the day before. She played into the situation. If I remember correctly that was testified under oath. But I know you can't belive any of the Trump team right.
Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
correct, alternates in case the state made a change in certification. If they didnt send them then the states ability to change its mind is hindered.whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:Fraudulent lists of electors are hardly a legal form of redress. You haven't provided any additional context for the phone conversation, so that's just more speculation on your part.whiterock said:Exactly. He sought entirely legal redress for his grievance, in court and in Congress. And now you're spinning what you denied happening as merely protection for protesters (which would be a valid use) rather than constitutional process (which was clearly the context of the discussions).Sam Lowry said:I was responding to Whiterock's speculation about Trump's motives. There's nothing wrong with the instructions per se. They were part of a brief conversastion with his Secretary of Defense in which he mentioned a need for 10,000 National Guard troops. That in turn is the basis of Whiterock's claim that Trump was supporting the constitutional process. But there's nothing to suggest he was concerned with the constitutional process, and many factors weigh against that conclusion -- his role in instigating the riot, urging the vice president to breach his duty, refusing to act timely to protect the VP and the legislature, professing love for the rioters, suggesting the idea of pardons, etc. If you're going to praise Trump's commitment to the peaceful transfer of power based on one offhand remark, it had better be a clear one. In context, it's not clear that he had anything in mind except protecting his own foot-soldiers.RMF5630 said:Sam, you are now really pushing it.Sam Lowry said:You know a thing or three about spin. Trump's instructions were to "do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights." He was supporting his people, not the process.whiterock said:But it wasn't Trump's plan.Sam Lowry said:
Tell it to the insurrectionists, my friend. It was their plan.
And it wasn't anyone else's plan.
Two nutjobs talking.
Two nutjobs who actually thought Trump would pull a coup to hold onto power.
(actually, there are a lot more than two nutjobs who thought/think that, orders of magnitude more on the left.)
Two nutjobs who wanted to be there, to be in place to help when what they thought would happen happened.
Only it didn't happen.
I know a thing or three about coups & coup plotting from places where they actually are part of the political tradition. Trump undertook not a single step to interrupt constitutional process. Not one. But he and members of his admin whose involvement would be necessary took positive steps to support that process.
If Obama or Biden say that same line, they are protecting Democracy. Trump, protecting his own (even though Trump has a track record on NOT stopping Liberal free speech during the riots of 2020). Those people had EVERY right to protest and demonstrate outside of Congress. Those that overstepped were arrested and prosecuted. Trump did not pardon them,. He let law enforcement handle it. You may think he waited too soon. He may have even enjoyed watching people demonstrate against Congress, but NONE of that is illegal or conspiratorial.
Just because you don't like it or agree, does not make it illegal. The statement you put out in your post is EXACTLY what a President should say, unless your Trump than there are ulterior motives that never seem to be able to be proved...
put down the shovel. you are making foolish arguments.
or on second thought, please proceed......
Not fraudulent lists of electors.
Alternate lists of electors.
Alternate lists should state legislatures have an opportunity to select them, as specified by the constitution.
That; my friend, is conclusive proof that the entire effort was supportive of process, within process. Thank you very much for pointing that out.
This point is a bit muddy because it rarely happens.
States made no change so the alternate slates were discarded on jan 6 as required.