I've quoted it verbatim twice now.Harrison Bergeron said:The simple answer is for him to post the transcript so we can all read it vs. what people claim was said ... the same people that parroted the Russian hoax.Rawhide said:I've heard the call and read the transcript and never heard or saw where Trump asked them to just find enough votes.Sam Lowry said:You're the one being dishonest here, as you were in the other instance. Trump asked them to find enough votes for the win. It's right there on the audio and in the transcript.Rawhide said:Still, didn't ask him Samuel.Sam Lowry said:
"The current margin is only 11,779. Brad, I think you agree with that, right? That's something I think everyone -- at least that's' a number that everyone agrees on. But that's the difference in the votes. But we've had hundreds of thousands of ballots that we're able to actually -- we'll get you a pretty accurate number. You don't need much of a number because the number that in theory I lost by, the margin would be 11,779."
"All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Do you also think Trump told people to drink bleach?
WaPo wouldn't have retracted if they didn't need to.
But why am I surprised at your complete dishonestly? Even after you said cops didn't let people into the Capitol and I provided video to the contrary, you still tried to argue it.
Whey can't you just be man enough to admit when you're wrong and move on to the BS you want spew?
Your WaPo retraction is completely off point. It has to do with another conversation where he supposedly said "find the fraud" but he actually said "find the dishonesty" or something like that. This is an incredibly desperate (and dishonest) defense on your part.
Quit lying
Man tries to assassinate a Supreme Court Justice
11,164 Views |
151 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by whiterock
I argued the bolded at the time and would argue so again, counselor, as I know what the military manuals teach about such things. But I also understand that time and prosecutorial discretion have delivered a verdict on that argument = it is not insurrection, at least within the jurisdiction of US law. Thus, it is now precedence, which is an integral part of the English Common Law tradition upon which our legal system is based. The precedence established now is that people exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and speech have a very high bar to clear before any illegal activity which may break out during their assembly and speech, such as - rioting, assault, property damage, arson, even murder - breaches the threshold of insurrection. The clear implication upon which that precedence rests is that insurrection cannot be a heat of the moment act. It cannot be the desperate forlorn hopes of small groups of powerless individuals uttering the last gasp of their despair over the wounds of valid grievances. It must be a credible threat involving conspiracy, preparation, and most of all capability to actually forestall and replace constitutional order. Frankly, that makes sense as well, quite consistent with classical liberalism, as long as the standard is afforded to BOTH sides. Right now, unfortunately, that equivalency does not exist. The left can do pretty much anything it wants and be excused while both middle and the right cannot speak or organize for fear of being cancelled or worse, up to and include having law contrived against them as we have seen done repeatedly to Republican elected and their appointees.Sam Lowry said:
Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.Quote:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Quote:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.Quote:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Quote:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Quote:Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Situations like that do not last for long. It changes one way or the other.
The way to stop the devolution is not to do as you are doing - punish the right for doing something less than what the left did, but to demand equal protection and application of law. Not law as it ought be, but law is actually applied. If the left doesn't like what happened on J6, they should look more thoughtfully upon their own actions. The argument of insurrection is literally prefaced upon the idea that Trump, by not conceding, created the riot on J6. What utter rubbish. Democrats can spend a billion dollars campaigning on the idea that America is the bastion of systemic oppressing serving white supremacy yet bear no responsibility for the ensuing 560-something riots costing $2b and dozens of lives, but Trump contests vote totals the same way Democrats have done for decades and he's an insurrectionist because a riot broke out at a conservative demonstration on J6?
With respect, you can blow that bilge out your bunghole.
The disinformation campaign to portray J6 as an insurrection may be the most harmful wound to the body politic in my lifetime. No responsible citizen should engage in it further. A responsible citizen who cares for liberty and rule of law would work to punish at the ballot box the party which engages in such destructive nonsense. (and polls suggest such will happen).
We are not going to calm the left by furthering the double standard, by appeasing their every offense with expurgations of our own deplorability. We are going to calm the left by defeating them decisively at the ballot box and applying to them the exact same standard of law they apply to us. Only then will they understand that they, too, have an obligation to be responsible partners in social contract with their equals - that half of the country which does not agree with them yet has the same exact moral standing to engage in the relationship.
For the tribals ... I do not take your cries of "rule of law" and "democracy" when you're passively supporting both violence and the undermining of actual democracy by tolerating or promoting the intimidation of one of the branches of government.
This is a self-serving, emotional argument with no basis in the law. In no way did 2020 change the meaning of insurrection or establish a legitimate precedent for violence. You admit as much in your last paragraph when you talk about "applying to them the exact same standard of law they apply to us." You don't really believe this kind of thing is excusable. You're just waiting for your side to take power so you can forget all this nonsense about common law tradition and crush your enemies as ruthlessly as possible.whiterock said:I argued the bolded at the time and would argue so again, counselor, as I know what the military manuals teach about such things. But I also understand that time and prosecutorial discretion have delivered a verdict on that argument = it is not insurrection, at least within the jurisdiction of US law. Thus, it is now precedence, which is an integral part of the English Common Law tradition upon which our legal system is based. The precedence established now is that people exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and speech have a very high bar to clear before any illegal activity which may break out during their assembly and speech, such as - rioting, assault, property damage, arson, even murder - breaches the threshold of insurrection. The clear implication upon which that precedence rests is that insurrection cannot be a heat of the moment act. It cannot be the desperate forlorn hopes of small groups of powerless individuals uttering the last gasp of their despair over the wounds of valid grievances. It must be a credible threat involving conspiracy, preparation, and most of all capability to actually forestall and replace constitutional order. Frankly, that makes sense as well, quite consistent with classical liberalism, as long as the standard is afforded to BOTH sides. Right now, unfortunately, that equivalency does not exist. The left can do pretty much anything it wants and be excused while both middle and the right cannot speak or organize for fear of being cancelled or worse, up to and include having law contrived against them as we have seen done repeatedly to Republican elected and their appointees.Sam Lowry said:
Nah you wouldn't even be aware of the events had it been lefties.Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.Quote:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Quote:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.Quote:Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.Quote:If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.Quote:Leftists and Democrats don't threaten the power structure of DC. Populists do. This is why it wouldn't get coverage if the people who carried out J6 also want a giant ever-growing government .Quote:I'm not saying the left wouldn't downplay it. I'm saying you wouldn't. The media would make the same excuses they made for Antifa and BLM, the same ones you're making now, and you'd call them out for being hypocrites. Let's be honest. The J6 committee won't change any opinions because there's nothing to change. You already know they're right. You just don't care because you've decided the left plays dirty so the right needs to play dirty too.Quote:
Just like nobody in DC gave a damn when they burned downed cities.
Am I wrong?
The J6 crowd has equated anyone critical of big government as a right wing terrorist.
To question election integrity is now off limits thanks to people like you. That's very undemocratic.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Situations like that do not last for long. It changes one way or the other.
The way to stop the devolution is not to do as you are doing - punish the right for doing something less than what the left did, but to demand equal protection and application of law. Not law as it ought be, but law is actually applied. If the left doesn't like what happened on J6, they should look more thoughtfully upon their own actions. The argument of insurrection is literally prefaced upon the idea that Trump, by not conceding, created the riot on J6. What utter rubbish. Democrats can spend a billion dollars campaigning on the idea that America is the bastion of systemic oppressing serving white supremacy yet bear no responsibility for the ensuing 560-something riots costing $2b and dozens of lives, but Trump contests vote totals the same way Democrats have done for decades and he's an insurrectionist because a riot broke out at a conservative demonstration on J6?
With respect, you can blow that bilge out your bunghole.
The disinformation campaign to portray J6 as an insurrection may be the most harmful wound to the body politic in my lifetime. No responsible citizen should engage in it further. A responsible citizen who cares for liberty and rule of law would work to punish at the ballot box the party which engages in such destructive nonsense. (and polls suggest such will happen).
We are not going to calm the left by furthering the double standard, by appeasing their every offense with expurgations of our own deplorability. We are going to calm the left by defeating them decisively at the ballot box and applying to them the exact same standard of law they apply to us. Only then will they understand that they, too, have an obligation to be responsible partners in social contract with their equals - that half of the country which does not agree with them yet has the same exact moral standing to engage in the relationship.
I think your anxiety about the implications for Trump is leading you to careless assumptions about J6. The argument that it was an insurrection isn't prefaced on anything that Trump did. It's simply prefaced on the fact that it was a rebellion against the established order. It makes no difference whether Trump conspired, incited, or participated.
Antifa accuses the right of being authoritarian while they themselves use authoritarian tactics. That's why they're unpopular with average Americans. If we want to defeat the left at the ballot box, we won't do it by enabling or excusing mob rule and applying arbitrary standards. That is the hallmark of fascists. We're not doing ourselves any favors by becoming like them.
Of course 2020 changed the meaning of insurrection. Precedence is precedence, whether in the realm of courtrooms or in political traditions. It proved that Democrats do not see it as insurrection when a leftist organization A) organizes to put a phalanx of molotov cocktail armed thugs in shields, helmets & clubs into the streets to literally do hand-to-hand combat with federal officers over control of the ground floor of a federal courthouse, B) has the city council it controls grant use of a common area to build lodging and soup kitchens for leftist thug in complete violation of ordinance affecting surrounding businesses and law-abiding citizens , C) uses that municipal power it commands to keep municipal police from arresting thugs during the riots or afterwards at the soup kitchens, and D) has a governor intervene to at first complicate then to negotiate removal of the federal officers protecting the courthouse. Just a plain fact that such happened in 2020. All of it. Documented. With pictures. No fair discussion of J6 can occur without the Portland context (or al the other contexts around the country). You diminish yourself and your nation when you invoke such a blatant double standard.Sam Lowry said:
If there are legitimate questions about election integrity, they can and will be raised. Abusing the public trust with a sustained campaign of fraud based on trumped-up evidence is a different matter. If people are wary next time, don't blame me. They should be.This is a self-serving, emotional argument with no basis in the law. In no way did 2020 change the meaning of insurrection or establish a legitimate precedent for violence. You admit as much in your last paragraph when you talk about "applying to them the exact same standard of law they apply to us." You don't really believe this kind of thing is excusable. You're just waiting for your side to take power so you can forget all this nonsense about common law tradition and crush your enemies as ruthlessly as possible.Quote:I argued the bolded at the time and would argue so again, counselor, as I know what the military manuals teach about such things. But I also understand that time and prosecutorial discretion have delivered a verdict on that argument = it is not insurrection, at least within the jurisdiction of US law. Thus, it is now precedence, which is an integral part of the English Common Law tradition upon which our legal system is based. The precedence established now is that people exercising their constitutional rights of assembly and speech have a very high bar to clear before any illegal activity which may break out during their assembly and speech, such as - rioting, assault, property damage, arson, even murder - breaches the threshold of insurrection. The clear implication upon which that precedence rests is that insurrection cannot be a heat of the moment act. It cannot be the desperate forlorn hopes of small groups of powerless individuals uttering the last gasp of their despair over the wounds of valid grievances. It must be a credible threat involving conspiracy, preparation, and most of all capability to actually forestall and replace constitutional order. Frankly, that makes sense as well, quite consistent with classical liberalism, as long as the standard is afforded to BOTH sides. Right now, unfortunately, that equivalency does not exist. The left can do pretty much anything it wants and be excused while both middle and the right cannot speak or organize for fear of being cancelled or worse, up to and include having law contrived against them as we have seen done repeatedly to Republican elected and their appointees.Quote:Purposefully overrunning a police station and setting up an autonomous zone is insurrection, and if you're honest I suspect you'll agree. Antifa needs to be called what it is and treated accordingly. Unfortunately that's going to be a tough agenda for Republicans to push now that they've revealed themselves as raging hypocrites on matters of law and order. So thanks for that.Quote:If purposefully overrunning a police station (twice) and setting up an autonomous zone (once) is not insurrection, then a riot at a overwhelmingly peaceful demonstration in the capitol probably isn't either, particularly when a sitting Senator running for VPOTUS raises money to pay the bail of the groups who seized and burned the police stations.Quote:Actually I've been consistent in condemning the 2016 abuses as well. You are the one defending two sets of rules. Every day and with no shame.Quote:
Good point. Take the 2016 allegations, for instance. They got investigated by the FBI despite being manifest nonsense. It was an outrage they got investigated, but since they were, we now know the whole thing was trumped up fraud. What abuses public trust is refusing to investigate far more credible allegations of election fraud. OVER half the country thinks there was a problem, but lack of an investigation has made the public very wary about their government.
Two sets of rules is a sign of an ailing republic.
And you are defending them, earnestly, every day.
Insurrection it was not on J6, not by a country mile, and it is pure disinformation to spin it otherwise. Please do not delude yourself into thinking there is any virtue to the posture you have taken on this point. Quite the opposite.
Situations like that do not last for long. It changes one way or the other.
The way to stop the devolution is not to do as you are doing - punish the right for doing something less than what the left did, but to demand equal protection and application of law. Not law as it ought be, but law is actually applied. If the left doesn't like what happened on J6, they should look more thoughtfully upon their own actions. The argument of insurrection is literally prefaced upon the idea that Trump, by not conceding, created the riot on J6. What utter rubbish. Democrats can spend a billion dollars campaigning on the idea that America is the bastion of systemic oppressing serving white supremacy yet bear no responsibility for the ensuing 560-something riots costing $2b and dozens of lives, but Trump contests vote totals the same way Democrats have done for decades and he's an insurrectionist because a riot broke out at a conservative demonstration on J6?
With respect, you can blow that bilge out your bunghole.
The disinformation campaign to portray J6 as an insurrection may be the most harmful wound to the body politic in my lifetime. No responsible citizen should engage in it further. A responsible citizen who cares for liberty and rule of law would work to punish at the ballot box the party which engages in such destructive nonsense. (and polls suggest such will happen).
We are not going to calm the left by furthering the double standard, by appeasing their every offense with expurgations of our own deplorability. We are going to calm the left by defeating them decisively at the ballot box and applying to them the exact same standard of law they apply to us. Only then will they understand that they, too, have an obligation to be responsible partners in social contract with their equals - that half of the country which does not agree with them yet has the same exact moral standing to engage in the relationship.
I think your anxiety about the implications for Trump is leading you to careless assumptions about J6. The argument that it was an insurrection isn't prefaced on anything that Trump did. It's simply prefaced on the fact that it was a rebellion against the established order. It makes no difference whether Trump conspired, incited, or participated.
Antifa accuses the right of being authoritarian while they themselves use authoritarian tactics. That's why they're unpopular with average Americans. If we want to defeat the left at the ballot box, we won't do it by enabling or excusing mob rule and applying arbitrary standards. That is the hallmark of fascists. We're not doing ourselves any favors by becoming like them.
The American people see the kind of dual system of justice I have laid out. Democrats lie to Congress? They get a fat contract to commentate on alphabet media. GOP'ers lie to Congress? SWAT teams invade the home at 0400hrs in the AM. That is why the J6 hearings are being ignored. The double standard. Everyone sees it. There is no explaining it away. The J6 hearings are nothing more than Democrats expressing outrage that someone outside of their coalition would have the audacity to engage in behavior which even remotely resembles what Democrats do all the time. So the hearings and the TV show will be ignored.
Here's what you're up against:
"RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."
--Saul Alinsky
The game is afoot and you are going to lose.
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
Debunked. It's you and democrats applying different standards.Sam Lowry said:
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?
Many of them were let off the hook. Released within hours with no bail, nominal bail, or fund-raised bail. Charges dropped. Well documented, with pictures. Certainly there was no investigation of conspiracy (as such would have led right back to ActBlue crowdfunding platforms being used to raise money to pay demonstrators.) Definitely for sure FBI never interdicted a van full of Antifa thugs headed somewhere "to interrupt a protest." If only all those small businesses that got burned in the 2020 riots would have thought to have claimed they were transgender, maybe they would have gotten some help.Sam Lowry said:
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
a personal friend had a standoff with Antifa in a gas station. They surrounded him holding bats & clubs. He opened the lid to the storage compartment and pull out his shotgun to deescalate. Then he called county sheriff, who pulled them over on I-20. Van with colorado plates headed to some of the metro area demonstrations. But hey, FBI is walking into Waco area businesses to talk to people who didn't get within a quarter mile of the capitol on J6, showing them pictures they had on their phones & backed up on the cloud. That's right. FBI is scanning the cloud for evidence someone was in WDC on 6Jan, then going to their workplace to have a chat. If only they'd worked that hard to stop the madness in 2020, think of all the businesses & jobs & lives that would have been saved. (thousands). How many business & jobs & lives were destroyed on J6? (Zero.) Most Americans can see who is important enough to be equally protected under the law and who is not.
Trump was wise not to push Barr to round up the Democrat militias. Barr would have refused. And the DDOJ (Democrat Dept of Justice) careerists would have balked and leaked and it would have been a distraction from the campaign. these are the people who investigated him for what they knew full well was BS Russia collusion.
We've got a real mess to clean up in WDC. A dual-system of justice. It will be a hard fix, but it has to be done.
Glad you got that out of your system. If you didn't like Trump's AG you should take that up with Trump.whiterock said:Many of them were let off the hook. Released within hours with no bail, nominal bail, or fund-raised bail. Charges dropped. Well documented, with pictures. Certainly there was no investigation of conspiracy (as such would have led right back to ActBlue crowdfunding platforms being used to raise money to pay demonstrators.) Definitely for sure FBI never interdicted a van full of Antifa thugs headed somewhere "to interrupt a protest." If only all those small businesses that got burned in the 2020 riots would have thought to have claimed they were transgender, maybe they would have gotten some help.Sam Lowry said:
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
a personal friend had a standoff with Antifa in a gas station. They surrounded him holding bats & clubs. He opened the lid to the storage compartment and pull out his shotgun to deescalate. Then he called county sheriff, who pulled them over on I-20. Van with colorado plates headed to some of the metro area demonstrations. But hey, FBI is walking into Waco area businesses to talk to people who didn't get within a quarter mile of the capitol on J6, showing them pictures they had on their phones & backed up on the cloud. That's right. FBI is scanning the cloud for evidence someone was in WDC on 6Jan, then going to their workplace to have a chat. If only they'd worked that hard to stop the madness in 2020, think of all the businesses & jobs & lives that would have been saved. (thousands). How many business & jobs & lives were destroyed on J6? (Zero.) Most Americans can see who is important enough to be equally protected under the law and who is not.
Trump was wise not to push Barr to round up the Democrat militias. Barr would have refused. And the DDOJ (Democrat Dept of Justice) careerists would have balked and leaked and it would have been a distraction from the campaign. these are the people who investigated him for what they knew full well was BS Russia collusion.
We've got a real mess to clean up in WDC. A dual-system of justice. It will be a hard fix, but it has to be done.
Bottom line, replacing corrupt leftists with corrupt populists isn't a "fix." It only perpetuates double standards and corruption.
didnt see on the nightly news.
brokaw conkrite chancellor et al.
sounds like more vast right wing conspiracies.
- HRC BHJ
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain toast }
BID.
brokaw conkrite chancellor et al.
sounds like more vast right wing conspiracies.
- HRC BHJ
{ sipping coffee }
{ eating whole grain toast }
BID.
arbyscoin - the only crypto you can eat.
You are confusing different levels though.Sam Lowry said:
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
When Trump was in charge the rioters in cities that attacked Fed buildings were arrested. Like in Portland when they had something like 3 months straight of nightly riots when they attacked the fed buildings they were arrested.
But the local rioters in Portland and other cities were not, hence why they went on for 3 months.
How many were arrested for the autonomous zone thing? I don't recall them even arresting anyone for the murder that happened there.
Almost no BLM rioters were arrested, charged AND tried for their crimes nationwide.
Am not proposing the fix your argument presumes. Just want a POTUS who will provide the thoroughgoing restructuring of DOJ/FBI that is so long overdue. Good news is, the guy who is likely to win is exactly that type of guy.Sam Lowry said:Glad you got that out of your system. If you didn't like Trump's AG you should take that up with Trump.whiterock said:Many of them were let off the hook. Released within hours with no bail, nominal bail, or fund-raised bail. Charges dropped. Well documented, with pictures. Certainly there was no investigation of conspiracy (as such would have led right back to ActBlue crowdfunding platforms being used to raise money to pay demonstrators.) Definitely for sure FBI never interdicted a van full of Antifa thugs headed somewhere "to interrupt a protest." If only all those small businesses that got burned in the 2020 riots would have thought to have claimed they were transgender, maybe they would have gotten some help.Sam Lowry said:
You're forgetting that the person in charge of federal law enforcement in 2020 wasn't a Democrat. It was a Republican named Donald Trump.
I suspect our next couple of exchanges will involve debunked conspiracy theories about BLM rioters being let off the hook. When all that's said and done, though, the fact remains that you're the one excusing lawlessness and applying a double standard.
a personal friend had a standoff with Antifa in a gas station. They surrounded him holding bats & clubs. He opened the lid to the storage compartment and pull out his shotgun to deescalate. Then he called county sheriff, who pulled them over on I-20. Van with colorado plates headed to some of the metro area demonstrations. But hey, FBI is walking into Waco area businesses to talk to people who didn't get within a quarter mile of the capitol on J6, showing them pictures they had on their phones & backed up on the cloud. That's right. FBI is scanning the cloud for evidence someone was in WDC on 6Jan, then going to their workplace to have a chat. If only they'd worked that hard to stop the madness in 2020, think of all the businesses & jobs & lives that would have been saved. (thousands). How many business & jobs & lives were destroyed on J6? (Zero.) Most Americans can see who is important enough to be equally protected under the law and who is not.
Trump was wise not to push Barr to round up the Democrat militias. Barr would have refused. And the DDOJ (Democrat Dept of Justice) careerists would have balked and leaked and it would have been a distraction from the campaign. these are the people who investigated him for what they knew full well was BS Russia collusion.
We've got a real mess to clean up in WDC. A dual-system of justice. It will be a hard fix, but it has to be done.
Bottom line, replacing corrupt leftists with corrupt populists isn't a "fix." It only perpetuates double standards and corruption.
There are plenty of good people in the agencies mentioned. I went to high school with one. We just have to clean out the rats nest on the top floors of a few headquarters buildings and fill them with no-nonsense people who've never served in WDC before.