Rawhide said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."

Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.

The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.

---

Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.

You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."

Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?

Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?

---

If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.

After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.

How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.

---

I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.

America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?

Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.

If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.

A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.

The Quiet Ones

Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.

The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.

Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.

What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."

Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.

(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."

Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.

Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"

The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.

But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.

---

Jinxy, remember when you first changed your screenname to JB Katz, came on these boards and proclaimed to all you were a conservative who just couldn't stands Trump? And remember how much you protested when everyone called bull***** Remember how you tried to keep up that charade for months and threatened to put people on ignore for accusing you of lying?

Those were hilarious times. But I think you owe some people some apologies given that you were in fact lying.

---

I'm beginnig to think that the crazy loon in this video is the exact same cracy loon who goes by jinxy/jb katz

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."

Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.

The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.

---

Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.

You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."

Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?

Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?

---

If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.

After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.

How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.

---

I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.

America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?

Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.

If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.

A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.

The Quiet Ones

Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.

The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.

Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.

What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."

Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.

(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."

Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.

Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"

The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.

But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.

---

Jinxy, remember when you first changed your screenname to JB Katz, came on these boards and proclaimed to all you were a conservative who just couldn't stands Trump? And remember how much you protested when everyone called bull***** Remember how you tried to keep up that charade for months and threatened to put people on ignore for accusing you of lying?

Those were hilarious times. But I think you owe some people some apologies given that you were in fact lying.

---

I'm beginnig to think that the crazy loon in this video is the exact same cracy loon who goes by jinxy/jb katz

---

There used to be appropriate places for these folks before they shut down the public insane asylums.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Apples and oranges.

But nice try.

---

Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.

You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.

---

Actually, it isn't.

First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.

Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.

So, yeah.

Apples and oranges.

But thanks for playing!

---

The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.

But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.

---

Are you kidding me?

None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.

There's no comparison.

Quit trying to gaslight people.

---

Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?

As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.

---

I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.

"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"

---

Ah yes, the ol, "you can't mention the year of violent, deadly riots by Black Lives Matter leftists when comparing Jan 6th because black people, therefore you are racist!" defense.

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Rawhide said:

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Stalin Jr. "The very least that should come out of these hearings is that Trump should be ineligible to run for office in any capacity."

Go suck a lemon. If you don't believe you can beat him in an election, too freaking bad for you.

The idea that you want to rig things to keep any candidate from running, tells me a lot about you that is pretty low-life.

---

Trump lost the presidential election and tried to overturn the results when he knew he lost.

You and everyone else on this forum who still support Trump represent Judge Luttig's "clear and present danger."

Why would you continue to support a former president who lost an election because of his nasty behavior and then tried to stage a coup?

Doesn't the fact that Trump tried to put Pence in harm's way because Pence wouldn't violate his oath of office to do Trump's bidding give you any pause?

---

If Trump's on the general ballot. I have zero problem voting for him.

After seeing dementia joe and is cohorts screw this country like a ***** in heat, I don't know how dumb you have to be to think he's anything other than a **** up.

How the hell do you even live in America? Our founding fathers staged their very own coup. A real one, not a fake one like you try to push. Hell, they even had firearms.

---

I think Biden's a good president. Not great, but good. I voted for him because I supported most of his policy positions and thought he was a decent guy. Those both still hold true.

America would be in a much darker place had Trump been re-elected or had his coup succeeded. You and other Trump supporters on this forum have convinced me this is the case. Before Trump, you felt superior and entitled to treat anyone who doesn't share your views with contempt. Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me, right?

Now, thanks to his coup attempt, you feel entitled to impose your narrow and sometimes hate-fueled religious and political views on a majority of Americans even if and when you lose an election at any level--state, local, national. Trump's coup attempt has really hurt America as a nation. Thank God for Cheney, Luttig and the Pence and Trump staffers who are contributing, however grudgingly, to holding him accountable.

If you want to vote for a traitor, then you own that. My hope is that these hearings will prevent Trump from getting on any ballot ever again.

A Tom Nichols column from the Atlantic that describes the people who tried to engineer this coup and gives some insight into Trump's supporters, too.

The Quiet Ones

Donald Trump, a petty and small man, is nonetheless a larger-than-life public figure. Investigating his attack on our elections is like staring into a klieg light: It is unpleasant, doesn't reveal very much, and leaves you temporarily blinded to everything around you.

The January 6 committee, however, deserves a great deal of credit for illuminating the dangerous mediocrities on whom Trump relied for his mischiefthe men and women who were certain that their moment had finally arrived. These peoplecall them the Third Stringthought that they were finally going to The Show, and they were going to burn the Constitution if that's what it took to stay there.

Consider, for example, Jeffrey Bossert Clark, a minor Justice Department official who sought to oust his own boss and get Trump to make him the attorney general, after which Clark would try to overturn the election results. (Clark has denied that he attempted the ousting.) "History is calling," Clark told Trump, in what must have been his most Very Serious Adviser voice.

What kind of person does that? The kind considered "quiet" and "nerdy" by his colleagues, according to a 2021 New York Times profile, but who apparently thought he was slated for greater things. He was "not known for being understated on the topic of himself," the Times noted. "Where the typical biography on the Justice Department website runs a few paragraphs, Mr. Clark's includes the elementary school he attended in Philadelphia, a topic he debated in college and that he worked for his college newspaper, The Harvard Crimson."

Well. (For the record, I went to Lambert-Lavoie Elementary in Chicopee, Massachusetts. Take that, elitists.)
Clark got his comeuppance in a meeting in the Oval Office when Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue warned Trump that any such appointment would lead to mass resignations, and told Clark: "You're an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we'll call you when there's an oil spill."
And then there's John Eastman, the former Clarence Thomas clerk, unsuccessful congressional candidate, and former dean of the law school at Chapman University in California who immersed himself in the kookiness of Trump World and ended up having to resign his teaching post days after speaking at the January 6 rally. His "departure closes this challenging chapter for Chapman," the school said, and then noted that no one would be suing anyone. As a recently retired professor myself, I can tell you this is not usually the preferred exit from the faculty.

(Eastman's crackpot legal theories are being eviscerated in the House today by retired Judge J. Michael Luttigfor whom Eastman also clerked. Ouch.)

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that emails obtained by the January 6 committee revealed that Eastmanwho was in close contact with Justice Thomas's wife, Ginniclaimed to know that there was a "heated" fight inside the Supreme Court about election cases. He stated this in an email with another pro-Trump lawyer who said the odds of the Court acting would increase if they thought there was a danger of public "chaos."

Greatness called; if it took intimidating the nation's highest court with civil disorder, well, eggs must be broken, and all that.

Clark and Eastman were among the brigade of mediocrities who saw in Trump a kind of patron saint of the Third String, the outsider who would sweep away the elites who controlled Washington and replace them with a new elitenamely, themselves. No more working in cubicles, hustling for grants, or sucking up for gigs with minor campaigns. The former White House spokesperson Stephanie Grisham was among the most honest of the lot when she wrote in her memoir how Trump was her ticket to D.C., and that she couldn't just walk away: "I was a single mom with no trust fund. If I had quit earlier, where would I have gone?"

The big, room-filling figures like Trump or Steve Bannon or Rudy Giuliani are, of course, dangerous even if they are also pathetic. (As The Bulwark's Charlie Sykes once put it, "A clown with a flamethrower still has a flamethrower.") But these showboaters were doing their damage in full view of the public. A constitutional democracy, in a way, is built to withstand such frontal assaults because we have a safety net in the web of laws and norms that are observed by civil servants and ordinary citizens.

But democracy is in severe danger when that net is cut, thread by thread, by a gray, resentful Third String that believes that greatness, unjustly denied for so long, is finally within reach.

---

Jinxy, remember when you first changed your screenname to JB Katz, came on these boards and proclaimed to all you were a conservative who just couldn't stands Trump? And remember how much you protested when everyone called bull***** Remember how you tried to keep up that charade for months and threatened to put people on ignore for accusing you of lying?

Those were hilarious times. But I think you owe some people some apologies given that you were in fact lying.

---

I'm beginnig to think that the crazy loon in this video is the exact same cracy loon who goes by jinxy/jb katz

---

There used to be appropriate places for these folks before they shut down the public insane asylums.

---

Karen is clearly in the RED ZONE

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"

To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.

But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...

---

Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:

Quote:

---

The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:

They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.

---

---

If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.

If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.

This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.

---

The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.

---

So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.

All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?

Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.

---

No one's saying it's proof of anything. But the congressman led a tour when the complex was closed, he lied about it, and then it turned out his guests were involved in the attack. Now he won't talk to the committee. If you don't see how that's suspicious, I don't know what to tell you.

---

I would say your advice would be to hire an attorney due to the circumstantial evidence. I am not following as close, but I thought he said he did not give a "reconnaissance tour". he showed around constituents and the Capitol Police knew they were there/

As for not talking to the Jan 6 Commission on National TV would you advise him to do it based on the letter they sent him? Counselor?

---

They're not asking him to go on TV. He can meet with them any time he chooses.

---

So, you would recommend to your client, the Congressman being accused of collaborating with the rioters, to cooperate and go and talk to this committee? In this environment. With Liz Cheney asking the questions? You think it would be fair?

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"

To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.

But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...

---

Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:

Quote:

---

The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:

They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.

---

---

If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.

If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.

This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.

---

The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.

---

So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.

All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?

Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.

---

No one's saying it's proof of anything. But the congressman led a tour when the complex was closed, he lied about it, and then it turned out his guests were involved in the attack. Now he won't talk to the committee. If you don't see how that's suspicious, I don't know what to tell you.

---

I would say your advice would be to hire an attorney due to the circumstantial evidence. I am not following as close, but I thought he said he did not give a "reconnaissance tour". he showed around constituents and the Capitol Police knew they were there/

As for not talking to the Jan 6 Commission on National TV would you advise him to do it based on the letter they sent him? Counselor?

---

They're not asking him to go on TV. He can meet with them any time he chooses.

---

So, you would recommend to your client, the Congressman being accused of collaborating with the rioters, to cooperate and go and talk to this committee? In this environment. With Liz Cheney asking the questions? You think it would be fair?

---

Sure, what could go wrong. Lol.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam: "Other than the fact that they came back the next day and, you know, attacked the Capitol"

To the best of my knowledge, the visitors shown in that video did not take part in any of the January 6th trespasses. Maybe that's why the Capitol Police said they saw nothing suspicious in the video.

But sure, you know more than trained law enforcement ...

---

Then you're going to want to check out the committee's letter to Rep. Loudermilk:

Quote:

---

The Select Committee has learned that some individuals you sponsored into the complex attended the rally at the Ellipse on the morning of January 6, 2021. According to video recordings from that day obtained by the Select Committee, the individual who appeared to photograph a staircase in the Longworth House Office Building filmed a companion with a flagpole appearing to have a sharpened end who spoke to the camera saying, "It's for a certain person," while making an aggressive jabbing motion. Later, these individuals joined the unpermitted march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. While standing near the Capitol grounds, the same individual made a video that contained detailed and disturbing threats against specific Members of Congress. For example, as the individual filmed the march to the Capitol, he said, "There's no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We're coming for you." As he looked up at the Capitol, he went on:

They got it surrounded. It's all the way up there on the hill, and it's
all the way around, and they're coming in, coming in like white on
rice for Pelosi, Nadler, even you, AOC. We're coming to take you
out and pull you out by your hairs. ... When I get done with you,
you're going to need a shine on top of that bald head.

---

---

If he did something 18 months ago and DOJ has arrested 700 why was he not charged? He is on tape and video, yet nothing? He will be now because the media pressure will force them to find some law to charge him under. But, even with 700 arrests and some for a seldom used seditious conspiracy law, all of the targets of the January 6th Commission were not charged with any crime.

If the House is putting this on TV, they have had it a long time, yet their Golden Boy Merrick Garland has DOJ moving back to normal operations. Could it be he knows there is no criminal case? Funny, a month ago he was a wronged stellar Justice that screwed out of a SCOTUS seat, now he is incompetent because he hasn't prosecuted who they (Dems) want.

This is ALL political theater, if there was a legal case it would have been brought a year ago.

---

The point isn't to catch the guy in the video. It's to find out whether any members of Congress were involved.

---

So, what you have is a Congressman giving a tour. Come on Sam, you are an attorney. There is a long jump from giving a tour to it being a "reconnaissance tour" to Congressional involvement.

All it shows is giving a tour. There is nothing saying he knew it was a reconnaissance tour or that it was. Everything is a show put on to show what the Jan 6th Commission wants. How much video exists and was reviewed to get those stills? How much was used to orchestrate this view?

Is this like Cheney only quoting half of Trumps quote? Oh, the other half is where he says to go peacefully and demonstrate, that was conveniently left out.

---

No one's saying it's proof of anything. But the congressman led a tour when the complex was closed, he lied about it, and then it turned out his guests were involved in the attack. Now he won't talk to the committee. If you don't see how that's suspicious, I don't know what to tell you.

---

I would say your advice would be to hire an attorney due to the circumstantial evidence. I am not following as close, but I thought he said he did not give a "reconnaissance tour". he showed around constituents and the Capitol Police knew they were there/

As for not talking to the Jan 6 Commission on National TV would you advise him to do it based on the letter they sent him? Counselor?

---

They're not asking him to go on TV. He can meet with them any time he chooses.

---

So, you would recommend to your client, the Congressman being accused of collaborating with the rioters, to cooperate and go and talk to this committee? In this environment. With Liz Cheney asking the questions? You think it would be fair?

---

Sure, what could go wrong. Lol.

---

Well, they are only fishing for som GOP member in Congress to charge with something related to Jan 6th. In addition, you are not allowed to provide a defense.

---

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

YouGov/Yahoo Poll: Most important issue to vote for Congress

Inflation: 37%
Crime: 10%
Healthcare: 10%
Immigration: 9%
Climate Change: 8%
Abortion: 8%
Schools: 5%
Covid: 4%
Foreign Policy: 2%

I missed election/ Jan 6 on the list..

---

This is not rocket science. It always comes down to your pocketbook.

---

i wish it did.. that shoulda been a Trump vote landslide in 2020 but instead we got feelings vote dipsh..s and here we are

---

Yes, no burden at all falls on the jackass who made the election a referendum on his own corrosive toxicity and made Joe Biden look attractive by comparison.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Worst fiction of the day, that post.

Just admit you voted out of spite, and we're all paying for it now.

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Apples and oranges.

But nice try.

---

Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.

You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.

---

Actually, it isn't.

First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.

Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.

So, yeah.

Apples and oranges.

But thanks for playing!

---

The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.

But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.

---

Are you kidding me?

None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.

There's no comparison.

Quit trying to gaslight people.

---

Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?

As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.

---

I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.

"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"

---

A woke poster suggests that January 6th was more violent than the BLM riots, I respond and call bull**** on that demonstrably false claim, and that means I'm a racist trump lover?

Sure wokie. Better be careful playing that race card though. Use it too much and your ad hominem loses its bite.

---

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

"C. Jordan"
Apples and oranges.

But nice try.

---

Quote:

---

"Motha"
Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

YouGov/Yahoo Poll: Most important issue to vote for Congress

Inflation: 37%
Crime: 10%
Healthcare: 10%
Immigration: 9%
Climate Change: 8%
Abortion: 8%
Schools: 5%
Covid: 4%
Foreign Policy: 2%

I missed election/ Jan 6 on the list..

---

This is not rocket science. It always comes down to your pocketbook.

---

i wish it did.. that shoulda been a Trump vote landslide in 2020 but instead we got feelings vote dipsh..s and here we are

---

Yes, no burden at all falls on the jackass who made the election a referendum on his own corrosive toxicity and made Joe Biden look attractive by comparison.

---

nope- you voted feelings and bought the media bullsh.. Own it,

Trump policies were better than Bidens , the middle class and the poverty level shrank upward during his presidency.

All you had to do was stop watching stupid repeaters on mass media..

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our minds" Bob Marley

---

I voted against four more years of intentional, weaponized divisiveness and mainstreaming radical far-right ideologies and bat **** conspiracy theories.

I never had any illusions that Joe Biden would be a good president. And I knew I was likely voting against my own financial best interest. It wasn't an emotional decision at all. It was a calculation. I weighed all factors and found another term for Trump to be greater threat to the long-term health of our nation than four years of Biden's bumble-****ery.

---

Well said.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

Mothra said:

---

C. Jordan said:

---

riflebear said:

---

---

Apples and oranges.

But nice try.

---

Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.

You can't be unhappy about one, calling for investigations, prosecutions, etc. and then ignore the other.

---

Actually, it isn't.

First, most of them are referring to protests, not violence.

Second, none of them involved the attempted takeover of the government and the murder of public officials.

So, yeah.

Apples and oranges.

But thanks for playing!

---

The BLM "protests" were far more violent than January 6th. 20 dead, thousands injured, and hundreds of million in property damage. And of course, the Dems bailed out many of those arrested, hypocrites that they are.

But I can understand why a partisan hack such as yourself can't admit it. Try again, false preacher.

---

Are you kidding me?

None of the BLM protests tried to overthrow the federal government and murder Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence.

There's no comparison.

Quit trying to gaslight people.

---

Are you actually suggesting that January 6th, which resulted in the death of one protestor, was more violent than BLM?

As my dad would say, you're either eaten up with the dumbass, or you are blinded by your politics.

---

I love how Trump lovers start talking about black people every time one of Trump's faults is brought up.

"but all those people who think black lives matter, there's the REAL tragedy!!!!"

---

A woke poster suggests that January 6th was more violent than the BLM riots, I respond and call bull**** on that demonstrably false claim, and that means I'm a racist trump lover?

Sure wokie. Better be careful playing that race card though. Use it too much and your ad hominem loses its bite.

---

Oh please, you know you're not the only one that can see the past quotes right?

Quote:

---

---

Quote:

---

"C. Jordan"
Apples and oranges.

But nice try.

---

Quote:

---

"Motha"
Actually, it's a pretty spot on comparison.

---

Sure you're just calling bs on a false claim lmao.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

YouGov/Yahoo Poll: Most important issue to vote for Congress

Inflation: 37%
Crime: 10%
Healthcare: 10%
Immigration: 9%
Climate Change: 8%
Abortion: 8%
Schools: 5%
Covid: 4%
Foreign Policy: 2%

I missed election/ Jan 6 on the list..

---

This is not rocket science. It always comes down to your pocketbook.

---

i wish it did.. that shoulda been a Trump vote landslide in 2020 but instead we got feelings vote dipsh..s and here we are

---

Yes, no burden at all falls on the jackass who made the election a referendum on his own corrosive toxicity and made Joe Biden look attractive by comparison.

---

nope- you voted feelings and bought the media bullsh.. Own it,

Trump policies were better than Bidens , the middle class and the poverty level shrank upward during his presidency.

All you had to do was stop watching stupid repeaters on mass media..

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery None but ourselves can free our minds" Bob Marley

---

I voted against four more years of intentional, weaponized divisiveness and mainstreaming radical far-right ideologies and bat **** conspiracy theories.

I never had any illusions that Joe Biden would be a good president. And I knew I was likely voting against my own financial best interest. It wasn't an emotional decision at all. It was a calculation. I weighed all factors and found another term for Trump to be greater threat to the long-term health of our nation than four years of Biden's bumble-****ery.

---

What far right ideologies and "bat ****" conspiracy theories were going to be mainstreamed? And do you think the Biden administration has been just as, if not more, divisive?

---