Jan 6 committee

126,960 Views | 3026 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Harrison Bergeron
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
Radicals, that certainly support radical progressivism did it the entire summer of 2020. Burning, takin over neighborhoods, trying to take over places of government administration.


Quote:

Protesters in Portland marched to a government building on Tuesday night, smashing windows and setting an office ablaze in what authorities ...

Feb 4, 2021 The cleaning and repair bill for federal buildings in Portland damaged during protests in the city last summer exceeded $2 million, ...



Jul 21, 2020 Rioters in the crowd were kicking the doors of the federal courthouse, vandalizing the building with spray paint and blocking adjacent ...

On May 31, 2020, a number of unknown suspects caused significant damage to the Terry Sanford Federal Building located at 310 New Bern Avenue and the Century Station Federal Building located at 300 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. Multiple windows were broken and both buildings were damaged by graffiti. The damage totaled more than $11,000.

So we saw entire summer of this, and we had officials actually pledge to bail out the protesters. Being real people who support democrat positions did the vast majority of the above.


So if democrats did it on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure we would be doing pretty much nothing. Especially since there is a democrat in the WH right now.
Wrecks Quan Dough
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Are you now, or have you ever been, a MAGA supporter?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He Hate Me said:

Are you now, or have you ever been, an ULTRA MAGA supporter?
FIFU.
Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
Radicals, that certainly support radical progressivism did it the entire summer of 2020. Burning, takin over neighborhoods, trying to take over places of government administration.


Quote:

Protesters in Portland marched to a government building on Tuesday night, smashing windows and setting an office ablaze in what authorities ...

Feb 4, 2021 The cleaning and repair bill for federal buildings in Portland damaged during protests in the city last summer exceeded $2 million, ...



Jul 21, 2020 Rioters in the crowd were kicking the doors of the federal courthouse, vandalizing the building with spray paint and blocking adjacent ...

On May 31, 2020, a number of unknown suspects caused significant damage to the Terry Sanford Federal Building located at 310 New Bern Avenue and the Century Station Federal Building located at 300 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. Multiple windows were broken and both buildings were damaged by graffiti. The damage totaled more than $11,000.

So we saw entire summer of this, and we had officials actually pledge to bail out the protesters. Being real people who support democrat positions did the vast majority of the above.


So if democrats did it on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure we would be doing pretty much nothing. Especially since there is a democrat in the WH right now.

So are you saying "If the Democrats did it then it is okay for the Republicans to do it"?
If everyone else is doing it it is okay?

I disagree. I do not think our standard of right and wrong should be gauged on what the democrats do.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
Sam you keep talking about a concrete plan and acted upon.

If you are talking the storming of the Capitol there is no evidence that Trump had anything to do with it, want to say he didn't respond robust enough? Ok, opinion noted.

If you are saying wanting the VP to choose Electors that would elect him, Pence certified the election as presented and Biden was declared the winner. No action.

Are we now saying discussions and opinions on things that did not actually happen but were floated, discussed, presented or any other word to say they talked about it. Is that illegal and a coup or insurrection, especially if the action was the complete opposite?

I really am not seeing the "threat to Democracy". What I am seeing is too much of the sausage making of running an Administration being made public, which is why we typically go by the actual action, policy or Executive Order to evaluate.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
I agree. I guess where we might disagree is whether we have seen any evidence of "an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a hard time ever believing Buffalo Man thought he was going to take over the United States and name himself dictator George W. Bush style (I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats told us Bush was going to name himself dictator and refuse to leave office). When these accusations get made against every Republican president they lose seriousness.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
Sam you keep talking about a concrete plan and acted upon.

If you are talking the storming of the Capitol there is no evidence that Trump had anything to do with it, want to say he didn't respond robust enough? Ok, opinion noted.

If you are saying wanting the VP to choose Electors that would elect him, Pence certified the election as presented and Biden was declared the winner. No action.

Are we now saying discussions and opinions on things that did not actually happen but were floated, discussed, presented or any other word to say they talked about it. Is that illegal and a coup or insurrection, especially if the action was the complete opposite?

I really am not seeing the "threat to Democracy". What I am seeing is too much of the sausage making of running an Administration being made public, which is why we typically go by the actual action, policy or Executive Order to evaluate.
All just standard procedure then, same kind of thing you'd expect to go on every four years? Not a problem as long as the votes eventually get certified?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
I agree. I guess where we might disagree is whether we have seen any evidence of "an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a hard time ever believing Buffalo Man thought he was going to take over the United States and name himself dictator George W. Bush style (I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats told us Bush was going to name himself dictator and refuse to leave office). When these accusations get made against every Republican president they lose seriousness.
That's the key point that the committee is trying to prove. Unlike Bush, Trump intended to remain in office. The rioters believed they were acting on his behalf, not their own.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
I agree. I guess where we might disagree is whether we have seen any evidence of "an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a hard time ever believing Buffalo Man thought he was going to take over the United States and name himself dictator George W. Bush style (I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats told us Bush was going to name himself dictator and refuse to leave office). When these accusations get made against every Republican president they lose seriousness.
That's the key point that the committee is trying to prove. Unlike Bush, Trump intended to remain in office. The rioters believed they were acting on his behalf, not their own.
Supposedly.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
Sam you keep talking about a concrete plan and acted upon.

If you are talking the storming of the Capitol there is no evidence that Trump had anything to do with it, want to say he didn't respond robust enough? Ok, opinion noted.

If you are saying wanting the VP to choose Electors that would elect him, Pence certified the election as presented and Biden was declared the winner. No action.

Are we now saying discussions and opinions on things that did not actually happen but were floated, discussed, presented or any other word to say they talked about it. Is that illegal and a coup or insurrection, especially if the action was the complete opposite?

I really am not seeing the "threat to Democracy". What I am seeing is too much of the sausage making of running an Administration being made public, which is why we typically go by the actual action, policy or Executive Order to evaluate.
All just standard procedure then, same kind of thing you'd expect to go on every four years? Not a problem as long as the votes eventually get certified?
My point is in most Administrations, you would never know and rightly so. Working sessions as just that working sessions to figure out what to do. I am sure there are bad ideas that get discussed and never happen. I am sure Al Gore had these discussions. I am sure others have had discussions on a variety of issues that were not acted upon and best not discussed in public. I would wager every organization has them I would also venture that there are attorneys within organizations that disagree on the legality of actions due to interpretation of the same laws and statutes.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Forest Bueller_bf
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guy Noir said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
Radicals, that certainly support radical progressivism did it the entire summer of 2020. Burning, takin over neighborhoods, trying to take over places of government administration.


Quote:

Protesters in Portland marched to a government building on Tuesday night, smashing windows and setting an office ablaze in what authorities ...

Feb 4, 2021 The cleaning and repair bill for federal buildings in Portland damaged during protests in the city last summer exceeded $2 million, ...



Jul 21, 2020 Rioters in the crowd were kicking the doors of the federal courthouse, vandalizing the building with spray paint and blocking adjacent ...

On May 31, 2020, a number of unknown suspects caused significant damage to the Terry Sanford Federal Building located at 310 New Bern Avenue and the Century Station Federal Building located at 300 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. Multiple windows were broken and both buildings were damaged by graffiti. The damage totaled more than $11,000.

So we saw entire summer of this, and we had officials actually pledge to bail out the protesters. Being real people who support democrat positions did the vast majority of the above.


So if democrats did it on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure we would be doing pretty much nothing. Especially since there is a democrat in the WH right now.

So are you saying "If the Democrats did it then it is okay for the Republicans to do it"?
If everyone else is doing it it is okay?

I disagree. I do not think our standard of right and wrong should be gauged on what the democrats do.
I'm not saying nothing should be been done about it if it were democrats, I'm saying nothing would be being done if it democrats. We had the entire summer before of fire, death and destruction and virtually nothing is going on about that.

There have been hundreds of arrests with the Jan 6th incident, that has been proceeding as it should have been. That said there are people that literally burned down buildings and damaged and put afire Federal buldings the summer before, and nothing happened to most of them.

There are people that followed others and walked through corridors on Jan.6th that are being charged and will go to jail.

It is not ok for dems or republicans to destroy federal property or to invade federal property or burn down federal property, seems that memo got missed summer of 2020.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Yes and what did Pence do?

You just made my point. He said it was illegal. Pence certified and Biden was inaugurated all on time, January 6th and 20th respectively. That is how Administrations work.

Now, you want to arrest of ban Trump from future office because he was pissed about it? Did Cippilone and Pence save Trump from himself? Maybe, but the point is moot. His Administration did what it was supposed to do.

Now if real, provable evidence shows up to say Trump than went and talked these people into storming Congress and he was going to overthrow the Government? Than you got something. Right now, we have supposition and a childish behavior. That is about all. DOJ indicts, based on evidence than we can talk.

Doubt that will happen. The best witness for the prosecution was at the level to clean up spilled spaghetti, but knew the inner workings of a planned insurrection? Really?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller_bf said:

Guy Noir said:

Forest Bueller_bf said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
Radicals, that certainly support radical progressivism did it the entire summer of 2020. Burning, takin over neighborhoods, trying to take over places of government administration.


Quote:

Protesters in Portland marched to a government building on Tuesday night, smashing windows and setting an office ablaze in what authorities ...

Feb 4, 2021 The cleaning and repair bill for federal buildings in Portland damaged during protests in the city last summer exceeded $2 million, ...



Jul 21, 2020 Rioters in the crowd were kicking the doors of the federal courthouse, vandalizing the building with spray paint and blocking adjacent ...

On May 31, 2020, a number of unknown suspects caused significant damage to the Terry Sanford Federal Building located at 310 New Bern Avenue and the Century Station Federal Building located at 300 Fayetteville Street in Raleigh, North Carolina. Multiple windows were broken and both buildings were damaged by graffiti. The damage totaled more than $11,000.

So we saw entire summer of this, and we had officials actually pledge to bail out the protesters. Being real people who support democrat positions did the vast majority of the above.


So if democrats did it on Jan 6th, I'm pretty sure we would be doing pretty much nothing. Especially since there is a democrat in the WH right now.

So are you saying "If the Democrats did it then it is okay for the Republicans to do it"?
If everyone else is doing it it is okay?

I disagree. I do not think our standard of right and wrong should be gauged on what the democrats do.
I'm not saying nothing should be been done about it if it were democrats, I'm saying nothing would be being done if it democrats. We had the entire summer before of fire, death and destruction and virtually nothing is going on about that.

There have been hundreds of arrests with the Jan 6th incident, that has been proceeding as it should have been. That said there are people that literally burned down buildings and damaged and put afire Federal buldings the summer before, and nothing happened to most of them.

There are people that followed others and walked through corridors on Jan.6th that are being charged and will go to jail.

It is not ok for dems or republicans to destroy federal property or to invade federal property or burn down federal property, seems that memo got missed summer of 2020.
I'm not sure why this is so difficult for the Democrats to wrap their heads around. No one disputes the Capitol riot was terrible, but hard to take the hysterics seriously in light of both 2020 - literally attacks on several federal buildings - plus direct calls for attacks by current elected and unelected officials on a distinct branch of government. The difference is 99.99% of Republicans think the Capitol riot was terrible, were 99.99% of Democrats think burning, looting, and murdering for George Floyd and undermining a distinct branch of government is "democracy."
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Yes and what did Pence do?

You just made my point. He said it was illegal. Pence certified and Biden was inaugurated all on time, January 6th and 20th respectively. That is how Administrations work.

Now, you want to arrest of ban Trump from future office because he was pissed about it? Did Cippilone and Pence save Trump from himself? Maybe, but the point is moot. His Administration did what it was supposed to do.

Now if real, provable evidence shows up to say Trump than went and talked these people into storming Congress and he was going to overthrow the Government? Than you got something. Right now, we have supposition and a childish behavior. That is about all. DOJ indicts, based on evidence than we can talk.

Doubt that will happen. The best witness for the prosecution was at the level to clean up spilled spaghetti, but knew the inner workings of a planned insurrection? Really?
Pence defied Trump's wishes and acted despite a real threat of violence to himself and others. That is not how administrations work.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
Doc Holliday
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Sam Lowry said:

Doc Holliday said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

whiterock said:

4th and Inches said:


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.
I dont know of anyone charged related to the rally but at the capital? There were 2 charged with gun possession from what I found.. lots of other weapons charges like tasers and baseball bats.
100k participants at a "Stop-the-Steal" rally. After Trump tells the crowd to make their voices heard patriotically and peacefully, a riot broke out in parts of the Capitol. Several blocks away, 2 people had guns. Ergo, it was an armed insurrection. Further, according to a secretary of an advisor who talked to two guys in the Secret Service, Trump tried to seize the leadership of this insurrection by grabbing the steering wheel of his ride, although Sam also thinks that Trump planned the whole thing to go down exactly as it did.

That is the case, according to Oso and Sam.


Don't forget, we know he was mad because he threw his lunch against the wall and this "savior of Democracy" had to clean it up. What a span of responsibilities, cleaning up spilt lunch to being able to direct POTUS where to go to directing the Secret Service. Heck of a job description.

What I still don't get is if this was true, as the Dems seem to believe, what was the end game? How did Trump think or plan this to work out? Let's say he does do what Sam and the Dems want us to believe.

1 - He goes to the Capital, Cassidy is not able to save the President from himself.
2 - He leads the insurrection into the Capital.
3 - He storms Congress by breaking down the doors.
4a - He??? Yells at Pence to accept the alternate electors?
4b - He??? Goes up and removes Pence and declares himself the winner?
4c - He??? Declares himself king?
5 - He does 1 through any of your choice of 4. Then what? The US and World accept that? He is inaugurated and everyone falls in line?

Come on guys, help me. For him to do what you are saying, what was the plan? How does he do it? How does he hold power? How does he "intimidate"? As far as I can see, there is nothing besides Trump yelling and sending nasty tweets?

How does he hold power when the FBI, US Marshalls, Capitol Police and even the 3rd Infantry Division detachment or Marines at Quantico come for them? None of the outcomes from Cheney's Commission play out. There is no end game a sane person would see. You guys saying he had a death wish and was going out curtain rod a blazing?

Or, he wanted to make noise to show his displeasure and throw a temper tantrum that had no intention of going violent. Based on our knowledge of Trump, which seems more realistic????

4a, basically. He was focused on Pence and believed he could stay in office if Pence supported him. The Democrats had an assortment of procedural maneuvers prepared to stop him, but they had no power to call in the military, and obviously the police already had their hands full. It's unclear what would have happened.
Ok, so let's play this out beyond the 3 hours it took to regain control of Congress. Any scenario moving forward is totally based on what Pence did. Pence certified the election, end of story. Biden is President. Or, are we still in dream scenario where Pence caves to Trump in public after standing up to him one on one? You know at some point, actions of what actually happened has to weigh in here.

Plus, you really think that Congress would just re-seat after Trump forces his way in with that mob? Sam, you are really reaching here. There is no scenario for what you all think Trump wanted to do to happen outside of some Donald Trump/Liz Cheney dream scenario in a movie (funny, they both would love the same dream for different reasons). What you describe is the Liz Cheney dream scenario because it ends with Trump being led off in handcuffs by US Marshalls. Trump for all his faults is not that stupid.

As for Military, if this was truly deemed an insurrection and coup the Federal Govt has every right to come in.
Do you believe, in theory, that VP Pence on his own authority has the right to not recognize (count) the duly submitted electoral college votes that the states sent Congress? (Biden and Harris are asking for a friend)


That is an interesting question.

It is up to the State to submit the Electors, not the VP to pick which ones are the official ones. So, my answer would be no. The VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.

However, in my opinion if there are multiple sheets of Electors than that would be a State question as to which ones are the official ones. As opposed to just going arbitrarily by a date or what was submitted first.

I really do not know the laws of each State in terms of selection of Electors and whether they are in a State that has a law saying they must follow popular vote. So, if 2 sheets. I would think they would ask that State's delegation from Congress to get it resolved.

So, who at the State level is responsible for the selection of Electors?

I thought Giulliani/Eastman plan was that the VP would reject the official slate of Electors in certain states that gave Biden the edge.

I certainly agree that the VP is not allowed to cherry pick electors.
Ya'll would have an easier time taking down Trump if you were consistent in your outrage over the behavior of public officials.
I've been consistent, and I can assure you it doesn't work that way. Someone will always find a reason to cry "whatabout?"
If justice isn't blind, pursuing it will become tyrannical.
Which is why we should think of J6 the same way we would if Democrats had done it.
But you're glossing over the fact that they did do it. Where do you think Trump came up with the playbook? In 2016, the Democrats actively claimed the election was stolen, and I am old enough to remember Hollywood actors recording PSAs asking electors to void the will of the people and cast votes for Clinton BECAUSE RUSSIA! Then actively spent four years using a Clinton campaign dossier to undermine the effectiveness of the Trump Administration. That was in total a much bigger "threat to democracy" that a three-hour, unarmed riot. There was arguably more actual damage done to the riots around Trump's election and inauguration than the Capitol riot, but destroying lots of private property does not have the visual effect of people trespassing at the Capitol - especially those coup members who walked within the ropes.

The issues keep getting mixed - is the question about the Capitol riot or Trump's baseless election claims? One minute it is the riot and the next it is Trump's questioning the veracity of the election results.
All that is bad enough, but it's not the same. It's not just the visual effect. It's the fact that there was an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon. If leftists did that, you would see that it's different from talking about faithless electors or destroying private property. How many posters here would be saying "Yeah, well, George Bush went to court against Al Gore, so it's the same thing, isn't it?" It would be absurd.
I agree. I guess where we might disagree is whether we have seen any evidence of "an immediate intention and a concrete plan to capture the very seat of power, and it was acted upon."

Maybe I'm being naive, but I have a hard time ever believing Buffalo Man thought he was going to take over the United States and name himself dictator George W. Bush style (I'm old enough to remember when the Democrats told us Bush was going to name himself dictator and refuse to leave office). When these accusations get made against every Republican president they lose seriousness.
The rioters believed they were acting on his behalf, not their own.
Irrelevant unless Trump EXPLICITYLY told them to do something, which he did not.
FLBear5630
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Yes and what did Pence do?

You just made my point. He said it was illegal. Pence certified and Biden was inaugurated all on time, January 6th and 20th respectively. That is how Administrations work.

Now, you want to arrest of ban Trump from future office because he was pissed about it? Did Cippilone and Pence save Trump from himself? Maybe, but the point is moot. His Administration did what it was supposed to do.

Now if real, provable evidence shows up to say Trump than went and talked these people into storming Congress and he was going to overthrow the Government? Than you got something. Right now, we have supposition and a childish behavior. That is about all. DOJ indicts, based on evidence than we can talk.

Doubt that will happen. The best witness for the prosecution was at the level to clean up spilled spaghetti, but knew the inner workings of a planned insurrection? Really?
Pence defied Trump's wishes and acted despite a real threat of violence to himself and others. That is not how administrations work.


What did Pence do? Gonna be tough to get around that fact to say this was a coup or insurrection. Does Trump owe Pence, sure.

As for violence, did he request protection from Trump? Besides rhetoric, what threats were made by Trump? Besides being disappointed and not agreeimg?

Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Yes and what did Pence do?

You just made my point. He said it was illegal. Pence certified and Biden was inaugurated all on time, January 6th and 20th respectively. That is how Administrations work.

Now, you want to arrest of ban Trump from future office because he was pissed about it? Did Cippilone and Pence save Trump from himself? Maybe, but the point is moot. His Administration did what it was supposed to do.

Now if real, provable evidence shows up to say Trump than went and talked these people into storming Congress and he was going to overthrow the Government? Than you got something. Right now, we have supposition and a childish behavior. That is about all. DOJ indicts, based on evidence than we can talk.

Doubt that will happen. The best witness for the prosecution was at the level to clean up spilled spaghetti, but knew the inner workings of a planned insurrection? Really?
Pence defied Trump's wishes and acted despite a real threat of violence to himself and others. That is not how administrations work.

As for violence, did he request protection from Trump? Besides rhetoric, what threats were made by Trump? Besides being disappointed and not agreeimg?
On Jan 6, Pence refused to get into vehicle driven by a SS agent he didn't know. He preferred to stay with the agent he knew. This was when Pence was in the undisclosed location after Trump expressed "disappointment" in Pence and the Capitol rioters were yelling "hang Mike Pence".
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Irrelevant according to whom? Who says an explicit command is needed to incite violence?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

RMF5630 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Well, Trump's attorney believed their plan was illegal and said so in writing.
Yes and what did Pence do?

You just made my point. He said it was illegal. Pence certified and Biden was inaugurated all on time, January 6th and 20th respectively. That is how Administrations work.

Now, you want to arrest of ban Trump from future office because he was pissed about it? Did Cippilone and Pence save Trump from himself? Maybe, but the point is moot. His Administration did what it was supposed to do.

Now if real, provable evidence shows up to say Trump than went and talked these people into storming Congress and he was going to overthrow the Government? Than you got something. Right now, we have supposition and a childish behavior. That is about all. DOJ indicts, based on evidence than we can talk.

Doubt that will happen. The best witness for the prosecution was at the level to clean up spilled spaghetti, but knew the inner workings of a planned insurrection? Really?
Pence defied Trump's wishes and acted despite a real threat of violence to himself and others. That is not how administrations work.


What did Pence do? Gonna be tough to get around that fact to say this was a coup or insurrection. Does Trump owe Pence, sure.

As for violence, did he request protection from Trump? Besides rhetoric, what threats were made by Trump? Besides being disappointed and not agreeimg?


A coup attempt doesn't imply the cooperation of every official involved. On the contrary, it means that some are working against others. Trump's attempt to retain power is no less real just because it was thwarted by Pence.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

GrowlTowel said:

Osodecentx said:

GrowlTowel said:

Osodecentx said:

GrowlTowel said:

Osodecentx said:

Forest Bueller said:

Osodecentx said:

GrowlTowel said:

Osodecentx said:

RMF5630 said:

Guy Noir said:

It is an investigation not a trial. No charges have been submitted as of this time.
An investigation on national TV??? Sort of like COPS, American Detectives or The Interrogator?

I got it, Injustice with Nancy Grace! That is it and Cheney plays Nancy Grace, same haircut and everything.

Not very credible, but a compelling watch. 4 Rotten Tomatoes...
Seems like you Forever Trumpers want a president who won't be indicted by a Congressional committee that is televised.
Y'all don't want a committee to gather information because it reflects poorly on your boy and people can see it for what it is.


Problem is it is a political committee that isn't actually gathering facts. It is merely publishing cherry-picked materials to support a conclusion that was reached prior to the formation of the committee.

You know this.
Problem is they are discovering inconvenient facts


Only thing new discovered so far is second hand heresy from an ambitious source.

Let's wait for an actual witness to testify before we anoint there being new facts.

If the driver and secret service members confirm her second hand heresy, then I will change my mind. Right now it's still a big nothing.
Hutchinson was in the room when Trump learned that folks who were armed were being denied access.
She was in the room when Trump said the armed folks were not there to harm him.
She is an actual witness. This isn't hearsay; it's an eyewitness.

I do want to hear from Ornato, a former SS agent who was a Trump senior staffer. He was in the vehicle. He isn't SS, so he should be able to testify.
Yet, not a single gun was found? Armed with what?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-audio-identifies-weapons-on-jan-6/2022/06/28/8be1aa71-99c7-444a-881c-37972347e049_video.html
Police audio identifies weapons on Jan. 6
June 28, 2022 | 1:43 PM CDT
Police radio transmissions identified individuals with firearms, including AR-15s, near the Ellipse on the morning of Jan. 6.





No charges?

I think not. Police were identifying the armed demonstrators by the manner of their dress for their colleagues' safety and the safety of POTUS


Guns? Nope.

Some "insurrection."
First you argue that there were no guns. We prove there were guns by the contemporaneous police audio.
Then you argue there were no gun charges. We prove there were charges.

What, exactly is your argument?
your argument is that some people in WDC had guns on the date of the riot, ergo the riot was an insurrection.

beyond the a priori problem implicit in your argument, where are the charges against people using guns in the capitol?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
Double standards are straight out of "repressive tolerance." Dems are the good guys so they can say whatever they want. But their opponents are treated as proto-fascists who must tiptoe thru linguistic minefields or incur heaps of opprobrium. GOP establishment always accommodated to those rules, and the base chafed. Trump's unwillingness to play by those rules is one of the things that so endears him to his ardent supporters, who are quite tired of the leftist bullying.

The irony comes from establishment Republicans, some of whom are literally suffering from Stockholm syndrome. They are so aghast at the specter of their party no longer abiding by the rule of repressive tolerance that they have joined leftists in denouncing them as proto-fascists.

Dems are losing big pieces of their base over this dynamic. NYT article today describing Mayra Flores as a far-right winger shows that they have lost the ability to play with carrots.
And, of course, that loss of base s complete with establishment Republicans. They are going out with kamikaze attacks against their own as the final virtue posture.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam: "There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence"

Proof Sam is a hypocrite.

But we all knew that.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.
whiterock
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
The context was a direct assault on SCOTUS and a warning that it better not rule independently but how Schumer, Biden, Harries, Pelosi, etc., want. Again, you're fine with undermining democracy if it is not Trump.
I'm not fine with it at all. I just don't think it's the same as an actual attempt to topple the Supreme Court, which isn't what the context indicates.
4th and Inches
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
should he have said we gotta fight like hell to stop them?
“Mix a little foolishness with your serious plans. It is lovely to be silly at the right moment.”

–Horace


“Insomnia sharpens your math skills because you spend all night calculating how much sleep you’ll get if you’re able to ‘fall asleep right now.’ “
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
whiterock said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
Possibly. Again, that's why the double standards are exhaustive when discussing subjective questions. There were exponentially more calls of for violence against SCOTUS after the decision leaked whether direct or the infamous "dog whistles" to the point of an assassin tried.

The leaking of the draft opinion was a bigger threat to democracy than anything that happened Jan. 6. (yes, I realize that's subjective too) I just don't think Buffalo Man walking through the Capitol was a threat to the biggest military on the planet.
He wasn't trying to threaten the military, he was trying to enlist their aid.

It is futile to pick and compare quotes out of context. That doesn't mean the whole analysis is subjective. It all goes back to whether the statements were 1) directed to producing imminent lawless action and 2) likely to produce such action. Schumer waxing eloquent with his whirlwind metaphor isn't usually the kind of thing that makes people pour into the streets and rush to attack the nearest judge or politician. We don't even know that Kavanaugh's would-be assassin heard it. Trump's case is different for all kinds of obvious reasons, from the known volatility of the situation at a particular time and place, to the fact that he spoke directly to his followers and they seemed to respond accordingly.
and of course the elephant in the room on the insurrection angle is that Trump was the CIC of the biggest military on the planet. he certainly did not take any extraordinary effort to employ them to either hinder the EV certification process or support protests to it. he have a verbal direction to members of his cabinet/staff and let them make the decisions on what was needed and when. They acted on that verbal direction and did not take any extraordinary action when initially rebuffed. Neither did they attempt to exploit the 11th hour when wiser heads at the Capitol realized there was a potential for trouble and started casting about for help.

So many opportunities throughout the process for an aspiring tyrant to exploit opportunities to usurp power. All passed without incident.
All challenges were within existing systems/processes.

Perhaps if you had any experience with actual insurrection, you'd see things more clearly.
That's pure fantasy. There's no reason to think the military would have cooperated with an attempt to usurp power, and Trump surely knew that.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
4th and Inches said:

Sam Lowry said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Sam Lowry said:

What calls for attacks on a branch of government?
Just search for the last few weeks response to the SCOTUS decisions from the Majority Leader threatening the Court to calls for violence against SCOUS justices might be a good place to start.
I read the news, but I don't recall seeing anything like that. There's no reason to think Schumer's "reap the whirlwind" statement was a call for violence, if that's what you mean.

ETA: Disregard emoji.
should he have said we gotta fight like hell to stop them?
In that context I don't think it would have mattered. "Fight like hell" can have a different meaning depending on whether you're talking to a bunch of journalists at a media event or a bunch of armed fanatics at what they believe to be a crisis.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.