whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Of course it would, but he didn't, and there is no number of rhetorical devices you can employ to can change the record of what he actually said.

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Of course it would, but he didn't, and there is no number of rhetorical devices you can employ to can change the record of what he actually said.

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

"Ends justify means" is your philosophy, not mine. Pandering to leftist rioters is disgraceful and should not be exempt from criticism. But when you're claiming "reap the whirlwind" is worse than anything Trump ever said, you've lost all perspective.

---

Well, it is. It was the Minority Leader of the Senate calling out a federal judge by name, threatening unspecified violence if a certain course of action was taken. Trump never remotely did that.

And nothing about my posts suggests "ends justify means." Sophistry is your schtick.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Of course it would, but he didn't, and there is no number of rhetorical devices you can employ to can change the record of what he actually said.

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

"Ends justify means" is your philosophy, not mine. Pandering to leftist rioters is disgraceful and should not be exempt from criticism. But when you're claiming "reap the whirlwind" is worse than anything Trump ever said, you've lost all perspective.

---

Well, it is. It was the Minority Leader of the Senate calling out a federal judge by name, threatening unspecified violence if a certain course of action was taken. Trump never remotely did that.

And nothing about my posts suggests "ends justify means." Sophistry is your schtick.

---

It's more than just a suggestion. It's a constant and unmistakable drumbeat......

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Of course it would, but he didn't, and there is no number of rhetorical devices you can employ to can change the record of what he actually said.

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

"Ends justify means" is your philosophy, not mine. Pandering to leftist rioters is disgraceful and should not be exempt from criticism. But when you're claiming "reap the whirlwind" is worse than anything Trump ever said, you've lost all perspective.

---

Well, it is. It was the Minority Leader of the Senate calling out a federal judge by name, threatening unspecified violence if a certain course of action was taken. Trump never remotely did that.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I don't disagree with the insurrection part. It is that it was Trump or the Trump Administration's insurrection. The crowd may have wanted to fight for Trump, but that is a much different thing than Trump planning and executing an insurrection no matter how many circumstantial tidbits you try to piece together. You connect the certification with the insurrection as if Trump directed it. So far, no evidence of that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

As I've said, I don't know whether he planned it. He was obviously connected with it, if only because he inspired it with his words and endorsed it with his silence.

---

That is a huge jump. He gave a speech. These are adults, responsible for their own actions. He said to go and demonstrate, not break in. There is a huge difference between instructing someone to do a legal act and an illegal one.

---

It's a very not huge jump.

---

So, someone gives a speech. Tells you to do something peacefully, you decide to break in and threaten public officials and it is the guy that gave the speech's fault?

---

Let me push the hypothetical as far as possible to make a point. Someone gives a speech, tells you to break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder, but somewhere in the speech they tell you to do it peacefully. Is the speaker responsible? Why or why not?

---

Ok Sam. PLEASE show me where in Trumps speech he said: you to "break in, threaten, fight, burn, loot, and murder"?

I can show you where he said to be peaceful and follow the law.

I don't want to hear:
We all know what he meant...
He implied...
He said to marvh to Congress...
They are not charging for the good of the Nation
Or any other BS.

I want proof. Charge him and go through due process. Or shut up and leave the guy alone.

---

I'm asking you hypothetically.

---

Hypothetical is what you have without proof. That is where we are at

---

You asked me, if someone gave a speech telling me to do something peacefully and I decided to commit crimes, would it be the fault of the guy who made the speech? You didn't ask about Trump. Just a theoretical guy. That's a hypothetical.

I'm asking you whether it matters what else the guy said. Not what Trump said. Just your theoretical guy. If he said "peacefully" but also said a whole bunch of other violent stuff, would it matter?

---

Of course it would, but he didn't, and there is no number of rhetorical devices you can employ to can change the record of what he actually said.

Now an awfully large number of Democrat elected officials HAVE made an awful lot of speeches/statements full of explicitly inciteful language during the middle of nightly riots that caused billions of dollars of property damage and cost the lives of hundreds of people, including a few dozen police officers, most of it organized legally by organizations operating on monies crowdfunded by ActBlue, and it did affect the election. But they're Democrats and therefore exempt from the template you are applying, because...well....obviously Trump is the problem and ends justify means, you know....

---

"Ends justify means" is your philosophy, not mine. Pandering to leftist rioters is disgraceful and should not be exempt from criticism. But when you're claiming "reap the whirlwind" is worse than anything Trump ever said, you've lost all perspective.

---

Well, it is. It was the Minority Leader of the Senate calling out a federal judge by name, threatening unspecified violence if a certain course of action was taken. Trump never remotely did that.

---

Neither did Schumer, BTW.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

right.. take off the "its all Trumps fault" glasses and read again

It says we were told and did nothing

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

Like it will address how a Barney Fife shot an unarmed woman?

DEFUND THE CAPITOL POLICE!

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

Will it? So far, all we have heard is Trump, Trump, Trump... To the point of what he ate for lunch. I have not heard the Jan 6th Commission discuss what was known/suspected before and who made the decisions not to have a presence. Was Mayor Bowser called before to discuss the National Guard?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

Will it? So far, all we have heard is Trump, Trump, Trump... To the point of what he ate for lunch. I have not heard the Jan 6th Commission discuss what was known/suspected before and who made the decisions not to have a presence. Was Mayor Bowser called before to discuss the National Guard?

---

Yes, in fact they're preparing a whole separate report on that topic.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

Is that what you get out of it?

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

They were warned and chose not to either by negligence or on purpose.

About time we start calling some people in front of the J6 committee who can answer for these failures

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

Is that what you get out of it?

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

They were warned and chose not to either by negligence or on purpose.

About time we start calling some people in front of the J6 committee who can answer for these failures

---

Of what were they warned?

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

From whom should the Capitol have been secured? If it was just elderly, unarmed tourist the police were prepared. OTOH, if it was rioters set on disrupting the electoral voted count, they were not.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

right.. take off the "its all Trumps fault" glasses and read again

It says we were told and did nothing

---

It really doesn't. Take off the "blame the victim" glasses and look again.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

From whom should the Capitol have been secured? If it was just elderly, unarmed tourist the police were prepared. OTOH, if it was rioters set on disrupting the electoral voted count, they were not.

---

Well, if you have intelligence that the Proud Boys and other groups were planning to be there you would think an extra presence would be a good idea. Especially, since the FBI said they and groups like them were the biggest to the US there was, remember that report after Charlottesville?

So,
- you have intel that the Proud Boys are planning to come to the Capital
- the FBI said they were among our biggest domestic threats
- we just had the Summer of Love
- the election was disputed, (which is being certified inside)
- Trump (whom you say is warmongering) is having a demonstration within walking distance
- You may have a VP not certify

What do you do??? Tell the National Guard not to be there, have a normal contingent of Capital Police and act like nothing special is going on, just old ladies and tourist. YEAH, that sounds like a good plan...

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

From whom should the Capitol have been secured? If it was just elderly, unarmed tourist the police were prepared. OTOH, if it was rioters set on disrupting the electoral voted count, they were not.

---

Well, if you have intelligence that the Proud Boys and other groups were planning to be there you would think an extra presence would be a good idea. Especially, since the FBI said they and groups like them were the biggest to the US there was, remember that report after Charlottesville?

So,
- you have intel that the Proud Boys are planning to come to the Capital
- the FBI said they were among our biggest domestic threats
- we just had the Summer of Love
- the election was disputed, (which is being certified inside)
- Trump (whom you say is warmongering) is having a demonstration within walking distance
- You may have a VP not certify

What do you do??? Tell the National Guard not to be there, have a normal contingent of Capital Police and act like nothing special is going on, just old ladies and tourist. YEAH, that sounds like a good plan...

---

Do we agree that some of the rioters were dangerous and wanted to disrupt the Electoral Vote count that is mandated by the Constitution?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

If that's true I'm sure the interim report will address it.

---

Will it? So far, all we have heard is Trump, Trump, Trump... To the point of what he ate for lunch. I have not heard the Jan 6th Commission discuss what was known/suspected before and who made the decisions not to have a presence. Was Mayor Bowser called before to discuss the National Guard?

---

Yes, in fact they're preparing a whole separate report on that topic.

---

Why a different report? Why isn't it discussed on national TV?

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

From whom should the Capitol have been secured? If it was just elderly, unarmed tourist the police were prepared. OTOH, if it was rioters set on disrupting the electoral voted count, they were not.

---

Well, if you have intelligence that the Proud Boys and other groups were planning to be there you would think an extra presence would be a good idea. Especially, since the FBI said they and groups like them were the biggest to the US there was, remember that report after Charlottesville?

So,
- you have intel that the Proud Boys are planning to come to the Capital
- the FBI said they were among our biggest domestic threats
- we just had the Summer of Love
- the election was disputed, (which is being certified inside)
- Trump (whom you say is warmongering) is having a demonstration within walking distance
- You may have a VP not certify

What do you do??? Tell the National Guard not to be there, have a normal contingent of Capital Police and act like nothing special is going on, just old ladies and tourist. YEAH, that sounds like a good plan...

---

Do we agree that some of the rioters were dangerous and wanted to disrupt the Electoral Vote count that is mandated by the Constitution?

---

I think the failure was not having a president that would discourage this type of behavior.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Seems to be warning of more than rowdy tourists

---

That email points out the absolute failure of the people in charge of the capital police / building security and everybody who can make a decision.

---

It doesn't really point out anything. All it says is that sometimes people don't take threats seriously enough, he hopes that didn't happen in this case, and there should be an investigation. Not exactly earth-shattering.

---

Geez, Sam. ANYTHING that comes out that may show that this was not all Trump is ho-hum.

He threw his plate being upset after news he didn't like, see lock him up.

Can you try to be a little objective?

---

If you asked me to defend Trump and brought me this document as evidence, my objective advice would be that you need to do a whole lot better. There's not one relevant evidentiary point in the entire letter.

---

No one is asking to defend Trump. But, there was intelligence about several organizations were going to be there and cause trouble, steps were not taken to ensure the Capital was secured. That plays into Jan 6th. It is not all about Trump, there are other things the Jan 6th Commission should be discussing. But, they are micro-focused on Trump.

---

From whom should the Capitol have been secured? If it was just elderly, unarmed tourist the police were prepared. OTOH, if it was rioters set on disrupting the electoral voted count, they were not.

---

Well, if you have intelligence that the Proud Boys and other groups were planning to be there you would think an extra presence would be a good idea. Especially, since the FBI said they and groups like them were the biggest to the US there was, remember that report after Charlottesville?

So,
- you have intel that the Proud Boys are planning to come to the Capital
- the FBI said they were among our biggest domestic threats
- we just had the Summer of Love
- the election was disputed, (which is being certified inside)
- Trump (whom you say is warmongering) is having a demonstration within walking distance
- You may have a VP not certify

What do you do??? Tell the National Guard not to be there, have a normal contingent of Capital Police and act like nothing special is going on, just old ladies and tourist. YEAH, that sounds like a good plan...

---

Do we agree that some of the rioters were dangerous and wanted to disrupt the Electoral Vote count that is mandated by the Constitution?

---

I think the failure was not having a president that would discourage this type of behavior.

---

FIFY

---