Oldbear83 said:BUDOS said:Oldbear83 said:
Hello again, BUDOS. Thanks for your post, which I now will address:
BUDOS: "Now, speaking of semantics, please explain to me how I am so damn intellectually dishonest if I did not know about the sources you present?"
The chief problem in many issues regarding Trump, is the polarization of opinion and expressed emotion. It's obvious that many people have strong hatred against the President, and this colors how they think and speak, including posts here. I certainly understand people have the right to their opinion, but in many posts here these people treat their assumptions as established fact.
That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.
There is no proof that this happened, and definitely evidence exists that demonstrates the opposite. A key piece is the claim that Trump offered to send National Guard troops.
People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.
That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.
I am disappointed in you here, BUDOS, because I would expect you to do more than a cursory look at the claims, and to observe the apparent motives to avoid bias.
BUDOS: "Yes, as I was watching this all day on different live TV stations, heard Trump did ask his supporters to march "peacefully and patriotically" during his speech on January 6, 2021.
In researching your above comment, whether this was "often deleted" by mainstream media is a matter of significant debate, especially since some recent findings indicate specific editing by major broadcasters which add credibility to your claim."
Thank you. I want to be clear that I dislike Trump's style of debate on this day, and especially believe that he did not think through what might happen. But poor judgment does not rise to criminal conduct in this case, and frankly a lot of people exercised poor judgement regarding that day, including many who attack Trump and ignore everything else.
BUDOS: "I compare his "peacefully" remark as a secondary detail compared to his broader rhetoric"
There is that bias I was concerned about.
BUDOS: "Something which I took special notice is that while watching the riot at the Capitol on television, Trump ignored requests to call off the crowd for 187 minutes."
I have seen that claim before. Usually from people unaware that those who rioted started while Trump was still making his speech.
Timeline reveals Capitol Hill riot began 20 mins before end of Trump's speech | The Post Millennial | thepostmillennial.com
Even CNN, whose version of events was painted in a tone meant to attack Trump, concedes this.
The January 6 insurrection: Minute-by-minute | CNN Politics
This timeline matters, because no one seriously believes that President Trump finished his speech then immediately started watching TV about a riot he knew nothing about. Especially because as President, Trump already had other scheduled meetings and tasks that day.
The reasonable perspective would be that Trump made his speech, took care of various matters, became aware of the riots and then asked people to go home.
The thing is, treating Trump as a reasonable person does not fit the image his enemies want to have used. It's why the J6 committee destroyed so much of the evidence they had - they only wanted the narrative known, not the facts.
I certainly understand that someone committed to hate will refuse to grant that President Trump was guilty only of anger and a belief that he was the victim of a stolen election (not going into that here - it's a different topic). But anyone claiming to be an objective judge should recognize that Trump's enemies were far from honest themselves, and many claims made against Trump amounted to nothing more than smear attempts which conveniently ignores their own shameful behavior.
Oldbear,
Sorry for delaying my response. It's a combination of unexpected personal events plus wanting to give more attention to the information you provided. I will get back to you. I will give a brief response to one of your points which I placed yours in italics:
That is the problem with much of the J6 events. Many who hate Trump assume without evidence that he deliberately encouraged violence and criminal behavior.
People who hate Trump often believe Pelosi's denial that the offer happened, and ignore anything else. Those more objective look at the people making statements, and consider whether the statement is biased on its face or could be objective.
That the Capitol police chief at that time says the offer was made and he forwarded the request is strong evidence, as this man neither worked for Trump personally nor had anything to gain by confirming the matter. Everyone claiming the offer was not made had an interest in denying the offer.
Mr. Oldbear,
Let me say this very simply that based on my follow-up research of your comments about the Capitol police, you were right and I was wrong.
Thanks BUDOS.
The funny thing (strange, not comedy) about this situation, is how both the Trump supporters and the anti-Trump people screwed up their arguments.
It should be obvious on its face, that Trump handled this situation badly. While I do think there were a lot of dirty tricks in the 2020 election, the difference between seeing something you count as dirty and being able to prove an illegal behavior happened is a very big chasm. Trump could have raised questions about issues while letting the process move forward, then let momentum carry the argument without the court drama. Trump's decision to press arguments he could not prove cost him a lot of credibility, which he only regained because Biden also went well over the line.
That said, Trump's words and actions were crass and showed poor judgment, but never rose to the level of actual illegal activity, or worthy of that cheap-trick impeachment by Democrats. Rather than send Trump home in shame, the Democrats revealed themselves to be just as petty if not even more.
By the time Joe Biden was inaugurated, many voters believed the two parties to be full of petulant, angry narcissists. Not much has happened since to improve that image for the average voter.
Oldbear,
I again apologize for the delay in responding. Similar to before I have a bit more going on than usual, plus wanting to research the information you took the time to present.
As I indicated earlier your report about the capitol police, you were right and I was wrong. However, related to the statement that Trump requested 10,000 troops, independent factchecks and Pentagon records find no evidence that Trump formally requested or authorized 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6, or that Pelosi "turned them down." Trump has repeatedly said he did this, but there is no written order, no formal request through the usual channels, and no record of Pelosi being asked to approve such a request.
There does exist testimony from Gen. Mark Milley and Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller indicates Trump made a general remark days before Jan. 6 along the lines of "make sure it's safe" and that they could use the Guard if needednot a specific, numeric, predeployment order for 10,000 troops at the Capitol. That's very different from a concrete, documented directive that was then blocked by Democrats, as indicated in one of the articles you sent me.
