-->
@Greyparrot
Saying it's hypocritical to ensure the safety of the lives of leaders
that's not even close to my stated claim
January 6th Hearings
Posts
Total:
655
-->
@Greyparrot
Never ceases to amaze me how right wingers cannot tell the difference between subpoeanaing witnesses to a plot to overthrow US Democracy, and subpoeanaing someone for not being sufficiently loyal to the home team.Cause Democrats thought the tank would make Dukakis look good, just like Trumpy's spray-on-tan aides were supposed to make Pelosi look good. Hilariously wrong as it turned out.Very bad political optics.
We're not talking about political optics. We're talking about upholding the rule of law in our democracy. You know, the thing people like you love to pretend you care about while demonstrating clearly that you don't.
-->
@coal
Really not concerned about polls and ratings, I would love to know your thoughts on the actual case being presented. Like the fact that Trump wanted the mob that attacked the Capitol to be armed and wanted to lead them himself, both of which were stopped only because people in his own government stood up to him and told him no.
I get that not every right winger here is a Trump supporter and most claim they only voted for him cause they didn't like the alternatives, but none of that is relavant to this. How is this example *alone* not automatically disqualifying to the prospect of this man ever showing his face in political life again?
-->
@ILikePie5
I think it’s reasonable to find out why Pelosi didn’t want any GOP reps to question their witnesses considering she singlehandedly rejected the GOP bench put forth by McCarthy (unprecedented).
We know why she rejected two of McCarthy's picks; because they are unquestionable partisan hacks who had no interest in investigating January 6th and one of them is a literal material witness to the events being investigated. They were poison pills McCarthy threw in there on purpose just so he could have an excuse to not participate, and he thought this would be good best option because he knew partisan hacks liked yourself would carry his water. I mean seriously, the guy flew down to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring. You can't be serious to claim he had any interest in this.
I also want to know what she knew about the clear intelligence that this was coming, and if she did know why she rejected the National Guard.
Funny how you don't share that same interest to know what Trump knew about it and what he did in response, especially considering that what they did was done in his name.
Also funny that you care to know what Pelosi did about it in the days prior, but no interest to know what Trump was doing about it as it was happening.
You're not a serious person to talk to about this.
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
We know why she rejected two of McCarthy's picks; because they are unquestionable partisan hacks who had no interest in investigating January 6th and one of them is a literal material witness to the events being investigated. They were poison pills McCarthy threw in there on purpose just so he could have an excuse to not participate, and he thought this would be good best option because he knew partisan hacks liked yourself would carry his water. I mean seriously, the guy flew down to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring. You can't be serious to claim he had any interest in this.
So Pelosi can put Adam Schiff, the definition of a partisan hack on the committee, but it’s somehow partisan for McCarthy to put Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on the committee? Give me a break lol.
Funny how you don't share that same interest to know what Trump knew about it and what he did in response, especially considering that what they did was done in his name.
You mean the statement where he said peacefully and patriotically protest at the rally before? That part the J6 committee conveniently left out. This never would’ve happened if Pelosi accepted the request for the additional troops. Intelligence clearly knew this was going to happen lol
Also funny that you care to know what Pelosi did about it in the days prior, but no interest to know what Trump was doing about it as it was happening.You're not a serious person to talk to about this.
What did you want him to do? Send the National Guard that Nancy Pelosi rejected earlier because of optics lol? The true mastermind behind J6 was Nancy Pelosi. She was the one that allowed this to happen. Turns out Congress has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Or did you not read the Constitution?
-->
@Double_R
I would love to know your thoughts on the actual case being presented. Like the fact that Trump wanted the mob that attacked the Capitol to be armed and wanted to lead them himself, both of which were stopped only because people in his own government stood up to him and told him no.
My thoughts on the "actual case" are based on what the committee has failed to uncover, present or illustrate to the American media. What the committee has failed to present is actual evidence. There is no direct evidence to support the claims the January 6th committee has made regarding Trump's role in instigating an insurrection. There is no indirect evidence to circumstantially support the same claims. To the extent anything held out as purported evidence has been presented, nothing whatsoever has even crossed the threshold of plausibility. Which is why we're in congress as opposed to a court of law, presumably. The democrats have overplayed their hand. A captive media who will report whatever conspiratorial ideations democrat strategists come up with have failed to move the ball forward for democrats as a party on issues pertaining to January 6th. We've seen the tweets they hold out as "evidence" of Trump's purported "role," but they fall short.
Do not make the mistake of assuming I approve of what Trump or those fools/idiots on January 6th did, however. Because I absolutely do not. I live in a city where protests far more violent than that took place right outside of my office and my then-apartment. Whether conducted by BLM or idiot/fool LARPers from the midwest, their only remedy is at the ballot box. That remedy had not been exhausted, regardless of whatever happened that they believe calls the outcome of the 2020 election into question. The electoral process occurred and resulted in Joe Biden winning, which wasn't surprising given how democrats re-wrote the rules of mail-in balloting during COVID to their advantage and seemingly exploited that set of circumstances to their advantage. Even still, any remedy is at the ballot box alone. To that end, we'll see what happens in the midterms this November and in 2024. I suspect a change is gonna' come.
As to the claim that a "mob attacked the Capitol," there is no evidence for that either. There's video of a protest taking place in proximity to the Capitol, police channeling that protest towards the Capitol Building and police opening the doors for protesters to welcome them in. There are videos of curious looking folks engaged in acts of provocation, encouraging protesters to move in that direction. But the crowd of protesters wasn't headed in that direction before certain provocateurs herded them in that direction, in much the same way that border collies herd sheep into a pin. Sure is interesting how those same provocateurs have curiously have evaded criminal prosecution, while everyone else has been arrested, charged and many remain in solitary confinement.
As to the claim that Trump somehow wanted any of that, the press release, tweets and video evidence plainly indicate otherwise. He literally told that lot to stand down and go home. Whether he played some role in causing that protest to form in the first instance, as he may have done, doesn't alter the fact that he went on TV and Twitter and specifically said to desist all such protest activities. In light of that, portraying Trump's actions as some kind of a coup, attempted coup or the protest as any sort of "insurrection" is absurd. Insurrection is a crime, for which none have been charged under American law. If there was even a plausible claim that anyone had engaged in "insurrection" as that term is defined by law in this country, the charge would appear on the indictments. Again, no one has been charged.
-->
@coal
Agree 100 percent. Congress should be talking about security, not the "orangeman."
If their wildly unpopular expressed stance on the SCOTUS protests is any indication of their ability or desire to protect democracy, then they surely can't be trusted to protect the capitol in the future.
Let's not even talk about all the street cred the Democrats lost on security with the defund police/let BLM riot bullshit.
It's just terrible political optics when the country needs leadership and real assurances of security. That ultimately means bi-partisan policies that demand an immediate reduction in political violence. Not this partisan shitshow. While California and New York are OK with perpetual one party rule, the rest of the country most certainly are not OK with that, and never will be.
-->
@ILikePie5
Turns out Congress has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Or did you not read the Constitution?
He probably read the Howard Zinn edition.😇
-->
@Greyparrot
Mob intimidation and public executions didn't work out so well for France, Ireland, or Al Capone.
wait, you forgot SICILY
-->
@3RU7AL
I suspect a change is gonna' come.
-->
@ILikePie5
So Pelosi can put Adam Schiff, the definition of a partisan hack on the committee, but it’s somehow partisan for McCarthy to put Jim Jordan and Jim Banks on the committee? Give me a brea
Let's make this real easy...
Kevin McCarthy, the same guy who stood up and said on the house for on January 6th that Trump was responsible for the attack on the US Capitol, weeks later flew down to Mar-A-Lago to see Trump and then post a picture of the two of them together in an obviously apparent attempt to show the world they stand together.
Tell me with a straight face that this man had a genuine interest in investigating January 6th. I'll wait.
You mean the statement where he said peacefully and patriotically protest at the rally before?
This is such a stupid retort. If you actually believe this I pray for you that you never get caught up dealing with a mob boss. When they tell you "eh, nice family you have there, would be shame if something were to happen to them" you would be dumb enough to think he was expressing genuine concern for the safety of your family.
This is in law what's referred to as a false exculpatory. Something one says so that when they are charged for their actions they point back and say "no, look at what I said". It's like when a prostetute tells you they are charging you for their time.
Trump's effort to rile up this crowd was months in the making and his own aids have testified to it. Everyone in that crowd knew he wanted violence, his own aids testified to that too. This is why you are such an obvious partisan hack, you're just not stupid enough to believe this.
Trump just told a mob of angry supporters that their country had been stolen from them and they have to take it back by showing strength because it will never happen with weakness, and you seriously think the take away for that crowd was that they were supposed to make their voices heard peacefully?
No, you can't possibly seriously think this.
This never would’ve happened if Pelosi accepted the request for the additional troops. Intelligence clearly knew this was going to happen
Why did they need extra troops in the first place? Have you ever bothered to ask yourself that question? January 6th congress and goes every election, it is hardly even covered. What was different this year?
What did you want him to do? Send the National Guard that Nancy Pelosi rejected earlier because of optics lol?
First off, let's just point out that you are actually comparing Nancy Pelosi's decision to not request additional troops in the days and weeks prior to J6 to Trump's decision to not request additional troops as the attacks were unfolding. That's absurd, and I think you know that.
But to your question, YES, Trump was supposed to deploy the national guard. The DC national guard reports to the president, and yet on J6 it was Mike Pence who gave the orders for them to be deployed because Trump was MIA. Why does this not concern you?
-->
@Double_R
Why did they need extra troops in the first place? Have you ever bothered to ask yourself that question?
Who cares? Government failed in their duty to protect. The electorate isn't going to forgive 6 years of silence on political violence.
-->
@Double_R
Let's make this real easy...Kevin McCarthy, the same guy who stood up and said on the house for on January 6th that Trump was responsible for the attack on the US Capitol, weeks later flew down to Mar-A-Lago to see Trump and then post a picture of the two of them together in an obviously apparent attempt to show the world they stand together.Tell me with a straight face that this man had a genuine interest in investigating January 6th. I'll wait.
You think the Democrats had a serious interest in investigating Benghazi? God no. But the GOP still allowed Dems to sit on the committee that investigated it.
This is such a stupid retort. If you actually believe this I pray for you that you never get caught up dealing with a mob boss. When they tell you "eh, nice family you have there, would be shame if something were to happen to them" you would be dumb enough to think he was expressing genuine concern for the safety of your family.
Then why did the J6 Committee not play clip lol.
This is in law what's referred to as a false exculpatory. Something one says so that when they are charged for their actions they point back and say "no, look at what I said". It's like when a prostetute tells you they are charging you for their time.
No because Congress is in charge of the District of Columbia. Congress had the intelligence and they did nothing about it. Why?
Trump's effort to rile up this crowd was months in the making and his own aids have testified to it. Everyone in that crowd knew he wanted violence, his own aids testified to that too. This is why you are such an obvious partisan hack, you're just not stupid enough to believe this.
If they wanted violence then most wouldn’t have walked around taking pictures. An even bigger majority didn’t even go in. If riling up a crowd to think the election was stolen (it was) counts as an insurrection, then god help us.
Trump just told a mob of angry supporters that their country had been stolen from them and they have to take it back by showing strength because it will never happen with weakness, and you seriously think the take away for that crowd was that they were supposed to make their voices heard peacefully?No, you can't possibly seriously think this.
He’s talked about strength countless times during the campaign. Strength doesn’t automatically make things violent. You can show strength by protesting, which the vast majority of the people in DC did. And clearly it was peacefully because the vast majority left lmaoo.
Why did they need extra troops in the first place?
Because there was going to be a massive amount of people there. Where there’s a lot of people, there are going to be bad actors. They need more officers to manage the crowd. It’s nothing new.
Have you ever bothered to ask yourself that question? January 6th congress and goes every election, it is hardly even covered. What was different this year?
Ya but there wasn’t credible allegations of Democrats abusing the law to steal the election. The Wisconsin Supreme Court just ruled that the ballot drop boxes that the liberal hacks in the Governors office and election board implemented were unconstitutional.
First off, let's just point out that you are actually comparing Nancy Pelosi's decision to not request additional troops in the days and weeks prior to J6 to Trump's decision to not request additional troops as the attacks were unfolding. That's absurd, and I think you know that.
They did come didn’t they? Even the J6 committee isn’t questioning that the National Guard came. Believe it or not, it takes a while for the national guard to mobilize. They don’t just get on their bikes and hop on over to the Capitol. That’s why they need to be prepared BEFORE, so if something does happen then they’re ready for it. So why didn’t Pelosi approve of the National Guard beforehand? The intelligence clearly showed that they were needed.
But to your question, YES, Trump was supposed to deploy the national guard. The DC national guard reports to the president, and yet on J6 it was Mike Pence who gave the orders for them to be deployed because Trump was MIA. Why does this not concern you?
False. Pence wasn’t even in the chain of authority. Chris Miller testified that he didn’t need Trump’s approval because Trump had given him the authority beforehand to do what was necessary. Also, Chris Miller approved the deployment with that authority around 3pm. He approved the logistical plan at 4:30.
He [Chris Miller] said Pence is "not in the chain of command," and said, "He [Pence] did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based on his presence there. And I notified him or I informed him that by that point the District of Columbia National Guard was being fully mobilized and in coordination with local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.”
“Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.” —Pentagon
You might want to try again.
-->
@coal
That about sums it up. The two key points being "Why has not one single person been charged with insurrection" and "This is being done in Congress and not in a court of law.": Those two points alone should embarrass anyone who supports this clown show. You have to be a willful dullard to take it seriously and not see it for the clown show it is.
-->
@coal
As to the claim that a "mob attacked the Capitol," there is no evidence for that either. There's video of a protest taking place in proximity to the Capitol, police channeling that protest towards the Capitol Building and police opening the doors for protesters to welcome them in.
This is one of the most absurdly false claims I have seen on this site, and that is saying something.
There are hours upon hours upon hours of video footage showing the mob rioters plowing through the police barricades surrounding the Capitol, smashing windows and climbing in, breaking down doors, and beating up Capitol police officers as they did all of this. This isn’t a debatable point, the evidence is available to anyone with an internet connection. If you have not seen it yet the only reason that would be is because you’ve decided you are not interested in it.
The New York Times and others have literally put together a minute by minute breakdown of every piece of what happened that day, from the first barricades being breached to the first windows being smashed to the chambers being breached after congress evacuated. There is no excuse for claiming we don’t have evidence of what happened, we have video footage of the entire thing.
And for those individuals who still choose to ignore the footage, I’m just going to leave this here so you can keep on ignoring it.
This is literally like me claiming the Super Bowl didn’t happen.
I understand the impulse to ignore all of this evidence which objectively proves that this happened because you saw a handful of videos of police officers letting rioters in. To that I make two points; first is that even if those videos are taken to their extreme and accepted as fact, that still does not cancel out the fact that the mob rioters broke their way into the Capitol.
But more importantly, Capitol police already explained this; They were outnumbered. They had lost all control so in some instances the officers decided the better strategy was to try and contain the damage by politely letting rioters into the building as opposed to fighting then off and risk more personal injuries as well as property damage. That is a very simple and practical explanation, and one of the journalists who recorded one of these viral videos even explained that the right wing fantasy narrative of his video is not what happened.
As to the claim that Trump somehow wanted any of that, the press release, tweets and video evidence plainly indicate otherwise. He literally told that lot to stand down and go home.
The police barricades were breached by the mob at 1:30pm, right at about 2pm is when the first windows were smashed and the rioters began to flood the Capitol building. By 2:24pm congress was forced to evacuate both chambers.
Trump put out his video telling the mob to leave the Capitol at 4:17pm, almost two hours after congress was evacuated. Two. Hours.
There is no excuse for this, so to put this out there as a defense is insultingly stupid. I like most of the country and much of the world watched this unfold live. We all knew what was happening. Everyone in the country knew what was happening. Where was the president for two hours as the Capitol was attacked in his name?
Trump put out that video because he had no choice. Literally everyone in his White House along with all of his advisors on Fox News we’re pleading with him to put a stop to it. He didn’t put out that message because he wanted to, he put it out for PR. No rational person could argue otherwise.
And not only do you pretend that this excuse suffices despite how long the entire country was on standstill as we watched this whole thing play out, but you ignore that when he finally told the crowd to go home couldn’t resist but to tell them “we love you, you’re very special”.
I cannot believe I have to explain this.
And as far as whether he wanted any of it… as if it were not already blatantly obvious, yes he did says his own aids. Have you not watched any of the hearings? No, of course you haven’t.
-->
@Double_R
[Alleged] video footage showing the mob rioters plowing through the police barricades surrounding the Capitol, smashing windows and climbing in, breaking down doors, and beating up Capitol police officers as they did all of this.
There are four observations to note about your claims, there.
- Characterizing the individuals who participated in the events of January 6th as a "mob" or "rioters" is inherently biased advocacy. It would about four seconds for any idiot to figure out which side of this issue you're on, which is why your purported exercise of "explaining" is anything but.
- Characterizing those individuals' actions as "smashing windows and climbing in" or "ploughing through police barricades surrounding the capitol" is not inconsistent with what I said above. Those individuals movement towards the Capitol building was enthusiastic, as they were excited, enticed and encouraged to stampede, do so in the direction of the Capitol building to be conveniently let in by police there.
- The footage I linked from January 6th clearly indicates that after 2:34 PM, police let the protesters in through the upper west terrace doors. Nothing in that video suggests that police were "overwhelmed" or "overran." A steady stream of protesters were allowed in by cops standing at the interior doors.
- The timestamp is on the video itself. Based on your timeline, these people should have been stampeding across police barricades or have already done so on their way to overwhelming the police in something like a storming of the bastille. And is that what you see, here?
I don't care how media report what people say in a congressional investigation. These witnesses are making accusations against people who have no opportunity at all to cross examine them. Those allegations are being lodged in the context of a transparently partisan committee, without any actual (i.e., non-Liz Cheney) opposition. And then whatever they say is being twisted, contorted and exaggerated to the greatest plausibly conceivable degree by an activist media who downplayed BLM riots as "mostly peaceful protests."
Realize I am not expecting you to agree with me here. But I am telling you why the January 6th committee is a complete failure. David Brooks called it before the end of the first week: Democrats preemptively legitimized January 6. They didn’t know they were doing it at the time, but Democrats spent the summer of 2020 legitimizing “mostly peaceful” riots, arson, and murder during the George Floyd riots. Denounce whataboutism all you like, but as a political matter, whataboutism matters and always has. It is very difficult to argue that political violence is unacceptable when you have spent so many years accepting it.
Further, Democrats have attempted to delegitimize every single presidential election they have lost from 2000 onward, specifically 2016. The main organizing idea of Democratic politics from 2016 to 2020 was that the 2016 election was somehow stolen from Hillary Rodham Clinton, who insisted that Donald Trump was an “illegitimate” president. They didn’t know it at the time, but Democrats spent those years building the political defense of the 2020 attempt to overturn the election of Joe Biden.
So this probe is completely illegitimate; defenses of it do not even rise to the level of idiocy. It has produced nothing whatsoever other than the astonishing revelation of additional security footage, characterized ad nauseum as you have above. The January 6th hearings failed to tackle any consequential issue about the incident, will not hold anyone accountable and most Americans have tuned them out. As political theater and a play for the midterms, they’re pathetic.
To the extent any officers may have found themselves caught between a the protesters and the Capitol building, as the committee footage purportedly shows, we still have no idea how that happened. Why were numerous warnings about the crowd's size and anticipated activity totally ignored? Why did police decease their numbers despite the fact that they knew a crowd of this size was coming to Washington for the purpose of protesting certain political activities on that date? In the Capitol building? Why was that crowd of people riled up by instigators who were almost certainly plants by federal law enforcement? If they weren't plants, why haven't they been charged like everyone else?
The burden of proof for its claims lies solely with this so called committee. They have failed without exception to substantiate anything they've alleged with respect to "insurrections" or any "coup," particularly with respect to Trump. This is even more transparently bullshit than Russiagate.
-->
@coal
Additionally, people are getting exhausted with the constant gaslighting from the political left.
It's becoming a matter of sanity to simply tune out from whatever narrative is being sold as a bill of goods.
Turns out in a recession combined with stagflation that people don't need to manufacture 1st world problems by watching political theater on CNN anymore.
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree. There are those who will drink the kool aid. And that's really all the January 6th committee is. Though it's also a masturbatory exercise of anti-Trump rage; a coordinated struggle session.
-->
@coal
It's kind of interesting how all the philosophers explain why 1st world problems even exist. Most agree that if man reaches a state of social harmony and bliss, they will naturally manufacture some controversy simply to return to a state of stress and survival as was the evolutionary state for millions of years.
-->
@Greyparrot
I can agree to that idea, I have even been myself responsible for such drama stirring on sites like this.
-->
@RationalMadman
Purpose and meaning in life comes from overcoming obstacles and challenges. People need problems to maintain a healthy psychological state. So when people don’t have “real” problems in their life, they have a tendency to invent them, which why first world problems exist.
I just think there are wiser problems you can introduce into your life like getting married or taking on a tough job that are better for your well-being rather than facial tattoos, nose rings, and an obsession with the "orangeman"
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree, but most philosophers didn't agree to that. And would not. Certainly not Rousseau, any humanist or anyone who thinks humans by nature are inherently good. Or even inherently neutral. They are not.
Meaning is something that I think can't be understood . . . it isn't even coherent, outside of a theological level.
I forget the exact line, but it's the one Jordan Peterson references from Dostoevsky's Notes from Underground.
"I am a man, and not a piano key."
Something like that.
-->
@coal
I agree, but most philosophers didn't agree to that. And would not. Certainly not Rousseau, any humanist or anyone who thinks humans by nature are inherently good. Or even inherently neutral. They are not.
I was referring to the few philosophers engaged in explaining why man manufactures problems.
-->
@ILikePie5
If they wanted violence then most wouldn’t have walked around taking pictures. An even bigger majority didn’t even go in. If riling up a crowd to think the election was stolen (it was) counts as an insurrection, then god help us.
None of these points are relavant to the issue. There is a term called stochastic terrorism, which is where one makes vague notions of something bad that should happen, and then given the odds of someone listening to them will carry it out, it happens. This is danger that while the speaker is in fact responsible for, cannot be charged because they get to claim they didn't really mean it or that they weren't the one who actually did it.
Everytime we talk about J6 right wingers love to ignore the actual concept here and go with the stupid defense that Trump didn't tell them to go in. Everyone knew in real time today Trump's actions were a threat, and everyone knew in real time that he was responsible. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy all said so the day it happened.
But then something else happened... In the days and weeks later they realized Trump sycophants like yourself didn't give a shit and the political consequences of sticking to what they knew to be the case was greater than pretending Trump did nothing wrong. So here we are where the stupid arguments like "well Trump did say X" or "well some people didn't go in" actually make sense and address the issue here. They don't.
Chris Miller testified that he didn’t need Trump’s approval because Trump had given him the authority beforehand to do what was necessary
You left out what Trump actually told him.
"Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights," Miller said Trump told him on January 3.
It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.
That’s why they need to be prepared BEFORE, so if something does happen then they’re ready for it.
Trump did nothing as the attacks were happening, and yet your concern is about why the Capitol was not better prepared in the days beforehand.
Imagine if a mass shooting breaks out and the police officers on duty sat in their office for the first 20 minutes of it, then later people pretend we shouldn't be focused on the officers but rather we should be focused on why the metal detectors were down. That's the level of absurdity to this excuse.
-->
@Double_R
So in your eyes, are the J6 hearings to get Trump or is it to help develop plans to defend the capitol in the future? Because outside of partisan theatrics, it seems they are objectively doing neither.
-->
@Double_R
None of these points are relavant to the issue. There is a term called stochastic terrorism, which is where one makes vague notions of something bad that should happen, and then given the odds of someone listening to them will carry it out, it happens. This is danger that while the speaker is in fact responsible for, cannot be charged because they get to claim they didn't really mean it or that they weren't the one who actually did it.
That’s how it’s always been. If people could be charged for this, people like Maxine Waters would be in jail lmao.
Everytime we talk about J6 right wingers love to ignore the actual concept here and go with the stupid defense that Trump didn't tell them to go in. Everyone knew in real time today Trump's actions were a threat, and everyone knew in real time that he was responsible. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy all said so the day it happened.
Giving a speech in DC is a threat? Give me a break. You can blame Trump all you want lol, but he’s not responsible for the actions of the lunatics who were incited by people who still haven’t been charged and police who let the people in (something you have yet to address in responses to me and Coal).
But then something else happened... In the days and weeks later they realized Trump sycophants like yourself didn't give a shit and the political consequences of sticking to what they knew to be the case was greater than pretending Trump did nothing wrong. So here we are where the stupid arguments like "well Trump did say X" or "well some people didn't go in" actually make sense and address the issue here. They don't.
They make perfect sense. You’re acting like Trump is responsible for the decisions of grown ass mention. Those idiots who entered made stupid decision even upon the purposeful incitement and police allowance of entrance.
You left out what Trump actually told him."Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights," Miller said Trump told him on January 3.It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.
It’s very telling that you think that you once again don’t realize that there has to be a formal request from DC authorities before troops are send. Read your own source. Muriel Bowser requested the presence of the national guard.
“Mayor Muriel Bowser, who Miller said requested unarmed personnel to reinforce local law enforcement. During a meeting with Trump on January 3, Miller told the former president of Bowser's request after Trump asked if anyone had asked for additional support from the National Guard.”
What do you think “fill it” is referring to? Now please explain why Muriel Bowser, a Democratic partisan hack did that? To protect the people?
It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.
In case you didn’t know, there’s something called the chain of command. You don’t go directly to the President. There’s a request from someone like Bowser or Congressional Officials, which goes to the Secretary of the Army, which goes to the Secretary of Defense, which can then go to the President. In a situation like this, you wanted Chris Miller to call Trump to ask, can we deploy? If you wanted to avoid the bureaucracy, you could’ve had Bowser of Congressional offices call the President or Miller directly. Why didn’t they? You’re acting like Trump is some god who can do whatever he wants, which is absurd.
I can tell you why the police officers sat for 20 minutes — bureaucrat + checks/balances. Something that could’ve been before the tragedy even occurred. Imagine if the cop was allowed to shoot the shooter at Uvalde before the kids were killed. What did he have to do? Ask his boss.
-->
@Greyparrot
So in your eyes, are the J6 hearings to get Trump or is it to help develop plans to defend the capitol in the future? Because outside of partisan theatrics, it seems they are objectively doing neither.
They’re to charge him for an insurrection. Someone which they haven’t even charged the people that broke into the Capitol lol
-->
@ILikePie5
They’re to charge him for an insurrection. Someone which they haven’t even charged the people that broke into the Capitol lol
4 more months of 6 years of the "walls closing in"
Americans are so lucky to have such a quick response time to threats.
-->
@ILikePie5
Those idiots who entered made stupid decision even upon the purposeful incitement and police allowance of entrance.
I remember on one of the videos, one of the protesters said "they are gonna lock us in here!" after a DC cop waved them through.