The Jan. 6 Investigation

[bruto]

The real question is, who did those Dems that didn't want Hillary vote for? After all, they are the ones who got Trump elected in the first place. I've seen it put forth here that Dems who were against Hillary largely stayed home. I bet they are proud.

You just gotta laugh. You can't blame everything on conservatives, I'm afraid.

Bulllshit. The people who nominated and elected Trump are responsible for doing so. It's childish and stupid to blame those who didn't stop them. This is true even if it's also lamentable that they did not.

If you voted for Trump that's what you did, and you got what you voted for, and you can't turn around now and say "you made me do it."

 

[mikegriffith1]

To believe that Pelosi had "nothing to do" with the two refusals of the requests to use National Guard (NG) troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6, you would have to assume that the House Sergeant at Arms twice rejected those requests without bothering to consult with Pelosi, a very unlikely scenario.

January 6 was the day the Senate would certify the Electoral College results. The whole world knew that a massive protest was going to occur and that tensions were sky high. It boggles the mind to suggest that the House Sergeant at Arms would make such an enormous decision on security without consulting with his boss, Pelosi. I find such a scenario incredibly hard to believe.

Remember that it was Pelosi who ordered NG troops to guard the Capitol *after* January 6. She kept them there for five months, long after there was any credible reason for making them stay there. Yet, we are supposed to believe that she had nothing to do with the rejections of the requests to use NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6.

And what about the documented evidence that one of Schumer's top aides received credible, specific FBI intel that some of the protestors would storm the Capitol? Here, too, it boggles the mind to believe that the aide did not immediately discuss this intel with Schumer. Yet, neither Schumer nor the aide shared that intel with the Capitol police, nor did they act on that intel. Schumer surely was advised of the intel, and his failure to act clearly suggests that he wanted the riot to occur because he knew the Democrats could use it as a propaganda weapon against Trump and the Republicans.

As a deep purple Independent, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Trump committed a crime when he refused to immediately call on his supporters to stand down and go home after the riot began. But I'm also willing to admit that Pelosi and Schumer clearly seemed to want the riot to occur, given Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel and given Pelosi's apparent refusal to allow NG troops to be used to help guard the Capitol.

https://justthenews.com/government/...onal-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo

https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence

https://justthenews.com/government/...es-january-6-security-failures-happened-under

 

[EaglePuncher]

To believe that Pelosi had "nothing to do" with the two refusals of the requests to use National Guard (NG) troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6, you would have to assume that the House Sergeant at Arms twice rejected those requests without bothering to consult with Pelosi, a very unlikely scenario.

January 6 was the day the Senate would certify the Electoral College results. The whole world knew that a massive protest was going to occur and that tensions were sky high. It boggles the mind to suggest that the House Sergeant at Arms would make such an enormous decision on security without consulting with his boss, Pelosi. I find such a scenario incredibly hard to believe.

Remember that it was Pelosi who ordered NG troops to guard the Capitol *after* January 6. She kept them there for five months, long after there was any credible reason for making them stay there. Yet, we are supposed to believe that she had nothing to do with the rejections of the requests to use NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6.

And what about the documented evidence that one of Schumer's top aides received credible, specific FBI intel that some of the protestors would storm the Capitol? Here, too, it boggles the mind to believe that the aide did not immediately discuss this intel with Schumer. Yet, neither Schumer nor the aide shared that intel with the Capitol police, nor did they act on that intel. Schumer surely was advised of the intel, and his failure to act clearly suggests that he wanted the riot to occur because he knew the Democrats could use it as a propaganda weapon against Trump and the Republicans.

As a deep purple Independent, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Trump committed a crime when he refused to immediately call on his supporters to stand down and go home after the riot began. But I'm also willing to admit that Pelosi and Schumer clearly seemed to want the riot to occur, given Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel and given Pelosi's apparent refusal to allow NG troops to be used to help guard the Capitol.

https://justthenews.com/government/...onal-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo

https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence

https://justthenews.com/government/...es-january-6-security-failures-happened-under

Imagine posting this days after your god, Donald Trump, publicly admitted that he planned the insurrection and that he thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.

ETA: Also getting some 9/11 vibes with all the lies about "The dems wanted people to die, so they could pin it on poor, innocent Donnie"

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That would be a difficult obligation to enforce upon a political party. However, one can definitely say that the party has an obligation not to stand in the way of punishment for their members who actively participate in an attempted coup.

I know It will be called a Conspiracy theory here but I think Trump had connections to radical groups like the Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys, long before he ran for president, though Rodger Stone, and his Buddy Jerome Corsi and the Milita Movement composed of Libertarian Constitutionalist followers of Alex Jones.
I believe Corsi, Stone, and Alex Jones built that following over years after the Minute man Movement, and it included ex9/11Twoofers, Grifters, Waco Whackos, and Political activists that wanted a second Civil war, or atleast Constitutional Convention so the White Supremacist could gain power and control over the Government of the United States.
OK you can call me an insane conspiracy theorists now, but I remind you these people Tried to use total idiots to overthrow our democracy on the 6th of January, just like I predicted would happen in 2008.
We can't afford this again, it could be the end to our democracy.
OK fire away I don't really mind or care anymore.
I am just to old to fight this battle anymore.

 

[newyorkguy]

The 'what about' counter argument seems to be:

1. The committee investigating January 6th is highly partisan.
2. Pelosi and Schumer wanted the riot to happen.

That's not much but in certain circles it works.

1. We're justified in ignoring anything the hearing reveals and, more important, it gives us grounds for refusing to discuss it.
2. We don't have to defend trump, we can ignore him and focus on Pelosi and Schumer.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, ivanka trump has testified to the committee that she does not believe her father's claims that he actually won the election. She bases that on statements by Attorney General William Barr that the 2020 election was "not stolen." ivanka trump testified, "It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he said."

Daddy reacted by saying ivanka knew nothing about what happened and then he attacked Barr. trump posted on Truth Social that Barr is "a coward," and is "weak and frightened,"

 

[Warp12]

I know It will be called a Conspiracy theory here but I think Trump had connections to radical groups like the Oath Keepers, and Proud Boys, long before he ran for president, though Rodger Stone, and his Buddy Jerome Corsi and the Milita Movement composed of Libertarian Constitutionalist followers of Alex Jones.
I believe Corsi, Stone, and Alex Jones built that following over years after the Minute man Movement, and it included ex9/11Twoofers, Grifters, Waco Whackos, and Political activists that wanted a second Civil war, or atleast Constitutional Convention so the White Supremacist could gain power and control over the Government of the United States.
OK you can call me an insane conspiracy theorists now, but I remind you these people Tried to use total idiots to overthrow our democracy on the 6th of January, just like I predicted would happen in 2008.
We can't afford this again, it could be the end to our democracy.
OK fire away I don't really mind or care anymore.
I am just to old to fight this battle anymore.

I think you speak for many of the forum members, even if they won't admit it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That would be a difficult obligation to enforce upon a political party. However, one can definitely say that the party has an obligation not to stand in the way of punishment for their members who actively participate in an attempted coup.

To believe that Pelosi had "nothing to do" with the two refusals of the requests to use National Guard (NG) troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6, you would have to assume that the House Sergeant at Arms twice rejected those requests without bothering to consult with Pelosi, a very unlikely scenario.

January 6 was the day the Senate would certify the Electoral College results. The whole world knew that a massive protest was going to occur and that tensions were sky high. It boggles the mind to suggest that the House Sergeant at Arms would make such an enormous decision on security without consulting with his boss, Pelosi. I find such a scenario incredibly hard to believe.

Remember that it was Pelosi who ordered NG troops to guard the Capitol *after* January 6. She kept them there for five months, long after there was any credible reason for making them stay there. Yet, we are supposed to believe that she had nothing to do with the rejections of the requests to use NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6.

And what about the documented evidence that one of Schumer's top aides received credible, specific FBI intel that some of the protestors would storm the Capitol? Here, too, it boggles the mind to believe that the aide did not immediately discuss this intel with Schumer. Yet, neither Schumer nor the aide shared that intel with the Capitol police, nor did they act on that intel. Schumer surely was advised of the intel, and his failure to act clearly suggests that he wanted the riot to occur because he knew the Democrats could use it as a propaganda weapon against Trump and the Republicans.

As a deep purple Independent, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Trump committed a crime when he refused to immediately call on his supporters to stand down and go home after the riot began. But I'm also willing to admit that Pelosi and Schumer clearly seemed to want the riot to occur, given Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel and given Pelosi's apparent refusal to allow NG troops to be used to help guard the Capitol.

https://justthenews.com/government/...onal-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo

https://justthenews.com/government/...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence

https://justthenews.com/government/...es-january-6-security-failures-happened-under

Mitch McConnell had equal say to Nancy Pelosi and he didn't want to Embarrass the Traitors in the AntiRepublic Party he lead.

It takes 4 votes to approve any Capitol security, both Sargeant at arms and both Majority Leaders. Mitch McCoverup might have been hoping Trump succeeded and he would go on as Majority lead and Slave master after The Installation of Dictator Donnie!

 

[Warp12]

The 'what about' counter argument seems to be:

1. The committee investigating January 6th is highly partisan.
2. Pelosi and Schumer wanted the riot to happen.

That's not much but in certain circles it works.

1. We're justified in ignoring anything the hearing reveals and, more important, it gives us grounds for refusing to discuss it.
2. We don't have to defend trump, we can ignore him and focus on Pelosi and Schumer.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, ivanka trump has testified to the committee that she does not believe her father's claims that he actually won the election. She bases that on statements by Attorney General William Barr that the 2020 election was "not stolen." ivanka trump testified, "It affected my perspective. I respect Attorney General Barr so I accepted what he said."

Daddy reacted by saying ivanka knew nothing about what happened and then he attacked Barr. trump posted on Truth Social that Barr is "a coward," and is "weak and frightened,"

Of what significance are her beliefs?

What did Trump believe? That is a more relevant question, imo.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think you speak for many of the forum members, even if they won't admit it.

We almost had our second Civil War on the 6th, once the GQP finds out BLM and Antifa were warned to stay away, they might Try to blame them for setting up The Empty Skull Crowd, to go to Prison for the Insurrection.
I can see that being the Focus of a Republican investigation if they retake the house and Senate.

 

[varwoche]

I see your problem...

To believe that Pelosi had "nothing to do" with the two refusals of the requests to use National Guard (NG) troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6, you would have to assume that the House Sergeant at Arms twice rejected those requests without bothering to consult with Pelosi, a very unlikely scenario.

January 6 was the day the Senate would certify the Electoral College results. The whole world knew that a massive protest was going to occur and that tensions were sky high. It boggles the mind to suggest that the House Sergeant at Arms would make such an enormous decision on security without consulting with his boss, Pelosi. I find such a scenario incredibly hard to believe.

Remember that it was Pelosi who ordered NG troops to guard the Capitol *after* January 6. She kept them there for five months, long after there was any credible reason for making them stay there. Yet, we are supposed to believe that she had nothing to do with the rejections of the requests to use NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6.

And what about the documented evidence that one of Schumer's top aides received credible, specific FBI intel that some of the protestors would storm the Capitol? Here, too, it boggles the mind to believe that the aide did not immediately discuss this intel with Schumer. Yet, neither Schumer nor the aide shared that intel with the Capitol police, nor did they act on that intel. Schumer surely was advised of the intel, and his failure to act clearly suggests that he wanted the riot to occur because he knew the Democrats could use it as a propaganda weapon against Trump and the Republicans.

As a deep purple Independent, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that Trump committed a crime when he refused to immediately call on his supporters to stand down and go home after the riot began. But I'm also willing to admit that Pelosi and Schumer clearly seemed to want the riot to occur, given Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel and given Pelosi's apparent refusal to allow NG troops to be used to help guard the Capitol.

https://[hilite]justthenews.com[/hi...onal-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo

https://[hilite]justthenews.com[/hi...humer-team-got-fbi-intel-about-jan-6-violence

https://[hilite]justthenews.com[/hi...es-january-6-security-failures-happened-under

Drivel of a high order.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I think it is quite relevant what Trump believes. There has been some talk that maybe he didn't/doesn't even truly believe the election was stolen, that it was more about him maintaining power. If that is true, it paints an even worse picture.

Trump couldn't understand the physics of the holes in paper punch cards in 1961, it's quite possible that he actually believed Air Gapped machines not connected in anyway to the Internet were hacked from China. But I think it's more likely Trump wants Plausible Deniability for his Crimes and that's why he surrounded himself Constantly with Idiots.

 

[Paul2]

Of what significance are her beliefs?

Statements against interest are (slightly?) more likely to be true than the opposite. It's not determinative, just indicative.

 

[slyjoe]

I think it is quite relevant what Trump believes. There has been some talk that maybe he didn't/doesn't even truly believe the election was stolen, that it was more about him maintaining power. If that is true, it paints an even worse picture.

Not exactly.

At the heart of the case the panel appears to be trying to make is the legal doctrine of “willful blindness”, as former US attorney Joyce Vance wrote for MSNBC, which says a defendant cannot say they weren’t aware of something if they were credibly notified of the truth.

It appears to me at a certain point you can't just claim "I believe".


https://news.yahoo.com/capitol-attack-pardon-revelations-could-080043087.html

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think it is quite relevant what Trump believes. There has been some talk that maybe he didn't/doesn't even truly believe the election was stolen, that it was more about him maintaining power. If that is true, it paints an even worse picture.

what Trump believes when ???

what he believes changes all the time, and as many have reported from first-hand experience, he tends to believe whatever the last person said.

If we have evidence of him believing it was stolen and evidence of him believing it was not stolen at another time, which one counts?

Is a weak brain an excuse to crime?

 

[Warp12]

what Trump believes when ???

what he believes changes all the time, and as many have reported from first-hand experience, he tends to believe whatever the last person said.

If we have evidence of him believing it was stolen and evidence of him believing it was not stolen at another time, which one counts?

Is a weak brain an excuse to crime?

I don't think it excuses any crime he may have committed. I think it just paints a different picture as to how many people may view his actions...not necessarily how the law may view them.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think it excuses any crime he may have committed. I think it just paints a different picture as to how many people may view his actions...not necessarily how the law may view them.

the question remains:
why put any store in the State of Mind of someone who changes his mind all the time?

 

[Warp12]

the question remains:
why put any store in the State of Mind of someone who changes his mind all the time?

Well, do you think there was ever a point where Trump said to himself, "I know I lost this election, fair and square. But I'm going to concoct a plan to keep myself in power, regardless."?

I'm just curious if you believe that. I imagine some do.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Well, do you think there was ever a point where Trump said to himself, "I know I lost this election, fair and square. But I'm going to concoct a plan to keep myself in power, regardless."?

I'm just curious if you believe that. I imagine some do.

Do you find it hard to believe that someone who has been shown to conveniently lie depending on the audience, would continue to do so for their own benefit?

 

[Lurch]

There's something inherently wrong with a system where one is incentivized to seek the highest available public office for the protection from criminal liability that is expected to come with it.

"Rule of law" is incompatible with a standing policy not to indict the President.

Arguably a root cause of the state of affairs right now. More than any of the proper democracies I can think of, the US leans closest to having a king.

 

[Warp12]

Well, do you think there was ever a point where Trump said to himself, "I know I lost this election, fair and square. But I'm going to concoct a plan to keep myself in power, regardless."?

I'm just curious if you believe that. I imagine some do.

Do you find it hard to believe that someone who has been shown to conveniently lie depending on the audience, would continue to do so for their own benefit?

I don't "find it hard to believe" in every case. I'm just not convinced of it in this case. Maybe some new evidence will come forth?

Are you saying you are convinced of my proposed scenario? Do you think that happened?