Liz Lied
-
89th is invested in ignoring the Truth.
Carry on, lad.
No just trying to be fair and not bite into the sensationalism from either side. I think the truth is pretty self-evident now with what happened. Trump didn't lead the march into the Capitol nor did the FBI plant agents to secretly rile people up. Hindsight is 50/50 but it would be pretty silly to have 10,000 military guys show up for a sore loser temper tantrum rally.
You're telling me the FBI didn't have assets in the crowd?
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Always remember, Operation Valkyrie was an act of sedition.
Warning: I post things that interest me. Read and comment at your own discretion. -
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Liz Lied:
Ah, the usuals show up. Reminds of the two old hecklers on The Muppet Show, yelling from the balcony.
Unlike, for example, your two main election candidates?
LOL
-
89th is invested in ignoring the Truth.
Carry on, lad.
No just trying to be fair and not bite into the sensationalism from either side. I think the truth is pretty self-evident now with what happened. Trump didn't lead the march into the Capitol nor did the FBI plant agents to secretly rile people up. Hindsight is 50/50 but it would be pretty silly to have 10,000 military guys show up for a sore loser temper tantrum rally.
You're telling me the FBI didn't have assets in the crowd?
I can nearly guarantee you there were undercover FBI agents there. And I can equally guarantee the FBI did not rile the crowd up or lead them towards doing anything wrong.
-
89th is invested in ignoring the Truth.
Carry on, lad.
No just trying to be fair and not bite into the sensationalism from either side. I think the truth is pretty self-evident now with what happened. Trump didn't lead the march into the Capitol nor did the FBI plant agents to secretly rile people up. Hindsight is 50/50 but it would be pretty silly to have 10,000 military guys show up for a sore loser temper tantrum rally.
You're telling me the FBI didn't have assets in the crowd?
I can nearly guarantee you there were undercover FBI agents there. And I can equally guarantee the FBI did not rile the crowd up or lead them towards doing anything wrong.
Ray Epps.
-
-
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.
I don't have an opinion on a lot of what the various talking heads are purporting as truth.
I do, however, have an opinion as to the Jan 6 Committee and its credibility.
First of all, we can talk about how a Hollywood producer was retained to add a soundtrack to the video to amplify the mayhem.
Then, we can talk about how the video of Josh Hawley (and I'm not a fan of his) running out of the building was shown in the hearing room, much to the laughter of the people in the chamber.
(by the way, for all those who are criticizing TuCa's "selective editing" of newly released Jan 6 video, I offer this as an example of selective editing)
Third the inability of other members of Congress to call witnesses, cross-examine, etc destroyed what little credibility this body had.
The members of this so-called "bipartisan" group were hand-picked by the Speaker. Though the minority leader proposed other members, his choices were declined, breaking a long-standing tradition.
So many transcripts, which were to be turned over to the new majority GOP mysteriously disappeared.
The Secret Service agent's testimony of what Hutchinson claimed was withheld, for three years.
Finally, Ms Hutchinson's testimony would have been laughed out of any courtroom because she was not a witness.
If the Democrats had been serious about the investigation, none of these would have occurred. But they were not, choosing, instead, to go for political theater rather than fact finding.
If you lie about one thing, why should I believe you in anything else?
-
LOL soooooo debunked but keep reading what you wish.
Many, many people got more jail time for walking in and out of the Capitol, than Epps (who served no jail time), who was actively inviting a riot.
Son, if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it ain't an aardvark.
-
-
Meadows was on a call with the DC Mayor and asked if she had what she needed (for the pro vs anti Trump crowds... no mention of the Capitol FYI). Ornato didn't recall the 10,000 conversation at first, but later said he recalls Meadows telling the DC Mayor that Trump is willing to ask for up to 10,000 guardsmen for the pro vs anti Trump crowds.
"Recalls" is different from "testified."
Even without an offer, it remains unclear why the violence around the White House did not prompt Congress to install the same barriers and deploy the same troops. (They ultimately took both steps but only after the rioters gained entry into the Capitol).
Moreover, if an offer was clearly made, it undermines the allegations that Trump was actively seeking an insurrection. While he has never been charged with an insurrection or even incitement, that allegation was used more recently to support his disqualification from the ballots in Colorado, Maine, and Illinois.
The transcript contains the testimony of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s interview on January 2022 with Cheney present. Ornato states that he clearly recalled the offer of 10,000 troops being made by Trump in a conversation with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser:
“I was there, and he was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed. Because I think it was the concern of anti and pro groups clashing is what I recall…I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, the President wants to make sure that you have enough. You know, he is willing to ask for 10,000. I remember that number.”
Ornato said that Browser said that they would not need the troops. (She ultimately asked for only 300 troops). There are also reports that then Speaker Nancy Pelosi was worried about the “optics” of military reinforcements at the Capitol.
Ornato also said that he recalled that, after Bowser refused additional National Guard members, the White House requested the Defense Department have a “quick reaction force” ready on that day. He gave details on meetings with the Defense Department and follow up from Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
Yet, again, what is more important historically is whether the J6 Committee had direct evidence that Trump made the offer of thousands of troops and that the White House pushed for rapid deployment troops on that day.
I have previously criticized the one-sided J6 Report and the biased framing of the hearings held by the members. The Committee could have been so much more than the echo chamber that it became. However, this latest transcript adds questions over the perplexing failure of Congress to take obvious steps to prevent a riot.
Had Congress simply installed the same fencing previously used at the White House and deployed such troops, the J6 riot would likely have never occurred. Given the cost and trauma to our nation, we should want to know the full story of what occurred on January 6th.
-
J6 is a perfect case in point of how a human with a perspective - not a bias, but a perspective - chooses words to describe reality. Without a perspective, one can't even generate words to describe anything. Was it a deadly assault on the Capitol? Sure, true. Was it a bunch of doofuses taking selfies? True. Was it an insurrection? I guess that is arguably true and not true at the same time.
Education is extremely important.
-
Don’t mind @89th , he’s just suffering from insurrectile dysfunction.
-
So, if I understand correctly, Capt. Nick is saying that Sec. McCarthy (who was selected and appointed by President Trump) decided to turn on President Trump and as Capt. Nick says (with no bias of course) "The U.S. government allowed the January 6 riots to happen in order to frame Donald Trump and his supporters as 'insurrectionists.'"
Sorry, a bit skeptical that he is so unbiased. Seems like the truth is somewhere in the middle.
