Exactly how would you place "russiagate" over Watergate? Also not a proven fact. He/Trump campaign wasn't "proven" innocent,just found to be woefully inept at trying to collude.
Tonights jan 6 hearing
- Thread starter firegiver
- Start date
Exactly how would you place "russiagate" over Watergate? Also not a proven fact. He/Trump campaign wasn't "proven" innocent,just found to be woefully inept at trying to collude.
They have become masters at “whataboutism”. Deflection, misdirection, no accountability, honesty, or integrity. What a shitty way to live your life.
Trump Jan. 7 video outtakes show behind-the-scenes behavior
Trump also appeared to struggle with saying the word "yesterday," calling it "hard" for him to enunciate.
www.businessinsider.com
It was nice of the committee to lighten up the mood for a sec and show the typical MAGA fake courage trait with the Hawley piece. Really describes the MAGA movement, fake patriots, talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, running away like a coward
Trump Jan. 7 video outtakes show behind-the-scenes behavior
Trump also appeared to struggle with saying the word "yesterday," calling it "hard" for him to enunciate.www.businessinsider.com
i wonder if these same pub posters had similar strong feelings about the 50 benghazi hearings over the last decade
Yup, 2 years of hearing and investigation, 7 million dollars
Two years, $7 million, 800 pages later, GOP Benghazi report lands with a thud
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton loomed large in the House Republican probe of the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in the Benghazi attack. Hauled before a GOP panel, she was grilled for eight hours. On Tuesday, an 800-page report landed and House Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy...
www.pbs.org
But hey, a POTUS incited riot prevents the orderly transfer of power / the counting of electoral votes, and the home of government is under siege and needs thousands of troops and police to take back and these hypocrites go “meh, it was no big deal”. MAGA Republicans have balls the size of raisins. No courage to stand up for the truth. Thank God for the Hutchinsons of the world, only hope we have the GOP might be taken back by people who love our country and are real patriots.
Yup, 2 years of hearing and investigation, 7 million dollars
Two years, $7 million, 800 pages later, GOP Benghazi report lands with a thud
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton loomed large in the House Republican probe of the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya in the Benghazi attack. Hauled before a GOP panel, she was grilled for eight hours. On Tuesday, an 800-page report landed and House Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy...
But hey, a POTUS incited riot prevents the orderly transfer of power / the counting of electoral votes, and the home of government is under siege and needs thousands of troops and police to take back and these hypocrites go “meh, it was no big deal”. MAGA Republicans have balls the size of raisins. No courage to stand up for the truth. Thank God for the Hutchinsons of the world, only hope we have the GOP might be taken back by people who love our country and are real patriots.
The Jan6 committee was never interested in the truth. They are only interested in presenting a carefully worded and constructed narrative and trying to find anyone who can tell stories. hearsay or otherwise. to support that story. If you are interested in the truth, you don't hire network TV to "produce" a docudrama, only present your contrived story, and allow no dissenting evidence such as the above to be discussed. The last thing that group wants is for all the facts to be presented and for people to form opinions based on all the facts. Remember, these are the same people that claimed to have irrefutable, non circumstantial, direct evidence of Trump/russia collusion- which they must still be keeping to themselves since they have not presented it yet.Never trumpers please read this and chew on it.
Trump gave order to 'make sure' Jan. 6 rally was 'safe event,' Pentagon memo shows
Gen. Milley’s recollection undercuts months-long effort by Democrats to suggest Trump wanted to incite violence: many key questions left unanswered.justthenews.com
Trump gave order to 'make sure' Jan. 6 rally was 'safe event,' Pentagon memo shows
Gen. Milley’s recollection undercuts months-long effort by Democrats to suggest Trump wanted to incite violence: many key questions left unanswered.
By John Solomon
Updated: July 22, 2022 - 12:07am
House Democrats' marquee summer show of primetime investigative hearings ended Thursday night where it began: unable or unwilling to answer essential questions about the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
Chief among them: If Donald Trump wanted to incite violence that fateful day, as his critics suggest, then why did he order the Pentagon to have a large military force ready to quell a disturbance? And why did a Democrat-led Congress turn down the assistance of pop National Guard troops in the face of intelligence warnings about violence?
By their own admission, Democrats set up the hearings to evade such scrutiny. They declared any questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about the potential for Jan. 6 violence and when she knew it were off limits.
Secret Service agents were never called to testify in public about whether former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's story about Trump trying to force his limousine to go to the Capitol were true. And questions about how those in charge of Capitol security responded to FBI and Homeland Security pre-event warnings about potential violence were never asked, much less answered.
Instead, the Jan. 6 committee put on hearsay testimony from Hutchinson and released partial transcripts or video snippets of testimony without allowing Republicans or Trump's own lawyers to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the narrative offered to the American public.
"It's the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it's despicable," said famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Joe Biden in 2020. "The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I've never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. ... It's not only unethical, it's not only unfair, it's bad lawyering.”
Dershowitz said the committee Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — created a clear perception with their performance of being "partisan zealots" rather than truth-seekers.
Former career federal prosecutor David Sullivan said Thursday that the entire Jan. 6 accountability process — both at the Justice Department and the congressional hearings — raised questions of fairness and gave viewers a reason to tune out what proved to be "very scripted" interrogations. He said Democrats likely would have gained more credibility and traction if they had let Republicans offer contrary evidence and engaged in true cross-examination.
"Legal scholars are very troubled by the way these hearings are being conducted," Sullivan said. "There is no due process. For people who don’t have an agenda to promote, these [hearings] are Stalinist. And I hate using that term."
Throughout the summer, Democrats have argued that Trump intended and eventually succeeded in inciting the violence on Jan. 6. "The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we're gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at outset of the hearings.
But the hearings have been undercut by a fundamental fact: Trump's actions before the riot began included urging supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" express their opinions and ordering his top aides to ensure there was a large contingent of National Guard troops at the ready to ensure no trouble ensued.
A Capitol Police timeline obtained by Just the News shows the Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to the Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days before the event. The police turned down the offer but then began to have second thoughts. The Capitol Police then asked their political minders — the House sergeant at arms chief among them — for permission to accept the troops on Jan. 4 but were turned down on the ground that such a show of force would create bad "optics," the records show.
File
USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf
But the most compelling piece of evidence that Trump wanted to thwart — rather than incite —violence is contained in a lengthy memo written by the Pentagon inspector general that chronicled the assistance the Defense Department offered Congress both ahead of and during the riot.
In it, the IG recounts a fateful meeting on Jan. 3, 2021 in the White House when then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Trump on national security matters.
The complete passage — hardly mentioned by Democrats at the hearings or the news media covering them — is worth absorbing in its entirety.
"Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.," the IG reported. "The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, 'We've got a plan and we've got it covered.'"
You can read that memo here:
File
DODIG-2022-039 V2 508.pdf
In advance of the Jan. 6 rally, the president told the most senior civilian and uniformed leaders of the military he knew the event was going to draw a "large number of protestors," and he instructed the secretary of defense to ensure it was "safe" by having troops available. Democrats have not offered any evidence to counter that story.
The Pentagon memo also yields insight into the mindset of the Democrat-led Congress, top military officials and the local police before Jan. 6. Key players, it reveals, repeatedly raised concerns about accepting the offer of National Guard help, fearing it would create the perception of a military coup or martial law as the election results were certified.
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told the IG "he did not want to create the perception that the military was involved in the electoral process," according to the memo. "He said that Mr. Miller made it clear that the military would not be involved in certifying the election results and that 10 different news agencies asked him about military use and martial law."
District of Columbia Police Chief Robert Contee also opposed having National Guard troops, but for a different reason. "Chief Contee explained to us that he did not want other Federal law enforcement involved on January 6, 2021, because of the risk associated with having unidentified Federal officers carrying weapons within D.C," the memo recorded.
Even as key security officials were shrinking from deploying National Guard troops lest the "optics" send the wrong political message, the Capitol Police was being flooded by the FBI, the Marshal's Service and the Homeland Security Department with raw intelligence warning of possible violence, Just the News reported recently.
Those intelligence reports, which started flowing more than two weeks before the riot, flagged online chatter about waging a "bloody war," using nerve gas, concealing guns, and burning down the Supreme Court and specifically flagged two groups for possible trouble, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
"Right-wing extremists are talking about tunnels below the Capitol Complex and the allegiances of USCP officers," Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr. wrote in an email Dec. 21, 2020 sent to a distribution list of the department's Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division.
File
NugentIntelEmajl12-21-20.pdf
Despite the warnings, the president’s offer of troops wasn’t accepted and the Capitol Police did not take a security posture on Jan. 6 commensurate with the threats.
To date, the House committee investigating Jan. 6 hasn’t provided a complete explanation why.
I feel like my life is boring. I wish I could live in your world where the earth is flat, dinosaurs peacefully lived alongside Adam & Eve 6,000 years ago, Elvis is still alive, Aliens landed in Area 51, Ted Cruz’s father killed JFK, and what happened on Jan 6 is fine and Trump had nothing to do with it. Living in one’s fantasy world and to never be wrong, to always be the hero fighting against evil, that has to be amazing.
These 95% MAGA witnesses and Liz Cheney are the same people behind the Collusion story? Now that is breaking news! Who knew?
To me, that was the most interesting part of last night. People like Matthews who explained they had attended hundreds of events, helped with communication strategy, and knew what the impact of Trump’s words were on their MAGA supporters.
While people like her were okay with Trump lying, attacking people, or weaponizing social media when it was to own the libs or win an election, they drew a line at inciting a coup and overthrowing a democracy. They knew. They absolutely knew what Trump was doing and what the impact of his words would be. And they did everything they could to stop him and resigned in disgust. His inner circle. His closest people went “fuuuuck, this can’t be happening, we can’t let that happen”.
Incredible that his most loyal supporters and employees, his most trusted counsel, saw what was happening for what it was and we have got the usual “head up my ass” posters pretending nothing happened and playing misdirection (“what about x or y”) or lame attempts at discrediting the committee. LOL. You really gotta have the most ****ed up belief system to justify away what happened. Really hope you guys have more balls when it comes to being a good husband or father. Because being such a pvssy about refusing to confront reality is not a good trait….
Let me ask you this. The left thinks what you call MAGA supporters are at least as dangerous as Trump does. If you think it was, or even should have been, obvious to trump that his comments leading up to Jan 6 would incite violence why was it not expected from anyone else - Schumer/Pelosi, etc.?
Ya'll have to stop calling it whataboutism and call it justasguiltyism. Undermining election results shouldn't be ok for either party nor should illegally sabotaging an entire campaign and presidency term.
Mystery solved: DOJ secretly thwarted release of Russia documents declassified by Trump
Department used last-minute privacy concerns to halt release, then ignored direct order from president to make memos public.
justthenews.com
At what point will some of ya'll come down from your ivory tower and start demanding better from both sides of the aisle? Call me when that happens
Dude, facts are facts, justice doesn’t take sides, a crime is a crime. I am for anyone, left, right, independent to be held accountable. I want a fair system.Ya'll have to stop calling it whataboutism and call it justasguiltyism. Undermining election results shouldn't be ok for either party nor should illegally sabotaging an entire campaign and presidency term.
Mystery solved: DOJ secretly thwarted release of Russia documents declassified by Trump
Department used last-minute privacy concerns to halt release, then ignored direct order from president to make memos public.
At what point will some of ya'll come down from your ivory tower and start demanding better from both sides of the aisle? Call me when that happens
FWIW, the reason I am so vocal about it is because I am Not on the left. I am appalled at what my party is doing. I feel betrayed, I thought we were the party of reason (and the left the party of feelings). I thought we were the party of integrity and courage. Instead we are letting an egomaniac lie about elections and covering for him. Absolutely insane.
Back to your point, count me in the camp of people that want people judged on their actions (good or bad), not political party.
74 million people voted for Trump, only a few thousands attacked the Capitol.
There are many people in this world that feel unheard. They see the system as being broken and not taking care of them. Trump told them he heard them and he would fight for them. Believing in that doesn’t make you a bad person or a dangerous person.
Now, when the person you followed is refusing to accept reality (in spite of 63 lawsuits lost) and encouraging you to believe in nutjob crazy conspiracy theories . You can either be reasonable and follow the facts, or you can go down the rabbit hole, taking reality inhibiting pills and sound like a nutjob peddling insane lies. To each their own. Thankfully, very few people were willing to have skin in the game when it came to believing this bullshit. They are okay voting for Trump again when there’s no risk, but out of the dozens of millions of people supporting the big lie stupidity, only a few thousand showed up when Trump asked. Goes to show you how much they truly believe in this shit, lol. Only a small fraction ate dangerous, huge majority of MAGAs are big bark, little bite. Look at Josh Hawley running away like scared byotch. Very representative.
Your question is a funny one. Victim blaming is usually considered pretty weak. You are asking, why didn’t the victims protect themselves better (Instead of scrutinizing the instigator or people committing the crime)? Really odd take, I mean I had heard people victim blaming rape victims, but first time I see it done with Jan 6.
What I am asking is if people who considered Trump supporters much more of a danger than Trump did had no expectation of violence on Jan 6, how can you reasonably place blame on Trump for not being able to foresee the possibility/likelihood of violence? If Trump had no expectation his rhetoric about election fraud over the prior months could lead to violence, how can you place the blame on him?
I’ve tried multiple times to get many on this board to explain this narrative but haven’t gotten a single explanation
I’d love to hear it but I won’t hold my breath
Fact:. The campaign was contacted by a Russian who claimed that they had damaging information about the Clinton campaign and who was understood to be connected to the Russian intelligence. They then met this Russian who had no information, and was only trying to get influence.
They tried to collude,but the contact was fake and they were dumb.
This is called opposition research and is done by literally every campaign/politician in the worldFact:. The campaign was contacted by a Russian who claimed that they had damaging information about the Clinton campaign and who was understood to be connected to the Russian intelligence. They then met this Russian who had no information, and was only trying to get influence.
They tried to collude,but the contact was fake and they were dumb.
Try again
So what would be collusion to you? I would say that meeting with foreign agents who are not friendly with our country to get dirt on a political opponent would constitute collusion.
Truthfully I don't really give a shit,but to act like the Trump campaign was found totally innocent and did nothing wrong is not accurate
Call it whatever you want to call it, collusion, intel, story time…doesn’t change a thing. Either way it’s a double standard and you aren’t holding every other politician or candidate to the same scrutiny, which is all anyone needs to know
What other presidential candidates campaign has tried to gain damaging information on an opponent from a foreign agent for use during an election?
I will always say that this is immoral and borderline treasonous.
But the facts are questionable until you open them up for rebuttal and this isn't how justice works. We've seen one single side presented with no counter party rebuttal or counter examination of witnesses. The DOJ hasn't picked any of this up with actual charges and you're presenting all of your "facts" on live TV in a made for TV type theatric presentation. Regardless of intent, until the DOJ finds a legal angle to prosecute Trump and we see this all play out in an actual trial, this is a waste of tax payer dollars and liberal angst. The left wants voter influence.
If he did something illegal, then let's get this guy in jail before he keels over from old age or runs again.
The harsh reality is the left helped fuel this with election integrity rhetoric going back a decade
And proud of it. Logic and reason are very important to me. Honesty, integrity, democracy, justice, a few things that MAGA supporterss don't give a shit about, but I do.
It's like Kinzinger said. In 10 years, nobody will admit they voted for or supported Trump. People are realizing how much of a stain on our history and institutions it was to have him as POTUS and as liar in chief. Going to be laughing my ass off because digital media is forever, going to be some everlasting embarrassing Facebook posts and tweets from many Republican voters that drank the kool-aid...
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
What’s Paul Manafort up to these days?
0
Ok. You be you brother. We will agree to disagree.
Likewise. Wishing you and your family nothing but the best. And if we ever meet in person, I’ll choose to look at what unites us (in this case, our support of our Clemson Tigers) instead of what we disagree on and offer to buy you a beer (or beverage of your choice). Go Tigers!
I respect your views on Trump because many many times I cringed when he shot off at the mouth attacking someone or sent off tweets that he as President never should have sent. He didn’t know when to keep his mouth shut was his biggest crime.
But do you think this current President or even the current version of the Democratic Party is about honesty, integrity, democracy, or justice? If you do you are just drinking another brand of kool aid....
it is worth every dollar to save our democracy
And everything you just typed is true!
You want another go at it?
You want to tell us how there wasn't collusion? You want to tell us how Hunter wasn't involved in pay for play? You want to tell us that Antifa is not trying to harm this country? You want to tell us Nancy is honest?
You are a P***Y! That's all you'll ever be.
Was that kind of name calling really called for here Mr. Nothing? What's the problem - did they run out of tickets for the Trump canoe parade down at the crick?
How about you contribute to the damn subject instead of talking about unrelated random bullshit?
Trump tried to overthrow our democratic process and folks in here talking about benghzi in the same light. Cowards and fools.
Tiis whole narrative is A Fox News Special. Full of lies!Never trumpers please read this and chew on it.
Trump gave order to 'make sure' Jan. 6 rally was 'safe event,' Pentagon memo shows
Gen. Milley’s recollection undercuts months-long effort by Democrats to suggest Trump wanted to incite violence: many key questions left unanswered.
Trump gave order to 'make sure' Jan. 6 rally was 'safe event,' Pentagon memo shows
Gen. Milley’s recollection undercuts months-long effort by Democrats to suggest Trump wanted to incite violence: many key questions left unanswered.
By John Solomon
Updated: July 22, 2022 - 12:07am
House Democrats' marquee summer show of primetime investigative hearings ended Thursday night where it began: unable or unwilling to answer essential questions about the Jan. 6 Capitol breach.
Chief among them: If Donald Trump wanted to incite violence that fateful day, as his critics suggest, then why did he order the Pentagon to have a large military force ready to quell a disturbance? And why did a Democrat-led Congress turn down the assistance of pop National Guard troops in the face of intelligence warnings about violence?
By their own admission, Democrats set up the hearings to evade such scrutiny. They declared any questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about the potential for Jan. 6 violence and when she knew it were off limits.
Secret Service agents were never called to testify in public about whether former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson's story about Trump trying to force his limousine to go to the Capitol were true. And questions about how those in charge of Capitol security responded to FBI and Homeland Security pre-event warnings about potential violence were never asked, much less answered.
Instead, the Jan. 6 committee put on hearsay testimony from Hutchinson and released partial transcripts or video snippets of testimony without allowing Republicans or Trump's own lawyers to cross-examine witnesses or challenge the narrative offered to the American public.
"It's the first time this has happened in my lifetime since McCarthyism, and it's despicable," said famed Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a lifelong Democrat who voted for Joe Biden in 2020. "The idea that they would interview this witness and allow her to testify to hearsay about the president jumping toward the wheel, without first asking the eye- and ear- witnesses. I've never heard of a lawyer doing that in my 16 years of practicing law. ... It's not only unethical, it's not only unfair, it's bad lawyering.”
Dershowitz said the committee Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — created a clear perception with their performance of being "partisan zealots" rather than truth-seekers.
Former career federal prosecutor David Sullivan said Thursday that the entire Jan. 6 accountability process — both at the Justice Department and the congressional hearings — raised questions of fairness and gave viewers a reason to tune out what proved to be "very scripted" interrogations. He said Democrats likely would have gained more credibility and traction if they had let Republicans offer contrary evidence and engaged in true cross-examination.
"Legal scholars are very troubled by the way these hearings are being conducted," Sullivan said. "There is no due process. For people who don’t have an agenda to promote, these [hearings] are Stalinist. And I hate using that term."
Throughout the summer, Democrats have argued that Trump intended and eventually succeeded in inciting the violence on Jan. 6. "The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we're gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6," Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said at outset of the hearings.
But the hearings have been undercut by a fundamental fact: Trump's actions before the riot began included urging supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" express their opinions and ordering his top aides to ensure there was a large contingent of National Guard troops at the ready to ensure no trouble ensued.
A Capitol Police timeline obtained by Just the News shows the Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to the Capitol Police on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days before the event. The police turned down the offer but then began to have second thoughts. The Capitol Police then asked their political minders — the House sergeant at arms chief among them — for permission to accept the troops on Jan. 4 but were turned down on the ground that such a show of force would create bad "optics," the records show.
File
USCPJan.6Timeline.pdf
But the most compelling piece of evidence that Trump wanted to thwart — rather than incite —violence is contained in a lengthy memo written by the Pentagon inspector general that chronicled the assistance the Defense Department offered Congress both ahead of and during the riot.
In it, the IG recounts a fateful meeting on Jan. 3, 2021 in the White House when then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, met with Trump on national security matters.
The complete passage — hardly mentioned by Democrats at the hearings or the news media covering them — is worth absorbing in its entirety.
"Mr. Miller and GEN Milley met with the President at the White House at 5:30 p.m.," the IG reported. "The primary topic they discussed was unrelated to the scheduled rally. GEN Milley told us that at the end of the meeting, the President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021, and Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, 'We've got a plan and we've got it covered.'"
You can read that memo here:
File
DODIG-2022-039 V2 508.pdf
In advance of the Jan. 6 rally, the president told the most senior civilian and uniformed leaders of the military he knew the event was going to draw a "large number of protestors," and he instructed the secretary of defense to ensure it was "safe" by having troops available. Democrats have not offered any evidence to counter that story.
The Pentagon memo also yields insight into the mindset of the Democrat-led Congress, top military officials and the local police before Jan. 6. Key players, it reveals, repeatedly raised concerns about accepting the offer of National Guard help, fearing it would create the perception of a military coup or martial law as the election results were certified.
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told the IG "he did not want to create the perception that the military was involved in the electoral process," according to the memo. "He said that Mr. Miller made it clear that the military would not be involved in certifying the election results and that 10 different news agencies asked him about military use and martial law."
District of Columbia Police Chief Robert Contee also opposed having National Guard troops, but for a different reason. "Chief Contee explained to us that he did not want other Federal law enforcement involved on January 6, 2021, because of the risk associated with having unidentified Federal officers carrying weapons within D.C," the memo recorded.
Even as key security officials were shrinking from deploying National Guard troops lest the "optics" send the wrong political message, the Capitol Police was being flooded by the FBI, the Marshal's Service and the Homeland Security Department with raw intelligence warning of possible violence, Just the News reported recently.
Those intelligence reports, which started flowing more than two weeks before the riot, flagged online chatter about waging a "bloody war," using nerve gas, concealing guns, and burning down the Supreme Court and specifically flagged two groups for possible trouble, the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.
"Right-wing extremists are talking about tunnels below the Capitol Complex and the allegiances of USCP officers," Capitol Police intelligence expert John T. Nugent Jr. wrote in an email Dec. 21, 2020 sent to a distribution list of the department's Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division.
File
NugentIntelEmajl12-21-20.pdf
Despite the warnings, the president’s offer of troops wasn’t accepted and the Capitol Police did not take a security posture on Jan. 6 commensurate with the threats.
To date, the House committee investigating Jan. 6 hasn’t provided a complete explanation why.
We have Trump on video telling everyone to peacefully protest. Trump approved the national guard and asked for it. Pelosi is the reason there was no national guard. These are only 2 of the many holes in this false narrative. This is not even a real discussion. The J6 committee is a contrived fantasy just like impeachment 1 and 2 were. If you think its lies then please give us the big points where its a lie and how?
Look at look at me, I make stupid claims and need attention because im a dumbass with mommy issues
The Steele dossier the dnc/HRC compiled was reported partially sourced from Russian govt officials according to Christopher Steeles - if you believe him. They not only supposedly sought info from Russian officials, but got it and used it according to Steele.
So if it is Treasonous to try and get info is not treasonous to actually do it?
Steele wasn't an agent for an unfirendly government, he was an agent for an ally government.
Nuance isn't really a strong point with Trump fans, but it isn't exactly the same.
I know Steele himself was not an agent, but at least some of his alleged sources WERE Russian govt officials.
