About Those J6 “People”

[Political-Junkie]

After he had been struck by the vehicle and shot her through the windshield in self-defense for it? Sure does!

Fortunately for us, the good guy lived and the bad guy got killed!

Are you saying it was ok to shoot her from a position where his life and limb were not in jeopardy because she had just hit him when he was towards the front of her car?

 

[Political-Junkie]

SCOTUS doesn't just "choose" you dummy. This isn't a multiple guess quiz based on "assumptions" or feelings. Our SCOTUS interprets the law for us. What you really meant to say is that they applied the law exactly as it was written and exactly as was intended by Congress when it was written, I believe? Stupid SCOTUS, right? Always tossing you kooks to the curb based on the law and Constitutition! lol



20% means it applied to hundreds of defendants!! This was also the most serious charge on virtually every case in which it was applied. Defendants were facing the possibility of decades behind bars if found guilty under this statute. Lots had already been convicted/plead guilty under this politically motivated hatchet job. Many, in fact, were sitting in jail with this as their ONLY charge before it was vacated by the Supremes.

Don't try to feed anyone your left-wing bullshit about this being inconsequential or an "oops" by Biden's DOJ. It was a straight-up political hitjob. We all know what it was. When politics are the motive behind such a mass scale attempt to use the legal system to go after innocent people they it's lost legitimacy across the board. Now they are all free because of you kooks' and your nonsense....regardless of what they did or didn't do. Justice served I say.

It started while Trump was president. So Trump's DOJ was involved in this CT, right?

And you're kidding yourself if you think that's the reason Trump pardoned them. He was pardoning or giving clemency to all of them regardless of their crimes. Commit a crime for trump and he'll reward you.

 

[Mick2]

Sounds to me like you're not familiar with our justice system. People get overcharged all the time.

Hundreds of people for the same incident and crime and who just so happen to be supporters of your political foe? That's a real kicker, buddy!

You keep trying to feed the left-wing lie that it was all just a simple legal blunder by Biden's own DOJ that would have locked up his political foe's supporters (possibly for decades) by accident.......but failing miserably.

 

[Mick2]

It started while Trump was president.

"It started"

What precisely is "it"? I'm sure lots of people were charged during both of Trump's terms for committing crimes of obstruction of justice and/or trespassing somewhere similar to the charges cited in the article you linked.

How many, though, were charged under Trump's watch that included violations of Sarbanes-Oxley because they got too rowdy on January 6, 2021, though?

 

[Mick2]

Are you saying it was ok to shoot her from a position where his life and limb were not in jeopardy

I think a 2 ton SUV accelerating and striking you probably falls under the umbrella of "life and limb in jeopardy". I bet the law does, too! Just like how J6 protestors were not legally nor criminally culpable of any wrongdoing that falls under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Biden's DOJ charged them under that Act anyway. Just sayin...

The stupid law and Constitution. Always conspiring to thwart you people!

 

[Political-Junkie]

Where does it say that Reffitt was charged with obstruction of justice under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act prior to Biden being inaugurated?

Your article simply states he was "charged with unlawful entry for being at the U.S. Capitol and obstruction of justice for threatening his family to prevent them from talking."

That's not the same legal statute. Got anything, dimwit?

Sucks for me you're right about Reffitt. Here's another. Daniel Adams. Grand Jury sworn in on 1/8/21 to indict on 18 USC 1512(c)(2), among other charges.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Hundreds of people for the same incident and crime and who just so happen to be supporters of your political foe? That's a real kicker, buddy!

You keep trying to feed the left-wing lie that it was all just a simple legal blunder by Biden's own DOJ that would have locked up his political foe's supporters (possibly for decades) by accident.......but failing miserably.

Quit blubbering and offer something of worth.

 

[Lesh]

My original opinion was that those who committed acts of violence that day (a very small percentage of protesters there) shouldn't be pardoned. After Biden's DOJ got caught red-handed, though, trying to make a political example of innocent people and trying to lock them up for decades for crimes they did not commit I changed my mind and completely understood President Trump's mindset. You f*ckers made it a political hit job against hundreds of defendants and that shows the whole thing was a political clown show and a fraud. Let them all go. The whole process was tainted.

You “changed your mind” based on lies then

 

[Correll]

Triggered again huh?

Sucks when you get called huh?

I'm trying to treat you with the level of civility that you are showing me.

Or lack there of.

This isn't me having some kind of problem. This is you being an asshole and me treating you accordingly.

YOu aren't "calling me out" on anything. YOu are dishonestly pretending to not remember shit from just a few years ago.


You are a piece of shit. And you deserve to be treated accordingly.

 

[Correll]

The answer is pretty obvious. People who agree to work with the FBI take risks, so their identities are protected. If the FBI started releasing the names of sources, it will diminish the probability that others will want to work with them in the future and therefore hamper the ability to investigate and prosecute crime.

I’m not an expert, but there may be laws protecting their privacy. If there aren’t, then the decision lies entirely with Kash Patel and the DoJ leadership.

But this is a serious political problem for the nation as a whole. Your side is claiming that our side made a serious coup attempt.

If true, that needs to be established. If that messes with the lives of some snitches, that is unfortunate but a small price to pay.


If NOT true, then we need to know that just as much, so that your side stops teh shit talk.

A little common sense goes a long way to answering your question.

The difference here appears to be the confluence of several factors. First, prior protests had no reason to fight police since there was no goal other then to merely protest. On Jan 6, there was a different goal, to stop the certification of the election. The desperation really counted for a lot here. They had spent two months watching their attempts to steal the election crumble and this was basically their last chance.

Ok. Fair enough. Funny that the captiol police didn't notice that and refused the offer of national guard.

There is video prior to this showing the rioters breaking through the outer barriers, violently, injuring police. Once they overran that barrier, they advanced towards the Capitol and started fighting with the police again. You need to see more than one 30 second video to get the whole picture.


The violence started before that. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

They weren’t peaceful. They were fighting with the police trying to get to the Capitol.

They had stooped at that point and were just milling around.

Please answer my question. At that point in time, it has been established that you as teh police do not have the numbers to control the massive crowd,

Do you,

A. wait for reinforcements

or

B. restart a fight that you just lost?

What do you do? DON'T BE A COWARD ANSWER TEH ******* QUESTION.

That’s your opinion but you have a habit of giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, which is pretty foolish.

I think the main reason he wanted them there was to provide security so he could go to the Capitol with the rioters to screw with the process.

Except that there was a long history of NOT RIOTS as you have admitted. Counting on a riot ahead of time would have made no sense.

Unless you knew that the capitol police were going to start shit. And you knew that there would be professional agitators and incitement going on.

And even then, they had to be just HOPING to entrap some people.

Are you under the impression that police use tear gas, flash bangs and rubber bullets as a means to start violence? Because that’s a truly stupid idea.

It's actually not a stupid idea. The motive here is clear, it gave the leftards a much needed answer to the conservativds who were pointing out how violent the leftard riots had been.

AND it gave Biden an excuse to bring the hammer down on his enemies. That was teh beginnign of lawfare and political prisoners.

That was not "stupid" that is fairly clever. Indeed, it worked and is still working.

YOur calling it stupid, is you running defense for the operation. Like good little leftards always do.

These are standard crowd control measures to disperse crowds. Presumably people don’t want to be around these kinds of things so they’d make the choice to run away.

But the MAGA crowd chose differently.

No, the situation hadn’t stabilized. The MAGAs were fighting with the police and climbing through the scaffolding looking for ways to get to the Capitol.

Using standard crowd control measures is an attempt to hold the line.

You are pretending that the cops are retarded and can't adjust standard procedures to an unusual and fluid situation.

Only a retard would restart a fight they had just lost.


UNLESS, losing was the goal. Then it makes sense. You WANT a riot, for political purposes.

The fight had already started. You’d have to be delusional to not see that.

They did call for backup and capitol police arrived within 15 minutes. The fight never stopped. The MAGA rioters fought with police wherever they encountered them on their way to the Capitol.

There’s lots of footage of these rioters declaring their intention to storm the Capitol. They weren’t content just to hang out in the plaza.

Leftard, when leftard protestors stand there and verbally taught police during their protests, what is the goal of those taunts?

 

[Correll]

The FBI gets involved in federal crimes. How many BLM murders were federal crimes?

THe blm and antifa riots were organized across state lines.

IF the fbi choose to not get involved, that is a partisan political choice right there.


Again, I accept that you are retarded. But I do not believe you are as retarded as you are pretending to be.

 

[Correll]

Who did Trump make the 10k offer to?

A meaningless quibble, designed to dodge teh point.

Leftards need to confuse the issue.

People seeing the issues clearly and honestly, is not in their favor.

Has not been, for a long, long time.

 

[Lesh]

I told you I saw it in a presentation. I told you that and you asked again.
I located a 2nd official report you can digest.

Why the January 6th Mob Wasn’t Stopped in Time

Another for Lesh the inferior

What went wrong with security at the Capitol?

The Capitol Police, the 2,000-person force whose job is to secure the complex, failed to deploy enough officers and did not put them in riot gear.

www.nbcnews.com

The U.S. Capitol Riot Timeline

It doesn’t say when the violence began. It doesn’t mention not having barricades nor why it would matter if they CONSIDERED not having them but installed them anyway

You’re a senile liar

The police reported they were being over run at 12:53. They had been battling for some time

 

[Marener]

But this is a serious political problem for the nation as a whole. Your side is claiming that our side made a serious coup attempt.

If true, that needs to be established. If that messes with the lives of some snitches, that is unfortunate but a small price to pay.

If NOT true, then we need to know that just as much, so that your side stops teh shit talk.

I wouldn't call the attempt to steal the election a coup, but it's in that universe. We were well along the way of proving this in court, before the case was ended after you elected the ringleader and the prosecution couldn't continue. There's absolutely no need for reveal confidential sources for this, it's just an excuse.

Ok. Fair enough. Funny that the captiol police didn't notice that and refused the offer of national guard.

They requested the National Guard be on standby with a quick reaction force, unfortunately it took hours for that "quick" reaction force to arrive.

They had stooped at that point and were just milling around.

That's simply not true. There is plenty of video showing that the mob was still fighting with the police at the line they formed on the steps.

Please answer my question. At that point in time, it has been established that you as teh police do not have the numbers to control the massive crowd,

Do you,

A. wait for reinforcements

or

B. restart a fight that you just lost?

The premise is false so I'm unable to answer your question truthfully. The fight did not stop. The Trump rioters continued fighting with police and attempting to push them back.

For the record, they get reinforcements from Capitol Police riot control units and MPD.

Except that there was a long history of NOT RIOTS as you have admitted. Counting on a riot ahead of time would have made no sense.

Unless you knew that the capitol police were going to start shit. And you knew that there would be professional agitators and incitement going on.

And even then, they had to be just HOPING to entrap some people.

It looks like Trump predicted there would be a riot. I guess he knew his supporters better than everyone else. The fact that he didn't cancel the rally would imply he wanted there to be a riot.

It's actually not a stupid idea. The motive here is clear, it gave the leftards a much needed answer to the conservativds who were pointing out how violent the leftard riots had been.

AND it gave Biden an excuse to bring the hammer down on his enemies. That was teh beginnign of lawfare and political prisoners.

That was not "stupid" that is fairly clever. Indeed, it worked and is still working.

YOur calling it stupid, is you running defense for the operation. Like good little leftards always do.

It's an extremely stupid idea. If that's your idea, then why would the police use these means as standard practice for dealing with riots? It would make no sense.

You're making excuses for Trump supporters engaging in violence.

You are pretending that the cops are retarded and can't adjust standard procedures to an unusual and fluid situation.

Only a retard would restart a fight they had just lost.


UNLESS, losing was the goal. Then it makes sense. You WANT a riot, for political purposes.

Again, the premise is wrong. Plenty of video proves that the fight never stopped. The cops used standard procedures to deal with a group of violent illegal protestors, including flash bangs, rubber bullets and tear gas.

Leftard, when leftard protestors stand there and verbally taught police during their protests, what is the goal of those taunts?

You'd have to ask them.

 

[jacksonlamb]

I'm trying to treat you with the level of civility that you are showing me.

Or lack there of.

This isn't me having some kind of problem. This is you being an asshole and me treating you accordingly.

YOu aren't "calling me out" on anything. YOu are dishonestly pretending to not remember shit from just a few years ago.


You are a piece of shit. And you deserve to be treated accordingly.

You are generally the butt, and you get mad when you are treated as you deserve.

Be honest, be straight, then there is no issue.

 

[Political-Junkie]

But this is a serious political problem for the nation as a whole. Your side is claiming that our side made a serious coup attempt.

If true, that needs to be established. If that messes with the lives of some snitches, that is unfortunate but a small price to pay.


If NOT true, then we need to know that just as much, so that your side stops teh shit talk.



Ok. Fair enough. Funny that the captiol police didn't notice that and refused the offer of national guard.






They had stooped at that point and were just milling around.

Please answer my question. At that point in time, it has been established that you as teh police do not have the numbers to control the massive crowd,

Do you,

A. wait for reinforcements

or

B. restart a fight that you just lost?

What do you do? DON'T BE A COWARD ANSWER TEH ******* QUESTION.




Except that there was a long history of NOT RIOTS as you have admitted. Counting on a riot ahead of time would have made no sense.

Unless you knew that the capitol police were going to start shit. And you knew that there would be professional agitators and incitement going on.

And even then, they had to be just HOPING to entrap some people.



It's actually not a stupid idea. The motive here is clear, it gave the leftards a much needed answer to the conservativds who were pointing out how violent the leftard riots had been.

AND it gave Biden an excuse to bring the hammer down on his enemies. That was teh beginnign of lawfare and political prisoners.

That was not "stupid" that is fairly clever. Indeed, it worked and is still working.

YOur calling it stupid, is you running defense for the operation. Like good little leftards always do.




You are pretending that the cops are retarded and can't adjust standard procedures to an unusual and fluid situation.

Only a retard would restart a fight they had just lost.


UNLESS, losing was the goal. Then it makes sense. You WANT a riot, for political purposes.




Leftard, when leftard protestors stand there and verbally taught police during their protests, what is the goal of those taunts?

The violence started before police used anti-riot methods. It's on video. The first act of violence was at a perimeter barricade where protestors fought their way past police, knocking one cop unconscious. The breach of that barricade enabled hundreds of protesters to get to the next layer of police barricades by the Capitol building. Within minutes, the crowd was swelling into the thousands. Then the crowd started wrestling with police over those barricades and that's when police first started firing rubber bullets and flashbangs in an attempt to disperse the unlawful mob. There's video of all of that.

 

[Political-Junkie]

THe blm and antifa riots were organized across state lines.

IF the fbi choose to not get involved, that is a partisan political choice right there.


Again, I accept that you are retarded. But I do not believe you are as retarded as you are pretending to be.

Most crimes were local, not federal. That's why they were handled by states, not the FBI.

 

[Political-Junkie]

A meaningless quibble, designed to dodge teh point.

Leftards need to confuse the issue.

People seeing the issues clearly and honestly, is not in their favor.

Has not been, for a long, long time.

False. The answer reveals who dropped the ball. That's the real reason you don't want to answer and you know it. The answer you're avoiding is Miller. And Miller's testimony is the reason you didn't want to answer.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118824/documents/HHRG-119-QJ00-20260114-SD010.pdf

Former Pentagon chief: Trump gave no order to prepare troops before Jan. 6

Former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that then-President Trump gave no orders to prepare troops before that day.

In testimony shared by the committee Tuesday evening, Miller was asked about an assertion made by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be “on the ready” that day.

Miller said he was “never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature.”

“Obviously, we had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning,” he added. “There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature.”

Trump and his allies have insisted that he made orders to have National Guard troops ready before Jan. 6.

Miller was responding to a claim Meadows made in a Fox News interview a month after the riot, in which he implied that Trump was “very vocal” in making sure there were “plenty of National Guard.”

“As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of Defense. That was a direct order from President Trump. And yet here’s what we see is, there’s all kinds of blame going around, but yet not a whole lot of accountability,” Meadows said at the time.

When specifically asked about whether there was a direct order from Trump to have Guard troops ready, Miller said there was not.

“There was no order from the president,” he told the House select committee.

 

[Lesh]

False. The answer reveals who dropped the ball. That's the real reason you don't want to answer and you know it. The answer you're avoiding is Miller. And Miller's testimony is the reason you didn't want to answer.

https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118824/documents/HHRG-119-QJ00-20260114-SD010.pdf

Former Pentagon chief: Trump gave no order to prepare troops before Jan. 6

Former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that then-President Trump gave no orders to prepare troops before that day.

In testimony shared by the committee Tuesday evening, Miller was asked about an assertion made by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows that as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be “on the ready” that day.

Miller said he was “never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature.”

“Obviously, we had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning,” he added. “There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature.”

Trump and his allies have insisted that he made orders to have National Guard troops ready before Jan. 6.

Miller was responding to a claim Meadows made in a Fox News interview a month after the riot, in which he implied that Trump was “very vocal” in making sure there were “plenty of National Guard.”

“As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of Defense. That was a direct order from President Trump. And yet here’s what we see is, there’s all kinds of blame going around, but yet not a whole lot of accountability,” Meadows said at the time.

When specifically asked about whether there was a direct order from Trump to have Guard troops ready, Miller said there was not.

“There was no order from the president,” he told the House select committee.

In fairness Trump did make a comment about Miller getting NG troops to protect “his people”. Miller ignored that remark and Trump never followed up on it

 

[Political-Junkie]

In fairness Trump did make a comment about Miller getting NG troops to protect “his people”. Miller ignored that remark and Trump never followed up on it

That's the comment he testified about. That was never an order or an offer. It was just a comment made to Miller that he didn't think Trump was serious about during a 30 second call.