Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A partisan investigation?
Was the deceased not part of a riot?
Was the deceased not trying to illegally enter a restricted area?
I know, let's dig her up and shot her again.
Yeah, only 150+ officers got hurt that day...no reason to believe....your lying ass.
1. I don't rely on "Politifact". Neither should anyone else. It's terribly biased. Always has been. Progressives like you use it as a "fact check" when in reality it's a liberally slanted site that tells you what you want to hear!
2. You and the entity you have stuck up your ass aren't very quick. We have told you in very clear terms what we think. Please stay on topic or you and your avatar should STFU.
------------------------------------------------------------------3. Yeah, they've only won many awards for their fact checking including a Pulitzer.
And there it is."Her blood is on Trump's hands."
Third warning. Please stay on topic. The topic is NOT an advertisement for politinofact.------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, of the three views offered above......I'll go with #3. That's the one that seems informed about who and what Politifacts is. And their reputation for thorough diligent work.
Really, I recommend to all readers of USMB to peruse their website periodically (no paywall). It will be one more 'input' to one's, ummm, 'data bank'.
OK, with that said, I will admit to being a fan of Politifact (and also Glen Kessler's department at WaPo). Over the years I have had lunch twice with two different editors of Politifact. And, by my standards, and my experience......they were bright, informed, articulate folks, one a man the other a woman.
One was raised in the upper Midwest and went to a top journalism school, Medill at Northwestern. The other a man, I forget where he was raised, but he too went to one of the nation's top journalism schools, Missouri, if memory serves.
What has stuck with me since those meetings was that in both conversations these editors were persuasive in their description of the measures the organization takes to investigate both sides of an issue or of a statement.
An "Intention and practice to be accurate and fair' is how I would describe their description of the firm's efforts.
So, to good posters Concerned American and Oldstyle.........after you actually read the linked Politifacts' reportage in post #209, myself, along with my avatar, and likely others here.....well, we would be interested in your actual view after you actually read it.
Thanks.
Why aren't you tards screaming for the murderers of the cop who was killed? Why aren't you screaming for the blood of the insurrectionists who injured over 140 cops?While they chase the fake insurrection they ignore a stone cold murder.
It’s another lovely spittle fling name call full of emotetardism and absent any occurrent fact.Why aren't you tards screaming for the murderers of the cop who was killed? Why aren't you screaming for the blood of the insurrectionists who injured over 140 cops?
Blue Lives Matter, my ass.
All of that blood, including Babbitt's, is on Traitor Trump's hands.
Fucking liar!Sore Loser Donald Trump is soaked in blood.
It might have been Officer Byrd's gun, but it was Defeated Donald who pulled the trigger and killed Ashli Babbitt. Her blood is on Trump's hands.
As is the blood of Roseanne Boyland, whose name Trump nor any of the tard herd have ever mentioned or whose loss has been mourned.
As is the blood of Officer Brian Sicknick.
As is the blood of Kevin Greeson.
As is the blood of Benjamin Philips.
Vampire Donald will go down in history as a murderous seditionist.
Another nutjob who thinks Oath Keeper Epps is an FBI agent.Fucking liar!
If you want to blame the riots on Trump don't act like people like Ray Epps doesn't exist.
He was at the Capitol pleading and encouraging people to enter the building and fight with cops
(which we know from video evidence).
But he is now treated like "Ray Who? by the FBI.
When questioned by Ted Cruz he got stonewalled big time by FBI spokes people! Senator Cruz Questions FBI Official About Ray Epps Role in January 6
We never heard of him. Don't know where he is or how he got on our Most Wanted lists.
Etc. It's all bullshit and this isn't going away.
Once congress changes hands this will only intensify and same for when Mentally Discombobulated
Joe Biden is kicked out of office.
Your weak denials are about as convincing as stories of the Tooth Fairy.Another nutjob who thinks Oath Keeper Epps is an FBI agent.
I'm tellin' ya, folks. Those who are in thrall to Traitor Trump have been infected with some kind of brain-eating bacteria. They get nuttier by the day.
Oath Keeper Epps was removed from the wanted list because he never entered the Capitol, idiot. He did not assault anyone. He broke no laws. He only spoke to the crowd, telling them to go to the Capitol.Your weak denials are about as convincing as stories of the Tooth Fairy.
Just go fuck yourself.
The video evidence of Ray Epps has been seen by millions
and the FBI has to explain why Epps was a wanted figure by the agency when they were
supposedly investigating 1/6 and then one day he was just quietly dropped off their lists and
now they don't seem to know anything about him. How inexplicable and odd! How implausible.
How lame and amateurish!
The pathetic little fish can pretend there is nothing to see but we already know better.
And it’s So Very Incendiary to exhort people to .”go down there and cheer them on”. And lib loons want to sell that is an order to incite violence.Here is a link with actual video clips : https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...y_mail_found_him_on_his_ranch_in_arizona.html
Here is what Epps says in the film clips:
EPPS: Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol. Into the Capitol.
Some retard then starts chanting "Fed! Fed! Fed!"
EPPS: PEACEFULLY! PEACEFULLY!
Then the next clip is from 1/6.
EPPS: Ok, folks. Spread the word. As soon as the President is done speaking, we go to the Capitol. The Capitol is this direction.
And that is all the tards have as "proof" Epps is a Fed.
Now here's Trump:
And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you, we're going to walk down, we're going to walk down.
Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
He told them to go inside the Capital and he advised people to fight with police.Oath Keeper Epps was removed from the wanted list because he never entered the Capitol, idiot. He did not assault anyone. He broke no laws. He only spoke to the crowd, telling them to go to the Capitol.
Yeah... sure he did.The "video evidence" shows Epps encouraging people to go to the Capitol. He used almost the identical words that Trump used.
I've seen Epps' little address where he was immediately called out as a "Fed" many timesSeen by millions, eh? You obviously have not seen it. I have.
You tards are living in a very weird delusional headspace.
Show me the video where he advised people to fight the police, liar.He told them to go inside the Capital and he advised people to fight with police.
You know all the talking points, like a good little monkey, but can't explain why Epps
was a most wanted criminal one day and not the next.
Jonathan Turley:
“Under Byrd’s interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6.”29 Aug 2021 ~~ By Stacey Matthews
Jonathan Turley: Statements By Capitol Police Officer Who Killed Ashli Babbitt ‘Demolish the Two Official Reviews That Cleared Him’
"Under Byrd's interpretation, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6."legalinsurrection.com
Numerous aspects of what unfolded during the Capitol riot have been hotly debated in the months since it happened, but few have been as contentious and emotional as the debate over the officer-involved shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt.
The 35-year-old Air Force veteran was shot and killed by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd on January 6th after she tried to climb through a glass-paneled door after parts of it had been shattered by another rioter, identified as Zachary Jordan Alam.
Babbitt, who reportedly had been standing next to Alam, was shot.
n April, the Biden Department of Justice announced they had closed the investigation into the fatal shooting and would not be pursuing criminal charges against Byrd, citing “insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution.”
Just last week, the Capitol Police confirmed a report from NBC News that they had exonerated Byrd, a 28-year veteran of the force. They stated in a press release that Byrd – who they did not name – “will not be facing internal discipline” because in their view Byrd’s conduct “was lawful and within Department policy, which says an officer may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that action is in the defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in the defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.”
On the heels of the USCP exonerating Byrd, he did an interview with NBC News anchor Lester Holt, identifying himself publicly for the first time.
Instead of clearing things up, the interview only intensified the debate over his actions and whether they were justified. Here’s a key moment from their back and forth:
Video shot by a person in the crowd showed two officers posted in front of the door. Heavily outnumbered, they eventually stepped aside.Byrd said he had no knowledge that any officers were there. Because of the furniture stacked on his side of the door, he also couldn’t make out how many people were on the other side or whether they were carrying weapons.“It was impossible for me to see what was on the other side,” he said.But he did see the person now known to be Babbitt start coming through the broken glass.“I could not fully see her hands or what was in the backpack or what the intentions are,” Byrd said. “But they had shown violence leading up to that point.”Byrd, who says he has been in hiding since that day and has faced death threats, told Holt it was the first time he’d ever fired his weapon.
Watch an edited version of the interview below:
The extended interview can be viewed here.
Georgetown University Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, who has long been a critic of official media narratives surrounding the shooting, said that instead of confirming that the respective decisions by the DOJ and the Capitol Police not to pursue action against Byrd were the right ones to make that Byrd “proceeded to demolish the two official reviews that cleared him” after he admitted he could not determine whether Babbitt was armed:
He expanded on his opinion in a piece published at The Hill:
While the Supreme Court, in cases such as Graham v. Connor, has said that courts must consider “the facts and circumstances of each particular case,” it has emphasized that lethal force must be used only against someone who is “an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and … is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” Particularly with armed assailants, the standard governing “imminent harm” recognizes that these decisions must often be made in the most chaotic and brief encounters. Under these standards, police officers should not shoot unarmed suspects or rioters without a clear threat to themselves or fellow officers.[…]Legal experts and the media have avoided the obvious implications of the two reviews in the Babbitt shooting. Under this standard, hundreds of rioters could have been gunned down on Jan. 6 — and officers in cities such as Seattle or Portland, Ore., could have killed hundreds of violent protesters who tried to burn courthouses, took over city halls or occupied police stations during last summer’s widespread rioting. In all of those protests, a small number of activists from both political extremes showed up prepared for violence and pushed others to riot. According to the DOJ’s Byrd review, officers in those cities would not have been required to see a weapon in order to use lethal force in defending buildings.I’m not a legal analyst, but I think Turley makes some good points here.
Comment:
Not a single officer at the Capitol that day was threatened with deadly force. If they had been, other rioters would have been shot. “Context” shows that the officer’s lives were not in danger, and no other officer present thought that they were. This includes the officers who had their guns drawn right alongside Byrd; even they did not fire.
Someone crawling through a broken window? Haul them through, put them in zip ties, pass them to another officer to take away, or tell them to sit down and don’t move. Byrd was not a homeowner at night in the dark, defending his home while alone. He was a trained LEO, with armed fellow officers by his side, and still had a barrier between himself and other rioters, who were not known to have been armed (and were, in fact, not armed).
Please note the following:
Byrd violated the Rules of Engagement of both the Military and Law Enforcement. Had a soldier shot a unarmed civilian under the same circumstances he would have been court martialed.
In incidents involving police shootings, LEO's have been prosecuted for shooting supposed unarmed perpetrators, yet in this case there is no indictment or real investigation. The justification of the murder of Ashli Babbitt is purely political and Byrd has virtually gotten away with murder.
Succinctly said. If Byrd were White and Babbitt were Black, there would have been riots, arson and looting. Personally, I would like him to receive justice.
