Liz Cheney says Trump appears to have been ‘personally involved in planning’ 6 Jan insurrection

[Faun]

Where in any of that post was a plan to go into the Capital?

^^^ Another illiterate rightard.

Their plan was for some of their group to wait armed outside, while others went inside unarmed; and for the ones outside prepared to go inside, "fully armed," if things with Antifa "go kinetic." The unarmed ones inside are recorded being inside in full tactical gear. The only reason their plan failed is because Antifa never showed up as they had hoped.

 

[Faun]

They wanted an armed group to stay outside of the protest in case Antifa attacked the unarmed protesters with weapons. Your word comprehension skills are sorely lacking!

Moron, they didn't just "want" Antifa to attack -- they hoped Antifa would attack. That was their plan. To go to war with Antifa inside and outside of the Capitol which they believed would give Trump the excuse needed to declare Martial Law and cancel the certification.

 

[Oldestyle]

^^^ Another illiterate rightard.

Their plan was for some of their group to wait armed outside, while others went inside unarmed; and for the ones outside prepared to go inside, "fully armed," if things with Antifa "go kinetic." The unarmed ones inside are recorded being inside in full tactical gear. The only reason their plan failed is because Antifa never showed up as they had hoped.

There is nothing in that "plan" that calls for ANYONE to go inside the Capitol, Faun! They're talking about going to a protest at the Capitol and how Antifa may counter protest. If you're in "full tactical gear" but you don't have a weapon on you...what you're really doing is protecting yourself from other people who might attack you...like Antifa!

 

[Faun]

She was breaking into an empty hallway, Notfooled! Go watch the video.
The thing that has always bothered me about Babbitt's death is what took place BEFORE she was shot. Capital Police abandon their post in front of the door. More Capital Police just stand there in a stairwell to the right of the barricaded doors. There is nobody in the hallway. It's like they were inviting the protesters to break down those doors. Then as they begin to do just that...a plainclothes Capital Police officer who's been hiding off to the side of the door pops out and shoots into the crowd, killing Babbitt. If they really want to investigate what happened that day I'd like to know who gave the order for the Police to not defend that door...who cleared that hallway...and who gave that plainclothes officer the order to shoot to kill protesters that they should have known were unarmed.

Liar, lawmakers and others were seen by that mob just moments earlier in that hallway. They thought they were getting away which is when they began trying to break in. And had Benedict Babbitt gotten past that police barricade, a door to the House chamber was just several feet away where other lawmakers were still inside waiting their turn to be escorted out.

 

[Oldestyle]

Liar, lawmakers and others were seen by that mob just moments earlier in that hallway. They thought they were getting away which is when they began trying to break in. And had Benedict Babbitt gotten past that police barricade, a door to the House chamber was just several feet away where other lawmakers were still inside waiting their turn to be escorted out.

I watched the video, Faun...the hallway is empty. The protesters rather calmly convince the Police officers in front of the door that they're going to go through the doors and would rather not have them get hurt. The three officers in front of the doors then go down the stairwell that is full of riot gear clad Police and then the protesters start trying to break down the barricaded doors. At that point the plainclothes officer jumps out from hiding and shoots Babbitt. What lawmakers do you see in that hallway just moments before the shot rang out?

 

[Oldestyle]

As far as I can tell not a single person was physically assaulted inside of the Capitol. So explain to me again the rationale for opening fire on unarmed protesters?

 

[Faun]

There is nothing in that "plan" that calls for ANYONE to go inside the Capital, Faun! They're talking about going to a protest at the Capital and how Antifa may counter protest. If you're in "full tactical gear" but you don't have a weapon on you...what you're really doing is protecting yourself from other people who might attack you...like Antifa!

Liar....

"some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside and stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to."​

Can someone here lend this rightard a brain so he can understand if "some" Oath Keepers are to stay outside, that means "some" others are to go inside.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: Do you believe the democrats are capable of being completely objective and unbiased? 21OCT27-POST#423

NFBW wrote: I am exceedingly convinced that facts do not allow or condone bias and when laid bare they are the most objective source of information available to all of us. Why are you bothering with redundant questions? 21OCT27-POST#425

ThisIsMe wrote: Facts are only credible if they are presented in context. 21OCT27-POST#451

NFBW wrote: What do you, ThisIsMe , think of these facts and timeline. Are you impressed with DJT’s conduct as POTUS when his VP and Members of Congress, their staff and Police Officers were attacked by the mob that DJT helped incite? 21OCT27-POST#427

ThisIsMe wrote: Generally, no. I was never a fan of trump. 21OCT27-POST#464

NFBW wrote: In your reply ThisIsMe ( 21OCT27-POST#451 ) “Facts are only credible if they are presented in context.” which I agree with the exception that it’s “only” when they are presented in context. The EASTMAN MEMO is now s fact - it exists - was it written and not used or was it used in an actual attempt to overturn the election that DJT lost but “misunderstood” that FACT perhaps out of his strong personal bias and lack of objectivity against the reality that he lost. - - - The members on the select committee did nothing wrong to be there. So why do you wish to discuss their potential bias instead of discussing the bias of DJT who enticed who caused a white supremacist wreck of a human being to travel from California to DC to attempt to assist DJT and hiscmassive misunderstanding cancel Joe Biden from being sworn in on January 20? 21OCT29-POST#508


- - - On Jan. 6 Matthew Thomas Purse, a 45-year-old Navy veteran from Irvine, California, arrived at the Capitol with a red patch reading “DON’T SHOOT — PRESS” sewed to the back of his black tactical vest. He said this on a bullhorn once the Capitol was breached.. 21OCT29-POST#508

“”” “First of all, mission accomplished, Patriots,” Purse said to scattered cheers from the right-wing mob that had just stormed, vandalized and looted the building, disrupting a joint session of Congress, according to a video reviewed by HuffPost. “History has been made here today. Simultaneously you broke in through the front and through the rear! They could not stop you! You occupied the building! You caused them to stop what they were doing! They had to evacuate! They couldn’t complete their session! Mission accomplished! Excellent!” 21JAN06-mtPURSE-white supremacist mission accomplished

I asked 3 questions. You answered one of then with a vague response about facts, that wasn't the question I asked. I asked if you felt the dems could be fair and unbiased. I also asked 2 other questions along with that.

 

[Faun]

I watched the video, Faun...the hallway is empty.

Then you didn't see the whole video. Lawmakers were seen by the mob just before they tried to smash their way in.

The protesters rather calmly convince the Police officers in front of the door that they're going to go through the doors and would rather not have them get hurt.

You're lying again. It wasn't "rather calmly." They threatened their lives and were smashing the windows right by the cops' heads.

The three officers in front of the doors then go down the stairwell that is full of riot gear clad Police and then the protesters start trying to break down the barricaded doors. At that point the plainclothes officer jumps out from hiding and shoots Babbitt. What lawmakers do you see in that hallway just moments before the shot rang out?

 

[Oldestyle]

Liar....

"some Oath Keepers to stay on the outside and stay fully armed and prepared to go in armed, if they have to."​

Can someone here lend this rightard a brain so he can understand if "some" Oath Keepers are to stay outside, that means "some" others are to go inside.

They're talking about staying outside of the protest...you clueless buffoon! There is ZERO discussion at that point about storming the Capitol building!

 

[Faun]

As far as I can tell not a single person was physically assaulted inside of the Capitol. So explain to me again the rationale for opening fire on unarmed protesters?

To keep the mob from storming the House chamber where lawmakers were still hold up.

 

[Oldestyle]

Then you didn't see the whole video. Lawmakers were seen by the mob just before they tried to smash their way in.



You're lying again. It wasn't "rather calmly." They threatened their lives and were smashing the windows right by the cops' heads.

That is SO not the video from the hallway right before the shot, Faun! Pathetic attempt at covering your ass!

 

[Faun]

They're talking about staying outside of the protest...you clueless buffoon! There is ZERO discussion at that point about storming the Capitol building!

Liar. They where inside the Capitol.

 

[Faun]

That is SO not the video from the hallway right before the shot, Faun! Pathetic attempt at covering your ass!

Of course it was just before the mob tried to break in. You just can't stop lying.

 

[Lastamender]

Tucker Carlson will be showing Liz just how wrong she is. There is a panic over his upcoming documentary.

 

[ThisIsMe]

ThisIsMe wrote: Do you believe that if the evidence takes them to a place that shows Trump and company to not be guilty that they will admit they are wrong, and would they publicly attest to that fact? 21OCT29-POST#502


NFBW wrote: What would they be wrong about? How on earth is gathering every single fact and witness possible about a violent attack on the US Capitol during
A political attempt to overturn the presidential election by the sore loser man and sore loser supporters who lost? 21OCT29-POST#509

See, you're trying to answer my questions by drifting over into fact gathering etc. My question was simple:

Do you believe that if the evidence takes them to a place that shows Trump and company to not be guilty that they will admit they are wrong, and would they publicly attest to that fact?

 

[ThisIsMe]

It would not at all have been similar to Pence doing that. It's one thing for a state to send in a slate of electors which doesn't reflect the will of the people... it's an entirely different animal for the vice president to unilaterally decide which electors to count. All the Constitution states is, "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted." It doesn't say "the Votes shall not be counted."

If it did, and if Biden/Harris were to run again, then in 2025 when the Congress meets to certify the 2024 election, Biden/Harris could lose every state but Hawaii and Harris would be allowed to reject every states' electors but Hawaii and keep her job.

It would have been similar. In one scenario, the vp would have ignored the will of the people to return the election to the states, who then could send a different slate of electors, in the other scenario, a group of states entered into an unconstitutional compact to ignore the will of the voters of 15 states, plus DoC to send the states of voters based on narional popular vote. So, while not "exactly" the same, they would be similar. In each case, government is ignoring the will of the voters to achieve a different result.

 

[ThisIsMe]

They're accusing a US President of conspiring to commit an "insurrection" and they're doing so with little to no proof of that actually happening! The FBI investigated the protest that turned into a riot and found that there was little to no evidence of planning to breach the Capital before hand. You can tell that's the case because the protesters didn't really know what to do once they got inside of the building. They milled around...took selfies...took souvenirs. This wasn't some violent mob intent on murder as they've been portrayed by liberal hyperbole! This was a group of protesters that went too far...ended up inside of the Capital and then didn't know what to do.

Well, there ARE accusations that state some people, once inside, knew how to get to certain locations inside the building. It is yet to be determined if they had inside help, perhaps one of the alleged agitators outside knew about those locations, or they just happenstance wandered into them while roaming around the capitol building.

In general, however, I agree with you, I also agree that, at this point, they have nothing in the way of evidence of advanced planning from Trump and company.

If they find that evidence, then I will agree with them. I mean, we know that a riot did happen, and we know they broke into the capitol, but we haven't seen any evidence, other than some rhetoric by Trump, that would tie him or any of his staff to the organization of it.

 

[Faun]

It would have been similar. In one scenario, the vp would have ignored the will of the people to return the election to the states, who then could send a different slate of electors, in the other scenario, a group of states entered into an unconstitutional compact to ignore the will of the voters of 15 states, plus DoC to send the states of voters based on narional popular vote. So, while not "exactly" the same, they would be similar. In each case, government is ignoring the will of the voters to achieve a different result.

No, it's not similar. Aside from the fact that many states now forbid electors from casting a vote for the loser of their state, prior to such laws, it was legal, and still is legal in many states, for electors to cast faithless votes.

Whereas it's never been legal for the vice president to unilaterally reject electors' votes.

The two cases are not similar.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ThisIsMe wrote: See, you're trying to answer my questions by drifting over into fact gathering etc. My question was simple: 21OCT29-POST#556

NFBW wrote: I can’t answer any question properly that contains the false premise that the Committee is gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses to take them to a place that shows Trump and company to be guilty or not guilty of anything. What they are doing is right, ethical and necessary for the continued health of American democracy so there is no reason for any of them to admit they are wrong before the public when whatever outcome is released. 21OCT29-POST#560