Report: 26 FBI INFORMANTS in J6 protest, some entered the Capitol

[WEATHER53]

It DOES mean fight like hell, to "stop the steal", which is what Trump called certification of 2020 election for Biden.

Which THEY DID.

That was after the Pelosi plants had started the ruckus inside and those outside heard it and tried to enter. No fighting, just trying to enter

 

[AntonToo]

Yet a bunch of Trump's supporters fought like hell right after Trump told them to fight like hell. So in this case, it does mean that.

It's important to add that Trump had MANY chances to correct their understanding if he felt that they shouldn't be violently breaking into Capitol.

He had many people, including his children, cabinet members and angry Congressmen urging him to speak and tell his followers to stop it as it was happening.

TRUMP DID NOT and that is exactly why he got impeached for this, with 10 House Republicans voting in favor.

 

[AntonToo]

That was after the Pelosi plants had started the ruckus inside and those outside heard it and tried to enter. No fighting, just trying to enter

...Is that what a little birdie on your shoulder wispered to you?

There were actual CRIMINAL CASES against all these people. Go read them instead of posting your nutbag fantasies here.

 

[Rand]

Here's his supporters listening to that.

You won't get an argument from me that some Trump supporters rioted, nor that they should have been made accountable for their actions. That said, they weren't the majority there, and the Capitol Bldg security video that Democrats fought to keep the public from seeing confirms that and defies the Narrative the Democrats perpetuated for the next several years. I can post video of that footage if you'd like.

Democrats falsely portray Trump's "Fight Like Hell" declarations as 'evidence' of incitation. Nonsense. I can also post footage of Democrats declaring 'fight like hell'. It has as much veracity as the accusations of Hitler and nazi salute nonsense. That is to say - none.

The truth is that there was absolutely no evidence of Trump inciting the crowd to riot beyond what Democrats could twisted and disseminate to the TDS masses. A majority of voters in the 2024 election seem to have come to the same conclusion.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrats falsely portray Trump's "Fight Like Hell" declarations as 'evidence' of incitation.

Trump told them to fight like hell, then watched them fight like hell to break into Capitol and interfere with certification.

At no point did he try to stop them as McCarthy and others were screaming at him to do.

You have to be straight stupid to imagine that he didn't mean it, didn't want it.

Republicans who voted to impeach him specifically cited his refusal to do anything to stop his supporters from breaking in as proof positive of his intentions.

 

[AntonToo]

You won't get an argument from me that some Trump supporters rioted, nor that they should have been made accountable for their actions.

Congrats, you are more sane than other rightwingers in this thread and less of a degenerate than Trump who pardoned all of these violent criminals, because they did it for him.

 

[Rand]

The only people with the authority to request DC National Guard were Trump, Trump's Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Police of the CPB.

It should be noted that House Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the Speaker of the House, at that time, Nancy Pelosi.

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots

...The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.

Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says....

 

[Lockback]

It should be noted that House Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the Speaker of the House, at that time, Nancy Pelosi.

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots

...The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.

Sund says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed, he says....

So, in other words, Pelosi WAS mainly responsible for the lack of police ....
Purposely done, no doubt.

 

[AntonToo]

It should be noted that House Sergeant-at-Arms reports to the Speaker of the House, at that time, Nancy Pelosi.

This whole line of argumentation is like saying bank robbers are not responsbile for bank robbery because there should've been two guards on duty, not one.

Total red herring stupidity.

 

[Rand]

Until he wins his appeals, if he does, he's been found liable of sexual abuse.

Now that the case has run the Liberal gauntlet of the NY court system, it seems likely that it will be reversed based on several factors.

E. Jean is quite the nut, and in most venues would be considered a very unreliable Plaintiff/witness.

As can be discerned from this interview, she certainly doesn't act like a victim of sexual abuse.

 

[Rand]

If all you've got are whataboutisms to show both parties are guilty as charged, doesn't that make your party a fraud?

I think the point is to demonstrate the hypocrisy and selective outrage of the Left.

 

[Robert W]

This whole line of argumentation is like saying bank robbers are not responsbile for bank robbery because there should've been two guards on duty, not one.

Total red herring stupidity.

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
The genuine argument is out of the crowds of around 10,000, nobody busted down doors to enter the Capitol, only 4 windows on the exterior of the capitol had not been fitted then with bomb proof windows, and 2 windows in a hall were broken, with massive effort since those windows were also fitted with hard to break windows, why it was called a riot? When it was the cops shooting at the peaceful visitors with pistols and putting flash bangs back of them, herding them towards the capitol. What the hell where they thinking?

 

[Robert W]

Until he wins his appeals, if he does, he's been found liable of sexual abuse.

Trump was found guilty of damaging her reputation. Innocent of rape.

 

[Rand]

Trump told them to fight like hell, then watched them fight like hell to break into Capitol and interfere with certification.

At no point did he try to stop them as McCarthy and others were screaming at him to do.

You have to be straight stupid to imagine that he didn't mean it, didn't want it.

Republicans who voted to impeach him specifically cited his refusal to do anything to stop his supporters from breaking in as proof positive of his intentions.

That's one interpretation, but certainly not a 'smoking gun'. There isn't one. The common sense conclusion from all the "evidence" is that Trump accused Democrats of election fraud and they quickly twisted it into an accusation of incitation. There's no rational reason to believe their accusations.

Let's not pretend like the Democrats (and Rinos too!) didn't have a dog in this race. Trump is a Washington outsider who promised to expose Washington Establishment and drain the Swamp, and he's never let up on that.

When one views 10 years of non-stop attempts to unseat him as POTUS, once can reasonably conclude the reality.

 

[Lesh]

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
The genuine argument is out of the crowds of around 10,000, nobody busted down doors to enter the Capitol, only 4 windows on the exterior of the capitol had not been fitted then with bomb proof windows, and 2 windows in a hall were broken, with massive effort since those windows were also fitted with hard to break windows, why it was called a riot? When it was the cops shooting at the peaceful visitors with pistols and putting flash bangs back of them, herding them towards the capitol. What the hell where they thinking?

You lying sack of maga shit

 

[Rand]

This whole line of argumentation is like saying bank robbers are not responsbile for bank robbery because there should've been two guards on duty, not one.

Total red herring stupidity.

No. It's looking beyond the narrative and using the facts to draw reasoned conclusions. I don't defend the actual rioters on J6, but there's much more to the story than that. The Democrats and their media would have you focus their tunnel-visioned account of the event. An 'account' that clearly benefits them politically an aids them in their attempts to illicitly unseat a duly elected POTUS/Outsider.

Tipping the apple cart has consequences.

 

[WEATHER53]

Trump was found guilty of damaging her reputation. Innocent of rape.

And the damage was he exercised his right to say she was not telling the truth

 

[AntonToo]

That's one interpretation, but certainly not a 'smoking gun'. There isn't one. The common sense conclusion from all the "evidence" is that Trump accused Democrats of election fraud and they quickly twisted it into an accusation of incitation. There's no rational reason to believe their accusations.

Let's not pretend like the Democrats (and Rinos too!) didn't have a dog in this race. Trump is a Washington outsider who promised to expose Washington Establishment and drain the Swamp, and he's never let up on that.

When one views 10 years of non-stop attempts to unseat him as POTUS, once can reasonably conclude the reality.

Which part of your post addressed the fact that Trump refused to do anything to stop his supporters from violently breaking into Capitol?

No part of course. You are simply glossing over most important evidence of Trump's intentions, like it doesn't even exist.

So the question becomes....are you just bullshitting me or yourself too?

 

[Robert W]

Which part of your post addressed the fact that Trump refused to do anything to stop his supporters from violently breaking into Capitol?

No part of course.

So the question becomes....are you just bullshitting me or yourself too?

What breaking in? What doors are you alleging were busted out?

 

[Rand]

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.
The genuine argument is out of the crowds of around 10,000, nobody busted down doors to enter the Capitol, only 4 windows on the exterior of the capitol had not been fitted then with bomb proof windows, and 2 windows in a hall were broken, with massive effort since those windows were also fitted with hard to break windows, why it was called a riot? When it was the cops shooting at the peaceful visitors with pistols and putting flash bangs back of them, herding them towards the capitol. What the hell where they thinking?

The security footage later released renders the Democrat narrative as false. Yes, there were rioters, which the media showed ad nauseam (much of it the same scene), but countless people were led in by Capitol police and some (like the "Q-Shaman") were given a tour, and even allowed in to chambers being used. The 'shaman' even led members in a chamber in prayer at the podium while police looked calmly on.

This in no way excuses those who rioted, but puts the lie to the narrative.