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

[Rand]

Tucker's selective clips don't erase Democrats' selective clips. All Tucker did was try to make it appear like January 6th was no big deal. His goal, supported by some others, is to bring us to where we are today, which is with many on the right denying what actually happened that day and why it happened that day. Both, insanely egregious. Even worse, now as a result of this revisionism, we see out right lies, persistent even when destroyed with the truth. Lies like the FBI instigated it or Antifa instigated it, it was no big deal, Trump offered 10K troops to Pelosi but she turned him down, or Ashli Babbit and Roseland Boyland were murdered by police, among many other lies.

The point wasn't to "erase" other realities of rioting. It was to demonstrate that the Democrats created a narrative and misled the public in order to eliminate a political enemy.

I'll state once again that I unequivocally condemn those who rioted that day. But if you think that's the whole story, you've been misled. The additional footage shows there's a lot going on that the Democrats haven't told you beyond their attempts to discredit the contradicting footage. They can't reasonably do so.

 

[Political-Junkie]

I haven't acknowledged or denied. Simply stating facts. There is no actual evidence that Trump incited, only perspectives based on statements, comments and perceptions of what he meant, of which statements could be taken multiple ways.

And still, you haven't mentioned the later released Capitol Bldg footage that contradicts the narrative. Why is that?

What caused them to go to D.C. in such big numbers that day?

They were at the Ellipse, what caused them to go to the Capitol?

What caused them to turn against Mike Pence?

What caused them to believe the election was stolen?

What caused them to fight with police to get past the police makeshift barricades?

What caused them to fight like hell?

Why did they break into the Capitol?

I'm hoping you'll answer each of these.

 

[Political-Junkie]

The point wasn't to "erase" other realities of rioting. It was to demonstrate that the Democrats created a narrative and misled the public in order to eliminate a political enemy.

I'll state once again that I unequivocally condemn those who rioted that day. But if you think that's the whole story, you've been misled. The additional footage shows there's a lot going on that the Democrats haven't told you beyond their attempts to discredit the contradicting footage. They can't reasonably do so.

I didn't say it was to erase the riots. It was to erase MAGA's culpability for the riots.

 

[Political-Junkie]

Here's another showing Cap Cops leading Qshaman around, letting him into chambers.

You seem to think because police were so outnumbered so they were calm with protesters to avoid return aggression, that somehow reduces the severity of what happened. Like I said earlier, this was Tucker's mission and he has succeeded to a large extent.

 

[Rand]

That's exactly my point. The HSA reports to the House Speaker, that's 1 vote. The SSA reports to the Senate Majority Leader, that's also 1 vote. So why do you blame one but not the other. Both sides carry equal weight.

I presented facts without assigning blame:

R

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

Yesterday at 12:31 PM

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...

• Rand

• 

 

[Political-Junkie]

I didn't say that E Jean's mental status was a factor in the appeal.

Well you did say:

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.

You only gave one example, that being her mental health. So it is reasonable to believe that's what you meant. But it's cool if you say that's not what you meant.

 

[Political-Junkie]

If you visited the capitol, as those did on J6, and you heard flash bangs back of you and cops shooting bullets at visitors, would you hang around or get pretty excited? Trump was 2 miles away. Could not control what the cops did to the visitors.
The reason the crowd got excited was the cops fired flash bangs and shot innocent visitors with rubber bullets.

Me? I'd get the **** out of there. Just like rioters typically do.

 

[WEATHER53]

The lib nit wits can’t explain how things went quietly for almost two hours, then people were let in and the doors closed, then the orchestrated ruckus was started inside, they heard it and tried to get in.

I mean all would have stayed well without the instigation from the inside of Capitol

 

[Rand]

I didn't say it was to erase the riots. It was to erase MAGA's culpability for the riots.

That's the conclusion the MsM draws, but it's a decoy. The additional footage presents evidence of that day that Democrats didn't. Why? Because it didn't serve their narrative. Instead, as in the case of the Shaman, they made it out to be something it wasn't, at least not in entirety. No self-respecting Conservative supports the riots, but they see what Liberals seem to be missing: That the Democrats reporting was a deception for public consumption, both by omission and narrative.

Even if you think Tucker is a liar, isn't the video (which Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent becoming public) enough to raise doubt about the veracity of their account?

 

[Rand]

Well, no, you laid out reasons for why Pelosi shared in the blame. That's blaming her for what you're claiming is her culpability. Why do you do that for one chamber but not the other?

You're reading something into it that isn't there:

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

A statement of fact. The rest was quoted from the link directly above the italicized text.

I appreciate your skepticism, but wonder why you don't apply some of that to the party that has deceived voters for 10 years in their attempts to unseat Trump?

 

[Political-Junkie]

That's the conclusion the MsM draws, but it's a decoy. The additional footage presents evidence of that day that Democrats didn't. Why? Because it didn't serve their narrative. Instead, as in the case of the Shaman, they made it out to be something it wasn't, at least not in entirety. No self-respecting Conservative supports the riots, but they see what Liberals seem to be missing: That the Democrats reporting was a deception for public consumption, both by omission and narrative.

Even if you think Tucker is a liar, isn't the video (which Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent becoming public) enough to raise doubt about the veracity of their account?

While Tucker is a proven liar, I'm not saying he lied with his video. I'm saying he used it to rewrite history, which is why there are many people on the right telling outright lies about what happened that day. Mission Accomplished, Tucker.

 

[markef]

Scalice was not shot because some PAC said "take out Scalice." There's no correlation between them saying that and him getting shot.

But I showed you a direct correlation between Trump saying "you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong" with people there yelling to "take the Capitol," which some went on to do.

You can always count on democrats claiming that Trump incites violence when he doesn't and that democrats don't incite violence when they do.

 

[markef]

Most of his appeals are based on weaseling out of paying her, not based on the case which was proven beyond a preponderance of the evidence. Things like he had presidential immunity, or getting the defendant switched to being the "U.S.", or that the damages are too excessive.

His only appeal based on evidence is that the judge allowed prosecution to show the jury the Access Hollywood tape, which hid appeal claims is bias. But given one of her claims is that he walked up to her, kissed her forcibly and then fingered her, and given the tape revealed him admitting, "I'm automatically attracted to beautiful... I just start kissing them... And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything... Grab them by the *****... you can do anything." Which is precisely what he did to her, so it's doubtful he'll prevail on that. He's lost every appeal so far.

And all of that hinges on if the Supreme Court will even review his appeal.

Democrats and leftists have a long history of robbing the government, businesses, and individuals through lying and fraud.

 

[Rand]

Well you did say:



You only gave one example, that being her mental health. So it is reasonable to believe that's what you meant. But it's cool if you say that's not what you meant.

I see where it could have been misunderstood. There have been examples cited of why the case could be reversed, including procedural violations, improper evidentiary rulings and improper witnesses, but I didn't hunt them down. It will be these that are argued before SCOTUS.

In any individual assessment, the venue and 'actors' should also be considered as well. Manhattan is one of the most Liberal districts in the nation and came with Liberal judges, prosecution and jury. I find it difficult to believe that objectivity ruled at most points.

 

[markef]

That's a lot of text to not show Trump offered more Guard to Pelosi. Nothing you posted shows Trump offered National Guard to Pelosi. Trump has never even said he offered Pelosi more National Guard. You should stop repeating that falsehood because there's no evidence it's true.

Trump offered Pelosi underlings and associates extra security, but they were not able to convince Pelosi to accept the offer of increased security.

 

[markef]

No. Just pointing out the Speaker of the House lacks that authority. They can give directions to the HSA, but that's about it.

Nancy cannot honestly say she was not warned of needed extra security, and she cannot say others botched the security arrangements without anyone discussing the needs with her.

 

[markef]

And who did what in response to Raskin saying that?

No honest person can say that it has been proven that democrat fighting words inspired specific acts of violence any more than any honest person can claim Trump incited anyone to commit violence.

 

[Rand]

You seem to think because police were so outnumbered so they were calm with protesters to avoid return aggression, that somehow reduces the severity of what happened. Like I said earlier, this was Tucker's mission and he has succeeded to a large extent.

Sorry, I missed this. These threads move fast.

I find your perspective unlikely. Even if it were so, surely they wouldn't have given a guided tour, checking locked doors, etc.

Tucker is irrelevant in this, as is Fox.

There are two salient points that shouldn't be ignored.

1. The Democrats omitted this footage and fought to prevent its later release for a reason. You might say it was because they didn't want to "muddy the waters", but what else does that say other than they were withholding realities that contradicted their narrative?

2. The footage speaks for itself. It doesn't deny the reality of the riots, it provides information previously withheld.

 

[WEATHER53]

125 police had scheduled day off the next day. 15 more called in sick
Lib loons made up that 140 police were so badly injured they could not come to work

 

[markef]

Why do you do that? You repeatedly claim anti-Trump people incited the riot even though you repeatedly fail to present evidence that's true.

Not all Trump supporters are calm, rational, peaceful Christians, but claiming they are violent terrorists is a lie that Merrick Garland and thousands of democrat and leftists need to repent for falsely claiming.