Revisionist history focusing on 1/6 is getting louder.

[Faun]

I sourced the law, rules, and regulations from the government website

I have used democrats at my source with links, a dozen times. I used the republicans once.

The letter, I only quoted, for it shows that Nancy Pelosi, as the laws I have linked to state, Nancy Pelosi is in charge of Congress's security.

I have not ignored both, Seargeant-at-Arms. The House of Representatives leadership is dominant, the law, rules, and regulations all start in the house. Security originates in the House.

But hey, I get it, you will play dumb all day long.

Nancy Pelosi failed at protecting Congress

It's not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House to be in charge of security of the Congress. There's a body tasked with that responsibility. Not to mention, the Speaker of the House is only in charge of one half of the Congress.

 

[Faun]

She is a politician

Why would Pelosi admit to her failure in a letter?

LOL

That letter was TO Pelosi. How could she admit anything in it?

 

[Faun]

Prove anything I posted is wrong. Go ahead and quote something and we will discuss it. Show everyone you are just not yapping your trap

LOLOL

It's your job to prove yourself right. No one is burdened with proving you wrong when you're incapable of proving yourself right.

 

[Faun]

Nobody said they weren’t guilty of anything, but they were guilty of rioting. This “sedition” is being thrown on by Democrats to punish these idiots politically, the usual sprinting to victimhood and trying to brand Trump as equating to these people (when he denounced the violence). It’s all political manipulation, nobody actually thinks our government was threatened that day

However, the Democrats have turned them into victims of massive oversentencing and denying due process. they were imprisoned for years without a trial, they should be pardoned because they were treated unconstitutionally.

Name the Democrats who oversentenced them...

 

[MagicMike]

“Dog whistles”?

From ive gathered, a “dog whistle” means “I don’t like this person, and I can’t prove they want to do what I suspect they want to do that’s nasty and awful, so I’ll reference unprovable, non-verbal theorized meaning to their words”…

Or in other words, you make it up

I suppose you can choose to continue believing this...
OR
you can do some reading in order to educate yourself so the next time you try to converse on this subject you will sound like you actually know what you're tring to talk about.

OR

I suppose you could just blow off the reading and education and in true MAGAt style come back and say something like "it's just TOO many words"....but even without actually doing the reading you actually "know" it's bullshit because your cult already tells you anything worth knowing.

Abstract

Though many in news media have accused Donald Trump of being racist or dog-whistling during the 2016 United States Presidential campaign, there has been little empirical analysis of Trump’s words. A content analysis of Donald Trump’s speeches as the Republican Presidential Nominee was conducted to search for race baiting dog whistles. The paper uses the content analytical method, which seeks alignment of message, messenger, and receiver; as such, analysis included not only Trump’s words but connection with extant research on his political persona and his supporters. Analysis showed alignment in the three areas, including consistent dog whistle usage in Trump’s speeches. Trump’s dog whistle usage also significantly exceeded that of recent Republican Presidential Nominees.

“I Am the Law and Order Candidate” A Content Analysis of Donald Trump’s Race-Baiting Dog Whistles in the 2016 Presidential Campaign

Empirical analysis reveals consistent dog whistle usage in Donald Trump's speeches during the 2016 US Presidential campaign, surpassing previous Republican nominees. Explore the alignment between message, messenger, and receiver in this content analysis.

www.scirp.org

 

[elektra]

It's not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House to be in charge of security of the Congress. There's a body tasked with that responsibility. Not to mention, the Speaker of the House is only in charge of one half of the Congress.

It is the responsibility of the Speaker of the House, that is why they created that position.
Since when is the person who writes the laws, not responsible when the laws fail?

Pelosi failed as Speaker of the House, to protect the Capitol

 

[elektra]

LOLOL

It's your job to prove yourself right. No one is burdened with proving you wrong when you're incapable of proving yourself right.

No, it is your job when you engage another person to offer a reasonable response as to your position. Your constant crying for me to use Google shows you have not the education to validate your opinion.

Further I have linked numerous laws, letters, and other web pages showing the responsibilities of Congress. You ignore them.

Pelosi as speaker of the house failed to protect the Capitol

 

[MagicMike]

Not at all, Nancy Pelosi in charge of providing for the security of the legislative branch of government. She can create any sort of Police Force she wants.

Of course, Congress must approve, but after Congress failed to protect themselves on Jan. 6th it would of been relatively easy to write a sensible law to provide for their security.

Nancy Pelosi was in charge of security of the Capitol, she failed.

Even if blaming the insurrection on Pelosi was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, how does that even make sense?
Are bank robbers blameless because bank security failed to stop them?

 

[Faun]

False. Almost every single case got dismissed on one or more procedural grounds. So repeating that lie you guys loop so endlessly means absolutely nothing.

Also false.

You don’t have a clue that you have absolutely zero credibility.

More lies from you. Little more than half were dismissed on procedural grounds.

 

[Faun]

No, it is your job when you engage another person to offer a reasonable response as to your position. Your constant crying for me to use Google shows you have not the education to validate your opinion.

Further I have linked numerous laws, letters, and other web pages showing the responsibilities of Congress. You ignore them.

Pelosi as speaker of the house failed to protect the Capitol

LOL

Nope, your position is fantasy based on your own lies. That's why you can't prove yourself right. Therefore, no one has to prove you wrong. You already proved yourself wrong.

 

[elektra]

Even if blaming the insurrection on Pelosi was even remotely accurate, which it isn't, how does that even make sense?
Are bank robbers blameless because bank security failed to stop them?

I never said there was an insurrection, so you are wrong on the first part of your premise.

I never blamed an insurrection on Pelosi so the second part of your statement is wrong.

I never said some who took part in the protest, smashed windows, opened locked doors, fought with the Capitol Police are not guilty.

Where do you get off at asking a question that insinuates and have said things I have not said.

MagicMike, you have proved that you have no comprehension or are simply clutching at straws trying to prove your opinion has some basis in fact.

 

[ActionJackson]

FACTS:
- The Capitol Police LET PROTESTORS INTO THE BUILDING
-The Capitol Police ESCORTED the buffalo guy INTO and OUT OF the SENATE CHAMBER
-The Capitol Police FIRED ON the crowd OUTSIDE
-HUNDREDS of FBI cosplayers dressed as MAGA incited violence INSIDE the BUILDING
-Nasty Pelosi DENIED Trump's request for the NG

It is crystal CLEAR that the riot was actually the FEDSURRECTION REICHSTAG FIRE that they planned for and WANTED!!!!!

^^^ And folks who weren't even present got more jail time than FBI asset, Ray Epps, who just recently got a slap on the wrist. ^^^

Total circus and the Dummycrat leadership and their RINO puppets orchestrated and executed their scheme which (for now anyway) worked exactly as planned.

 

[Faun]

Yawn.

Let me know when the polls flip

... said Hillary Clinton in January of 2016.

 

[Faun]

It was absolutely selectively prosecuted politically. If the jury didn’t find these people guilty of everything, they may have been in danger. Much like the George Floyd ruling, there was pressure on jurors to rule a certain way.

LOL

Hundreds of trials?? Every one was because not a single juror could find them guilty as charged?

And what about all the others who pled guilty. They did that so their lives wouldn't be on danger too?

You sound paranoid and insane.

 

[Faun]

I remember when rabid, irate, overly-dramatic feminists were outside of the SCOTUS, being violent and pounding on the doors during the Roe v Wade hearing. They clearly wanted to halt the SCOTUS.

Sedition? They weren’t even arrested as far as I know. Why did they not get 20 years?

But they didn't halt the SCOTUS.

See the difference?

 

[Faun]

True, and as reports say, They didn’t think it would be good optics…Well, all Nancy had to do was tell Trump that she’d welcome the NG he offered, and put it on him…She made a big show of turning that down, because they wouldn’t give Trump anything…

There's a grand total of zero evidence that Pelosi knew about Trump's "offer." Which was not really an offer anyway.

 

[Faun]

Who made Jacob Chansley the 1/6 Capitol Hill GUEST OF HONOR?

Was it you?

 

[MagicMike]

False. Almost every single case got dismissed on one or more procedural grounds. So repeating that lie you guys loop so endlessly means absolutely nothing.

You are being coy here.
You forgot to mention that these "procedural grounds" were that Trump's attorneys couldn't produce any actual credible evidence when asked for it, to demonstrate the fraud they were alleging.

Also false.

You don’t have a clue that you have absolutely zero credibility.

Speaking of zero credibility, you don't present any evidence here that the statement is false....other than your (typical) prissy boy queen assertion that it is false.
How about providing some actual credible substance to prove your assertion?

Another EPIC FAIL by intheButtAgain!

 

[EMH]

Was it you?

Maybe it was David dePape....

 

[elektra]

LOL

Hundreds of trials?? Every one was because not a single juror could find them guilty as charged?

And what about all the others who pled guilty. They did that so their lives wouldn't be on danger too?

You sound paranoid and insane.

People are forced to plead guilty because they do not have the time or money to fight the government who has endless resources.

It is real funny, the Democrats hate the courts, called for reforms, scream and cry how rotten the courts are, except when it comes to anything related to Trump and his supporters.

Further, the prosecution threatens people with life in jail if they go to court, or probation.

Our courts need to be reformed, badly.