Speaker Mike Johnson: 'We have to blur' Jan. 6 vids to shield rioters from DOJ

[Marchimedes]

The Speaker is protecting them by concealing their identities to protect them from the DoJ.

The DOJ doesn't have access to the unblurred videos?

 

[surada]

It sounds to me like MAGA Mike's gusto to release the videos has backfired on him! Is his loyalty to the Constitution or to the rioters? MAGA Mike seems very dangerous to me!

He has a pornography monitoring partner and his wife is involved in some kind of conversion of homosexuals.

 

[Lakhota]

If you lefties could see their faces you'd identify them, you'd dox them then, harass their children, send death threats, go to their work and try to get them fired, canceled, key their car and when all that doesn't work ya'll would throw rocks at their house screaming that the law doesn't apply to you cause they are such bad people and you are doing The Lord's work.

That's why you want to see their faces, fu(kin violent scumbags.

Conservatives don't do that $h!t. Well, maybe some of the abortion weirdos but then you don't see me standing up for them.

Are you retarded or just dumb?

 

[0311]

View attachment 868448

The House speaker offered a remarkable statement in support of those who rioted at the Capitol in 2021.

WASHINGTON ― House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Tuesday that Republicans are blurring faces in security footage from inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protect rioters from prosecution.

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” Johnson said at a press conference.

The Department of Justice has long had access to the footage and has used it in some of the roughly 1,200 criminal cases against people linked to the riot, which saw participants fight police and storm the Capitol building.

Johnson’s comment is a remarkable statement of sympathy for supporters of then-President Donald Trump who illegally entered a restricted federal building as part of a violent attack on Congress.

Though prosecutors already have the video, blurring people’s faces could prevent amateur investigators from sending tips to the FBI. Online sleuths have previously used social media and facial recognition software to help the government track down a number of suspects.

Shortly after becoming speaker in October, Johnson announced that Republicans would release thousands of hours of footage from security cameras, fulfilling a pledge he made to the far-right flank of the House GOP conference. The video has previously been available to criminal defendants and reporters by request.

More at the link below...

MAGA MIKE: 'WE HAVE TO BLUR' JAN. 6 VIDS TO SHIELD RIOTERS FROM DOJ

Protect rioters from DOJ? Why is he trying to protect the rioters from identification, investigation and prosecution? What do you think?

Hey Mikey, the DOJ has had those video tapes for over two years, you kinda late on picking that up.

 

[Marchimedes]

Are you retarded or just dumb?

And for the second time today...

Holy crap you retards couldn't insult your way outta a wet paper sack even if the sack had killer insults wroted on the inside of said sack. All your flaccid reply did was tell all of us you have no actual refutation of my post yet still feel compelled to shake your fist at the sky. Now shut the fu(k up and get in that round room.

There's a penny in the corner just for you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

If you lefties could see their faces you'd identify them, you'd dox them then, harass their children, send death threats, go to their work and try to get them fired, canceled, key their car and when all that doesn't work ya'll would throw rocks at their house screaming that the law doesn't apply to you cause they are such bad people and you are doing The Lord's work.

That's why you want to see their faces, fu(kin violent scumbags.

Conservatives don't do that $h!t. Well, maybe some of the abortion weirdos but then you don't see me standing up for them.

Nice straw man.
Obviously that never happened as this is new.

 

[Moonglow]

View attachment 868448

The House speaker offered a remarkable statement in support of those who rioted at the Capitol in 2021.

WASHINGTON ― House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said Tuesday that Republicans are blurring faces in security footage from inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to protect rioters from prosecution.

“We have to blur some of the faces of persons who participated in the events of that day because we don’t want them to be retaliated against and to be charged by the DOJ,” Johnson said at a press conference.

The Department of Justice has long had access to the footage and has used it in some of the roughly 1,200 criminal cases against people linked to the riot, which saw participants fight police and storm the Capitol building.

Johnson’s comment is a remarkable statement of sympathy for supporters of then-President Donald Trump who illegally entered a restricted federal building as part of a violent attack on Congress.

Though prosecutors already have the video, blurring people’s faces could prevent amateur investigators from sending tips to the FBI. Online sleuths have previously used social media and facial recognition software to help the government track down a number of suspects.

Shortly after becoming speaker in October, Johnson announced that Republicans would release thousands of hours of footage from security cameras, fulfilling a pledge he made to the far-right flank of the House GOP conference. The video has previously been available to criminal defendants and reporters by request.

More at the link below...

MAGA MIKE: 'WE HAVE TO BLUR' JAN. 6 VIDS TO SHIELD RIOTERS FROM DOJ

Protect rioters from DOJ? Why is he trying to protect the rioters from identification, investigation and prosecution? What do you think?

Mike is not the sharpest tack in the box

 

[Marchimedes]

that never happened

What never happened?

 

[Lakhota]

And for the second time today...

View attachment 870156

Holy crap you retards couldn't insult your way outta a wet paper sack even if the sack had killer insults wroted on the inside of said sack. All your flaccid reply did was tell all of us you have no actual refutation of my post yet still feel compelled to shake your fist at the sky. Now shut the fu(k up and get in that round room.

There's a penny in the corner just for you.

Wow, you're really weird.

 

[Marchimedes]

Wow, you're really weird.

Wow, you're really boring.

 

[Lakhota]

Wow, you're really boring.

Okay, sparky, permanent ignore for you. Bye...

 

[Marchimedes]

Okay, sparky, permanent ignore for you. Bye...

Puzzy.

 

[Lakhota]

 

[0311]

And for the second time today...

View attachment 870156

Holy crap you retards couldn't insult your way outta a wet paper sack even if the sack had killer insults wroted on the inside of said sack. All your flaccid reply did was tell all of us you have no actual refutation of my post yet still feel compelled to shake your fist at the sky. Now shut the fu(k up and get in that round room.

There's a penny in the corner just for you.

Allow me to dumb it down for you. The DOJ has had these tapes for over 2-years. Blurring faces will not matter, the DOJ already has them. Is that simple enough for you.

 

[Marchimedes]

Okay, sparky, permanent ignore for you. Bye...

So this stud debater, Lakota has me on ignore and can't see this, correct?

Man, that's irresistible. I could now disparage his ancestry, call him late for dinner, crack wise at is expense and he'd never know it. If I got a little wood on the ball ya'll would be giggling your mutha fu(kin azzes off and Lakota be going... "what's that noise?" Ignore doesn't seem like a wise political debate forum tactic. But then he's probably used to such things like when he walks to the water cooler and all his "friends" are laughing and he goes "what's so funny?" and they go "we're not talking about you" and they all flee in different directions. Again. If one of you azzholes were to reply to a Lakota post with just my text and goes "this is what Marchimedes says about you" would that violate the rules of this site? There is always a way. I've been known to make websites change rules. Then you find a hole in the new rules. Later, rinse, repeat. Or I could craft an image...

and drop that on him in some random post. IF ALLOWED. I bet he'd start crying and head straight for his weeping closet, again, to be lured out only with promises of low fat, low calorie, no lactose, organic fake vanilla ice cream with Barry Manalo singing "looks like we made it" in the background.

But then I'm quite sure none of you are that horrible and petty.

 

[Marchimedes]

The DOJ has had these tapes for over 2-years. Blurring faces will not matter, the DOJ already has them.

That is so not what I said.

Please to read ALL the words.

 

[Leviticus]

What part of "prosecutors already have the video" is hard to understand?

Shut up man the trumpers don't seem to know that. We might have a reason reason to arrest some of them.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What never happened?

What you allege would happen if their faces weren’t obscured of course.

 

[Marchimedes]

What never happened?

What you allege would happen if their faces weren’t obscured of course.

Are you aware of the past, present and future tenses in The King's English? What I say is gonna happen is future tense. When you say never happened that's paste tense. "Mr. Starskey you're still drooling on you lap" is present tense. I'm not much of an English Nazi but certain language rules needs be obeyed for anyone to make sense of your gibberish. I said liberals want to fu(k with/cancel the folks in the Jan 6 video and I base that on you snowflakes spending the last five years trying to fu(k with/cancel everyone that offends your delicate and feminine sensibilities. That's my opinion with a touch of supporting evidence. Then you blurt out "nuh-uh" and seem to consider that reasonable debate. Also your opinion. Your opinion is that liberals are not gonna keep doing that which they been doing.

Were your parents making a living at the circus juggling babies on a cement floor while eating greasy fried chicken?

 

[hadit]

He has a pornography monitoring partner and his wife is involved in some kind of conversion of homosexuals.

Oooh, that sounds mysterious and suspicious. You'd better keep an eye on him, he might do something really decent and unscandal-like.