Yes, Dems Really Believe a Few Dozen Unarmed Trespassers Almost Overthrew the US Government

[BlindBoo]

To that end, it has been proven by transcript that Trump did not call for violence, encouraged people to WALK PEACEFULLY TO the Capitol to support their politicians and let their voices be heard. He encouraged people to remain PEACEFUL, obey the laws, and listen to the Capitol Police.

Hahahahaha. well he did say peacefully once

Donald Trump: (18:16)
We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

then he said:

"Our country has been under siege for a long time"

and then continue to rant and lie for about hour.

Donald Trump "Save America" Speech January 6 Transcript | Rev

Donald Trump spoke at a “Save America” rally in Washington, D.C. on January 6 before Congress was set to confirm the election results. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just think of what we Americans with 435 million guns have learned from that dry run then.

“The select committee has found evidence about a lot more than incitement here, and we’re gonna be laying out the evidence about all of the actors who were pivotal to what took place on Jan. 6,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) toldthe Washington Post.

Raskin claims the partisan committee has evidence of “concerted planning and premeditated activity” and that the forthcoming hearings will “tell the story of a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election and block the transfer of power.”

J6 Committee Members Claim They Have Evidence of Incitement. They Don’t. Here’s How We Know.

The radical left has been falsely accusing Trump of inciting the Capitol riot for over a year now, a

pjmedia.com

J6 Reichstag Fire

 

[Papageorgio]

So simple minded of you! When this investigation began there was none of the major issues we have today.

The investigation was not for that purpose, you now are flailing, so that you don't have to believe the evidence shown.... Typical Trumper modus operandi! You can't handle the truth....it scares you all, to no end.

We're on to you!

How stupid minded you if you. I was asking for the DOJ to act and investigate January of last year and if Trump is guilty sentence and haul his ass off, so far the DOJ has done nothing, zip nada. Then Congress no matter what they find can do nothing.

Why are we stringing this out? The DOJ can investigate now, this reminds me of the Republican bullshit on the Clintons, you stretch this out to get as much traction as you can. I called bullshit then and now is you want to drag it out.

I think you are the Trumper because you know he is guilty and are trying to hold off the inevitable. Let him go he isn’t worth it In fact Republicans and Democrats are worth it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Plot
"a plan made in secret by a group of people to do something illegal or harmful:"

Pence never part of the group thus it isn't a plot involving him.

You can ask anyone to do something doesn't mean it is a plot when the person refuses to be involved which describes Pence very well.

Since I proved by showing that Pence never did anything the "Plotters" wanted him to do and he was never shown that he was part of the plotting group you have no plot concerning him at all.

You finally understand?

Pence is not being accused of being part of the plot planners. Pence was part of Trumps plot. Pence was on the fence on whether to join Trumps plot or not.

At least that's what I think, I think.

 

[easyt65]

(Part 2 Cont)

The Capitol Police Chief is now the FORMER Police Chief.
- Why? Did he resign or was he fired...by who? The DC Mayor? The person who was ultimately responsible for calling in the Guard, who did NOT do so, and who repeatedly rejected the former Police Chief's requests for her to do so?

- (Chief) Give the exact timeline of events from the FBI's prior warning, to the discussions held with the others already noted, through the exact timing of all 6 requests for help / National Guard support, and who rejected/ delayed those 6 requests.

- What was the reason given for those 6 request denials / delays?

* A bipartisan team in Congress already did their own investigation and filed their report. Again, I created thread on this with links, testimony, and findings:

FINDING:
- Not calling on the National Guatd was the biggest mistake, as if they had been called to defend the Capitol there would have been no 6 Jan event.

- The Capitol Police were extremely undermanned, insufficiently trained, their communications equipment was faulty or in some cases missing, and there was no leadership on site to give directions / to lead when the situation began to break down.

- The Capitol Police had NO WAY to contact the DC Police or National Guard for help - no communications systems
capable to do so.

There was a lot more, but a large part of the identified problems had to do with the Capitol Police.

SO WHY HASN'T THIS BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION BEEN BROUGHT UP?

WHY HAVEN'T THE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF THIS INVESTIGATION TEAM BEEN ALLOWED / CALLED TO TESTIFY?

WHY HAVEN'T THEIR FINDINGS / EVIDENCE / REPORT BEEN PUT ON RECORD, BROUGHT UP, AND DISCUSSED?

WHY HASN'T THE FORMER CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION, THEIR FINDINGS, AND WHAT HE WAS DEBRIEFED ON?

WHY HASN'T PELOSI, THE DC MAYOR, THE 2 SERGEANTS-AT-ARMS, THE CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF, THE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHERS BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY?

WHY AREN'T THERE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS ON THIS BS 'TRUMP IMPEACHMENT 3.0' COMMITTEE THAT WOULD ASK HARD, PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF THESE WITNESSES?


The answer, of course, is that this committee hearing has NOTHING to do with what actually happened before or on 6 Jan and how to prevent it from happening again.

The same seditious proven criminal traitors who ran the 2 failed proven criminal Impeachment attempts and who were exposed as having committed crimes in an attempt to remove a sitting Predident from office have all been brought back together to use 6 Jan as another attempt to go after the man (and his associates) who beat them!

 

[berg80]

Now you are just LYING since he never charged him for obstruction in his final report.

I didn't say Mueller charged Trump with obstruction. As we all know he said the OLC prohibition against charging a sitting prez with a crime prevented him from indicting Trump. But he did lay out the evidence of at least 4 instances when Trump obstructed the investigation.

 

[berg80]

Bullshit.


There was no evidence of obstruction....You ******* hater buffoons don't have so much as a popcorn fart.

Here are a few.........

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[rightnow909]

I don't know if they believe it or not, but they definitely want everyone else to believe it.

It's all political grandstanding that pretty much everyone is very tired of hearing.

so true... sigh

no wonder congress has something like a 10% approval rating... \

Doesn't something like 10% of the US population work for the gummit?

which explains the 10% approval

 

[berg80]

Here are a few.........

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

Care for another?


The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence. Unexpectedly, that spreadsheet got a fair amount of attention—so I thought I would delve back into the evidence to provide a revised visualization with a little more nuance, which will hopefully be helpful to people attempting to parse a legally and factually dense document.

The key question is how Robert Mueller and his team assessed the three elements “common to most of the relevant statutes” relating to obstruction of justice: an obstructive act, a nexus between the act and an official proceeding, and corrupt intent. As Mueller describes, the special counsel’s office “gathered evidence … relevant to the elements of those crimes and analyzed them within an elements framework—while refraining from reaching ultimate conclusions about whether crimes were committed,” because of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)’s guidelines against the indictment of a sitting president.

The below heat map is an effort to simplify Mueller’s analysis of the evidence in relation to the three common elements of the obstruction statutes. Instances of possibly obstructive conduct are identified by their section marking in Volume II of the report. (Section A is a general overview of the Trump campaign’s response to public reporting on Russian support for Trump and does not contain an analysis.) Some sections contained varying analysis of multiple possibly obstructive acts, which are identified separately. More information about how the special counsel assessed each possible instance of obstruction is available below the chart itself, with page numbers corresponding to Volume II.

I should emphasize that the below is my interpretation of the evidence as Mueller seems to provide it—others may have different readings. (Richard Hoeg has provided a slightly different take, also available on Twitter.) My assessment rests on an assumption that Mueller is correct in his legal analysis that a president may still obstruct justice even if the act in question is taken entirely under his Article II authority. Under Attorney General William Barr’s reading of Article II, this heat map would look very different. I’ve also accepted at face value Mueller’s statutory argument that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) “states a broad, independent, and unqualified prohibition on obstruction of justice,” rather than, as Trump’s personal counsel apparently argued to Mueller, covering only “acts that would impair the integrity and availability of evidence.”

B. Conduct regarding the Flynn investigation

Obstructive act (p. 43): Trump asked for Comey’s loyalty and pressured Comey to “let this go” regarding the FBI investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn. “In analyzing whether these statements constitute an obstructive act, a threshold question is whether Comey’s account of the interaction is accurate, and, if so, whether the President’s statements had the tendency to impede the administration of justice by shutting down an inquiry that could result in a grand jury investigation and criminal charge.” “ubstantial evidence corroborates Comey’s account.”

Nexus (p. 46): By the time Trump spoke to Comey, Trump had been informed that Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI and that his statements could violate 18 U.S.C. § 1001, the prohibition on lying to federal investigators. “[T]he President’s instruction to the FBI Director to ‘let[] Flynn go’ suggests his awareness that Flynn could face criminal exposure for his conduct and was at risk of prosecution.”

Intent: “[E]vidence is inconclusive” as to whether Trump was aware of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak when they occurred. But “[e]vidence does establish that the President connected the Flynn investigation to the FBI’s broader Russia investigation.”

Trump attempted to have Deputy National Security Adviser K.T. McFarland “draft an internal email” stating that Trump did not ask Flynn to discuss sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, which McFarland did not do because she was not sure if the statement would be accurate. Though “evidence does not establish” that Trump was trying to make McFarland lie, the incident “highlights the President’s concern about being associated with Flynn’s conduct,” and McFarland was disturbed by the request and felt it was “irregular.”



C. Conduct regarding public confirmation of the Russia investigation

Obstructive act (p. 60): Though “evidence shows” that Trump reached out to intelligence community leadership, that outreach was “not interpreted … as directives to improperly interfere with the investigation.” Mueller notes that Trump’s outreach to NSA Director Mike Rogers was “significant enough that Rogers thought it important to document the encounter in a written memorandum.”

Nexus (p. 60): The outreach took place following FBI Director James Comey’s announcement of the FBI’s counterintelligence and criminal investigation of Russian election interference.

Intent (p. 60): “The evidence does not establish that the President asked or directed intelligence agency leaders to stop or interfere with the FBI’s Russia investigation[.]” However, “the President’s intent in trying to prevent Sessions’s recusal, and in reaching out the Coats, Pompeo, Rogers, and Comey following Comey’s public announcement of the FBI’s Russia investigation, is nevertheless relevant to understanding what motivated the President’s other actions towards the investigation.” In other words, while Trump’s actions here do not indicate intent as to the specific potentially obstructive conduct at issue in this section, they are relevant to understanding his intent as to his broader pattern of conduct toward the investigation.

D. Firing of James Comey

Obstructive act (p. 74): “Firing Comey would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural and probable effect of interfering with or impeding the investigation.” Trump’s handling of the Comey firing and his actions in the subsequent days “had the potential to affect a successor director’s conduct of the investigation,” though removing Comey “would not necessarily … prevent or impede the FBI from continuing its investigation.”

Nexus (p. 75): By the time of the Comey firing, Trump was aware of both the FBI investigation into Russian election interference and the investigation into Flynn.

Intent (p. 75): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump fired Comey because of “Comey’s unwillingness to publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation.” Mueller notes that “ome evidence indicates that the President believed that the erroneous perception he was under investigation harmed his ability to manage domestic and foreign affairs”—but “[o]ther evidence … indicates that the President wanted to protect himself from an investigation into his campaign.” “The initial reliance on a pretextual justification [for Comey’s firing] could support an inference that the President had concerns about providing the real reason for the firing, although the evidence does not resolve whether those concerns were personal, personal, or both.”



E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative structiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”



G. Efforts to prevent disclosure of Trump Tower emails

Obstructive act (p. 105): “[T]he evidence does not establish” that Trump sought to prevent information about the Trump Tower meeting from reaching Congress or the special counsel’s office. Rather, the obfuscation “occurred in the context of developing a press strategy.”

Nexus (p. 105): “[T]he existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge, and the President had been told that the emails were responsive to congressional inquiries.” But “the evidence does not establish that the President sought to prevent disclosure” to the grand jury or to congressional inquiries.

Intent (p. 105): “The evidence does not establish” that Trump intended to prevent Mueller or Congress from obtaining the information.



H. Efforts to have Sessions take over the investigation

Obstructive act (p. 111): This question “would not turn on what Attorney General Sessions would actually do if unrecused, but on whether the efforts to reverse his recusal would naturally have had the effect of impeding the Russia investigation. … The duration of the President’s efforts … and the fact that the President repeatedly criticized Sessions in public and private for failing to tell the President that he would have to recuse is relevant to assessing whether the President’s efforts to have Sessions unrecuse could qualify as obstructive acts.”

Nexus (p. 111): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge,” as well as the existence of a second grand jury empaneled in July 2017. However, “[w]hether the conduct towards the Attorney General would have a foreseeable impact on proceedings turns much of the same evidence discussed with respect to the obstructive-act element.”

Intent (p. 111): “There is evidence that at least one purpose of the President’s conduct toward Sessions was to have Sessions assume control over the Russia investigation and supervise it in a way that would restrict its scope.”



I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

 

[WEATHER53]

-------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know much about his charge of 'bitterly'; however, to relieve your angst good poster Weather53, do this:

On Thursday park yourself in front of your telly and tune in the Committee hearings.
Do so with keen interest and an open mind. Perhaps you will see some of this 'third party heresay (sic) evidence."

Good luck.

3rd party heresay is no say especially since no election got overturned nor was there a provable attempt to
This bunch and what they were “gonna do” is akin to my plot that I will eat the Empire State building

 

[rightnow909]

I love the sound of stupid on the Left.


Yep. It will be the final linchpin in the democrat's doom as people faced with everything else going on are reminded once again that getting Trump is far more important to democrats than $7.00 gasoline, empty shelves, starving babies and millions of illegals flooding our borders as Joe takes his nappy nap.

View attachment 655397

What a beautiful thing to see.

LMAO

nice summary

couldn't have done better... love the graphics...

 

[easyt65]

I didn't say Mueller charged Trump with obstruction. As we all know he said the OLC prohibition against charging a sitting prez with a crime prevented him from indicting Trump. But he did lay out the evidence of at least 4 instances when Trump obstructed the investigation.

Mueller was more dain bramaged than Biden and Obstruction was not proven, no matter how hard snowflakes want to cling to the obfuscation that Trump perpetrated Obstruction.

It's another 'we've got him this time' FAIL.

 

[berg80]

Care for another?

I. Order to McGahn to deny Trump’s order to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 118): This effort “would qualify as an obstructive act if it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness[.]” There is “some evidence” that Trump genuinely believed press reports that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller were wrong. However, “[o]ther evidence cuts against that understanding of the president’s conduct”—and the special counsel lists a great deal more evidence on this latter point.

Nexus (p. 119): At this point “the Special Counsel’s use of a grand jury had been further confirmed by the return of several indictments.” Mueller’s office had indicated to Trump’s lawyers that it was investigating obstruction, and Trump knew that McGahn had already been interviewed by Mueller on the topic. “That evidence indicates the President’s awareness” that his efforts to fire Mueller were relevant to official proceedings. Trump “likely contemplated the ongoing investigation and any proceedings arising from it” in directing McGahn to create a false record of the earlier interaction.

Intent (p. 120): “Substantial evidence indicates that … the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn’s account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny” of Trump.

 

[scruffy]

I love the smell of fear on the right. They know this is going to be a big deal. Trying to hard to get out in front of it.
You notice it isn't having any effect.

Ignoring the dumbass clown show, is more like it.

 

[Papageorgio]

So simple minded of you! When this investigation began there was none of the major issues we have today.

The investigation was not for that purpose, you now are flailing, so that you don't have to believe the evidence shown.... Typical Trumper modus operandi! You can't handle the truth....it scares you all, to no end.

We're on to you!

How stupid minded of you. You nuts need to make up your silly minds. Extreme lefties call me a Trumper, extreme righties call me a communist.

I objected to the GOP stretching the Clinton investigations out and I’m going to claim the same here. If you go back on threads back when this occurred, I said we needed a full investigation and if anyone is found guilty, throw them in jail, that is my same idea. I just hate the two parties making political gay out of this crap, it further divides a nation and the longer it takes the worse it gets. But hey, if you get a couple of votes by dragging down the nation, it’s all good, right?

 

[berg80]

Mueller was more dain bramaged than Biden and Obstruction was not proven

He detailed the evidence of Trump's guilt in granular fashion.

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

 

[WEATHER53]

(Part 2 Cont)

The Capitol Police Chief is now the FORMER Police Chief.
- Why? Did he resign or was he fired...by who? The DC Mayor? The person who was ultimately responsible for calling in the Guard, who did NOT do so, and who repeatedly rejected the former Police Chief's requests for her to do so?

- (Chief) Give the exact timeline of events from the FBI's prior warning, to the discussions held with the others already noted, through the exact timing of all 6 requests for help / National Guard support, and who rejected/ delayed those 6 requests.

- What was the reason given for those 6 request denials / delays?

* A bipartisan team in Congress already did their own investigation and filed their report. Again, I created thread on this with links, testimony, and findings:

FINDING:
- Not calling on the National Guatd was the biggest mistake, as if they had been called to defend the Capitol there would have been no 6 Jan event.

- The Capitol Police were extremely undermanned, insufficiently trained, their communications equipment was faulty or in some cases missing, and there was no leadership on site to give directions / to lead when the situation began to break down.

- The Capitol Police had NO WAY to contact the DC Police or National Guard for help - no communications systems
capable to do so.

There was a lot more, but a large part of the identified problems had to do with the Capitol Police.

SO WHY HASN'T THIS BIPARTISAN INVESTIGATION BEEN BROUGHT UP?

WHY HAVEN'T THE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF THIS INVESTIGATION TEAM BEEN ALLOWED / CALLED TO TESTIFY?

WHY HAVEN'T THEIR FINDINGS / EVIDENCE / REPORT BEEN PUT ON RECORD, BROUGHT UP, AND DISCUSSED?

WHY HASN'T THE FORMER CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY ABOUT THIS BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION, THEIR FINDINGS, AND WHAT HE WAS DEBRIEFED ON?

WHY HASN'T PELOSI, THE DC MAYOR, THE 2 SERGEANTS-AT-ARMS, THE CAPITOL POLICE CHIEF, THE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND OTHERS BEEN CALLED TO TESTIFY?

WHY AREN'T THERE BIPARTISAN MEMBERS ON THIS BS 'TRUMP IMPEACHMENT 3.0' COMMITTEE THAT WOULD ASK HARD, PERTINENT QUESTIONS OF THESE WITNESSES?


The answer, of course, is that this committee hearing has NOTHING to do with what actually happened before or on 6 Jan and how to prevent it from happening again.

The same seditious proven criminal traitors who ran the 2 failed proven criminal Impeachment attempts and who were exposed as having committed crimes in an attempt to remove a sitting Predident from office have all been brought back together to use 6 Jan as another attempt to go after the man (and his associates) who beat them!

The guard would have quelled things and lib plotters did not want Anything diffused

 

[Oldestyle]

It was a soft coup, those rioters were just pawns, for the most part....

What exactly is a "soft coup", Care? One that really wasn't a coup at all?

 

[easyt65]

Here are a few.........

E. Efforts to fire Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 87): Former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a “credible witness” in providing evidence that Trump indeed attempted to fire Mueller. This “would qualify as an obstructive act” if the firing “would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.”

Nexus (p. 89): “Substantial evidence” indicates that, at this point, Trump was aware that “his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who could present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury.”

Intent (p. 89): “Substantial evidence indicates that the President’s attempts to remove the Special Counsel were linked to the Special Counsel’s oversight of investigations that involved the President’s conduct[.]”



F. Efforts to curtail Mueller

Obstructive act (p. 97): Trump’s effort to force Sessions to confine the investigation to only investigating future election interference “would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry.” “Taken together, the President’s directives indicate that Sessions was being instructed to tell the Special Counsel to end the existing investigation into the President and his campaign[.]”

Nexus (p. 97): At the relevant point, “the existence of a grand jury investigation supervised by the Special Counsel was public knowledge.”

Intent (p. 97): “Substantial evidence” indicates that Trump’s efforts were “intended to prevent further investigative scrutiny of the President’s and his campaign’s conduct.”

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

ZERO FINDINGS OF OBSTRUCTION, ZERO CHARGES OF OBSTRUCTION, ZERO CONVICTIONS AGAINST TRUMP.

Clinesmith:
Convicted of altering documents

Multiple FBI Agents under investigation for withholding exculpatory evidence

Hillary/Barry/Biden exposed as originators and perpetrators of the biggest criminal pitical scandals in US history

Hillary's own campaign manager testified she was behind it

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

I don't know if they believe it or not, but they definitely want everyone else to believe it.

It's all political grandstanding that pretty much everyone is very tired of hearing.

The leftist politicians don’t believe it but they see an opportunity to strengthen the lemming vote so they’ll use their media Allie’s to pound it into their weak minded base. It’s really all they have to limit the mid term slaughter.