International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   The Jan. 6 Investigation (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=353105)

autumn1971 30th July 2021 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat (Post 13552615)
Imagine lying, and excusing the lie by saying, "Well, they still acted badly".

Do the facts matter, or do they not matter? And if they matter, why do you object to actually getting them right?

And lastly, the reason I spent time researching this isn't because I wanted to be able to say anything. I spent time researching this because I wanted to know. And apparently, despite multiple people making accusations of me being cocooned in right wing media, I'm the only one here who actually bothered to go to the primary source, unfiltered by media of any kind.

Jesus ******* Christ. I said they described their attempted murder.

If I’m being beaten by an armed mob and being clubbed in the head, the mob is trying to, possibly without prior specific intentions or mens rea, kill me.

Grow the **** up.

junkshop 30th July 2021 02:47 PM

Is incompetence a defence against accusations of intent?

I would argue that it is not. The intent and the attempt are crimes in and of themselves, regardless of success or failiure.

RecoveringYuppy 30th July 2021 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13553844)
No! This is not mere "loons in the basement". Read what I posted earlier, and more importantly, read the links, especially the full content on the indictments.

OK. I don't care to dissect the meaning of "loons in the basement" and I'm certainly willing to agree on the objective parts of what you said "trained people who planned to start shooting and killing people on the day if they got the word from Trump, which they were expecting would come. They stashed arms outside the Capitol for that purpose."

They are a small minority of those arrested. And the main point I'm going for is that it is this small minority where the major changes might come from. The other hundreds of people weren't well coordinated and weren't in widespread communication with one another.

Cain 30th July 2021 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13553106)
And when those caught up in " monkey-see, monkey-do" happen to be with those monkeys when they actually find those they're looking for and threatening to 'hang' or 'put a bullet in'? People in mobs feed off each other as we saw in that insurrection. They became more violent as they urged each other on to the point of beating police officers and calling for machetes, and to use their own guns against them. The officers refraining from using their own guns in self-defense most likely kept the mob from becoming even more violent as one officer testified.

I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13553718)
What do you think a frenzied mob would have done had they gotten their hands on any of those unarmed legislators?

I don't know, but members of Congress were justifiably fearing for their lives. Though not everyone was (not yet) of the same mind, zip-ties suggests taking prisoners. And opportunistically grabbing zip-ties IS better than bringing them from home.

It's also easy to look back on everything in retrospect and say we knew what was going to happen. Apologists for the insurrectionists say Capitol police are blowing things out of proportion, but it's all different in the moment when you don't know how things are gonna turn.

I recall an academic explaining that riots are a social phenomenon. Few people are uninhibited enough to be the first participant to throw a brick through a window, but many will cheer when someone does. Then there's the guy who hears the cheers and decides to be the second person to throw a brick. And so on. Behavior is contagious, which seems to diminish individual culpability. Any one of us could get caught up in it, which is why it's so irresponsible for demagogues like Trump, Hawley, and Cruz to stoke those fires. It is crazy that more than five percent of people approve of Trump, or that Hawley & Cruz have not been removed from the Senate.

Armitage72 30th July 2021 03:03 PM

Jim Jordan doesn't seem nervous at all. I can't imagine why they didn't want him on the commission.

https://i.imgur.com/TfdleWs.jpg

jimbob 30th July 2021 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13553845)
I have to disagree about the competent part. A major reason it failed was sheer ineptitude.

Indeed but so was the Bay of Pigs,

It still was intended to be a serious violent attack on the handover of power by those taking part.

SuburbanTurkey 30th July 2021 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13553883)
Indeed but so was the Bay of Pigs,

It still was intended to be a serious violent attack on the handover of power by those taking part.

I would agree with this. I think a lot of the people involved thought they were taking part of a coup attempt and violated the law to further that goal.

The fact that their plan was ludicrous and ended up being totally non-viable does little to mitigate the criminal and moral culpability for their actions.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13553883)
Indeed but so was the Bay of Pigs,

It still was intended to be a serious violent attack on the handover of power by those taking part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553953)
I would agree with this. I think a lot of the people involved thought they were taking part of a coup attempt and violated the law to further that goal.

The fact that their plan was ludicrous and ended up being totally non-viable does little to mitigate the criminal and moral culpability for their actions.

In 2019, Trump tried to blackmail the Ukrainian President by withholding arms and supplies in exchange for the latter starting a (sham) investigation to get (fake) dirt Joe Biden. The arms and supplies were later approved and the fake investigation was never opened. Trump and his minions claimed "no harm no foul". That is not how the law works; never was, never will be.

There are a number of people out there... including some here in this thread, who are attempting to apply the same Trumpist reasoning - that the 1/6 terrorist attack on the Capitol was somehow diminished in importance because it didn't achieve the aim of stopping the alleged steal. These people are showing the most basic... the most fundamental lack of understanding of how the law works, and in this particular case, how the charge of conspiracy works.

In a conspiracy charge, the prosecutors do not have to prove that the "end" criminal act of the conspiracy was successful. All they have to prove is intent to commit the crime. All of the Oath Keepers in the superseding charging document have been charged under 18 USC § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States which "for conspiracy to commit a substantive offense requires proof that one of the conspirators committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."

The carrying out of that act in furtherance of the conspiracy proves intent. The FBI have this in spades- overwhelming evidence that several of the co-conspirators carried out overt acts. Those acts do not have to be criminal acts in and of themselves.

theprestige 30th July 2021 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13553953)
I would agree with this. I think a lot of the people involved thought they were taking part of a coup attempt and violated the law to further that goal.

The fact that their plan was ludicrous and ended up being totally non-viable does little to mitigate the criminal and moral culpability for their actions.

It would help declown your argument if you could produce any evidence of a coup plan, or any evidence that participants believed they were contributing to such a plan.

Silly Green Monkey 30th July 2021 07:36 PM

What, do you think they were all flocking to the Capitol from all around the country at the same date, time, and place to enjoy each other's company?

They went there from all over the country, all at once, which requires organization, to interfere in the process of government that they believed was illegitimate. That they were the right people to respond (because they'd been called there) to the Steal, and that many in the government were traitors who deserved a traitor's death.

Lurch 30th July 2021 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13554040)
It would help declown your argument if you could produce any evidence of a coup plan, or any evidence that participants believed they were contributing to such a plan.

There you have it, folks. To the participants it was called "Stop the steal." They didn't name it a "coup." And so it could not possibly have been a coup attempt.

theprestige 30th July 2021 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13554050)
There you have it, folks. To the participants it was called "Stop the steal." They didn't name it a "coup." And so it could not possibly have been a coup attempt.

Tell me more. Tell me about the coup plot. Tell me about the conspiracy to assassinate government officials. Who were the ringleaders of this plot? Who were the operatives? Where are the informers who blew the conspiracy wide open?

Silly Green Monkey 30th July 2021 08:29 PM

Asking the wrong people if you want names (for some reason). DOJ is actively going through evidence and making arrests, if you want the documentary dissecting everything, you'll probably have to wait ten years.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13554040)
It would help declown your argument if you could produce any evidence of a coup plan, or any evidence that participants believed they were contributing to such a plan.

"Elizabeth from Knoxville" thought she was participating in a revolution. Poor thing got maced!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLXtE8ihcY

:dl:

Pixel42 30th July 2021 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13554040)
It would help declown your argument if you could produce any evidence of a coup plan, or any evidence that participants believed they were contributing to such a plan.

I would have thought the stashing of weapons caches close to the Capitol was evidence of both.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 (Post 13554112)
I would have thought the stashing of weapons caches close to the Capitol was evidence of both.

And while there is no evidence yet, it would not surprise me in the least if the suspect in the planting of those pipe bombs near the Capitol (observed in surveillance video) turned out to be a member of one of the three far-right militia groups charged with conspiracy.

There was also a Virginia Ex Cop who was arrested for participation in the 1/6, who was found to have a partially assembled pipe bomb in his home. He claims it was a training aid for a course he is running. :sdl: Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

Now, in order to head off the usual suspects at the pass who will...

a. Blindly believe his claim, and
b. Claim that a partially assembled pipe bomb is not actually a pipe bomb

... this is what Feds found...

A pipe with end caps and a fuse fitted to one end
An ammunition can labelled “ALERRT kit, props and booby trap sims,”
50 cans of black or smokeless powder (that's about 50lb of explosive)

That is a ******* lot of explosive for a training course, and in any case, its even worse if he's been teaching others how to make bombs! :eek:

Parsman 30th July 2021 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theprestige (Post 13554057)
Tell me more. Tell me about the coup plot. Tell me about the conspiracy to assassinate government officials. Who were the ringleaders of this plot? Who were the operatives? Where are the informers who blew the conspiracy wide open?

You seem to be being contrarian for the sake of it. A large group of people gathered at the behest of 45, and were whipped into a frenzy by rhetoric from45, Giuliani, Brooks etc. They were urged to go to The Capitol and "Stop the Steal". They proceeded to try to do that by the use of force, intimidation and violence. They were even prepared to attack and injure law enforcement to achieve their ends, that end being stopping a democratic transfer of power and keep the loser in power. Your quibble seems to be this wasn't a coup because... reasons? It might not have been the most organised of coups, it might not have had military backing. Heck given the loons heading the movement, 45 and his minions, I doubt they could plan the proverbial piss up in the brewery but it was an attempted violent overthrow of an election. So get out your thesaurus if you don't like the word coup, but your side has to own this for what it was, and the enquiry I am sure will clarify that enough even for you.

smartcooky 30th July 2021 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 13554142)
You seem to be being contrarian for the sake of it. A large group of people gathered at the behest of 45, and were whipped into a frenzy by rhetoric from45, Giuliani, Brooks etc. They were urged to go to The Capitol and "Stop the Steal". They proceeded to try to do that by the use of force, intimidation and violence. They were even prepared to attack and injure law enforcement to achieve their ends, that end being stopping a democratic transfer of power and keep the loser in power. Your quibble seems to be this wasn't a coup because... reasons? It might not have been the most organised of coups, it might not have had military backing. Heck given the loons heading the movement, 45 and his minions, I doubt they could plan the proverbial piss up in the brewery but it was an attempted violent overthrow of an election. So get out your thesaurus if you don't like the word coup, but your side has to own this for what it was, and the enquiry I am sure will clarify that enough even for you.

Not to mention, of course that all but one were lucky. In most other countries, these kinds of actions would have resulted in a bloodbath. They would have been met with armed troops, and the insurrection would have been put down forcefully with many being shot dead on the steps before getting into the building.

Susheel 30th July 2021 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13554145)
Not to mention, of course that all but one were lucky. In most other countries, these kinds of actions would have been met with armed troops, and the insurrection would have been put down forcefully with many being shot dead on the steps before getting into the buildin.g

Oh...I am pretty sure that the only thing that prevented that from happening was that the majority of the "tourists" were white.

Roger Ramjets 30th July 2021 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 13554142)
You seem to be being contrarian for the sake of it.

I believe this is called 'giving the benefit of the doubt'.

Quote:

A large group of people gathered at the behest of 45, and were whipped into a frenzy by rhetoric from45, Giuliani, Brooks etc. They were urged to go to The Capitol and "Stop the Steal democrats from getting the legitimately elected President they voted for".
ftfy

Quote:

So get out your thesaurus if you don't like the word coup, but your side has to own this for what it was
Your 'side'? Surely you aren't suggesting that partisanship is behind theprestige's perfectly reasonable questions that he was Just Asking?

Skeptic Ginger 31st July 2021 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Susheel (Post 13554148)
Oh...I am pretty sure that the only thing that prevented that from happening was that the majority of the "tourists" were white.

White so police prep for the potential riot was non-existent plus whatever Dump did that we don't know about yet.

smartcooky 31st July 2021 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13554153)
I believe this is called 'giving the benefit of the doubt'.

IMO, its more like twisting ones self into a pretzel to make the facts one's narrative

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets (Post 13554153)
Your 'side'? Surely you aren't suggesting that partisanship is behind theprestige's perfectly reasonable questions that he was Just Asking?

I can't speak for Parsman, but I am 100% certain you have hit the nail flush on the head!

Kid Eager 31st July 2021 12:44 AM

There’s a sea lion in the thread…

smartcooky 31st July 2021 01:07 AM

Earlier, I brought up the Ukraine blackmail incident, suggesting that Trump's devoted butt-lickers were using the same spurious "no harm no foul" reasoning to justify downplaying 1/6. I also mentioned that the GQP's cover-up of 1/6 and the events leading up to it were unravelling right in front of us.

Well the two have come together very nicely today


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/u...-election.html
"President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers.

The demands were an extraordinary instance of a president interfering with an agency that is typically more independent from the White House to advance his personal agenda. They are also the latest example of Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging campaign during his final weeks in office to delegitimize the election results."
And here's a link to those documents

https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...o-overturn-the
The [handwriten] notes include the following exchange, attributable to former President Trump (“P”) and Mr. Rosen, who was Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) prior to his appointment as Acting Attorney General a few days before the call:

“- DAG … ‘understand that the DOJ can’t + won’t snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way.’” (p. 4)

“ - P: ‘Don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.’” (pp. 4-5).

Looks familiar doesn't it!? Its the same stunt he tried pulling when he attempted to extort President Zelenskiy - on that occasion he didn't actually need to have a real investigation started, he just wanted Zelenskiy to announce one. Well, he's tried that same technique here with the DoJ - just say the election is corrupt! He tried to get them to lie for him.

It must be endlessly frustrating to have acted like a mob-boss all your life and have everyone around you jump into line when you bark orders, only to suddenly find that it no longer works when yo have people around you who have limits as to how much they will sell out their own country.

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

SteveAitch 31st July 2021 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13554178)
...

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

Maybe the Orange One can organise a Stop the Witch Hunt 'rally' to save himself. What could possibly go wrong? :rolleyes:

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parsman (Post 13554142)
You seem to be being contrarian for the sake of it. A large group of people gathered at the behest of 45, and were whipped into a frenzy by rhetoric from45, Giuliani, Brooks etc. They were urged to go to The Capitol and "Stop the Steal". They proceeded to try to do that by the use of force, intimidation and violence. They were even prepared to attack and injure law enforcement to achieve their ends, that end being stopping a democratic transfer of power and keep the loser in power. Your quibble seems to be this wasn't a coup because... reasons? It might not have been the most organised of coups, it might not have had military backing. Heck given the loons heading the movement, 45 and his minions, I doubt they could plan the proverbial piss up in the brewery but it was an attempted violent overthrow of an election. So get out your thesaurus if you don't like the word coup, but your side has to own this for what it was, and the enquiry I am sure will clarify that enough even for you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid Eager (Post 13554168)
There’s a sea lion in the thread…

Yep!

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13554178)
Earlier, I brought up the Ukraine blackmail incident, suggesting that Trump's devoted butt-lickers were using the same spurious "no harm no foul" reasoning to justify downplaying 1/6. I also mentioned that the GQP's cover-up of 1/6 and the events leading up to it were unravelling right in front of us.

Well the two have come together very nicely today


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/u...-election.html
"President Donald J. Trump pressed top Justice Department officials late last year to declare that the election was corrupt even though they had found no instances of widespread fraud, so he and his allies in Congress could use the assertion to try to overturn the results, according to new documents provided to lawmakers.

The demands were an extraordinary instance of a president interfering with an agency that is typically more independent from the White House to advance his personal agenda. They are also the latest example of Mr. Trump’s wide-ranging campaign during his final weeks in office to delegitimize the election results."
And here's a link to those documents

https://oversight.house.gov/news/pre...o-overturn-the
The [handwriten] notes include the following exchange, attributable to former President Trump (“P”) and Mr. Rosen, who was Deputy Attorney General (“DAG”) prior to his appointment as Acting Attorney General a few days before the call:

“- DAG … ‘understand that the DOJ can’t + won’t snap its fingers + change the outcome of the election, doesn’t work that way.’” (p. 4)

“ - P: ‘Don’t expect you to do that, just say that the election was corrupt + leave the rest to me and the R. Congressmen.’” (pp. 4-5).

Looks familiar doesn't it!? Its the same stunt he tried pulling when he attempted to extort President Zelenskiy - on that occasion he didn't actually need to have a real investigation started, he just wanted Zelenskiy to announce one. Well, he's tried that same technique here with the DoJ - just say the election is corrupt! He tried to get them to lie for him.

It must be endlessly frustrating to have acted like a mob-boss all your life and have everyone around you jump into line when you bark orders, only to suddenly find that it no longer works when yo have people around you who have limits as to how much they will sell out their own country.

Its all coming apart at the seams folks. All these releases of embarrassing information, nervous, equivocating Congress critters like Jim Jordan flubbing simple questions. The Select Committee is going to have a LOT of witnesses to subpoena.... and THIS time, he does not have Executive privilege to cover it all up.

Does anyone know if this information was presented during the second impeachment of Trump? Not that it would have made any difference to the GOP Senate who voted 'not guilty'. They could have had a notarized full confession from Trump and they would still have voted not to convict Dear Leader.

Lennart Hyland 31st July 2021 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 13553862)
Jim Jordan doesn't seem nervous at all. I can't imagine why they didn't want him on the commission.

https://i.imgur.com/TfdleWs.jpg

Whats the point of finding out if Jim talked to Trump that day or not? I guess he doesnt remember what they talked about anyways...

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland (Post 13554605)
Whats the point of finding out if Jim talked to Trump that day or not? I guess he doesnt remember what they talked about anyways...

You really think he doesn't remember what they talked about on the day of the riot? Under oath, if he lies about talking to Trump or what they discussed, he can be charged with perjury, a felony. Why do you think he and others were so desperate to keep a committee, even a bipartisan one, from holding an investigation?

dudalb 31st July 2021 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13553883)
Indeed but so was the Bay of Pigs,

It still was intended to be a serious violent attack on the handover of power by those taking part.

oh, I 100% agree. A stupid criminal is still a criminal.
I just think the portrayal of this coup as being well planned by professionals does not fit iin well with what happened. We are talking the Three Stooges, not the Dogs of War.
And of course the insurrectionist should be punished to the full extent of the law.

dudalb 31st July 2021 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by junkshop (Post 13553855)
Is incompetence a defence against accusations of intent?

I would argue that it is not. The intent and the attempt are crimes in and of themselves, regardless of success or failiure.

No debate possible on this point; an incompetent criminal act is just as ciminal as one competently planned.
There might be more severe consequences for the competent one simply because it probably would do more damage and result in more charged then an ineptly planned one, but both are criminal acts.

dudalb 31st July 2021 12:46 PM

Noe accsations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett.
No doubt, they are intent of making her the Horst Wessel of the American Fascist Movement.
'Hole High The Banners"......

RecoveringYuppy 31st July 2021 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13554641)
Noe accsations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett.
No doubt, they are intent of making her the Horst Wessel of the American Fascist Movement.
'Hole High The Banners"......

Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

Skeptic Ginger 31st July 2021 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 13554636)
oh, I 100% agree. A stupid criminal is still a criminal.
I just think the portrayal of this coup as being well planned by professionals does not fit iin well with what happened. We are talking the Three Stooges, not the Dogs of War.
And of course the insurrectionist should be punished to the full extent of the law.

I'm pretty sure no one here thinks this was a professionally planned coup.

First, Dump is not capable, at all, nowhere close. If he were we'd be in big trouble. Fortunately his stupidity is only surpassed by his incompetence.

Second, I don't consider weekend warriors to be "professional". I would call them wannbe revolutionaries that play act a little too often.

alfaniner 31st July 2021 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13554646)
Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.

+1

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger (Post 13554649)
I'm pretty sure no one here thinks this was a professionally planned coup.

First, Dump is not capable, at all, nowhere close. If he were we'd be in big trouble. Fortunately his stupidity is only surpassed by his incompetence.

Second, I don't consider weekend warriors to be "professional". I would call them wannbe revolutionaries that play act a little too often.

Is there such a thing as a "professional" insurrectionist? Several of those charged have military and/or law enforcement experience, especially the Oath Keepers.
Quote:

From the start, the group has tried to recruit military and law enforcement into its ranks. The name "Oath Keepers" itself is a call-back to the oath such individuals swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Quote:

Still, it's not a rigid, cohesive organization. Instead, researchers say, it's loosely knit. The Justice Department describes it as a "large but loosely organized collection of individuals."
Quote:

But in the 2016 presidential election, the group threw its support behind Donald Trump.

Jackson says the organization didn't abandon its anti-government extremism and become loyal members of the Republican Party. Instead, he says, Oath Keepers viewed Trump as an ally in a fight "against a corrupt elite, which you can see in rhetoric about the 'deep state' or about 'drain the swamp,' those sorts of things."
Quote:

After the 2020 election, Rhodes pushed Trump's false claims that the ballot was rigged. Days after the vote, Rhodes addressed a small "Stop the Steal" rally in Virginia, where he urged people not to accept the results.

"What do you have right now if nothing but a communist insurrection intent on overthrowing our Constitution?" he said.

Rhodes called Joe Biden a puppet of the Chinese communist party, and he called on Trump to use the U.S. military to put down the alleged communist-globalist insurrection.

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/10/98542...tol-riot-probe

Lennart Hyland 31st July 2021 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 13554615)
You really think he doesn't remember what they talked about on the day of the riot? Under oath, if he lies about talking to Trump or what they discussed, he can be charged with perjury, a felony. Why do you think he and others were so desperate to keep a committee, even a bipartisan one, from holding an investigation?

Ofcourse he remembers but I mean he could say that he doesnt or come up with some other lie about what they talked about. How could they possibly disprove it?

And I believe they all (the GOPers) hide something with the regards to the riot. Its a disgrace that they tried to stop än onvestigation.

Armitage72 31st July 2021 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy (Post 13554646)
Think your typos have obscured your meaning. You seem to be saying the appropriate thing for Ghomert to have done is to accuse the Capitol Police of ambushing Babett. That doesn't seem to make sense.


I'm guessing it's supposed to be "Now (there are) accusations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett."

Stacyhs 31st July 2021 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lennart Hyland (Post 13554687)
Ofcourse he remembers but I mean he could say that he doesnt or come up with some other lie about what they talked about. How could they possibly disprove it?

And I believe they all (the GOPers) hide something with the regards to the riot. Its a disgrace that they tried to stop än onvestigation.

Yes, as I said in an earlier post, expect an epidemic of "I don't recalls" from these guys. BUT...once he says something under oath and it's revealed that he lied, he could be charged with perjury. That evidence could be something said or written in the past on social media, an email, etc. or contradicted by other testimony. Phone records could prove a call was made and when. These guys aren't a bunch of mental giants.

RecoveringYuppy 31st July 2021 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armitage72 (Post 13554727)
I'm guessing it's supposed to be "Now (there are) accusations from Ghomert that the capitol police "Ambushed" Ashli Babett."

Sounds right.

ETA: BTW I tried googling "Gohmert Ambush" earlier and didn't turn anything up. Nothing now either.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.