EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tessylo  •  one month ago  •  136 comments

By:   Hunter Walker, Rolling Stone

EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



09da6630-2e88-11eb-9b4c-586a06c9571a EXCLUSIVE: Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff Hunter Walker Sun, October 24, 2021, 8:33 PM 8176c5d5569b2b44f9a7c3857363742f j6-trump-stop-the-steal - Credit: Nate Gowdy for Rolling Stone

As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to  Rolling Stone  extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.

Rolling Stone  separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

More from Rolling Stone

  • 'Nobody's Off-Limits,' Including Trump, Jan. 6 Chair Says of Subpoenas

  • Judge Ordered Jan. 6 Rioter Not to Associate with Proud Boys. He Then Spoke at Rally Attended by Proud Boys

  • Trump's New Social Network Is Already Breaking the Terms of Its Software License

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

For the sake of clarity, we will refer to one of the sources as a rally organizer and the other as a planner.  Rolling Stone  has confirmed that both sources were involved in organizing the main event aimed at objecting to the electoral certification, which took place at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6. Trump spoke at that rally and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Some members of the audience at the Ellipse began walking the mile and a half to the Capitol as Trump gave his speech. The barricades were stormed minutes before the former president concluded his remarks.

These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.

2b5459a651b43522474f33f6387b931c Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) attends a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing titled The Capitol Insurrection: Unexplained Delays and Unanswered Questions, on Capitol Hill on May 12, 2021 in Washington, DC. - Credit: Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

Jonathan Ernst-Pool/Getty Images

And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.”

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

The rally planner describes the pardon as being offered while “encouraging” the staging of protests against the election. While the organizer says they did not get involved in planning the rallies solely due to the pardon, they were upset that it ultimately did not materialize.

“I would have done it either way with or without the pardon,” the organizer says. “I do truly believe in this country, but to use something like that and put that out on the table when someone is so desperate, it’s really not good business.”

Gosar’s office did not respond to requests for comment on this story.  Rolling Stone  has separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6. We are not describing the nature of that evidence to preserve their anonymity. The House select committee investigating the attack also has interest in Gosar’s office. Gosar’s chief of staff, Thomas Van Flein, was among the people who were named in the committee’s “sweeping” requests to executive-branch agencies seeking documents and communications from within the Trump administration. Both sources claim Van Flein was personally involved in the conversations about the “blanket pardon” and other discussions about pro-Trump efforts to dispute the election. Van Flein did not respond to a request for comment.

These specific members of Congress were involved in the pro-Trump activism around the election and the electoral certification on Jan. 6. Both Brooks and Cawthorn spoke with Trump at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. In his speech at that event, Brooks, who was reportedly wearing body armor, declared, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all billed as speakers at the “Wild Protest,” which also took place on Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

Nick Dyer, who is Greene’s communications director, said she was solely involved in planning to object to the electoral certification on the House floor. Spokespeople for the other members of Congress, who the sources describe as involved in the planning for protests, did not respond to requests for comment.

“Congresswoman Greene and her staff were focused on the Congressional election objection on the House floor and had nothing to do with planning of any protest,” Dyer wrote in an email to  Rolling Stone.

dc50f1fbe48ddfa7691004f990e6f5fc Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaks during former President Donald Trump’s Save America rally in Perry, Ga., on Saturday, Sept. 25, 2021. - Credit: Ben Gray/AP

Ben Gray/AP

Dyer further compared Greene’s efforts to dispute certification of Biden’s victory with similar objections certain Democratslodged against Trump’s first election.

“She objected just like Democrats who have objected to Republican presidential victories over the years,” wrote Dyer “Just like in 2017, when Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raul Grijalva, and Maxine Waters tried to prevent President Trump’s election win from being certified.”

Dyer also suggested the public is far more concerned with issues occurring under President Joe Biden than they are with what happened in January.

“No one cares about Jan. 6 when gas prices are skyrocketing, grocery store shelves are empty, unemployment is skyrocketing, businesses are going bankrupt, our border is being invaded, children are forced to wear masks, vaccine mandates are getting workers fired, and 13 members of our military are murdered by the Taliban and Americans are left stranded in Afghanistan,” Dyer wrote .

In another indication members of Congress may have been involved in planning the protests against the election, Ali Alexander, who helped organize the “Wild Protest,” declared in a since-deleted livestream broadcast that Gosar, Brooks, and Biggs helped him formulate the strategy for that event.

“I was the person who came up with the Jan. 6 idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks, and Congressman Andy Biggs,” Alexander said at the time. “We four schemed up on putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting so that — who we couldn’t lobby — we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body hearing our loud roar from outside.”

Alexander led Stop the Steal, which was one of the main groups promoting efforts to dispute Trump’s loss. In December, he organized a Stop the Steal event in Phoenix, where Gosar was one the main speakers. At that demonstration, Alexander referred to Gosar as “my captain” and declared “one of the other heroes has been Congressman Andy Biggs.”

Alexander did not respond to requests for comment.The rally planner, who accused Alexander of ratcheting up the potential for violence that day while taking advantage of funds from donors and others who helped finance the events, confirmed that he was in contact with those three members of Congress.

“He just couldn’t help himself but go on his live and just talk about everything that he did and who he talked to,” the planner says of Alexander. “So, he, like, really told on himself.”

While it was already clear members of Congress played some role in the Jan. 6 events and similar rallies that occurred in the lead-up to that day, the two sources say they can provide new details about the members’ specific roles in these efforts. The sources plan to share that information with congressional investigators right away. While both sources say their communications with the House’s Jan. 6 committee thus far have been informal, they are expecting to testify publicly.

“I have no problem openly testifying,” the planner says.

A representative for the committee declined to comment. In the past month, the committee has issued subpoenas to top Trump allies, government agencies, and activists who were involved in the planning of events and rallies that took place on that day and in the prior weeks. Multiple sources familiar with the committee’s investigation have confirmed to  Rolling Stone  that, thus far, it seems to be heavily focused on the financing for the Ellipse rally and similar previous events.

Both of the sources made clear that they still believe in Trump’s agenda. They also have questions about how his election loss occurred. The two sources say they do not necessarily believe there were issues with the actual vote count. However, they are concerned that Democrats gained an unfair advantage in the race due to perceived social media censorship of Trump allies and the voting rules that were implemented as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.

“Democrats used tactics to disrupt their political opposition in ways that frankly were completely unacceptable,” the organizer says.

Despite their remaining affinity for Trump and their questions about the vote, both sources say they were motivated to come forward because of their concerns about how the pro-Trump protests against the election ultimately resulted in the violent attack on the Capitol. Of course, with their other legal issues and the House investigation, both of these sources have clear motivation to cooperate with investigators and turn on their former allies. And both of their accounts paint them in a decidedly favorable light compared with their former allies.

“The reason I’m talking to the committee and the reason it’s so important is that — despite Republicans refusing to participate … this commission’s all we got as far as being able to uncover the truth about what happened at the Capitol that day,” the organizer says. “It’s clear that a lot of bad actors set out to cause chaos. … They made us all look like shit.”

And Trump, they admit, was one of those bad actors. A representative for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

“The breaking point for me [on Jan. 6 was when] Trump starts talking about walking to the Capitol,” the organizer says. “I was like. ‘Let’s get the fuck out of here.’ ”

“I do kind of feel abandoned by Trump,” says the planner. “I’m actually pretty pissed about it and I’m pissed at him.”

The organizer offers an even more succinct assessment when asked what they would say to Trump.

“What the fuck?” the organizer says.

The two potential witnesses plan to present to the committee allegations about how these demonstrations were funded and to detailcommunications between organizers and the White House. According to both sources, members of Trump’s administration and former members of his campaign team were involved in the planning. Both describe Katrina Pierson, who worked for Trump’s campaign in 2016 and 2020, as a key liaison between the organizers of protests against the election and the White House.

“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer says. “She was like our primary advocate.”

Pierson spoke at the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Both sources also describe Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests on Jan. 6. Among other things, they both say concerns were raised to Meadows about Alexander’s protest at the Capitol and the potential that it could spark violence.Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee last month as part of a group of four people “with close ties to the former President who were working in or had communications with the White House on or in the days leading up to the January 6th insurrection.”

“Meadows was 100 percent made aware of what was going on,” says the organizer. “He’s also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers.”

A separate third source, who has also communicated with the committee and was involved in the Ellipse rally, says Kylie Kremer, one of the key organizers at that event, boasted that she was going to meet with Meadows at the White House ahead of the rally. The committee has been provided with that information. Kremer did not respond to a request for comment.

Both the organizer and the planner say Alexander initially agreed he would not hold his “Wild Protest” at the Capitol and that the Ellipse would be the only major demonstration.When Alexander seemed to be ignoring that arrangement, both claim worries were brought to Meadows.

“Despite making a deal … they plowed forward with their own thing at the Capitol on Jan.y 6 anyway,” the organizer says of Alexander and his allies. “We ended up escalating that to everybody we could, including Meadows.”

A representative for Meadows did not respond to requests for comment.

Along with making plans for Jan. 6, the sources say, the members of Congress who were involved solicited supposed proof of election fraud from them. Challenging electoral certification requires the support of a member of the Senate. While more than a hundred Republican members of the House ultimately objected to the Electoral College count that formalized Trump’s loss, only a handful of senators backed the effort. According to the sources, the members of Congress and their staff advised them to hold rallies in specific states. The organizer says locations were chosen to put “pressure” on key senators that “we considered to be persuadable.”

“We had also been coordinating with some of our congressional contacts on, like, what would be presented after the individual objections, and our expectation was that that was the day the storm was going to arrive,” the organizer says, adding, “It was supposed to be the best evidence that they had been secretly gathering. … Everyone was going to stay at the Ellipse throughout the congressional thing.”

Heading into Jan. 6, both sources say, the plan they had discussed with other organizers, Trump allies, and members of Congress was a rally that would solely take place at the Ellipse, where speakers — including the former president — would present “evidence” about issues with the election. This demonstration would take place in conjunction with objections that were being made by Trump allies during the certification on the House floor that day.

“It was in a variety of calls, some with Gosar and Gosar’s team, some with Marjorie Taylor Greene and her team … Mo Brooks,” the organizer says.

“The Capitol was never in play,” insists the planner.

A senior staffer for a Republican member of Congress, who was also granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation, similarly says they believed the events would only involve supporting objections on the House floor. The staffer says their member was engaged in planning that was “specifically and fully above board.”

“A whole host of people let this go a totally different way,” the senior Republican staffer says. “They fucked it up for a lot of people who were planning to present evidence on the House floor. We were pissed off at everything that happened .”

The two sources claim there were early concerns about Alexander’s event. They had seen him with members of the paramilitary groups 1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) and the Oath Keepers in his entourage at prior pro-Trump rallies. Alexander was filmed with a reputed member of 1AP at his side at a November Stop the Steal event that took place in Georgia. The two sources also claim to have been concerned about drawing people to the area directly adjacent to the Capitol on Jan. 6, given the anger among Trump supporters about the electoral certification that was underway that day.

“They knew that they weren’t there to sing “Kumbaya” and, like, put up a peace sign,” the planner says. “These frickin’ people were angry.”


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
[]
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

Black Lives Matter - Protests - Any Protests ARE OFF TOPIC

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

I might have to protest this...jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Masters Guide
1.1.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @1.1    one month ago

That's funny. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
1.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @1    one month ago

Tessy, the article is about the Jan 6 protests so, the discussion must be about that. You can exclude any other protests, such as Black Lives Matter. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2    one month ago

To clarify - BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTESTS ARE OFF TOPIC

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @1.2    one month ago

prohibiting the inevitable trumpster false equivalency derails about protests that didn't try to impede a constitutional mandate by a joint session of congress is a great idea, as is flagging those derails.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    one month ago

Which is all I've been getting anyway - denials of what trumpturd and his mob and those who helped him plan and execute this - were up to.  Projection, deflection, and denial - all those who support this have got.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.3    one month ago

all the traitors from my state have been doxed in the local media. names, addresses, and mugshots. whatever happens to them now, they deserve.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2  seeder  Tessylo    one month ago

"The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember  Marjorie Taylor Greene  specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

For the sake of clarity, we will refer to one of the sources as a rally organizer and the other as a planner.  Rolling Stone  has confirmed that both sources were involved in organizing the main event aimed at objecting to the electoral certification, which took place at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6. Trump spoke at that rally and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Some members of the audience at the Ellipse began walking the mile and a half to the Capitol as Trump gave his speech. The  barricades were stormed  minutes before the former president concluded his remarks.

These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep.  Paul Gosar  (R-Ariz.), Rep.  Lauren Boebert  (R-Colo.), Rep.  Mo Brooks  (R-Ala.), Rep.  Madison Cawthorn  (R-N.C.), Rep.  Andy Biggs  (R-Ariz.), and Rep.  Louie Gohmert  (R-Texas)."

I've been saying this all along - many gop/gqp members were complicit in the planning of trumpturd and his mobs' attempted failed coup/insurrection on 1/6/21.  

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.1  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @2    one month ago
Rep.  Paul Gosar  (R-Ariz.), Rep.  Lauren Boebert  (R-Colo.), Rep.  Mo Brooks  (R-Ala.), Rep.  Madison Cawthorn  (R-N.C.), Rep.  Andy Biggs  (R-Ariz.), and Rep.  Louie Gohmert  (R-Texas)."

A who's who of nutjobs...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Ender @2.1    one month ago
A who's who of nutjobs...

... the GOP definitely holds those majorities in the house and senate.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3  Snuffy    one month ago

I'm not saying said conversations did or did not take place. I would just be rather hesitant to put any faith in an article from the Rolling Stone magazine which has lost in court before for lying and dishonest reporting. 

The sources for the story are granted anonymity so there's no way to verify anything that is reported as fact. But as Marjorie Taylor Greene (grateful she's not my representative but any more will take me off topic) first took office on Jan 3, 2021 so I'm unsure just how much she could really offer for the planning of this.

I will wait for the full investigation to come out and for any "punishments" to be meted out.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Snuffy @3    one month ago

Considering Rolling Stone's media bias ratings of left to extreme left, I have to agree with you on waiting for the investigation results.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1    one month ago

Truth/facts = LIBERAL BIAS

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    one month ago

Liberal truth/facts=LIBERAL BIAS

There, I fixed it for ya!jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @3.1.2    one month ago

[removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3    one month ago

Of course you're denying the obvious truth of those being complicit in the planning - Greene and Boebert were taking people on tours the day before or shortly before their planned failed coup/insurrection - during a pandemic.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.1  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago

No, I'm not denying anything. I'm waiting for the results of the investigations to be completed. But I think you are trying to place intent when all we really know is what happened, not the why.  The two who are speaking to the committee are noted to have talked about planning for the rally which really, IMO, be kept separate from what happened at the Capital. The majority of those who attended the rally did not go to the Capital and did not break any laws.  As far as taking people on tours, I feel that once again you are trying to assign a motive to the action. We just don't know what was talked about or why the tours were given. Has it even been shown that the people who were taken on the tours were part of the group that stormed the Capital?  I don't know, not seen anything that ties those two actions together. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    one month ago
The majority of those who attended the rally did not go to the Capital and did not break any laws. 

What was the purpose of any pro Trump rally on Jan 6 ? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one month ago

It was called 'The Save America Rally'.  Attendees rallying on Wednesday are holding the first amendment rally, "to demand transparency and protect election integrity" on the same day Congress is set to officially approve the 2020 election results.  And once again the rally at the Ellipse was not illegal in any sense of the word. The march itself to the Capital was not illegal. 

Those that broke into the Capital, who trespassed in the Capital..   hold them accountable for their actions under the law. But once again,  the majority of those who attended the rally did not break any laws. 

One can easily ask what is the purpose of ANY political rally?  

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
3.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @3.2    one month ago

[deleted]

[member is not the topic]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    one month ago

Nonsense - those planning this 'rally' knew what was intended.  They were going to 'Storm the Capitol' 'It's a Revolution!' which is what many of the magamorons were saying.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.2    one month ago

"What was the purpose of any pro Trump rally on Jan 6 ?"

To 'Storm the Capitol!' 'It's a Revolution' which is what many of the magamorons said and to Stop the Steal which trumpturd had been lying about/planning since after President Biden won the November election freely and fairly.   

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.3    one month ago

Trump said this to his "Save America" rally at the Ellipse on Jan 6

I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election.

All he has to do--all--this is--this is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country he has the absolute right to do it; we're supposed to protect our country support our country, support our Constitution and protect our Constitution. States want to revote, the states got defrauded. They were given false information, they voted on it. Now they want to recertify; they want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.

This is what Trump told supporters before many stormed Capitol Hill - ABC News (go.com)

Every word of that was a lie. No states wanted to recertify. There were no alternate slates of electors. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.7    one month ago

So?  It was a political rally. If you are gonna start forcing politicians to be fully honest and truthful in their speeches you won't have any more political rally's. First Amendment here,  even Trump can stand up on a soap box and shout out all sorts of things that can make your blood boil. 

I still believe that the majority of those who attended the rally/protest had nothing to do with the assault on the Capital. I believe the continued push by those on the left to blame all of Jan 6th on Trump is going to impact the 22 mid-terms as well as there are still a lot of Trump supporters (unfortunately) who will vote for whoever Trump tells them to.  That's politics and you won't get everybody to follow your line of thinking no matter how many times you get up on your soap box.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.9  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.8    one month ago

With over 640 arrests, you are wrong.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.1    one month ago

Yes you are denying what trumpturd and those who planned this with him were up to (ever since he lost and claims it was stolen from him) they were there to 'steal it back'.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.11  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.9    one month ago
With over 640 arrests, you are wrong.  

What am I wrong about?  With an estimated 5000 people attending the rally at the Ellipse and from what I find thousands marched on the Capital to protest. Out of that there were 640 arrests made, I'll even grant that not everybody who should be arrested have been so.  That still doesn't make my comment wrong.  The majority of those who attended the rally / protest had nothing to do with the assault on the Capital itself. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.8    one month ago

THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PRO TRUMP ACTIVITIES ON JAN 6 WAS TO GET MIKE PENCE TO EITHER FOLLOW THE EASTMAN MEMO AND DECLARE TRUMP WAS THE PRESIDENT , OR HAVE THE ELECTION RETURNED TO THE STATES WHERE TRUMP HOPED REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES WOULD NAME HIM THE WINNER.

That was the entire purpose of the Jan 6 pro Trump activities.  There had been meetings by the principals concerning exactly this. 

There was no "legitimate" purpose to any of this and you just saying they had a "right" doesnt cut the mustard. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.13  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.12    one month ago
"THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PRO TRUMP ACTIVITIES ON JAN 6 WAS TO GET MIKE PENCE TO EITHER FOLLOW THE EASTMAN MEMO AND DECLARE TRUMP WAS THE PRESIDENT , OR HAVE THE ELECTION RETURNED TO THE STATES WHERE TRUMP HOPED REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES WOULD NAME HIM THE WINNER.

That was the entire purpose of the Jan 6 pro Trump activities.  There had been meetings by the principals concerning exactly this. 

There was no "legitimate" purpose to any of this and you just saying they had a "right" doesnt cut the mustard."

This is well known and I get so tired of the projection, deflection, and denial otherwise.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.14  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.11    one month ago
"What am I wrong about?"

Everything.

The deniers just want this swept under the rug and forgotten about - want us to move on - NOT UNTIL THE PLANNERS AND THE LEAD TURD, WHATSHISNAME - SEE JUSTICE.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.15  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.7    one month ago

No matter how many times the truth is pointed out/facts/whatshisnames statements - it's denied.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.16  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.10    one month ago
Yes you are denying what trumpturd and those who planned this with him were up to (ever since he lost and claims it was stolen from him) they were there to 'steal it back'.  

No. We've all seen the memo from the lawyer to Pence with instructions on what they wanted Pence to do on Jan  6th. We know that Trump sat there and claimed the election was stolen and that he had actually won. We've seen all of this. 

But what you are trying to do it seems is claim that Trump and his inner circle planned with the rioters on how to break into the Capital and there is just no proof of that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.14    one month ago

Do you forget that Trump was NOT declared guilty in his trial in Congress for inciting an insurrection?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.18  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.3    one month ago
It was called 'The Save America Rally'.

From what?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    one month ago
From what?

High inflation, record spending, supply train issues, a botched Afghanistan withdrawal, refusal of the Democratic Congress to pass a real infrastructure deal despite Nancy Pelosi saying she would vote in it.

That should do just for starters.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
3.2.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    one month ago

From what we are seeing today. Inflation, ?Americans still stranded in Afghanistan, Covid, Wasteful spending proposals, gas prices, unemployment.............need more.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
3.2.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.19    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.22  Texan1211  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.21    one month ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.23  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.12    one month ago
THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PRO TRUMP ACTIVITIES ON JAN 6 WAS TO GET MIKE PENCE TO EITHER FOLLOW THE EASTMAN MEMO AND DECLARE TRUMP WAS THE PRESIDENT , OR HAVE THE ELECTION RETURNED TO THE STATES WHERE TRUMP HOPED REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURES WOULD NAME HIM THE WINNER.

That was the entire purpose of the Jan 6 pro Trump activities.  There had been meetings by the principals concerning exactly this. 

There was no "legitimate" purpose to any of this and you just saying they had a "right" doesnt cut the mustard. 

And again I ask, so?  Did Trump go to far?  Of course he did. He tried to win in the courts, the same actions that were taken in several of the past elections, and failed completely because he was pushing a false narrative. So the Eastman memo was put out to have Pence do the dirty work in Congress and that also failed.

The Jan 6th rally was to allow the public to let their voices be known,  NOT to overthrow the government. That there were some in the crowd who used the rally/protest as an excuse to try to do just that is on them,  not the entire group. You are trying to broadbrush a narrative on everybody from Trump on down without proof that they were all in on it.  I would ask you to take a step back and look at this all again but you have made up  your mind and seem to refuse to see the grey areas. 

As far as the people who attended the protests,  you telling them they don't have the 'right' to attend is too close to fascism. I ask you to take a step back, allow the investigation to continue and stop overstepping.  Not everybody on this board, just because they don't share your opinions, is an enemy.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Senior Participates
3.2.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.18    one month ago
From what?

In a nutshell, the train wreck that is the Biden Administration. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.25  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @3.2.23    one month ago

So what is your answer - seems to be everyone's answer - who is denying what happened that day and who planned it - including trumpturd.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.2.26  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.25    one month ago

What is my answer?  Give the investigation time to finish. All this bullshit being pushed out is all mental masturbation. All these "stories" that get pumped are lacking on source and evidence to prove anything. Stop blaming everybody who doesn't agree with what you state as if they are all complicit in what happened on Jan 6th. So far there is no proof that Trump or any of his inner circle were part of the storming of the Capital. Just standing up on a stage shouting that 'We need to fight like hell' and 'Stop the steal' is not proof that Trump planned an attack on the Capital. 

Listen, for what it's worth I don't want Trump to run in 24. I would rather he go back to his company and get out of politics. IMO his actions since losing the last election have ended my support for him. But I can't control him any more than I can control you. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.2.27  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.17    one month ago

Not forgot, just ignored.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @3    one month ago
hesitant to put any faith in an article from the Rolling Stone magazine which has lost in court before for lying and dishonest reporting

... does that same logic hold true for the alt-media?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
3.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  devangelical @3.3    one month ago

yes, and main-stream media as well.  Any "news" source that has lost in court for lying, I am hesitant to put my full faith into believing what they print until I have a means of verification. And I won't just accept another stream that sources from the initial source only.  Needless to say, I don't believe a lot of the garbage that gets passed around today as news as they all have their own bias.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
4  Sparty On    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
4.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @4    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5  evilgenius    one month ago

We'll see where this goes. The articles says that people planned rallies. This isn't all that nefarious on it's surface. What we/I want to know is where/why it went from rally to cop killing. The unnamed source in the article is pissed that someone changed plans on the rally from the Ellipse to the Capital Building and plans to testify before committee about all those plans. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @5    one month ago

The entire concept of Jan 6, "Stop The Steal" was 100% bogus. No one should have been out there protesting on behalf of "Stop The Steal" (an entirely made up theme) on Jan 6 . Full stop. 

The idea that they had a "right"  to try and "stop the steal" is borderline ridiculous. 

We have to stop excusing ignorance and conspiracy fueled dishonesty in this country just because some people claim a "right" . 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago
The entire concept of Jan 6, "Stop The Steal" was 100% bogus. No one should have been out there protesting on behalf of "Stop The Steal" (an entirely made up theme) on Jan 6 . Full stop. 

So? It maybe "bogus" and stupid, but not illegal. One can protest a grilled cheese sandwich if they want. 

We have to stop excusing ignorance and conspiracy fueled dishonesty in this country just because some people claim a "right" . 

No one is excusing ignorance, John. I'm only saying it's not illegal to plan or participate in a rally. To say otherwise would in itself be an ignorant comment.

I want to know the who, what and where of the violence. Two separate groups have been indicted on conspiracy charges on the violence. Congressional & Trump Admin names have been associated with those groups in the past. Do those line up or not? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.1    one month ago

I dont contest that they had a legal right to protest. 

I contest that they had a moral, common sense, or truthful right to protest. 

There should have been NO ONE out there on Jan 6, and the only reason they were there is because Trump convened them through his words and actions over the previous weeks. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    one month ago

I think they had just as much right to rally & protest as the "Not my President" protesters had after the 2016 elections. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.1    one month ago
One can protest a grilled cheese sandwich if they want

Sure! If you’re a god-hating MFing communist, you might. You have to be a pretty sick bastard to protest grilled cheese. 

I’m so triggered!

j/k

But God bless grilled cheese sandwiches, for real.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
5.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago
The entire concept of Jan 6, "Stop The Steal" was 100% bogus.

Absolutely correct.

The idea that they had a "right"  to try and "stop the steal" is borderline ridiculous

Absolutely wrong. That’s the First Amendment, man. You better get used to it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.3    one month ago

People protested the election of Trump as president and yes thousands of people were on the streets the next day. We also saw millions of people take to the streets the day after Trump's inauguration. They were protesting the result of the election , not the legality of it. 

If Trump supporters wanted to protest the election of Biden, why werent they out there protesting on Nov. 7th, the day five days after the election when the AP called the election for Biden?  That would have been the day to express displeasure with the election of Biden. 

What was Jan 6? That wasnt a day of protest it was a self-described day to "stop the steal". What evidence was there on Jan 6 that the election had been stolen? None.  So what in hell were these people doing even being there?  Thats the question, not whether they had a "right" to be there. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    one month ago

"The entire concept of Jan 6, "Stop The Steal" was 100% bogus. No one should have been out there protesting on behalf of "Stop The Steal" (an entirely made up theme) on Jan 6 . Full stop. 

The idea that they had a "right"  to try and "stop the steal" is borderline ridiculous. 

We have to stop excusing ignorance and conspiracy fueled dishonesty in this country just because some people claim a "right" ."

I agree wholeheartedly John.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.2    one month ago
I contest that they had a moral, common sense, or truthful right to protest. 

Yeah, well, different people look at it differently whenever there are protests.

You, I assume, believe that other groups are doing what you approve of while protesting and other people don't support those protests.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.6    one month ago
So what in hell were these people doing even being there?  Thats the question, not whether they had a "right" to be there. 

Nope, in a free country you don't get to ask that question.  They have the right to be there and protest and you are not allowed to prevent them. To attempt to prevent them from exercising their First Amendment rights is nothing short of fascism. It doesn't matter what their reasons are for attending such a rally, nobody gets to choose what reasons people may have to attend a rally/protest. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.7    one month ago
We have to stop excusing ignorance and conspiracy fueled dishonesty in this country just because some people claim a "right"

So, when does that transformation take place?

People have the right to protest legally and peacefully, whether or not you agree with what their protest is about, right?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.9    one month ago

I have never said they didnt have a legal right to be there. What they didnt have was a moral, common sense, or honest right to be there. 

The people who went into the capitol wanted to intimidate the Congress into overthrowing the legitimate elections results.  No one has a moral right to do that. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.12  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.4    one month ago
Sure! If you’re a god-hating MFing communist, you might. You have to be a pretty sick bastard to protest grilled cheese.  I’m so triggered!

Hahahaha! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    one month ago
What they didnt have was a moral, common sense, or honest right to be there. 

What bullshit,

They had EVERY right to be there, and the fact you don't like it is totally irrelevant.

Sorry, but rights are rights, and you don't get to dictate what rights can be exercised in a manner YOU personally like.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.14  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    one month ago

And I've already said to hold those who invaded the Capital building fully accountable for their actions. We are in agreement there.

But I think you have to be careful with the phrase 'intimidate the congress into'...  There were a lot of left-wing riots/protests all summer long that also wanted to intimidate local governments toward the preferred actions of the protesters. IMO the Capital riot was no different in that intent.  IMO using violence in an attempt to intimidate any body/group/organization is completely wrong and should not be allowed to go unpunished. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.13    one month ago
the fact you don't like it is totally irrelevant.

Do you know what the word irrelevant means?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.16  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.11    one month ago
The people who went into the capitol wanted to intimidate the Congress into overthrowing the legitimate elections results.

That is NOT what this article is talking about though. The rally, the unnamed source in the article talks about, has nothing to do with the Capital Building. The source specifically says that was NOT the plan. From the article. 

Everyone was going to stay at the Ellipse throughout the congressional thing.

I'd agree these people were delusional and misguided. Perhaps lied to even, but the ones in the article (if they are being truthful) weren't planning on storming buildings. What I can't figure out, though... from the article there was promise of blanket pardons? What would they need pardons for, if all they were going to do was have speakers and rally in the Ellipsis? I'm totally confused by that point in the article.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.14    one month ago

What was the Capitol Building mob there to "protest"? 

Ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out" ?  People who swallowed all that garbage didnt have a legitimate basis for protest. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.17    one month ago
What was the Capitol Building mob there to "protest"? 

That is also irrelevant.

And YES, I know what it means

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.20  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.17    one month ago
People who swallowed all that garbage didnt have a legitimate basis for protest. 

Once again, you don't get to choose what other people want to believe. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.21  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.20    one month ago
Once again, you don't get to choose what other people want to believe.

No, but I get to judge them.  There is no legitimate excuse for any of the activities of Jan 6. 

Unless one is a conspiracy nut that worships Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.20    one month ago

During his Jan 6 speech Trump went through a litany of the states where he thought the election had been stolen from him. The list spanned the entire length and width of the country, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania . 

We are to believe there was a nationwide conspiracy to steal the election from Trump, or was it  just an immense coincidence that states virtually from sea to shining sea decided to cheat him? 

An intelligent six year old wouldnt believe this shit, but millions and millions of MAGA's do? 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.23  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.22    one month ago

Do you have proof that millions and millions of MAGA's believe all of that?  I know a few people who believe that, I know a few more people who still support Trump based on his policies but do not believe the election was stolen.  Is this another case of assigning motive and belief of a few people to an entire population?  Based on that reasoning then slavery should still be ok because I'm confident we could find one or two people in the world who still think that slavery is a good thing.

You can judge people for yourself but  you should not be pushing your beliefs on to other people. They get to make up their own minds and believe what they want to believe. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.24  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.23    one month ago

Polling has consistently shown that a high enough percentage of Trump supporters believe the election was stolen from him to translate into millions and millions of people. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.25  devangelical  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.23    one month ago
you should not be pushing your beliefs on to other people

please tell that to all the fucking bible thumpers that make up the largest segment of the R base.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.26  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.24    one month ago

Ok then. Ask a couple of thousand people a question and it must be true for millions.  By that standing HRC should have been our last president.  

Needless to say, I'm hesitant to trust a poll.  To me,  a poll only indicates what the person asked thinks at that point in time.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.27  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.26    one month ago

What do you want, someone to go from door to door and canvas millions of Trump voters on whether or not the believe the election was stolen? 

An endless number of conclusions are drawn in this society based on surveys and polls and sample populations. Endless. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
5.1.28  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.27    one month ago
An endless number of conclusions are drawn in this society based on surveys and polls and sample populations. Endless. 

Of course there are, doesn't make any of them true however. We've all seen polls that get the desired result based on the question/questions they ask. 

It's also human nature to want to believe that which agrees with our pre-conceived ideas and not to believe that which goes against our desires. I choose to not blindly believe any poll.  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    one month ago

I want to know about those tours certain members gave people the day before.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    one month ago

Now this is where the guards stand and Peolsi's office is right there...

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7  Tacos!    one month ago

So, I have to say that much of this sounds . . . Exaggerated. Like most conspiracy theories, it just doesn’t pass the smell test or the common sense test.

Might there have been some level of organization and planning behind January 6? Sure. Of course. They clearly planned a rally. They clearly planned to march on the Capitol. Those plans aren’t even disputed by the people involved. That doesn’t mean they planned to force their way past barricades, assault police officers, or any of that stuff.

Some of this just flat out sounds not believable. They met in secret with multiple members of Congress and White House staff dozens of times? Dozens? We’re talking about people who are followed around by the press constantly and their own staff leak shit on Twitter or whatever every day. They can’t keep the lunch menu secret, much less an allegedly planned assault on the Capitol. 

And if you look at what happened that day - a riot put down in a matter of a few hours, hundreds arrested, election proceeded as planned, nobody in government hurt - it was a pretty shitty and ineffective plan for all those people to have been involved over dozens of meetings.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago

I think a faction was planning it.

One has to prepare to be able to erect gallows...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @7.1    one month ago

Agree with you also wholeheartedly.  Not dozens of Congress people, but at least a handful - the ones included here:

"Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep.   Paul Gosar   (R-Ariz.), Rep.    Lauren Boebert   (R-Colo.), Rep.    Mo Brooks   (R-Ala.), Rep.    Madison Cawthorn   (R-N.C.), Rep.    Andy Biggs   (R-Ariz.), and Rep.    Louie Gohmert   (R-Texas)."

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Ender @7.1    one month ago
One has to prepare to be able to erect gallows...

Those gallows were symbolic at best and likely could not have held the weight of a possum roadkill.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Ender  replied to  Hallux @7.1.2    one month ago

It reminded me of the olden days when a mob would round people up and hang them in the town square.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @7.1.2    one month ago

Symbolic or not - are you denying what trumpturd and his mob were up to?

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.5  Hallux  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.4    one month ago

Not at all, it was a form follows function observation and there was zero physical function that could be attributed to the worst constructed gallows in history ... the attributed symbolism is as laughable as Kathy Griffin holding Trump's severed head. Umbrage in either case is purely partisan.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Hallux @7.1.2    one month ago

Those gallows were symbolic at best and likely could not have held the weight of a possum roadkill.

Is that like the defense for an armed robber stating that the gun wasn't loaded?

And doesn't the gallows, at least, symbolize their intent?  A gallows has only 1 purpose, to kill someone.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.6    one month ago
Is that like the defense for an armed robber stating that the gun wasn't loaded?

Depending on the state, the sentencing of a loaded vs unloaded gun will be significantly different and does speak to intent. 

In the case of the gallows it pretty much falls under the same heading as hanging/burning someone in effigy. The symbolism is violent, but still protected under the 1st. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.1.8  Hallux  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.6    one month ago
Is that like the defense for an armed robber stating that the gun wasn't loaded?

Not at all if the gun had all the appearances of a functioning device, the gallows in question had no such possibility, it should have been derided as being a hopeless construction of the hapless. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
7.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Hallux @7.1.8    one month ago
Not at all if the gun had all the appearances of a functioning device, the gallows in question had no such possibility, it should have been derided as being a hopeless construction of the hapless.

Have you ever seen a 3d printed gun?  Doesn't look like it would work, but is just as deadly.

DD_Liberator.png3d-guns.jpg?width=982&height=726&auto=webp&quality=753dprintedgunliner_feat.png?w=800

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
7.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago
Tacos wrote: Some of this just flat out sounds not believable. They met in secret with multiple members of Congress and White House staff dozens of times? Dozens? We’re talking about people who are followed around by the press constantly and their own staff leak shit on Twitter or whatever every day. They can’t keep the lunch menu secret, much less an allegedly planned assault on the Capitol. 
The whole concept that this spontaneous demonstration was a highly planned and organized event is totally absurd....especially considering the questionable  "sources"

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    one month ago

I don't care what Tacos says and those who discount my truthful and factual source, would do that with any truthful and factual source if it's coming from the 'left'.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
7.2.2  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @7.2    one month ago

... and those questionable "sources" claiming spontaneity are not "absurd"? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
7.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.1    one month ago

Prove the truth of the article. Or the validity of the sources

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7.3  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @7    one month ago

What I don't understand from the article is the talk of blanket pardons. What's that all about if nothing illegal was planned? And, at least from the article, there wasn't. Something isn't right... either something is missing from the article or the sources are just off their rockers or both.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
7.3.1  Snuffy  replied to  evilgenius @7.3    one month ago

Or the people that are the sources are just saying what they think wants to be heard. Or maybe this is another Rolling Stone magazine fantasy. But you're right, there is just a feeling that something in the article is off.

We may never know the full truth but it would be nice to find out the important truth at the end of the investigation.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
7.3.2  evilgenius  replied to  Snuffy @7.3.1    one month ago
We may never know the full truth but it would be nice to find out the important truth at the end of the investigation.

yeah... I'm waiting to see where the investigation plays out. I'm hoping it's more than a dog and pony show, but the current Republican house members look bent on making it so. It makes me think they have shit to hide.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.3.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  evilgenius @7.3.2    one month ago
"but the current Republican house members look bent on making it so. It makes me think they have shit to hide."

Just like trumpturd - suing the commission, telling anyone served to ignore the summons, what have they got to hide?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
8  Sean Treacy    one month ago

Since over 90% of the stop the steal rallies were peaceful, what's the big deal?

Isn't that the talking point?

 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    one month ago

Most of the protestors at the Jan 6th rally were peaceful and yet ......  it was an insurrection ....... jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    one month ago
The over 640 of trumpturd's mob who were arrested were peaceful?  Those who claimed 'It's a Revolution' 'Storm the Capitol' weren't trying to carry out an insurrection on trumpturd's orders???????????

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9  devangelical    one month ago

any person serving or served in the military that was arrested inside the capitol, and then pleads not guilty to the charges, needs to have their discharge status changed to dishonorable and lose any veterans benefits upon conviction for violation of their oath to defend the constitution.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
9.1  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @9    one month ago

Nothing after the fact can change honorable discharge status if fully discharged.  

Not even partisan hatred.

Sorry ..... and as it should be.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
9.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @9.1    one month ago
Nothing after the fact can change honorable discharge status if fully discharged.   Not even partisan hatred.

Sorry but no, that's not true.

Being convicted of a crime almost never jeopardizes a federal pension – the rare exception to this rule are charges relating to criminal disloyalty to the United States: espionage, treason, sabotage, etc.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
9.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.1    one month ago

Read it again.

Benefits can be taken away but not the honorable discharge.   Discharge status is based on ones actions while serving.   Not what happens after one is discharged and again, as it should be.

I find it interesting that some Vets here apparently don't understand that.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
9.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.2    one month ago

I did read it again and I don't see that.  Can you point me to the line please

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
9.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.3    one month ago
the rare exception to this rule are charges relating to criminal disloyalty to the United States: espionage, treason, sabotage, etc.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
9.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @9.1.4    one month ago

yes, that is the exception to the rule that being convicted of a crime almost never puts a military pension in jeopardy. But I was asking a different question because Sparty is saying the link I provided shows how such benefits are not taken away if you have an honorable discharge and I cannot find anything that proves that. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
9.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.5    one month ago

Pension, not Honorable Discharge.   They are two different things.  

If one serves long enough they might get rate a pension but regardless of how long one served, if they served honorably, they get an Honorable Discharge.

So again, benefits like pensions can be taken away but not the Honorable Discharge.

That's my understanding of it.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
9.1.7  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.6    one month ago

Ah, ok.  I understand.  Two different things...   yes you are correct that the Honorable Discharge status cannot be changed.  Any benefits can be taken away but the person is still an Honorably Discharged Vet.  Thanks,  sometimes it takes a while for a clear statement to get thru the mush in my head...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
9.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @9.1.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
9.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Snuffy @9.1.7    one month ago

No worries, glad i could help.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
10  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

This is what a coup looks like. 

Sudan’s military seized power Monday, dissolving the transitional government hours after troops arrested the acting prime minister and other officials. Thousands of people flooded into the streets to protest the coup that threatens the country’s shaky progress toward democracy.

And there isn't a goddamned similarity between this and Jan. 6. 

M I L I T A R Y

Compared to sticks and stones and a baseball bat.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
10.2  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10    one month ago
And there isn't a goddamned similarity between this and Jan. 6. 

And Congress was back that night to certify the election.   That usually doesn't happen with real coups.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Sparty On @10.2    one month ago
That usually doesn't happen with real coups.

The majority of coups are unsuccessful, what is real about all of them is they were attempted.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
10.2.2  Sparty On  replied to  Hallux @10.2.1    one month ago

Your definition of "coup" and mine are quite different but that will surprise no one here.

But i understand, liberals just hate to let a created crisis go to waste.

 
 
 
Hallux
Sophomore Principal
10.3  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10    one month ago
This is what a coup looks like.

Not all coups require a military addition, some can be parliamentary in nature as in the 147 'republicans' who found manufactured fault in the 2020 election. The useful 'peaceful' insurrectionistas purpose was to metallicize the pickles up their butts. That the entire fiasco was doomed to failure does not absolve any who took part in it, nor does flippant denial of what happened.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
10.3.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @10.3    one month ago
"Not all coups require a military addition, some can be parliamentary in nature as in the 147 'republicans' who found manufactured fault in the 2020 election. The useful 'peaceful' insurrectionistas purpose was to metallicize the pickles up their butts. That the entire fiasco was doomed to failure does not absolve any who took part in it, nor does flippant denial of what happened."

BINGFUCKINGO!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Gordy327
Kathleen
Ozzwald
TOM PA
Drakkonis
zuksam
GregTx


27 visitors