╌>

House probe into Jan. 6 to expand, seek interviews with Pentagon officials and Democrat staff

  
Via:  Jeremy in NC  •  2 weeks ago  •  95 comments

By:   Steven Richards (Just The News)

House probe into Jan. 6 to expand, seek interviews with Pentagon officials and Democrat staff
Rep. Loudermilk says his probe is designed to get to the truth, without "political bias."

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


House Republicans are expanding their investigation into the January 6 Committee and the security failures that led to the Capitol breach, planning to add staff and pursue new lines of inquiry, the Chairman of the subcommittee leading the investigation told Just the News.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, told the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show on Tuesday that he aims to publish a final report by this summer after seeking interviews with top Pentagon officials and any former January 6 committee staff willing to come forward.

So far, Loudermilk's investigation has spearheaded efforts to release thousands of hours of security footage from January 6, found that the Democrat-led select committee deleted hundreds of encrypted files, and has taken testimony from National Guard whistleblowers criticizing Pentagon leadership for its slow response to the riot at the Capitol.

"I've got a request in right now for additional personnel and some additional funding, because of the number of whistleblowers that we have coming out and other issues… there are so many avenues that we have to go down in this investigation," Loudermilk told the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show on Tuesday evening.

"Hopefully the the bulk of our investigation we need to wrap up sometime this summer. So you know, we can get a final report out and then transition to [accountability]," he added.

Earlier this month, four former National Guard officials-turned-whistleblowers testified before Loudermilk's committee and sharply criticized Pentagon leadership over its failure to act decisively in the face of the riot at the Capitol on January 6.

The whistleblowers criticized the Department of Defense's own Inspector General report which concluded the department's actions to respond to the riot on January 6 "were appropriate, supported by requirements, consistent with the DoD's roles and responsibilities…and compliant with laws, regulations, and other applicable guidance."

However, one whistleblower—Command Sergeant Major Michael Brooks—said the department failed to interview him or other key witnesses with firsthand knowledge of what occurred that day. On January 6, Brooks reported directly to Major General General William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard.

Multiple witnesses confirmed to the committee that several senior Pentagon officials in charge of orchestrating the response were hampered by concerns about the "optics" of deploying the guard to protect the Capitol, an apprehension that delayed the law enforcement response. Ultimately, the National Guard arrived more than three hours after the Capitol Police called for help.

Another witness—Colonel Earl Matthews, who was the Chief Legal Advisor for the D.C. Army National Guard on January 6—told the committee he believes senior Pentagon leadership lied to Congress and mislead investigators. Both generals referenced by Matthews have previously pushed back on his characterization.

Loudermilk said their testimony has opened new avenues of inquiry and he is will now pursue further information from the Department of Defense. Specially, Loudermilk wants to interview the generals the witnesses said let optics guide their decision-making.

"So we have contradictory information, including from the Department of Defense Inspector General, we need information from the DOD. They have been reclusive at best at our efforts to try to get their report, to get the the transcribed interviews that they did have certain people there at the Pentagon," Loudermilk told Just the News.

"We also need to talk to some of the generals there that these witnesses testified that we're concerned over the optics," Loudermilk said. "And so we're gonna, we're gonna make another request, and we may have to use other means possible to require them to send us the information," he added.

The Department of Defense declined to comment on Loudermilk's expanded investigation when asked by Just the News.

Loudermilk also said his committee will explore interviewing former staff members who worked for the Democrat-led January 6 Select Committee or the Representatives who served on the committee themselves.

"And so as we are starting to get the unbiased…without political bias, without concerning ourselves with the optics of it…as we're just trying to get to the truth, people are feeling confident that we're going to get the truth out, and we'll do everything we can to protect them," Loudermilk said of potential future whistleblowers from the select committee.

"And so I think it's going to be imperative that we do have more information and more discussions with especially staff members," he added.

Loudermilk's comments follow a report his committee released last month which concluded the January 6 Select Committee withheld evidence from the public that the politicization of Capitol security "directly contributed to the many structural and procedural failures witnessed that day."

The report confirmed two years worth of reporting by Just the News on the Jan. 6 failures, including a report that one January 6 witness made significant changes to her testimony that were not revealed by the Jan. 6 committee and that White House officials had received instructions from Trump to offer the 10,000 National Guard troops to bolster security at the Capitol and assist Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, despite contrary claims from the committee.

Last year, Just the Newsreported former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson—a star witness heavily relied upon by the January 6 Select Committee—made significant revisions to her testimony before the committee.

These revisions, documented in an errata sheet uncovered by Loudermilk, showed Hutchinson inserted new stories into her testimony, like the infamous story about then-President Trump lunging at the driver of his presidential vehicle in anger. Hutchinson chalked up her changes to poor representation from her first lawyer, who she alleges pressured her to stay loyal to Trump, which he has adamantly denied. Hutchinson, for her part, has been targeted in a $10 million defamation suit brought by former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski.

Loudermilk believes accountability has to come from the Pentagon, and lacking that, he says his committee is prepared to hold officials accountable according to the findings of its investigation.

"[The] accountability first should come from within the Pentagon and the Inspector General's Office," Loudermilk said.

"it is also Congress's responsibility to give oversight to these things," he added, explaining the House committee with usual jurisdiction over the Pentagon and its operations has giving full authority for his subcommittee to continue their investigation wherever it may lead.

"Other committees working with us because they see the work that we're doing is without political bias is to get to the truth. And let the American people know because they deserve to know what really happened on January 6, bring transparency and hold people accountable," he concluded.


Red Box Rules

No personal insults.

Stay on topic.  The source is NOT THE TOPIC.

Post your meme's on your own articles.  They will be deleted.

Calling members "trolls" or ""dishonest" will result in your comment being ticketed and deleted.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC    2 weeks ago
House Republicans are expanding their investigation into the January 6 Committee and the security failures that led to the Capitol breach

Isn't this what the J6 Committee headed by Pelosi supposed to (and failed to) do?  I guess an actual investigation was too much for them.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    2 weeks ago
Isn't this what the J6 Committee headed by Pelosi supposed to (and failed to) do?

That was the whole premise. And once they got organized, it turned into "The Get Trump Shitshow"

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1    2 weeks ago

Can't forget about their failed TV show.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.1.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

because the kids weren't allowed to watch it, as far right wing media, Trump,  and the GOP decided it was too informative, about what had actually occurred. Without even seeing it, they decide it was a failure...?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.4  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1    2 weeks ago

Ever notice how nobody on the left will discuss the actual purpose of the J6 Shitshow and how they failed at the only task they had?  

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Yes. Never have that I recall................it's all "you don't have a clue what the J6C found" bullshit

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.4    2 weeks ago

Please tell us whatever it is you think you know about the J6 committee investigation. 

To be honest, I'm not going to hold my breath. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

I rest my case....................LMAO

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.8  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

He did.  It's right there in 1.1.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
Yes. Never have that I recall................it's all "you don't have a clue what the J6C found" bullshit

Please tell us whatever it is you think you know about the J6 committee investigation. 

we've only been waiting a year and a half for the conservatives here to demonstrate they know anything about what the committee found. And I mean anything. There is no other area that I can think of where people who know absolutely nothing claim to know what they are talking about. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

LOL. You prove our point every single time you bring this up. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.7    2 weeks ago
I rest my case..................

what case? you havent made any case. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.12  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.9    2 weeks ago
we've only been waiting a year and a half for the conservatives here to demonstrate they know anything about what the committee found.

You apparently haven't been paying attention.  This article that you are trying so hard (and failing) to prove wrong (with presenting zero evidence) is a good start.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.13  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.10    2 weeks ago
You prove our point every single time you bring this up. 

It proves my point that any questioning of the partisan shit show will trigger the the gullible masses to the point they will jump on said article, make personal attacks and provide nothing to back up their claims that said article is false.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.11    2 weeks ago
Never have that I recall................it's all "you don't have a clue what the J6C found" bullshit

Does that ring a bell?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

It's been almost 4 years now since 1/6 and this 'is a good start'

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

When the gop/gqp has nothing, they investigate the investigators, like always.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.17  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.12    2 weeks ago

i've been asking you for a couple years to tell us what you know about the J6 case and you have never provided a single thing.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
1.1.18  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

When the gop/gqp has nothing, they investigate the investigators, like always.

Bingo. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.18    2 weeks ago

Bango.

Bongo.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.20  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.16    2 weeks ago
they investigate the investigators

What "investigators" are they investigating?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.21  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.15    2 weeks ago
It's been almost 4 years now since 1/6 and this 'is a good start'

A better start that what Pelosi had delivered.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.22  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

You have to know (as in have read) what Pelosi delivered to know if it is better. 

I don't think you have.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.23  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Thomas @1.1.22    2 weeks ago
I don't think you have

And there lies your problem.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

What Congressional investigation needs a professional producer?

What investigation purposely ignores evidence that contradicts it's predetermined narrative?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

Based on the comments I am seeing here, it is pretty much obvious that no matter what a conservative says about J6, the liberal Democrats here will refute, deny, and deflect whatever is said so it is somewhat a exercise in futility

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.26  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

I expected that idiocy when I put the article up.  

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.1.27  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.24    2 weeks ago
What Congressional investigation needs a professional producer?

I'd say THIS ONE, and you better throw in a few movie stars as well, cause the fictional creature double feature with Loudermilk at the helm, is a destined Titanic of a Failure, cause after almost 4 years, this is the best they can dig up...?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @1.1.22    2 weeks ago

Has not, most definitely.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.27    2 weeks ago

Pathetic and desperate and deplorable Iggy!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.30  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
I'd say THIS ONE

I didn't know this was being aired like the J6 Clown Show was.  What station is airing it?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.31  Thomas  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
And there lies your problem.

I don't have a problem. Do you? Are you saying that you have read the report? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    2 weeks ago

Typical of the gop/gqp - investigate the investigators.

Another nothingberder.

Ya got nothin!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    2 weeks ago

And yet you haven't proven that claim.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
1.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

The shiller the voice the less supportive of the original claim.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.2.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.2.4  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.3    2 weeks ago

Just imagination.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1    2 weeks ago

It was a sham right from the beginning and steadily went downhill. The committee was a bastard construct by Nancy Pelosi, devoid of anyone chosen by the minority or in any way open minded. The hearings began as if they were an actual court trial complete with a Hollywood presentation. Witnesses were privately deposed and filmed. Cherry picked snippets were then used for tv. Worst of all the committee destroyed evidence before the House was about to change hands. All of it was devious and improper.

It is nice to be able to discuss these issues without the usual BS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    2 weeks ago
why not just keep quiet. 

I'm not going to keep quiet and as far as you're concerned, you have your privilege to discuss anything with me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.3.4  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago
Cherry picked snippets were then used for tv.

Notice how fast they started crying when other audio and video were released?

Worst of all the committee destroyed evidence before the House was about to change hands. 

And yet they see nothing wrong with that.  Then turn around and cry about procedure and rules. 

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.5  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3    2 weeks ago

Paper trails say otherwise

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.3.6  Ronin2  replied to  Thomas @1.3.5    2 weeks ago

You mean the paper trail that Democrats tried to hide and destroy?

It is illegal to destroy or withhold evidence acquired during a House investigation. Democrats shit on the law and Constitution daily; why would they obey House rules?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.3.7  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.6    2 weeks ago
It is illegal to destroy or withhold evidence acquired during a House investigation.

Makes one wonder how much of that destroyed evidence was used to prosecute protestors.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.3.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.7    2 weeks ago

Probably quite a bit.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.9  Thomas  replied to  Ronin2 @1.3.6    2 weeks ago

Well, your First link is about the Democrats complaining that Secret Service had destroyed records. So that goes against your claim.

As for your second Link:

House Rule VII , which outlines preservation of House records at the end of each two-year Congress and has been used by nearly every Congress including the current one, loosely defines what has to be preserved. It says that committees should preserve an “official, permanent record of the committee (including any record of a legislative, oversight, or other activity of such committee or a subcommittee thereof).”

What committees consider an official record have varied widely over the years. For some, the definition includes hearing transcripts, official correspondence and drafts of legislation. Other committees might include staff notes and internal memos. Some preserve only their final report and notices of hearings that were held.

Then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), who is now speaker, sent Select Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.)   a letter in December   demanding the preservation of “all records collected and transcripts of testimony taken during your investigation” in accordance with House rules, but he had no authority to enforce it.

Because the committee disbanded moments before the new Congress controlled by Republicans was sworn in, their new rule ordering preservation of “any noncurrent records” from the committee could only apply to records that had already been transferred to a successor committee or to the National Archives. In essence, the Republicans couldn’t order the Jan. 6 select committee to turn over anything because it no longer existed.

Loudermilk shared with Fox a series of letters he and Thompson exchanged this year. In a footnote from a July 7 letter, Thompson wrote that, consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk, “the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee’s actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities.”

Thompson also said the select committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions, but determined that written transcripts were sufficient under House Rule VII.

So, they preserved the records that they deemed pertinent.  

It is illegal to destroy or withhold evidence acquired during a House investigation.

It wasn't when the committee was seated. 

Democrats shit on the law and Constitution daily

Neither party is great at creating anything but a lot of sound and fury, but I can remember when rules mattered because the government was greater than either party. 

why would they obey House rules?

They did.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

This will end as well for the Republicans as the Comer-Jordan clown show did. 

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Chairman of the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight, is a J6 conspirator himself. 

But I always wonder when I read crap like this, how does any of this, even if true,  exonerate the insurrectionists, or the person who sent them there?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2    2 weeks ago

What the hell does this even mean:

"politicization of Capitol security directly contributed to the many structural and procedural failures witnessed that day."

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago
In December 2019, Loudermilk likened the  impeachment of Trump  to the  crucifixion of Jesus .

In a floor speech, he said, "When  Jesus  was falsely accused of treason,  Pontius Pilate  gave Jesus the opportunity to face his accusers... During that sham trial, Pontius Pilate afforded more rights to Jesus than the Democrats have afforded this president in this process", a fact pattern disputed by religious scholarship and rated by  PolitiFact  as "false."

In December 2020, Loudermilk was one of 126 Republican members of the   House of Representatives   to sign an   amicus brief   in support of   Texas v. Pennsylvania , a lawsuit filed at the   United States Supreme Court   contesting the results of the   2020 presidential election , in which   Joe Biden   defeated   Trump. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case on the basis that Texas lacked   standing   under   Article III of the Constitution   to challenge the results of an election held by another state.

On January 7, 2021, Loudermilk and 139 other House Republicans voted against certifying Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes, despite no evidence of widespread election fraud.

Barry Loudermilk - Wikiwand
 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
3.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago

98% fact free Loudermilk , for those intolerant of the TRUTH!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.2  Thomas  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 weeks ago
On January 7, 2021, Loudermilk and 139 other House Republicans voted against certifying Arizona's and Pennsylvania's electoral votes, despite no evidence of widespread election fraud.

I say we run them out on a rail.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
3.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @3.2    2 weeks ago

With tar and feathers.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.2.2  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.1    2 weeks ago
With tar and feathers.

Nah. While that is traditional, they can even take the A-Train

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @3.2    2 weeks ago

None of them belong any where near the White House - The Capitol - anyone involved with the former 'president's' incitement and attempt to overturn the election.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

“People who joined Georgia GOP Rep. Barry Loudermilk for a Capitol complex tour on Jan. 5, 2021 photographed and recorded places “not typically of interest to tourists, including hallways, staircases, and security checkpoints,” according to materials released Wednesday by the Jan. 6 select committee.”

Yeah, let’s listen to this guy get to the bottom of Jan. 6.  Nobody was giving tours of the Capitol during covid, but this guy decided to not only give a tour on Jan. 5, but to make sure it covered areas with high value to Jan. 6 traitors that are never visited by the public.  You can’t make this shit up.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    2 weeks ago

Sounds like a security issue.  But we saw that the following day during the protest.  Wonder why nothing was said?  Oh, that's right, because it was a "Get Trump" Shit show and not an investigation.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
4.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @4.1    2 weeks ago

If you think nothing was said, then you obviously did not watch the hearings.  No surprise there.  Loudermilk’s activities were covered in detail.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.1    2 weeks ago

It is bizarre that people are allowed to gaslight this forum like this. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 weeks ago
It is bizarre that people are allowed to gaslight this forum like this. 

It seems even more bizarre if folks allow this forum to manipulate themselves into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
4.1.4  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.3    2 weeks ago

“It seems even more bizarre if folks allow this forum to manipulate themselves into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events.”

And only a contrarian would believe it bizarre. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @4.1.4    2 weeks ago
And only a contrarian would believe it bizarre.

Good point, maybe I’m guilty of thinking that most others are as resilient as I am.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.1.6  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.3    2 weeks ago
It seems even more bizarre if folks allow this forum to manipulate themselves into doubting their own perceptions, experiences or understanding of events.

Well, that depends now, doesn't it?

What is actual and what is factual? One can dress a comment in facts that are hard to tease out from the disingenuity of the post. Intrinsically, deep inside, we all know that the rioters on January 6th, for whatever misguided reason, wanted DJT to be ordained as their president. But they were wrong on the facts: Donald Trump got beat. They were wrong on their reason for being there: Donald Trump lost the election, fair and square. 

I am sorry that so many people have been enthralled by the shyster Donald Trump. Too bad. Go Home. But don't worry. DJT loves you. He promises.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.1.7  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4.1.1    2 weeks ago
Loudermilk’s activities were covered in detail.

And not a single thing was done to correct the problem.  Just another failure.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    2 weeks ago

I agree.    I watch my friends on the left try it nearly every day.    And then label folks who call them out, MAGA idiots.

Let the gaslight special

Shine a light on me

Let the gaslight special

Shine an ever lovin light on me ….

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @4.1.6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

You're awesome Thomas!

Those are the facts, Jack!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.10  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @4.1.6    2 weeks ago
I am sorry that so many people have been enthralled by the shyster Donald Trump. Too bad. Go Home. But don't worry. DJT loves you. He promises.

What does that have to do JR observation 4.1.2 that some get gaslit on this site?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

Holy cow DotW, that amazing.    You’re best, the best I tell you

100% spot on.    Never has someone been that spot on.    Woweee!

Are you sure you weren’t a Marine?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.1.12  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.10    2 weeks ago

That quote? Not as much as the people who confirm daily that they have been gaslit and presumably don't even know it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @4.1.12    2 weeks ago
people who confirm daily that they have been gaslit and presumably don't even know it.

Confirm what they don’t know?  Besides not answering my question in 4.1.10 you know seem to be meandering even farther off azimuth.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.11    2 weeks ago
Are you sure you weren’t a Marine?

To be honest, I’m not sure that I ever had the “right stuff” to be a Marine.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.14    2 weeks ago

Lol, nicely done.  
Plenty of room to go either way with that one.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
4.1.16  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.1.13    2 weeks ago

I answered it. You did not understand my answer. I do meander, however not now: Confirmation needs not be the knowledge of, only the statement of not.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
4.1.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @4.1.16    2 weeks ago
You did not understand my answer.

You got that right.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    2 weeks ago

I forgot all about those 'tours'.  Thanks for the reminder!  This is what he wants to cover up - he is complicit in 1/6 so time to investigate the investigators.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.3  Snuffy  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @4    2 weeks ago

Except the US Capital Police do not agree with the statement on Politico.

In a blow to the partisan 1/6 Select Committee's credibility, yesterday  Capitol Police Chief J. Thomas Manger wrote  to Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Rodney Davis (R-IL) that  "There is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with this group on January 5, 2021. We train our officers on being alert for people conducting surveillance or reconnaissance, and we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious."   This comes following false accusations from House Democrats and the 1/6 Select Committee that Republicans, including Committee Member Barry Loudermilk, gave reconnaissance tours. U.S. Capitol Police: "No Evidence" Rep. Loudermilk Gave Reconnaissance Tours - Press Releases - United States Committee on House Administration

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @4.3    2 weeks ago

They were staking out the Capitol for the former 'president's' planned incitement the next day.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
4.3.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.1    2 weeks ago

Prove it. The US Capital Police do not agree with your statement.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
4.3.3  seeder  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @4.3.1    2 weeks ago
former 'president's' planned incitement the next day.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif You still actually believe that nonsense. 

Despite your best efforts none of that has been proven.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5  Drinker of the Wry    2 weeks ago
Multiple witnesses confirmed to the committee that several senior Pentagon officials in charge of orchestrating the response were hampered by concerns about the "optics" of deploying the guard to protect the Capitol, an apprehension that delayed the law enforcement response. Ultimately, the National Guard arrived more than three hours after the Capitol Police called for help.

No insider knowledge here, but I've always thought the brass was worried about Trump trying to take charge of the troops to facilitate the 6 Jan perps.  To have had a force at the Capital before 12:00 PM would have required several days planning prior.  Without that prior planning, Mayor Bowser request for help at 02:00 PM was doomed from the start, too late to be effective without a force on stand by.

Another witness—Colonel Earl Matthews, who was the Chief Legal Advisor for the D.C. Army National Guard on January 6—told the committee he believes senior Pentagon leadership lied to Congress and mislead investigators. Both generals referenced by Matthews have previously pushed back on his characterization.

Perhaps they didn't want to publicly admit that they didn't trust Trump.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5    2 weeks ago
Perhaps they didn't want to publicly admit that they didn't trust Trump.

sounds like who we need back in the White house, a guy that our Generals do not trust...?

How this fckd up in the head, moraless marauder, who'd try and bang ones underage daughter, is running for PotUS instead of the lamb, being lead to the slaughter, is just plain crazy, as he and these crazy GOP Investigation, never hold water  , as they just distract and truth, hold back, and just murky up the lenz, to distort that which they attempt to straighten via the bends, that further gum up the works, all brought about by some Loudermilk jerks, off  on another misadventure Benghazi stylin about what difference does it make now,  what held up the Calvary, cause Trump and his intentions , quite easy to see. And the cover laid down, by his apologists, just adds a few more twists, to the sad story that has been Donald Trump. History will have this Republican owned and furthered along by, POS, as the lowest point in our short modern history, and should hopefully wake up the world, to the dangers that dwell within social distorted media, the 'right' wrong wing, and the Trump acceptance thing. Russia and the 'right' have played US for the ignorant nation this country has become, and just hopefully, we can get that undone, cause we owe it to so many who gave so much....

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
5.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1    2 weeks ago
who'd try and bang ones underage daughter, is running for PotUS instead of the lamb,

We don’t know that, maybe was only showering with his daughter.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1.1    2 weeks ago

who would you let babysit someones grand daughter ? The guy who brags about females allowing him to grab them buy the pussy, is an accused rapist, and twenty plus women have said Trump sexually assaulted them, +  while along with Epstein was named as a codefendant in an underaged rape later dropped when accuser couldn't be found, and then was found guilty in a civil trial of sexual assault/rape case and ordered to pay 80 plus million dollars to, or some old guy who apparently, according to Trump , can't string two sentences together, is so far gone he needs to take pause, out of his teleprompter reading ritual, and has what, two women accusing him and a daughter shower deal, yet nothing Golden here, accept for both their years and Trumps' bathing needs, as this just further feeds into Trumps bragging bout wading too deep to roe, cause now if he rapes someone's wife, sister, daughter, mother, grandaughter, brother, fathers' son, and impregnates they, will they be able to abort Trumps decision, or will they be forced to face his Federal State of Denial, where as state lines need crossed like females legs around Trump, the orange hump who couldn't moisten that camels toe fungus, for who among US, believes the orange clown sitting in court wouldn't fly from the nearest airport to guarantee the aborted mission, as he pays his little playmates and pornstars, $135,000.00 on average to keep Melania safe from he, till she need take a pee wee Herman stance, but by chance , in General, do you possibly believe, Trump gave the Brass damn good reason to not trust his ass, cause i think there are reasons good and plenty, candy be not accepted by one who might molest it, Candy, cause there is quite the Stormy battle to allow the tattle tale of such a stand up guy paying for fake stories on the others, while paying off the captured to kill the Trump thrill, of his own mighty sexual conquests, that only cost a little over a quarter million, as the art of the deal exampled yet again, but worry about Joe, cause only TIME already did tell

 
 
 
GregTx
PhD Guide
5.1.3  GregTx  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.4  Igknorantzruls  replied to  GregTx @5.1.3    2 weeks ago

gonna let your daughter play the Trumpet, cause i'll go with slow Joe

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.2    2 weeks ago
who would you let babysit someones grand daughter

Definitely not the guy who sniffs her hair and wants to shower with her. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
5.1.6  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

yea, go with the rapist

feel sorry for any of your grandkids

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @5.1.4    2 weeks ago

They like mushrooms.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6  Thomas    2 weeks ago

Bring it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
6.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Thomas @6    2 weeks ago

Get it on, bang a gong, get it on
Get it on, bang a gong, get it on

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
6.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @6.1    2 weeks ago

zactly

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
7  Thomas    2 weeks ago

The real person to be held accountable for January 6th is Donald Trump. 

No amount of prevarication can deny that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @7    2 weeks ago

Truth.

 
 

Who is online

Thomas
Sean Treacy


59 visitors