Insurrection Hearings 6/9-6/23

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

None of the links in that article actually point anywhere. Do you have more reliable sourcing?

There are PDF links and this is the Capitol Police timeline. That's my concern. The situation seemed to have changed four days before the event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

This is the truth. Every last one of these lying POSs was in on it. I don’t care what they say in their hearings and under oath; we know that Republicans have no problem lying under oath and in hearings. The rot is way, way deeper than this stuff. Trump and his cronies were way too effing stupid to accumulate the power and popularity that they had without help from the GOP machine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

You are gaslighting. Yes, the Capitol Police Chief messed up by not getting police reinforcements. Everyone agrees with that. But the Kash Patel article is bullshit. There was no offer from DOD. It was a question to the Capitol Police. Will you be requesting National Guard? Because if there is a request then the Army figures out who and how many and rules of engagement. Capitol Police said no. DC said yes to DC NG and their orders from the Secretary of Defense were essentially to be unarmed traffic cops. What you are missing is that NG were never going to be in the Capitol in riot gear holding off the fascists. We don’t use the military that way. They would have been unarmed, unarmored, out blocking streets and patrolling the perimeter of the mall to keep counter protestors away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

You are gaslighting. Yes, the Capitol Police Chief messed up by not getting police reinforcements. Everyone agrees with that. But the Kash Patel article is bullshit. There was no offer from DOD. It was a question to the Capitol Police. Will you be requesting National Guard? Because if there is a request then the Army figures out who and how many and rules of engagement. Capitol Police said no. DC said yes to DC NG and their orders from the Secretary of Defense were essentially to be unarmed traffic cops. What you are missing is that NG were never going to be in the Capitol in riot gear holding off the fascists. We don’t use the military that way. They would have been unarmed, unarmored, out blocking streets and patrolling the perimeter of the mall to keep counter protestors away.

I don't think people understand how unprecedented Trumps orders for fully armed National Guard to attack peaceful BLM protesters was, so with that horrible image in their heads, they expected to see that at the Capitol too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

You are gaslighting. Yes, the Capitol Police Chief messed up by not getting police reinforcements. Everyone agrees with that. But the Kash Patel article is bullshit. There was no offer from DOD. It was a question to the Capitol Police. Will you be requesting National Guard? Because if there is a request then the Army figures out who and how many and rules of engagement. Capitol Police said no. DC said yes to DC NG and their orders from the Secretary of Defense were essentially to be unarmed traffic cops. What you are missing is that NG were never going to be in the Capitol in riot gear holding off the fascists. We don’t use the military that way. They would have been unarmed, unarmored, out blocking streets and patrolling the perimeter of the mall to keep counter protestors away.

I'm not gaslighting. I'm concerned based on what I'm reading. What someone tells me they think is going to happen isn't necessarily what would have happened. I'm trying to learn the facts through released documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

This is the truth. Every last one of these lying POSs was in on it. I don’t care what they say in their hearings and under oath; we know that Republicans have no problem lying under oath and in hearings. The rot is way, way deeper than this stuff. Trump and his cronies were way too effing stupid to accumulate the power and popularity that they had without help from the GOP machine.

Yes, but Democrats and reasonable Republicans need the help of these very same opportunistic politicians you're talking about, in order to cancel Trump. The hearings are the way out of Trumpland. It's not the way out of MAGA, or conspiracy theories, or the rising threat of Christian Nationalism / White Supremacy. It's just rational people offering an escape hatch for all the politicians who were in on the grift and lies, to pivot from their former leader and whitewash themselves.

This is how politics work, people! You have to negotiate with terrorists and people who are morally repulsive all the time. You think Liz Cheney is a heroine? Just in this one instance, she is. In any other matter, of course not! And there are plenty of Democrat vermin around - it's just that they've been given the role of the good guys for the past few years and nobody's looked too closely at them.

Beware of DeSantis, the heir to the MAGA crown. He's a career politician, he's much savvier than Trump, he knows exactly how to work the system, how far to go, and he's all in on gun rights and complete control of women. He might not be the kind of person to attempt a coup, but he won't need one to severe decrease your safety and rights as much as possible...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

You are gaslighting. Yes, the Capitol Police Chief messed up by not getting police reinforcements. Everyone agrees with that. But the Kash Patel article is bullshit. There was no offer from DOD. It was a question to the Capitol Police. Will you be requesting National Guard? Because if there is a request then the Army figures out who and how many and rules of engagement. Capitol Police said no. DC said yes to DC NG and their orders from the Secretary of Defense were essentially to be unarmed traffic cops. What you are missing is that NG were never going to be in the Capitol in riot gear holding off the fascists. We don’t use the military that way. They would have been unarmed, unarmored, out blocking streets and patrolling the perimeter of the mall to keep counter protestors away.

I'm not gaslighting. I'm concerned based on what I'm reading. What someone tells me they think is going to happen isn't necessarily what would have happened. I'm trying to learn the facts through released documents.

You led off with MAGA propaganda and are still clinging to it. Kash Patel is Devin Nunes’ disinformation guy. The way he framed this is a lie that you want to believe, but it isn’t true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

This is the truth. Every last one of these lying POSs was in on it. I don’t care what they say in their hearings and under oath; we know that Republicans have no problem lying under oath and in hearings. The rot is way, way deeper than this stuff. Trump and his cronies were way too effing stupid to accumulate the power and popularity that they had without help from the GOP machine.

Yes, but Democrats and reasonable Republicans need the help of these very same opportunistic politicians you're talking about, in order to cancel Trump. The hearings are the way out of Trumpland. It's not the way out of MAGA, or conspiracy theories, or the rising threat of Christian Nationalism / White Supremacy. It's just rational people offering an escape hatch for all the politicians who were in on the grift and lies, to pivot from their former leader and whitewash themselves.

This is how politics work, people! You have to negotiate with terrorists and people who are morally repulsive all the time. You think Liz Cheney is a heroine? Just in this one instance, she is. In any other matter, of course not! And there are plenty of Democrat vermin around - it's just that they've been given the role of the good guys for the past few years and nobody's looked too closely at them.

Beware of DeSantis, the heir to the MAGA crown. He's a career politician, he's much savvier than Trump, he knows exactly how to work the system, how far to go, and he's all in on gun rights and complete control of women. He might not be the kind of person to attempt a coup, but he won't need one to severe decrease your safety and rights as much as possible...

Yeah, let’s just repeat 1865’s mistakes. Just let seditious people, crazy people, people who went all on Q, people who may have planted bombs on 1/5, people who took money from foreign countries, let’s just let them “pivot.” Great idea.

And way to both sides things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

Will Ron DeSantis step aside if Trump runs for the nomination in 2024 or will he actually challenge Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't they dedicating more time to the financial grift?

Since no one seems to be moved by ethics and morals on the Trump side, perhaps the electorate who donated hard earned money will only be persuaded by this the financial fraud aspect of this.

I'm not sure they mind being fleeced to finance the lifestyles of these shameless con artists. After all, they continue to send their cash to the NRA to pay for Wayne LaPierre's private jets for his family to vacay in the Caribbean.

It is very hard to admit you've been conned. It's embarrassing.

The more this goes on while other much more serious issues are ignored, the more conservative I become.

what is more serious than the losing candidate trying to steal an election he lost? and the other issues (i guess you are referring to the economy and inflation) they are not ignored and the US is facing them like all other major economies in the world (and everybody else, and at least we are not facing starvation)

DP.. this is what liberals don't get. A lot of people don't really care about our democracy. Money trumps everything. They care more about day to day living, having sh1t to buy, than whether our democracy is under threat or there is a corrupt dictator in the WH.

Germans circa 1930s is a perfect example of how people really don't care about real freedoms.

Americans have never lived under an actual dictator (thankfully, Trump was hamstrung by external and internal forces), so they take our political system and the thin veneer of a civilized society for granted.

This is why many people who lived under the former USSR would rather go back to that than the type of "democracy" they have now because at least back then they had government rationed food. When "democracy" came, it was harder for them.

People are willing to look the other way if they can be guaranteed their creature comforts. It's also why Melania Trump looks the other way from Trump's many infidelities and corruptions.

Well, okay. That's a snapshot of today.

But on January 6, the insurrectionists weren't looking for lower inflation or food. They wanted Trump to steal (stop the steal) the presidency.

I am very concerned about the lack of security that day. I understand Trump asked for extra coverage in advance that day and it was turned down by the house. Is that true?

That is not at all true. From where do you understand that?

Here’s a timeline I saw. It has PDF links

https://adnamerica.com/en/united-states/trump-pentagon-first-offered-national-guard-capitol-four-days-jan-6-riots-memo-shows

That’s not Trump offering anything or Pelosi refusing anything. That’s a DoD bureaucrat asking a Capitol Police bureaucrat whether they would be requesting National Guard troops, and Patel lying about what that meant. Nobody should want National Guard to be front-line law enforcement at the Capitol. That isn’t an appropriate use. The Guard was misused in the fascist police state action in Lafayette Square and no one wanted a repeat of that. The problem at the Capitol was not the absence of the National Guard. It was the President inciting a fascist coup attempt.

According to the Capitol Police, though, there was chatter a week or so prior that there were violent groups planning on being there.

"But by late December, Capitol Police internal emails and documents show, information began flowing in that some groups expected to attend were talking on social media or fringe websites about tactics like blocking tunnels leading to the Capitol.

On Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, just hours after Gallagher rejected the Pentagon's initial offer, the Capitol Police issued a new and darker security assessment to its commanders and executives and to the two political appointees in Congress responsible for security, the House and Senate sergeants at arms, the timeline shows."

I'd love to dismiss it too, but to do so I would have to dismiss the Capitol Police timeline and I'm not inclined to do so. Not wanting there to be proper police coverage due to image seems short sighted to me.

You are gaslighting. Yes, the Capitol Police Chief messed up by not getting police reinforcements. Everyone agrees with that. But the Kash Patel article is bullshit. There was no offer from DOD. It was a question to the Capitol Police. Will you be requesting National Guard? Because if there is a request then the Army figures out who and how many and rules of engagement. Capitol Police said no. DC said yes to DC NG and their orders from the Secretary of Defense were essentially to be unarmed traffic cops. What you are missing is that NG were never going to be in the Capitol in riot gear holding off the fascists. We don’t use the military that way. They would have been unarmed, unarmored, out blocking streets and patrolling the perimeter of the mall to keep counter protestors away.

I don't think people understand how unprecedented Trumps orders for fully armed National Guard to attack peaceful BLM protesters was, so with that horrible image in their heads, they expected to see that at the Capitol too.

Yes, what a dark day. After that, nothing surprised me, not even Jan. 6th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

Will Ron DeSantis step aside if Trump runs for the nomination in 2024 or will he actually challenge Trump?

I know Ron.
He’s said some very nice things about me.
“Oh sir, Mr. Trump, sir, it’s such an honor to meet you, sir.”
That’s what he said.

But I find him boring, quite frankly.
I find him boring, if you want to know the truth.

So we’ll have to see.
We’ll have to see what happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Republican politicians are paying close attention and these hearings have the potential to sway their political direction.

None of them privately want Trump to be President again. However a lot of them have publicly supported him to gain a fund-raising advantage on the back of the right's massive efforts to find election fraud. They desperately need an external pivot, because they've boxed themselves in with Trump, despite wanting another conservative as President, someone who can win against Biden (easier in times of high inflation) and unite the Republican party, which is fractured right now in Trump and anti-Trump camps.

So everyone's watching and waiting for a few high-profile Republicans to lead them away from Trump.

DeSantis is loving this, and is the right-wing conservative a lot of voters could pivot to. On the other hand, Hogan can bill himself as a never-Trumper and a fresh start. Liz Cheney can ride on bipartisanship and the one who finally closed the chapter on Trump. The field is wide open, and the hearings are significantly decreasing Trump's chances of running again by showing that people in his orbit really thought he was crazy.

I agree with this statement. Look at Barr, trying to be all concerned calling Trump delusional. Look at Stepien calling himself "Team Normal". These guys were 1000% in on the grift, the lies, and coup but they got out just in time and are now on an image rehab tour. This gives cover for others to join in. Heck, even Fox is now showing the hearings. This. Is. Their. Offramp!

They're all gunning for DeSantis. All the MAGA w/out the tweets.

I'm grateful for the J6 committee and their work but they are setting this up to be only Trump and Team Crazy and the rot is so much deeper.

Will Ron DeSantis step aside if Trump runs for the nomination in 2024 or will he actually challenge Trump?

Open question. I'd bet he will seize his moment if he thinks there's a chance he'd beat Trump.

I hate him so much. But if I had to choose between him and Trump - and why not just ask if I'd like a diarrhea sandwich or a puke omelette - I would choose DeSantis.

[Anonymous]

Video of ppl avoiding using the actual dirty words. Personally, I love all the effin bad words coming out of this commission. Good tv!