Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Jan. 6th Insurrection Conspiracy Theory totally debunked.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mostly

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
      mostly
      Tell that to the families of people that died and to those that were injured.
      Keep on Civin'
      RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

      Comment


      • Berzerker
        Berzerker commented
        Editing a comment
        I was quoting the people who said BLM protests were mostly peaceful

    • conspiring to "oppose by force the execution of the laws governing the transfer of presidential power"
      Conspiring to riot... Our VP was raising $$$ to bail out rioters who were of course opposing by force the execution of the laws governing cities across the country.


      Rhodes, who is not believed to have entered the Capitol but was seen with several of the defendants gathered outside on Capitol grounds both before and after they entered the building, has denied any involvement in urging the group to storm the building and has said he believes it was wrong for the members of the group to do so.
      In previous court documents in the conspiracy case against the Oath Keepers, Rhodes was repeatedly referred to as "Person 1" as prosecutors outlined his communications to members in advance of Jan. 6.
      Several members of the group are alleged to have stashed heavy weapons at a hotel in Virginia and positioned a so-called "Quick Reaction Force" that would come to Washington in the event of significant violence or if former President Donald Trump invoked the Insurrection Act.
      They were there to help Trump if he invoked the Insurrection Act? That means they were there to enforce the law, not oppose it. I have no idea what the insurrection act says but given the context of a summer of 500+ riots MAGA true believers would be expecting another one if Trump invoked some power and needed help. That would be my approach if I was defending them in court. Besides, nobody other than govt people pulled guns and only 1 person got shot. This was a riot, they would not have left the heavy stuff at some hotel if the riot was the insurrection.

      Comment


      • -Jrabbit
        -Jrabbit commented
        Editing a comment
        There's a big difference between "my defense" and the "actual facts." Also, there is no scenario where the lawful POTUS, with the force of the entire fedgov behind him, would "need help" from "MAGA true believers."

        I remain amazed at Trump's teflon-like ability to avoid being blamed for blowing the whole election while he was the man in charge. How fvcking great could he actually be if, while in charge, he actually let the election be stolen from him?

      • Berzerker
        Berzerker commented
        Editing a comment
        these people were expecting a civil war, cant really blame them... The Democrats spent months before the election rioting

    • Hang Mike Pence... Hang Mike Pence... just a few people out having a good time
      Keep on Civin'
      RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

      Comment


      • I would have laughed if Pence appeared before the guy shouting that. Like the kid in school talking tough about someone just as they walk around the corner.

        Comment


        • I have to withdraw my defense of the Proud Boy, I think they got more on him than what was in the article

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ming View Post

            Tell that to the families of people that died and to those that were injured.
            The "people who died"? One woman was shot by the police, one person died of a drug over dose, and three people had unrelated health problems which killed them. Rioters are still bad and need to be punished, all rioters including the ones your side likes and tends to ignore, but a riot is not an insurrection. I am willing to examine new evidence honestly but am highly skeptical about mystery charges appearing a year later after the Democrat narrative had pretty much fallen apart. We will see.
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Berzerker View Post

              They were there to help Trump if he invoked the Insurrection Act? That means they were there to enforce the law, not oppose it. I have no idea what the insurrection act says but given the context of a summer of 500+ riots MAGA true believers would be expecting another one if Trump invoked some power and needed help. That would be my approach if I was defending them in court. Besides, nobody other than govt people pulled guns and only 1 person got shot. This was a riot, they would not have left the heavy stuff at some hotel if the riot was the insurrection.
              That wouldn't fly for several reasons. (1) The Insurrection Act cannot be invoked solely by the POTUS on his or her own initiative where state government is operating, absent a finding that a class of persons is being deprived of a constitutional right secured by law. That exception is the authority used by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to enforce school desegregation. There must either be a request for assistance, and POTUS must then agree that such assistance is necessary in the circumstance, or state or local government rendered incapable of functioning (e.g. situations like Hurricane Katrina), or state government must fail or refuse to enforce a constitutional right secured by law. In the context of January 6 scenarios, the range of circumstances under which Trump could have invoked the Insurrection Act was extremely narrow. (2) The functions of the "militia" as referred to in the act are assumed by state or DC national guard, or by the Armed Forces as defined in Title 10, U.S.C., not a self-designated "militia" like Oathkeepers. Unless an individual was a member of, and under orders of, a state or DC national guard unit placed under Title 10 authority, or certain federal government employees acting under authority and orders of their agency, he or she would have no authority to act under such an invocation by POTUS. (3) Assuming they did have any authority, their sole charge would be to restore order so that the relevant government could function, or enforce the existing laws which were the subject of 332 authority, and such other laws only as needed to restore and maintain legal order. In other words, the Insurrection Act doesn't convey indefinite general law enforcement authority, nor does it allow POTUS to bypass existing law and rule by proclamation. This means that if the Insurrection Act had been invoked, it could not be used to prevent or alter the manner in which the joint session of Congress counted and certified the electoral college vote. Nor could they "arrest" members of Congress (due to constitutional immunity regardless of other legal basis) to alter the manner in which the joint session acted.

              The biggest problem the Oathkeepers have vis-a-vis this indictment is that they adhere to their own interpretation of the Constitution and the law, and consider themselves privileged to ignore SCOTUS or lower court rulings, Congress or state and local government, Presidents they don't like (funny to imagine them rallying to aid President Obama ), and pretty much anything else they disagree with.

              As far as leaving the heavy hardware behind, that makes sense in the time and the environment. If they showed up loaded for bear in a caravan (concealed or otherwise) they would be much more visible and draw attention before things happened. They would be subject to search and arrest going into DC whether they went individually or in small groups. Too much risk of prematurely alerting the authorities they oppose. For their scenario to play out, it would take time from initial disorder to invocation of the Insurrection Act, and they would either have had additional members collecting and bringing the hardware, or had time to send people to do that and come back.

              For purpose of the seditious conspiracy statute in the indictment the scenario didn't have to occur or even be reasonably plausible. Two or more simply had to conspire and one take minimal preparatory action in furtherance of the conspiracy.
              When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dinner View Post

                The "people who died"? One woman was shot by the police, one person died of a drug over dose, and three people had unrelated health problems which killed them. Rioters are still bad and need to be punished, all rioters including the ones your side likes and tends to ignore, but a riot is not an insurrection. I am willing to examine new evidence honestly but am highly skeptical about mystery charges appearing a year later after the Democrat narrative had pretty much fallen apart. We will see.
                I have never sided with rioters... Peaceful protesting is fine, but once it gets out of hand, to hell with all of them.
                And I am also open to ALL the Evidence. The fact that it is a year later means nothing to me since it takes time to gather evidence and build a case.
                And exactly what Democrat narrative has fallen apart are you talking about?
                We do know the Republican narrative has fallen apart... Trump lost. No PROOF OF ANY massive fraud. Yet he keeps telling his BS lies. There was no Steal to Stop.
                Keep on Civin'
                RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Dinner View Post

                  The "people who died"? One woman was shot by the police, one person died of a drug over dose, and three people had unrelated health problems which killed them. Rioters are still bad and need to be punished, all rioters including the ones your side likes and tends to ignore, but a riot is not an insurrection. I am willing to examine new evidence honestly but am highly skeptical about mystery charges appearing a year later after the Democrat narrative had pretty much fallen apart. We will see.
                  I guess a Capitol Police officer beaten to death doesn't count? And why was the woman shot by police? Trying to illegally force entry into the Capital building as it was being assaulted and breached in multiple locations. As for people with "underlying heath conditions" - were they going to die that day regardless? Or dud being metaphorically worked into a frenzy and then running amok contribute a bit? But for causation is a thing.

                  As far as "mystery charge" - a year to unseal indictments isn't unusual in complex cases, and there are multiple strategic considerations for the timing of unsealing. There have been two or three successful seditious conspiracy prosecutions in the last 70 years or so, so it's not like bank robbery, and there's generally a detailed internal process for a charging decision of that nature before you ever present to a grand jury.
                  When all else fails, blame brown people. | Hire a teen, while they still know it all. | Trump-Palin 2016. "You're fired." "I quit."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ming View Post

                    I have never sided with rioters... Peaceful protesting is fine, but once it gets out of hand, to hell with all of them.
                    And I am also open to ALL the Evidence. The fact that it is a year later means nothing to me since it takes time to gather evidence and build a case.
                    And exactly what Democrat narrative has fallen apart are you talking about?
                    We do know the Republican narrative has fallen apart... Trump lost. No PROOF OF ANY massive fraud. Yet he keeps telling his BS lies. There was no Steal to Stop.
                    I have never claimed or supported the claim about election fraud. I did repeatedly said I thought the government should go with maximum transparency as their default because it reduces the room for conspiracy theories. That said, I greatly dislike how all the rules about who can vote and how to vote got changed just weeks before the election. Yes, sudden rules changes before elections should be outlawed simply as a fairness issue because we have all seen parties trying to game the rules to their favor.


                    As for the Democrat narrative/lie that a relatively small and minor riot was some an "insurrection"... Yes, that has fallen apart up until yesterday. We saw almost immediately the FBI saying there was no organized threat of an insurrection, there was no evidence for a conspiracy, etc... We have evidence that the FBI in many ways incited events which really is not something law enforcement shod do. We know that Democrat lies about an officer being killed were complete fabrications deliberately put out by Democrat operatives and the official police records hidden for almost four months. Yes, much of the lie about "insurrection" definitely has fallen apart. That is why these new charges suddenly appearing a year later after even the MSM started pointing out it was a riot and not an I surrection suddenly popping up seem rather suspect.
                    Last edited by Dinner; January 14, 2022, 18:00.
                    Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat View Post

                      I guess a Capitol Police officer beaten to death doesn't count? And why was the woman shot by police? Trying to illegally force entry into the Capital building as it was being assaulted and breached in multiple locations. As for people with "underlying heath conditions" - were they going to die that day regardless? Or dud being metaphorically worked into a frenzy and then running amok contribute a bit? But for causation is a thing.

                      As far as "mystery charge" - a year to unseal indictments isn't unusual in complex cases, and there are multiple strategic considerations for the timing of unsealing. There have been two or three successful seditious conspiracy prosecutions in the last 70 years or so, so it's not like bank robbery, and there's generally a detailed internal process for a charging decision of that nature before you ever present to a grand jury.
                      Jesus Christ, man. A year ago that lie was debunked by the Capital Police themselves and the officer's own mother. He had a stroke the next day and it was determined by the medical exa.iner to be totally unrelated. Do some basic fact checking.
                      Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                        I have never claimed or supported the claim about election fraud. I did repeatedly said I thought the government should go with maximum transparency as their default because it reduces the room for conspiracy theories. That said, I greatly dislike how all the rules about who can vote and how to vote got changed just weeks before the election. Yes, sudden rules changes before elections should be outlawed simply as a fairness issue because we have all seen parties trying to game the rules to their favor.
                        Gee, a once in a lifetime pandemic seemed like a good reason to make it SAFER to vote.
                        And as far as parties trying to game the rules... what the Republicans are doing now at the state level is just a BS way to keep minorities and poor people from voting... and yes, both sides gerrymander

                        Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                        As for the Democrat narrative/lie that a relatively small and minor riot was some an "insurrection"... Yes, that has fallen apart up until yesterday.
                        It only "fell apart in the eyes of the right... because the majority of people in the US saw what everybody else saw... an attack on our Democracy

                        Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                        We have evidence that the FBI in many ways incited events which really is not something law enforcement shod do.
                        The "evidence" you seem to claim is weak at best, and has been debunked by the Jan 6 panel.
                        The person that did the most to incite events on that day was Trump...



                        Keep on Civin'
                        RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron O

                        Comment


                        • Please watch.

                          https://youtu.be/GTxUFZH_KEk
                          Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ming View Post
                            what the Republicans are doing now at the state level is just a BS way to keep minorities and poor people from voting... and yes, both sides gerrymander
                            So racist. Why do Democrats get to be racist again both white people and minorities?
                            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X