Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Maik Jeaunz

Recommended Posts

I was going to start a new thread - but it will just be deleted.  But, one of the things I was thinking about this morning:

Should the rioters be charged with homicide?  Should Trump?

 

Now, I never did any criminal law, so I am way out of my element here - but I have slept at a Holliday Inn Express in the distant past - but I think a plausible argument can be made that these were all co-conspirators engaged in the commission of a felony - destruction of federal property/building.  I don't know the elements of a conspiracy claim - i.e. do they have to be involved in the planning, etc.  But, if you prove the conspiracy - then you go after each of them as accessories to homicide.

 

Certainly many of the rioters would claim they were just interested in trespassing - not destruction.  And many would claim there was no premeditated thought to breeching the capital, that they just got swept up in the crowd.

 But we have seen video of a number of people talking before the rally about storming the Capitol.  And, where the woman was shot, you would have a lot of people who were engaged in destruction with her.  I don't know the details of the other 4 deaths, but I could make an argument they were all foreseeable results of storming the Capitol.

 

I am not sure the charges could be proved in court - and that may be the threshold a prosecutor would take - but it sure feels like some of those people deserve more than a simple trespassing charge - and it would send a powerful message about being involved in these activities in the future.

 

And, if you can prove the charges against the rioters, then I think you have a pretty strong case against Trump - specifically for his speech, if not for all of the encouragement he provided for the rally in the days before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, the rover said:

Did they accomplish anything?

Yes, they did. 

They hindered or delayed the constitutionally required congressional certification process of the election (Constitutional law). That was the entire motivation, beginning with Trump saying at the white house rally "We will STOP THE STEAL", and ending with the mob chanting "STOP THE STEAL... STOP THE STEAL" over and over in the halls of the Capitol, after they breached it, and caused congress to pause the certification process. 

From: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

Quote

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

U.S. Code

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

The Constitution requires both chambers of Congress to meet before the inauguration to count the electoral votes from every state. They accomplished a delay of that law (The Constitution). 

So they, those who said the words "STOP THE STEAL", which includes Donald Trump, accomplished a violation of "18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy"

And for those who believe Donald Trump didn't because he did not breach the Capitol, he was clearly the Pied Piper of the mob. And the Pied Piper does not get to stop, turn and claim "these people are not following me" when they get out of hand, which is exactly what his video last night is an attempt to do. Sorry Trump. You still committed the crime with them. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

I was going to start a new thread - but it will just be deleted.  But, one of the things I was thinking about this morning:

Should the rioters be charged with homicide?  Should Trump?

 

Now, I never did any criminal law, so I am way out of my element here - but I have slept at a Holliday Inn Express in the distant past - but I think a plausible argument can be made that these were all co-conspirators engaged in the commission of a felony - destruction of federal property/building.  I don't know the elements of a conspiracy claim - i.e. do they have to be involved in the planning, etc.  But, if you prove the conspiracy - then you go after each of them as accessories to homicide.

 

Certainly many of the rioters would claim they were just interested in trespassing - not destruction.  And many would claim there was no premeditated thought to breeching the capital, that they just got swept up in the crowd.

 But we have seen video of a number of people talking before the rally about storming the Capitol.  And, where the woman was shot, you would have a lot of people who were engaged in destruction with her.  I don't know the details of the other 4 deaths, but I could make an argument they were all foreseeable results of storming the Capitol.

 

I am not sure the charges could be proved in court - and that may be the threshold a prosecutor would take - but it sure feels like some of those people deserve more than a simple trespassing charge - and it would send a powerful message about being involved in these activities in the future.

 

And, if you can prove the charges against the rioters, then I think you have a pretty strong case against Trump - specifically for his speech, if not for all of the encouragement he provided for the rally in the days before it.

IMO the woman that was shot and killed died because of her own actions. She may have been spurred on by Trump and others but it was her decision to storm the capitol.

In the case of the police officer I know that if that was a member of my family I would certainly file a wrongful death suit against Trumps, Rudy and anyone else that was on stage.  It might be a tough case to win but IMO the president's words and actions encouraged the violence that resulted in his death.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Godsbrother said:

IMO the woman that was shot and killed died because of her own actions

No doubt. But same is true of a bank robber that dies in a botched robbery and his accomplices get charged with his death. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fake Antifa conspiracy being spread by Mo Brooks and others is horrible. But this morning I’m hearing conspiracy talk from the other side: that the the Capitol Police weren’t incompetent, they were complicit from the top down in working with the rioters. 
In other words, the police cooperated in a riot in which they were beaten up and one was killed. OK sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, timschochet said:

The fake Antifa conspiracy being spread by Mo Brooks and others is horrible. But this morning I’m hearing conspiracy talk from the other side: that the the Capitol Police weren’t incompetent, they were complicit from the top down in working with the rioters. 
In other words, the police cooperated in a riot in which they were beaten up and one was killed. OK sure. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-attempted-coup-federal-law-enforcement-capitol-police-2021-1?fbclid=IwAR27V2cS65sbNYHj_IM7S-4aDaN94YjnO2xyXh4gbwnomKYimIBoe5L8ZGU

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, yak651 said:

So conspiracy friends are sayin the girl shot and killed is still alive and it was all staged that's why they were staying withing the tour ropes....smh

In bizarro world, this totally makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alex P Keaton said:

As with any conspiracy theory you’d better have real evidence, not suspicions. I’m open to facts, always, but this seems unlikely. 
Now I do believe that individual cops were sympathetic to the protestors. And also I totally agree with the notion that they treated these rioters much more gingerly than they would have a group of black rioters- that’s absolutely true IMO. But a top down complicity? Show me the evidence because otherwise I don’t buy it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The fake Antifa conspiracy being spread by Mo Brooks and others is horrible. But this morning I’m hearing conspiracy talk from the other side: that the the Capitol Police weren’t incompetent, they were complicit from the top down in working with the rioters. 
In other words, the police cooperated in a riot in which they were beaten up and one was killed. OK sure. 

Yeah also saying the cop isn't dead, he just went home because he wasn't feeling well....takes all my self control to not respond

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

As with any conspiracy theory you’d better have real evidence, not suspicions. I’m open to facts, always, but this seems unlikely. 
Now I do believe that individual cops were sympathetic to the protestors. And also I totally agree with the notion that they treated these rioters much more gingerly than they would have a group of black rioters- that’s absolutely true IMO. But a top down complicity? Show me the evidence because otherwise I don’t buy it. 

I suppose it depends on what one means by "top-down complicity".  If one means "Trump himself denied the DC officials request for NG beforehand, and delayed the NG deployment during the event" then I think you can say that "federal official(s) assisted in the coup attempt".  If one means something broader, then yeah, I'm going to need some more evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

As with any conspiracy theory you’d better have real evidence, not suspicions. I’m open to facts, always, but this seems unlikely. 
Now I do believe that individual cops were sympathetic to the protestors. And also I totally agree with the notion that they treated these rioters much more gingerly than they would have a group of black rioters- that’s absolutely true IMO. But a top down complicity? Show me the evidence because otherwise I don’t buy it. 

I get believing the government isn't looking out for your best interest but don't understand the people that believe the conspiracies with the voter fraud and the the riots.  How many times have 1-4 people not been able to keep quite about rolling over a 7-11 or some other crime?  Yet with this voter fraud and riots hundreds to thousands of people would have to be in on it to carry it out.  And none of these people let it slip that they are in on it?  No one is so proud of what they accomplished that they don't say, "yeah I'm part of that"?  I guess they just picked all the strong willed people that won't boast about their accomplishment....

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, people are really rewriting history on the summer riots and how police acted during them. Guess everyone forgets the autonomous zone or how a police precinct was burned in Minneapolis and the police just went home.  But all I keep hearing about is how differently the Capitol building rioters were treated than the summer rioters. Gross. And everyone just buys into it and eats it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Man, people are really rewriting history on the summer riots and how police acted during them. Guess everyone forgets the autonomous zone or how a police precinct was burned in Minneapolis and the police just went home.  But all I keep hearing about is how differently the Capitol building rioters were treated than the summer rioters. Gross. And everyone just buys into it and eats it up.

Nobody wants to admit that they're complicit in all of this.  The people who cheered on the violence this summer aren't that different than the people who indulged this crazy conspiracy about the election being stolen -- they both thought it would be cute to play with fire and now they're wonder why the house is burning.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jobarules said:

Man, people are really rewriting history on the summer riots and how police acted during them. Guess everyone forgets the autonomous zone or how a police precinct was burned in Minneapolis and the police just went home.  But all I keep hearing about is how differently the Capitol building rioters were treated than the summer rioters. Gross. And everyone just buys into it and eats it up.

The claim is just that black protestors storming the US Capitol on Jan 6 would've been treated differently. I believe that is true.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I suppose it depends on what one means by "top-down complicity".  If one means "Trump himself denied the DC officials request for NG beforehand, and delayed the NG deployment during the event" then I think you can say that "federal official(s) assisted in the coup attempt".  If one means something broader, then yeah, I'm going to need some more evidence.

He's getting spun up on his own misunderstanding of what top-down means. 

Quote

 

top-down

adjective [ before noun ]

US  /ˌtɑːpˈdaʊn/ UK  /ˌtɒpˈdaʊn/

used to refer to a situation in which decisions are made by a few people in authority rather than by the people who are affected by the decisions

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, timschochet said:

As with any conspiracy theory you’d better have real evidence, not suspicions. I’m open to facts, always, but this seems unlikely. 
Now I do believe that individual cops were sympathetic to the protestors. And also I totally agree with the notion that they treated these rioters much more gingerly than they would have a group of black rioters- that’s absolutely true IMO. But a top down complicity? Show me the evidence because otherwise I don’t buy it. 

I've been on such a roller coaster ride with this, going from thanking god that only one person was shot, to the other extreme that I think foreign enemies are kicking themselves for not seeing a huge weakness in our national defense. 

I mean, if a foreign country wanted to really strike a blow against on par with Pearl Harbor, Jan 6th was their opportunity to do it. Just a half dozen more people wearing backpacks in that crowd that got inside the Capitol, and it would be a shell right now. 

The crowd never should have gotten as far as they did. At best they would have been able to bang on the door, and even then with a crowd that size it's a huge danger as guys with backpacks could still do a lot of damage with that opportunity. 

I don't know why the defense was so lacking, but not only does why it was so lacking need to be answered, but it needs to be corrected ASAP!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luke Russert@LukeRussert

Too many of us are too conspiratorial these days but something is not right. VP-Speaker-Pro tempore should not have been so endangered, esp given how much was known about the intentions of the terrorists. We’re in a Constitutional crisis, thank God our line of succession lives.

 

If NYT reports are accurate, that some Capitol Police willfully gave the terrorists directions to Leader Schumer’s office, that is appalling.

If WaPo report that off duty police were flashing their badges as they stormed the Capitol and let through is accurate, that is appalling.

 

Few Capitol Police fired shots when the force was totally justified—why? National Guard was slow walked as Leader Hoyer called Gov Hogan of Maryland pleading for help-why? Why was the Capitol deliberately left so vulnerable? Why were such important leaders left on their own?

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many whataboutisms here. 

1)  Summer protests and rioters -- These protests were about social change.  The vast majority of people who took part in them were peaceful.  There were also those who took part in rioting/violence/destruction.  The latter group are wrong, should have been condemned, arrested, and jailed.  A lot of them were.  While I understand why it happened, I certainly don't condone it.  Similarly, most people did not condone those actions.  We've been over this multiple times.  Political leaders from the left said as much as well as most of us here.

2)  During those summer protests, police did not act well against some of the actual peaceful protestors.  There are countless videos of this.  Peaceful protestors that were tear gassed, pepper sprayed, beaten, and shot with rubber bullets.  Against people that were not looting/causing violence/causing destruction.  THIS is what many had an issue with.  Not against those that were looting/rioting.

3)  Those that protested and attended Trump's rally on 1/6 had every right to do so.  People aren't calling out that behavior.  And most of them did not enter the Capitol and cause destruction.  But, those that did are the ones, similar to what I stated above, that deserve condemnation. 

4)  The difference here is that those that were actually INSIDE the Capitol weren't treated the same way as some of the peaceful protestors from the summer.  It's not a like for like comparison.  And the preparation for the peaceful protest at the Lincoln Memorial was far different than the preparation for a rally that was then told to march to the Capitol by the POTUS where the entrance was guarded by only a few Capitol police in front of a simple guardrail. 

5)  And again, because this can't be understated, they were encouraged to "Stop the Steal" and to make their way to the Capitol and do what they did by the POTUS. 

So yes, not all rioters/looters were arrested and jailed as they should have been.  But that doesn't mean that those NOT involved in those criminal actions weren't treated badly as well.  Not all of them, obviously, but certainly a lot of them.  And the response to THOSE people, who weren't breaking laws, was very different to the response to those on 1/6 that were breaking laws (and worse).  And it's very difficult to ignore the racial component of that even though the actual breach of the Capitol had nothing to do with race.

Edited by gianmarco
  • Like 13
  • Thanks 3
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The fake Antifa conspiracy being spread by Mo Brooks and others is horrible. But this morning I’m hearing conspiracy talk from the other side: that the the Capitol Police weren’t incompetent, they were complicit from the top down in working with the rioters. 
In other words, the police cooperated in a riot in which they were beaten up and one was killed. OK sure. 

I don't think they cooperated with rioters but I have seen one video of the police opening the barrier at one location and letting the protestors in.   There was also a picture of a policeman posing for a selfie with protestors inside the Capitol.   

I don't think either of these cases suggests the police force as a whole were "in on it" and I think anyone suggesting that is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The fake Antifa conspiracy being spread by Mo Brooks and others is horrible. But this morning I’m hearing conspiracy talk from the other side: that the the Capitol Police weren’t incompetent, they were complicit from the top down in working with the rioters. 
In other words, the police cooperated in a riot in which they were beaten up and one was killed. OK sure. 

I wouldn't go so far as say they were complicit - but they certainly were negligent and/or reckless in planning and preparation - at a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

He's getting spun up on his own misunderstanding of what top-down means. 

 

I don’t think I misunderstood: 

1. Trump, asked to bring out the National Guard, resisted. That I believe. 
2. Prior to the riot Trump directed the National Guard not to come out. That I don’t believe. Show me the evidence. 
 

OR-

1. Capitol Police stupidly turned down help beforehand because they didn’t think these protestors would be a threat- that I believe. 
2. Capitol Police deliberately turned down help beforehand because they were complicit in what happened. That I don’t believe. Show me the evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gianmarco said:

So many whataboutisms here. 

1)  Summer protests and rioters -- These protests were about social change. 

So were the riots earlier this week.  I'm pretty close to 100% sure that the rioters in the capitol building were paying very careful attention to the riots this summer -- they were listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Laura Rozen @lrozen
“I was actually on the phone with Leader Hoyer who was pleading with us to send the guard,” Maryland Gov. Hogan.  
But Hogan said Maj. Gen. Timothy Gowen, head of the Maryland National Guard, was *repeatedly rebuffed by the head of the National Guard on the federal level.*

Subpoena every e-mail, text and spook-recorded communication among Trump's cabal, the insurrectionists, National Guard/Pentagon brass, Capitol Police, and Congressional seditionists.  All those National Security laws may finally come in handy in the next few months. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

I wouldn't go so far as say they were complicit - but they certainly were negligent and/or reckless in planning and preparation - at a minimum.

I think the real question, is it conspiratorial to think that negligence was at the behest of Trump or people acting for Trump because they wanted to "Stop the Steal"?  I'll just say that, at ever step in this administration it's been safe to assume the worst which is why the resignations and otherwise indignation of those resigning, of Cruz, of Graham, of Wolf, of Barr, etc. rings so hollow and why I don't think its that big of a jump here to assume the worst in the pre-Jan 6 1pm EST time period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Nobody wants to admit that they're complicit in all of this.  The people who cheered on the violence this summer aren't that different than the people who indulged this crazy conspiracy about the election being stolen -- they both thought it would be cute to play with fire and now they're wonder why the house is burning.

I honestly don’t know who these people are that you’re referring to. I certainly don’t remember them. There were many (including me) who cheered on the peaceful protests. But I don’t know anyone who wasn’t horrified by the violence. There were many of us who were annoyed by conservative attempts to conflate  the peaceful protests and violence together as if they were one and the same. This is still going on and it’s still wrong. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

So were the riots earlier this week.  I'm pretty close to 100% sure that the rioters in the capitol building were paying very careful attention to the riots this summer -- they were listening.

They weren’t. Because if they had been, they would have left the scene and then a bunch of teenage thugs, unrelated to them and without their knowledge or complicity, would have committed the mayhem against their wishes. 

Edited by timschochet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Representative Andy Kim:

"There were some police officers there, they finally had a moment to eat some pizza for dinner. They were throwing the boxes away and I asked if they had any extra bags. They gave me a roll and I started cleaning up the rotunda. I didn’t want to see it in that state. Some of the officers helped. Once I finished with the rotunda, I moved on to some others. I cleaned for about an hour and a half, then I went back for another debate about the state of Pennsylvania. A photographer caught me doing this and the photographs are going viral online. It was a day of extraordinarily sad images, and I think the image of someone trying to clean up the mess struck a nerve with a lot of folks. I didn’t leave the Capitol until about 3 a.m."

 

These are the kind of stories that give me hope in our elected officials.  The kind of stories where you see they truly understand the notion of "service" without the need for the attendant publicity.  Kim cleaning the Rotunda was not a photo op - it was just a guy trying to do his part to pick up the pieces, because it needed to be done.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, tri-man 47 said:

Huh.  I know Betsy from our college days together (and her husband, Dick DeVos, from many years at church and a few years in high school), so I know she has a strong faith background.  For all that Trump has said and done that should have caused her to speak up or act ...now she resigns?  Unimpressed.  

Coincidentally AFTER Trump pardoned her brother.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s my best hypothesis. I think the Capital Police and DoD leadership thought that Trump would lead the March to the capitol. I think they didn’t want th optics of Trump leading that March up to a barricade manned by riot gear clad cops and guardsmen. They may have even planned to let Trump (who has floor privileges in Congress) through so he could make a dramatic appearance at the joint session. So I think there was almost certainly a decision made to not project as much security as they could.  
 

So is that complicit?  I don’t think they wanted a riot. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t act irresponsibly and under undue political influence. 

  • Like 5
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think I misunderstood: 

1. Trump, asked to bring out the National Guard, resisted. That I believe. 
2. Prior to the riot Trump directed the National Guard not to come out. That I don’t believe. Show me the evidence. 
 

OR-

1. Capitol Police stupidly turned down help beforehand because they didn’t think these protestors would be a threat- that I believe. 
2. Capitol Police deliberately turned down help beforehand because they were complicit in what happened. That I don’t believe. Show me the evidence. 

I don't know what this has to do with my providing a definition of top-down decision making. BTW- did you see the story in the earlier post by GroveDiesel re: decisions that were made in fear of "bad optics"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

They weren’t. Because if they had been, they would have left the scene and then a bunch of teenage thugs, unrelated to them and without their knowledge or complicity, would have committed the mayhem against their wishes. 

Peaceful "stop the steal" protesters : Capitol insurrectionists :: Peaceful "BLM" protestors : "teenage thugs"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Seeing that it could be ten year sentences because of Trump's executive order. Seems unlikely to me that would stand, but I certainly love the poetry of it. 

 

In addition to the potential sentences, its true that felons can't own guns right? So even if they get light sentences, there's still a felony on their record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Here’s my best hypothesis. I think the Capital Police and DoD leadership thought that Trump would lead the March to the capitol. I think they didn’t want th optics of Trump leading that March up to a barricade manned by riot gear clad cops and guardsmen. They may have even planned to let Trump (who has floor privileges in Congress) through so he could make a dramatic appearance at the joint session. So I think there was almost certainly a decision made to not project as much security as they could.  
 

So is that complicit?  I don’t think they wanted a riot. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t act irresponsibly and under undue political influence. 

This does make some sense.  In his speech immediately before these events, Trump literally told everyone that he would be a part of the march to the Capitol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Here’s my best hypothesis. I think the Capital Police and DoD leadership thought that Trump would lead the March to the capitol. I think they didn’t want th optics of Trump leading that March up to a barricade manned by riot gear clad cops and guardsmen. They may have even planned to let Trump (who has floor privileges in Congress) through so he could make a dramatic appearance at the joint session. So I think there was almost certainly a decision made to not project as much security as they could.  
 

So is that complicit?  I don’t think they wanted a riot. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t act irresponsibly and under undue political influence. 

Its not a bad theory.  But, even if true - it does not excuse having police on stand-by, out of view, in the case it was necessary to beef up security.  And, it does not excuse the lengthy delay in getting the National Guard activated and on-scene.

 

ANd, just for good measure - the President of the USA is arguably the most protected person on the planet - if you really thought he was marching down Pennsylvania Ave. - you have a huge show of force around him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

Here’s my best hypothesis. I think the Capital Police and DoD leadership thought that Trump would lead the March to the capitol. I think they didn’t want th optics of Trump leading that March up to a barricade manned by riot gear clad cops and guardsmen. They may have even planned to let Trump (who has floor privileges in Congress) through so he could make a dramatic appearance at the joint session. So I think there was almost certainly a decision made to not project as much security as they could.  
 

So is that complicit?  I don’t think they wanted a riot. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t act irresponsibly and under undue political influence. 

That's an interesting perspective.  How odd would it have been to have the POTUS speaking to the masses while the National Guard was lining the steps of the Capitol building nearby?  The optics of having the National Guard protecting Congress from the nation's president would have been surreal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Its not a bad theory.  But, even if true - it does not excuse having police on stand-by, out of view, in the case it was necessary to beef up security.  And, it does not excuse the lengthy delay in getting the National Guard activated and on-scene.

 

ANd, just for good measure - the President of the USA is arguably the most protected person on the planet - if you really thought he was marching down Pennsylvania Ave. - you have a huge show of force around him.

I mean there's this point as well.  You'd have Secret Service everywhere if they even thought he was going.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Sure. I think bad optics is the likely reason. Stupid and incompetent. But not criminal. 

Agree to disagree. A top-down direction not to police, or to under-police, the national capitol during an election proceeding for political reasoning doesn't seem like difficult facts to me.

Edited by BigJim®
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I honestly don’t know who these people are that you’re referring to. I certainly don’t remember them. There were many (including me) who cheered on the peaceful protests. But I don’t know anyone who wasn’t horrified by the violence. There were many of us who were annoyed by conservative attempts to conflate  the peaceful protests and violence together as if they were one and the same. This is still going on and it’s still wrong. 

I don't know who Ivan is referring to either, if he is talking about people in this forum, as I certainly don't remember anyone "cheering on the violence" - my recollection is that there was condemnation by those of us on the left. In fact, I could be wrong but I don't believe that I ever expressed support for the protests due to my concerns over COVID spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hagmania said:

It's not Nostradamus to listen to others and process the information instead of dismissing it from the start.

Also not Nostradamus after the last four years to assume the worst from Trump and see it play out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Luke Russert@LukeRussert

Too many of us are too conspiratorial these days but something is not right. VP-Speaker-Pro tempore should not have been so endangered, esp given how much was known about the intentions of the terrorists. We’re in a Constitutional crisis, thank God our line of succession lives.

 

If NYT reports are accurate, that some Capitol Police willfully gave the terrorists directions to Leader Schumer’s office, that is appalling.

If WaPo report that off duty police were flashing their badges as they stormed the Capitol and let through is accurate, that is appalling.

 

Few Capitol Police fired shots when the force was totally justified—why? National Guard was slow walked as Leader Hoyer called Gov Hogan of Maryland pleading for help-why? Why was the Capitol deliberately left so vulnerable? Why were such important leaders left on their own?

 

I was going to reply to one of the posts about the police officer that passed but this applies to - we are talking about the Capitol building, are there not 24/7 video surveillance cameras operating?  Hell, my wife has freaking ring devices all over our property - if somebody broke in and murdered my dog I would already know who the person is. 

And yes, that is a warning to @The Gator to never step foot on my property.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Representative Andy Kim:

"There were some police officers there, they finally had a moment to eat some pizza for dinner. They were throwing the boxes away and I asked if they had any extra bags. They gave me a roll and I started cleaning up the rotunda. I didn’t want to see it in that state. Some of the officers helped. Once I finished with the rotunda, I moved on to some others. I cleaned for about an hour and a half, then I went back for another debate about the state of Pennsylvania. A photographer caught me doing this and the photographs are going viral online. It was a day of extraordinarily sad images, and I think the image of someone trying to clean up the mess struck a nerve with a lot of folks. I didn’t leave the Capitol until about 3 a.m."

 

These are the kind of stories that give me hope in our elected officials.  The kind of stories where you see they truly understand the notion of "service" without the need for the attendant publicity.  Kim cleaning the Rotunda was not a photo op - it was just a guy trying to do his part to pick up the pieces, because it needed to be done.

Reminds me of a lesson my Dad taught me years ago - always leave a place better than when you arrived.  That has stuck with me for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...