Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

Thats been in twitter for a while.

There was a pretty good picture of him - in full gear, including helmet.

So it wasn't just cosplay pretend Proud Boy army men but actual real life army men?  Jeeezam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The President told MAGA to do it MAGA said they were going to do it MAGA filmed themselves doing it Afterwards, MAGA bragged about it Clearly, it was ANTIFA’s fault

So they're finally following the CDC guidelines for the pandemic?

One is an ugly, decrepit wasteland ruled by an assortment of villains hoping to impose their will on peace-loving people everywhere who otherwise just want to be left alone to tend to their gardens.

Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Meeting up in Lexington - still my favorite aspect of the 2020 election cycle!  Hope things are well in Louisville!

:thumbup:

Considering the times, things have been great here, GB.

And the trip was excellent.

We shall do it again once things get more normal.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This is a really strange argument. You pretty much just said...

This could have actually been so much worse if another group of people participated so therefore that makes it so much worse what this group did. 

 

 

Good luck with your strawman arguing. 

Again, not one of the riots this summer exposed a weakness in our national defense.

How many minutes over the last 20 years do you think there have been that someone with a backpack could get inside the Capitol without going through a thorough security scanning first? I'll answer that for you. The answer is ZERO. 

But on January 6th it was possible for hours. 

Again, not one of the riots this summer came close to what the riot on Wednesday did. We were exposed, and we are damn lucky it wasn't exploited. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

"Ok Mr. President - it was 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.  Now it is 5-1-3-8-0-0-8."

Just remember, it's the decimal value of Pi, carried out to 99 digits.  You've got that, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

His comments clearly led to her defending it. 

Also this in response to him saying he would clear it out. I dont remember what his exact tweet was since it was deleted(or unavailable for another reason). 

 

Trump said if Inslee wouldn't call in the National Guard he would.   Her response was to say he couldn't do that.  You're really reaching here to try to compare these situations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to be gruesome and the video doesn't get graphic but does show the events leading up to and including the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. I had seen stills but this really puts it into perspective. I just feel overwhelming that this could have been avoided. I know, all of it could but this one particular act, just so senseless and a waste. There is a lot of fail in this short clip. The three rent-a-cops, I feel for them against that mob but what prompts them to move when they did and lastly, I wonder how close the tactical officers were when the event occurred, meaning were they standing in the background watching or where they rushing there to bolster security and just arrived on scene after the shooting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sorry if this has been hashed out in here already, can't keep up with the pages.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the rover said:

Trump said if Inslee wouldn't call in the National Guard he would.   Her response was to say he couldn't do that.  You're really reaching here to try to compare these situations.  

I copied several things she said. It is right there in black and white. She mentioned him multiple times and defended it as a Block party and the summer of love. 

She also held a press conference to say that what was happening there was just a lawful gathering and that it has always been an autonomous zone and mentioned the president multiple times while doing so. Seattle Mayor, Trump Spar Over Protesters in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Ultimately neither one of us know what exactly was in her head, but I think it is a completely illogical position to dig in and say no way, nut uh, impossible.  It is also pretty lame to try and play the I live here card when the press conferences and interviews are available for all to see and form opinions on. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

Not trying to be gruesome and the video doesn't get graphic but does show the events leading up to and including the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. I had seen stills but this really puts it into perspective. I just feel overwhelming that this could have been avoided. I know, all of it could but this one particular act, just so senseless and a waste. There is a lot of fail in this short clip. The three rent-a-cops, I feel for them against that mob but what prompts them to move when they did and lastly, I wonder how close the tactical officers were when the event occurred, meaning were they standing in the background watching or where they rushing there to bolster security and just arrived on scene after the shooting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sorry if this has been hashed out in here already, can't keep up with the pages.

Holy crap. If she could have just restrained herself for like 15 more seconds she probably is alive. I saw some other videos, but never saw how close the officer was that shot her and didn't really know what they were trying to get into. 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I copied several things she said. It is right there in black and white. She mentioned him multiple times and defended it as a Block party and the summer of love. 

She also held a press conference to say that what was happening there was just a lawful gathering and that it has always been an autonomous zone and mentioned the president multiple times while doing so. Seattle Mayor, Trump Spar Over Protesters in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Ultimately neither one of us know what exactly was in her head, but I think it is a completely illogical position to dig in and say no way, nut uh, impossible.  It is also pretty lame to try and play the I live here card when the press conferences and interviews are available for all to see and form opinions on. 

 

You first tried to compare CHOP/CHAZ to the mob action at the Capitol.   Now you're trying to say it had something to do with Trump because the mayor responded to his threat of sending in military (illegally).   

The occupation of this two block area had nothing to do with Trump.   If you don't understand Seattle's history, the tension with police here, and how the city council operates you cannot understand what it was all about, why it happened and why it was allowed to continue.  Your attempt to compare these two completely different and unrelated situations by claiming that the common denominator was Trump is ridiculous.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I have to admit, being thrown out of office a few days before Biden is inaugurated would make a good final scene for the movie.

The scene I want to see is the lead-in to Trump's almost-concession speech yesterday.  He must have been under tremendous pressure to say what he said.  But where did that pressure come from?  Was his staff threatening to resign en masse?  Or his cabinet?  I can't see it being as simple as some arm twisting by anyone.

I'd also like to see the scene of him somewhere in the West Wing as the chaos was unfolding.  Start that scene back with the conclusion of the rally.  Was everybody high-fiving after getting the crowd riled up?  Where did that whole contingent head off to?  When did they all realize they had unleashed an insurrection?  Who had - did anyone have - an "uh oh" moment?

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Doug B said:
50 minutes ago, ChiefD said:

So...honest question here because I just don't know...

Can the Department of Defense change nuclear codes and NOT give them to the President? 

I've heard the following via word-of-mouth a few times over the years, and someone on CNN yesterday morning was discussing it as well:

There were four days between Richard Nixon realizing he didn't have the votes in the Senate to avoid acquittal (8/5/1974 upon the public release of "the smoking gun" tape) and his effective resignation date (8/9/1974). Over those four days, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig instituted strict orders over several federal departments that any command given or request made by Nixon needed to be cleared through Haig. This was meant to be the fail-safe against Nixon doing something irreversible (e.g. launching nukes).

I wanted to come back to this after some research, because I didn't have great support for this -- Haig's soft takeover might or might not be an apocryphal story. However, there is a grain of truth on the record involving one of Haig's rivals in the Cabinet, Nixon's Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger (spoilered for length, from Seymour Hersch's The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House. Excerpt published in The Atlantic in August 1983):

In April of 1974, Joseph Laitin, a public-affairs official who had served in the Johnson White House, telephoned Schlesinger. Although Laitin was a liberal Democrat, the two had become friends early in the Nixon Administration, after Laitin was reassigned as a press official in the Bureau of the Budget, where Schlesinger was in charge of analyzing defense and intelligence programs. They had remained close as Schlesinger moved up in the government—to chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971, director of the Central Intelligence Agency in February of 1973, and to the Pentagon in May. Laitin broached some of his fears:

Was it possible for the President of the United States to authorize the use of nuclear weapons without his secretary of defense knowing it? What if Nixon, ordered by the Supreme Court to leave office, refused to leave and called for the military to surround the Washington area? Who was in charge then? Whose orders would be obeyed in a crisis? "If I were in your job," Laitin recalls telling Schlesinger, "I would want to know the location of the combat troops nearest to downtown Washington and the chain of command." Schlesinger said only, "Nice talking to you," and hung up.

Schlesinger did not need Laitin to provoke his suspicions of the President and the men immediately around him. He had watched, while serving in the Bureau of the Budget, as Nixon and Kissinger, invariably using Haig as their executive agent, repeatedly bypassed Melvin Laird, then secretary of defense. Laird would simply be eliminated from the chain of command, as combat orders for the war in Vietnam would go directly from the White House to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At one point early in the Administra­tion, Schlesinger had expressed his concern about such practices to Haig, who shrugged it off. Schlesinger's doubts about the White House's integrity deepened soon after he was named to replace Richard Helms as CIA director. Within weeks, the Agency was embroiled in Watergate, as it became known that the White House, working in 1971 through General Robert D. Cushman, Jr., deputy CIA director, had authorized Agency support for a series of illegal escapades involving E. Howard Hunt, Jr., and G. Gordon Liddy, members of the White House "Plumbers" team. Cushman, who had grown close to Nixon while serving as his military aide during the Eisenhower years, had been promoted by Nixon to commandant of the Marine Corps after leaving the CIA—he was thus one of the five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the one feared by Schlesinger in 1974.

Since moving to the Pentagon, Schlesinger had had occasion to learn firsthand of the desperation in the White House, he told an acquaintance recently. Late in 1973, a few weeks after the White House had been criticized for what seemed to be an eighteen-and-a-half minute erasure in a crucial tape recording, Haig had telephoned Schlesinger with a disturbing order. Acting on behalf of the President, he told Schlesinger to arrange for the National Security Agency, the nation's communications intelligence agency, which is under Pentagon control, to produce a duplicate set of White House recordings. Schlesinger worried that any attempt by Nixon and Haig to involve the nation's most sensitive intelligence service in Watergate could only hurt national security. The NSA, of all agencies, had to be above suspicion. After consulting his closest associates in the Pentagon, among them Martin R. Hoffman, the secretary of the Army, Schlesinger telephoned Haig with a counter-offer: it was, of course, perfectly proper for the NSA to duplicate tapes at Nixon's request, he said; but the Defense Department felt that it would have to inform the Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the request and allow it, if it so chose, to have a representative witness the procedure. Haig was, as Schlesinger anticipated, enraged at the suggestion, and became only more so when Schlesinger persisted by telling him that if the White House's purpose was solely to reproduce the recordings so that more persons could listen to them, there could be no objections to permitting the Special Prosecutor's office to participate. Haig abruptly hung up; there would be no more Watergate-related calls to Schlesinger from Haig's office.

Laitin's warning, Schlesinger's experiences in the Bureau of the Budget, the dispute with Haig, and Schlesinger's suspicion of General Cushman were the driving forces behind Schlesinger's next move. As he told the acquaintance, "I had seen enough so that I was not going to run risks with the future of the United States. There are a lot of parliamentary governments that have been overthrown with much less at stake." Sometime in late July of 1974, Schlesinger called in Air Force General George S. Brown, the newly appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Brown was known as an officer who was far more comfortable behind the stick of an airplane than in an office; he never seemed to master high-level politics, with its subtle language and indirection. Bearing that in mind, and aware that Brown had taken an oath of office that made him responsible to Nixon as Commander-in-Chief, Schlesinger trod delicately during their talk. His goal was to express his concerns about the White House and somehow to get Brown to reach the same conclusion that he himself had already reached. In essence, Schlesinger asked Brown for a commitment that neither he nor any of the other chiefs would respond to an order from the White House calling for the use of military force without immediately informing Schlesinger. Brown dutifully relayed Schlesinger's message to the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a meeting a few hours later. He began the session, one of the joint chiefs recalls, by announcing, "I've just had the strangest conversation with the Secretary of Defense." Schlesinger had urged him not to "do anything to disturb the equilibrium of the Republic, and to make sure we're in accord." He had said, "Don't take any emergency-type action without consulting me." Brown was troubled by Schlesinger's remarks, and so was everyone else at the meeting. "We were confused, and George had to be confused," the chief says. 'We sat around looking at our fingernails; we didn't want to look at each other. It was a complete shock to us. I don't think any of us ever considered taking any action. We didn't know whether to be affronted or flattered at the thought." The chief recalls that one of his colleagues commented that Schlesinger must have been "thinking of something out of Seven Days in May." If there was any consensus, the chief says, it was that "Schlesinger was coming unglued."

Schlesinger was clear, however, about his concerns. He continued to believe that Cushman, with his personal loyalty to Nixon, was a weak link in the new chain of command. He carried his own deliberations further and quietly investigated just which forces would be available to Nixon. He found out how quickly the 82nd Airborne Division could be brought to Washington from its home base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Marines, he learned—Cushman's troops—were by far the strongest presence in the Washington area, with an honor-guard barracks in southeast Washington and a large officer-training facility at Quantico, Virginia, some thirty miles to the south. Schlesinger began to investigate what forces could be assembled at his order as a counterweight to the Marines, if Nixon—in a crisis—chose to subvert the Constitution. Schlesinger's overriding concern, in case a crisis did arise, was the possibility that the armed forces would follow their inherent loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief. One comfort was his firm belief, based on what he had seen in the previous five and a half years, that any such order, if given, would come not directly from Nixon but from Haig. The Joint Chiefs would respond to an order from the secretary of defense, Schlesinger believed, before they would respond to one from Haig. As he explained to the acquaintance, "If an order came from below the Commander-in-Chief level, I could handle it."

 



I wonder what our house U.S. political history mavens have heard about "taking the keys" away from a sitting president this way. @Yankee23Fan, @timschochet ?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

I copied several things she said. It is right there in black and white. She mentioned him multiple times and defended it as a Block party and the summer of love. 

She also held a press conference to say that what was happening there was just a lawful gathering and that it has always been an autonomous zone and mentioned the president multiple times while doing so. Seattle Mayor, Trump Spar Over Protesters in Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone

Ultimately neither one of us know what exactly was in her head, but I think it is a completely illogical position to dig in and say no way, nut uh, impossible.  It is also pretty lame to try and play the I live here card when the press conferences and interviews are available for all to see and form opinions on. 

 

JMHO, it's a somewhat disingenuous take. You had a POTUS who was campaigning on Law and Order in over the top displays of force; in some instances even provocative displays of force. Anyone who believes an earnest intent to establish order vs worsen disorder as a campaigning theatric is not appreciating the political dynamics. IMHO. Who would want him to deploy in that circumstance? Might she have been misleading in her depiction, to avoid worsening of circumstance? Definitely. Might aid been more welcomed, even sought, under a different administration? I think so. Again, JMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Doug B said:

I wanted to come back to this after some research, because I didn't have great support for this -- Haig's soft takeover might or might not be an apocryphal story. However, there is a grain of truth on the record involving one of Haig's rivals in the Cabinet, Nixon's Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger (spoilered for length, from Seymour Hersch's The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House. Excerpt published in The Atlantic in August 1983😞
 

  Reveal hidden contents

In April of 1974, Joseph Laitin, a public-affairs official who had served in the Johnson White House, telephoned Schlesinger. Although Laitin was a liberal Democrat, the two had become friends early in the Nixon Administration, after Laitin was reassigned as a press official in the Bureau of the Budget, where Schlesinger was in charge of analyzing defense and intelligence programs. They had remained close as Schlesinger moved up in the government—to chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1971, director of the Central Intelligence Agency in February of 1973, and to the Pentagon in May. Laitin broached some of his fears:

Was it possible for the President of the United States to authorize the use of nuclear weapons without his secretary of defense knowing it? What if Nixon, ordered by the Supreme Court to leave office, refused to leave and called for the military to surround the Washington area? Who was in charge then? Whose orders would be obeyed in a crisis? "If I were in your job," Laitin recalls telling Schlesinger, "I would want to know the location of the combat troops nearest to downtown Washington and the chain of command." Schlesinger said only, "Nice talking to you," and hung up.

Schlesinger did not need Laitin to provoke his suspicions of the President and the men immediately around him. He had watched, while serving in the Bureau of the Budget, as Nixon and Kissinger, invariably using Haig as their executive agent, repeatedly bypassed Melvin Laird, then secretary of defense. Laird would simply be eliminated from the chain of command, as combat orders for the war in Vietnam would go directly from the White House to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At one point early in the Administra­tion, Schlesinger had expressed his concern about such practices to Haig, who shrugged it off. Schlesinger's doubts about the White House's integrity deepened soon after he was named to replace Richard Helms as CIA director. Within weeks, the Agency was embroiled in Watergate, as it became known that the White House, working in 1971 through General Robert D. Cushman, Jr., deputy CIA director, had authorized Agency support for a series of illegal escapades involving E. Howard Hunt, Jr., and G. Gordon Liddy, members of the White House "Plumbers" team. Cushman, who had grown close to Nixon while serving as his military aide during the Eisenhower years, had been promoted by Nixon to commandant of the Marine Corps after leaving the CIA—he was thus one of the five members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the one feared by Schlesinger in 1974.

Since moving to the Pentagon, Schlesinger had had occasion to learn firsthand of the desperation in the White House, he told an acquaintance recently. Late in 1973, a few weeks after the White House had been criticized for what seemed to be an eighteen-and-a-half minute erasure in a crucial tape recording, Haig had telephoned Schlesinger with a disturbing order. Acting on behalf of the President, he told Schlesinger to arrange for the National Security Agency, the nation's communications intelligence agency, which is under Pentagon control, to produce a duplicate set of White House recordings. Schlesinger worried that any attempt by Nixon and Haig to involve the nation's most sensitive intelligence service in Watergate could only hurt national security. The NSA, of all agencies, had to be above suspicion. After consulting his closest associates in the Pentagon, among them Martin R. Hoffman, the secretary of the Army, Schlesinger telephoned Haig with a counter-offer: it was, of course, perfectly proper for the NSA to duplicate tapes at Nixon's request, he said; but the Defense Department felt that it would have to inform the Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the request and allow it, if it so chose, to have a representative witness the procedure. Haig was, as Schlesinger anticipated, enraged at the suggestion, and became only more so when Schlesinger persisted by telling him that if the White House's purpose was solely to reproduce the recordings so that more persons could listen to them, there could be no objections to permitting the Special Prosecutor's office to participate. Haig abruptly hung up; there would be no more Watergate-related calls to Schlesinger from Haig's office.

Laitin's warning, Schlesinger's experiences in the Bureau of the Budget, the dispute with Haig, and Schlesinger's suspicion of General Cushman were the driving forces behind Schlesinger's next move. As he told the acquaintance, "I had seen enough so that I was not going to run risks with the future of the United States. There are a lot of parliamentary governments that have been overthrown with much less at stake." Sometime in late July of 1974, Schlesinger called in Air Force General George S. Brown, the newly appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Brown was known as an officer who was far more comfortable behind the stick of an airplane than in an office; he never seemed to master high-level politics, with its subtle language and indirection. Bearing that in mind, and aware that Brown had taken an oath of office that made him responsible to Nixon as Commander-in-Chief, Schlesinger trod delicately during their talk. His goal was to express his concerns about the White House and somehow to get Brown to reach the same conclusion that he himself had already reached. In essence, Schlesinger asked Brown for a commitment that neither he nor any of the other chiefs would respond to an order from the White House calling for the use of military force without immediately informing Schlesinger. Brown dutifully relayed Schlesinger's message to the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at a meeting a few hours later. He began the session, one of the joint chiefs recalls, by announcing, "I've just had the strangest conversation with the Secretary of Defense." Schlesinger had urged him not to "do anything to disturb the equilibrium of the Republic, and to make sure we're in accord." He had said, "Don't take any emergency-type action without consulting me." Brown was troubled by Schlesinger's remarks, and so was everyone else at the meeting. "We were confused, and George had to be confused," the chief says. 'We sat around looking at our fingernails; we didn't want to look at each other. It was a complete shock to us. I don't think any of us ever considered taking any action. We didn't know whether to be affronted or flattered at the thought." The chief recalls that one of his colleagues commented that Schlesinger must have been "thinking of something out of Seven Days in May." If there was any consensus, the chief says, it was that "Schlesinger was coming unglued."

Schlesinger was clear, however, about his concerns. He continued to believe that Cushman, with his personal loyalty to Nixon, was a weak link in the new chain of command. He carried his own deliberations further and quietly investigated just which forces would be available to Nixon. He found out how quickly the 82nd Airborne Division could be brought to Washington from its home base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The Marines, he learned—Cushman's troops—were by far the strongest presence in the Washington area, with an honor-guard barracks in southeast Washington and a large officer-training facility at Quantico, Virginia, some thirty miles to the south. Schlesinger began to investigate what forces could be assembled at his order as a counterweight to the Marines, if Nixon—in a crisis—chose to subvert the Constitution. Schlesinger's overriding concern, in case a crisis did arise, was the possibility that the armed forces would follow their inherent loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief. One comfort was his firm belief, based on what he had seen in the previous five and a half years, that any such order, if given, would come not directly from Nixon but from Haig. The Joint Chiefs would respond to an order from the secretary of defense, Schlesinger believed, before they would respond to one from Haig. As he explained to the acquaintance, "If an order came from below the Commander-in-Chief level, I could handle it."

 



I wonder what our house U.S. political history mavens have heard about "taking the keys" away from a sitting president this way. @Yankee23Fan, @timschochet ?

Odds things happen at times. From what I understand, Woodrow Wilson was in a coma for the last few months of his Presidency and the First Lady was effectively the President. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

So it looks like Trump will be impeached by the House. Can McConnell simply run out the clock? 

Depends - when will the Georgia senators be seated?  

Has Harris resigned yet?  Or, will she wait for January 20?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:
 

Scott Dworkin @funder

BREAKING: Richard Barnett, the rioter who sat at Speaker Pelosi’s desk, has been arrested and charged with multiple crimes. He faces years in prison.

o/u on number of hours until the Gofundme for his legal expenses is up?

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

Not trying to be gruesome and the video doesn't get graphic but does show the events leading up to and including the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. I had seen stills but this really puts it into perspective. I just feel overwhelming that this could have been avoided. I know, all of it could but this one particular act, just so senseless and a waste. There is a lot of fail in this short clip. The three rent-a-cops, I feel for them against that mob but what prompts them to move when they did and lastly, I wonder how close the tactical officers were when the event occurred, meaning were they standing in the background watching or where they rushing there to bolster security and just arrived on scene after the shooting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sorry if this has been hashed out in here already, can't keep up with the pages.

It may have been hashed out but I missed and first time I saw it so for me thanks for posting. And wow!

I'm not trying to be inflammatory and I don't root for loss of life but I'm glad the officer pulled the trigger, just unfortunate he had to, but it stopped that mob.

Edited by menobrown
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, beer 30 said:

Not trying to be gruesome and the video doesn't get graphic but does show the events leading up to and including the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. I had seen stills but this really puts it into perspective. I just feel overwhelming that this could have been avoided. I know, all of it could but this one particular act, just so senseless and a waste. There is a lot of fail in this short clip. The three rent-a-cops, I feel for them against that mob but what prompts them to move when they did and lastly, I wonder how close the tactical officers were when the event occurred, meaning were they standing in the background watching or where they rushing there to bolster security and just arrived on scene after the shooting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sorry if this has been hashed out in here already, can't keep up with the pages.

There's an angle I've seen that shows the tactical officers arriving within 30 secs of the shooting. They're coming up a staircase that's directly behind Babbitt and are only a few steps away when she climbs up and gets shot. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, dgreen said:
2 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Yeah this fever's going to break (video Graham getting badgered at Reagan National this morning as a traitor for "selling-out"):

https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1347612365093826565?s=20

Looks like this is just a little later: https://twitter.com/iheartmindy/status/1347616155394043904?s=20

Well.. if you tie your boat to a sinking ship then you deserve what you get.. :bye: 

They enabled a Dictator for four years and now "pretend" to have a conscience.. They are finding out quickly those that "supposedly" supported them only supported them if they gave up all thoughts and follow Dictator Trump 100%.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Odds things happen at times. From what I understand, Woodrow Wilson was in a coma for the last few months of his Presidency and the First Lady was effectively the President. 

I've read that during the chaos at the Capitol, the current First Lady was in the White House overseeing a photo shoot of some furniture.  "Checked out," is how she's described.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

I've read that during the chaos at the Capitol, the current First Lady was in the White House overseeing a photo shoot of some furniture.  "Checked out," is how she's described.

Checked out?

 

That is probably the most engaged she has been with her position in 4 years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steve Tasker said:
1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Scott Dworkin @funder

BREAKING: Richard Barnett, the rioter who sat at Speaker Pelosi’s desk, has been arrested and charged with multiple crimes. He faces years in prison.

o/u on number of hours until the Gofundme for his legal expenses is up?

There's a strategic advantage to the people who admitted their crimes immediately afterward. Not only do they increase the likelihood of getting pardoned before next Wednesday, but they'll get a greater share of the inevitable defense-fundraising windfall.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, BigJim® said:

JMHO, it's a somewhat disingenuous take. You had a POTUS who was campaigning on Law and Order in over the top displays of force; in some instances even provocative displays of force. Anyone who believes an earnest intent to establish order vs worsen disorder as a campaigning theatric is not appreciating the political dynamics. IMHO. Who would want him to deploy in that circumstance? Might she have been misleading in her depiction, to avoid worsening of circumstance? Definitely. Might aid been more welcomed, even sought, under a different administration? I think so. Again, JMHO.

Not a chance.   If you understood Seattle and how it operates, you would have no doubt about this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug B said:

I've heard the following via word-of-mouth a few times over the years, and someone on CNN yesterday morning was discussing it as well:

There were four days between Richard Nixon realizing he didn't have the votes in the Senate to avoid acquittal (8/5/1974 upon the public release of "the smoking gun" tape) and his effective resignation date (8/9/1974). Over those four days, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig instituted strict orders over several federal departments that any command given or request made by Nixon needed to be cleared through Haig. This was meant to be the fail-safe against Nixon doing something irreversible (e.g. launching nukes).

I believe (but don't know) that Trump is in a similar state now that Nixon was then. I believe (but don't know) that, for instance, Trump no longer has unchecked executive control over any federal department.

 

Do you remember who on CNN said this yesterday? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, the rover said:

You first tried to compare CHOP/CHAZ to the mob action at the Capitol.   Now you're trying to say it had something to do with Trump because the mayor responded to his threat of sending in military (illegally).   

The occupation of this two block area had nothing to do with Trump.   If you don't understand Seattle's history, the tension with police here, and how the city council operates you cannot understand what it was all about, why it happened and why it was allowed to continue.  Your attempt to compare these two completely different and unrelated situations by claiming that the common denominator was Trump is ridiculous.

You are basically just making stuff up. I clearly stated in my first post that the mayor allowed chaz to continue because she took an anti trump stance. You can argue that she would have let it continue anyway, but she clearly publicly defended CHAZ in direct response to Trump. That is 100% inarguable. 

Had more typed up, but forget it, I am done mucking up the thread conversing with you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

You are basically just making stuff up. I clearly stated in my first post that the mayor allowed chaz to continue because she took an anti trump stance. You can argue that she would have let it continue anyway, but she clearly publicly defended CHAZ in direct response to Trump. That is 100% inarguable. 

Had more typed up, but forget it, I am done mucking up the thread conversing with you. 

This is absolutely wrong.   The "anti-Trump" stance was a response to his claim that he was going to (illegally) send in military if the Governor would not.

The occupation of this two block area and whether it was allowed to continue or not had nothing whatsoever to do with Trump.

You're not even close, and you don't understand this situation at all.   

Edited by the rover
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Odds things happen at times. From what I understand, Woodrow Wilson was in a coma for the last few months of his Presidency and the First Lady was effectively the President. 

Wilson was never in a coma. He had a stroke which left him partially paralyzed and hindered his speech, but he was alert.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I have to admit, being thrown out of office a few days before Biden is inaugurated would make a good final scene for the movie.

That with end credits scenes:

  • Stuck in a tanning bed - "Hellllloooooo?  Is anybody out there?"
  • Staring down in to a low-flow toilet - "Will you please go away?"
  • Wearing a pair of 3D glasses while staring up at the sun - "This should do the trick"
  • Sitting down watching TV with Rudy - Discovery Channel is on the TV - "Rudy?  Ruuuudddyyyy.  Do you like sharks?  I don't like them.  They scare me."

Background Music

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, timschochet said:

So it looks like Trump will be impeached by the House. Can McConnell simply run out the clock? 

He might be able to drum up support to but I think the bigger question is, would he? And further, how many Republicans now, would step up to block it? I think this impeachment would have a radically different end than the first and rightfully so IMO.

https://www.businessinsider.com/mcconnell-doesnt-want-to-speak-to-trump-again-capitol-riots-2021-1

Edited by beer 30
Edit to add link
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I have to admit, being thrown out of office a few days before Biden is inaugurated would make a good final scene for the movie.

:shrug:

Standing in a DC jail cell with Ivanka, Eric, Don Jr. after they were arrested for violating a Good Samaritan law, doing nothing while the Capitol was attacked.

 

Fade to black.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

There's a strategic advantage to the people who admitted their crimes immediately afterward. Not only do they increase the likelihood of getting pardoned before next Wednesday, but they'll get a greater share of the inevitable defense-fundraising windfall.

If Trump, who initiated the attack on the Capitol building with his inflammatory words, starts pardoning those involved - particularly after an officer was killed? - yowza.  I think that just accelerates the process of the 25th or impeachment.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

Rep. Clyburn - raising some questions:

 

Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla

House Majority Whip Clyburn on@SIRIUSXM:  

“They went where you won't find my name, but they found where I was supposed to be. So something else was going on untoward here.”

 

Apparently the protestors skipped his office, where his name plate was, and went to an undisclosed location where Clyburn normally works - which does not have his name.

Could also just be a coincidence- people just aimlessly going around the building. 

2 hours ago, FairWarning said:

CNN artfully dodged calling it a riot, opting for violence instead.  It was used twice in the same paragraph toward the bottom of the article, one in a quote - 

Using spray paint, Nijiya, their wife, and coworkers covered the shop with slogans and quotes to inspire protesters. Among them was Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous words: "A riot is the language of the unheard."

"I think a lot of people think that these riots are not part of our history and that they don't do anything," Nijiya said. 

 

I wonder if MLK's beliefs hold true from Wednesday - A riot being the language of the unheard?

They certainly feel unheard. I am not sure how unheard they can actually be when they just had their dream President for 4 years, controlled the Senate and got 2 SC judges in place. Yet, they really do still feel unheard and victimized. 

2 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Yeah this fever's going to break (video Graham getting badgered at Reagan National this morning as a traitor for "selling-out"):

https://twitter.com/dlippman/status/1347612365093826565?s=20

He was a key player in legitimizing all of this. I feel bad for him but I also don't. 

2 hours ago, Sammy3469 said:

Here's the RNC Chair apparently not realizing rhetoric like this is why Wednesday happened.  

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1347607864295239687?s=20

This is why we aren't even close to an end with this. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

That with end credits scenes:

  • Stuck in a tanning bed - "Hellllloooooo?  Is anybody out there?"
  • Staring down in to a low-flow toilet - "Will you please go away?"
  • Wearing a pair of 3D glasses while staring up at the sun - "This should do the trick"
  • Sitting down watching TV with Rudy - Discovery Channel is on the TV - "Rudy?  Ruuuudddyyyy.  Do you like sharks?  I don't like them.  They scare me."

Background Music

Opening theme song:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-ydBNwed9Q

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

Could also just be a coincidence- people just aimlessly going around the building. 

They certainly feel unheard. I am not sure how unheard they can actually be when they just had their dream President for 4 years, controlled the Senate and got 2 SC judges in place. Yet, they really do still feel unheard and victimized. 

He was a key player in legitimizing all of this. I feel bad for him but I also don't. 

This is why we aren't even close to an end with this. 

 

I wish I knew how to multi-quote as adroitly as you, sir. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, zoonation said:

long video of the insurrection from outside to inside: 

Edit:  nsfw language.  and stupidity.

Not sure how anyone could watch a livestream like that and come away thinking "Antifa" was behind that. Those are true-blue Trump supporters if I've ever seen them. Feel like the streamer deserves charges in Babbitt's death for inciting people to bash down those windows and go through, but I doubt he will.

Edited by expo86
removed link just incase it gets removed later
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, zoonation said:

long video of the insurrection from outside to inside:  

Edit:  nsfw language.  and stupidity.

This includes Ashli Babbitt being shot. I'm not going to report your post, but my suggestion would be to delete it. I really don't think they want that posted here.

Edited by dgreen
Edited to remove link
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Don't Toews Me said:

Do you remember who on CNN said this yesterday? 

I’ve heard this story in the past, and I’ve also heard that it was Nixon’s then Sec Def who instituted the policy. I think I’ve even heard Michael Beschloss (the presidential historian) recount it on MSNBC. 

And I’ve also heard that many functions of the executive branch were removed from Reagan’s control in his second term because the onset of his Alzheimer’s was earlier than we were led to believe. I don’t have a solid source for those rumors though. 
 

Bit I wouldn’t find it surprising. I don’t think the 25th Amendment is particularly well-suited to any but the most clear cut case of presidential disability. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, General Malaise said:

I wish I knew how to multi-quote as adroitly as you, sir. 

If you are a computer, just click the plus sign of every post you want to reply to and when ready to reply, there should be a quote post button in the lower right hand corner of the screen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, beer 30 said:

Not trying to be gruesome and the video doesn't get graphic but does show the events leading up to and including the shooting of Ashli Babbitt. I had seen stills but this really puts it into perspective. I just feel overwhelming that this could have been avoided. I know, all of it could but this one particular act, just so senseless and a waste. There is a lot of fail in this short clip. The three rent-a-cops, I feel for them against that mob but what prompts them to move when they did and lastly, I wonder how close the tactical officers were when the event occurred, meaning were they standing in the background watching or where they rushing there to bolster security and just arrived on scene after the shooting?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/01/08/ashli-babbitt-shooting-video-capitol/

Sorry if this has been hashed out in here already, can't keep up with the pages.

Capitol police are not rent a cops.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the rover said:

Have reliable information that one of the guys that ended up on the floor of the senate is a retired 2 star general and that the FBI has identified him.   This should come out in the news in the next day or two.

Wow. A retired 2 star General in Antifa. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...