Capitol Riots 2

Merkin Baller · July 2021

concertaholicshirt · July 2021

Been a while since I posted on the forum, but I checked in about Ohana and this is a point of contention for me. For clarity, at the time of the riot at the Capitol, I called for the harshest of measures... the HARSHEST... to be taken against anyone breaching the inside of the building. I saw it as crossing a line between legitimate protest and unlawful rioting, and the fact that it was our Capitol building crossed a line that made me want the HARSHEST of responses at that moment. Now, I'm happy with jail time for those who entered the Capitol building.

That said, it was NOT an insurrection. It simply wasn't. Part of that is my opinion, but the more meaningful part is the charges. If you look up: 8 US Code Sec 2383, you see the following law on Rebellion or Insurrection:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

If you go to the database/table created by the Trump haters at Insider (who call it an "insurrection") and search out the word "Insurrection" you will see that not a single person was charged with this crime. If it was an insurrection, then they should have been charged with it. There are a lot of charges for the almost 600 people charged, but none of it was for "Rebellion or Insurrection." Words and facts matter.

https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

Halifax2TheMax · July 2021

concertaholicshirt said:

Been a while since I posted on the forum, but I checked in about Ohana and this is a point of contention for me. For clarity, at the time of the riot at the Capitol, I called for the harshest of measures... the HARSHEST... to be taken against anyone breaching the inside of the building. I saw it as crossing a line between legitimate protest and unlawful rioting, and the fact that it was our Capitol building crossed a line that made me want the HARSHEST of responses at that moment. Now, I'm happy with jail time for those who entered the Capitol building.

That said, it was NOT an insurrection. It simply wasn't. Part of that is my opinion, but the more meaningful part is the charges. If you look up: 8 US Code Sec 2383, you see the following law on Rebellion or Insurrection:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If you go to the database/table created by the Trump haters at Insider (who call it an "insurrection") and search out the word "Insurrection" you will see that not a single person was charged with this crime. If it was an insurrection, then they should have been charged with it. There are a lot of charges for the almost 600 people charged, but none of it was for "Rebellion or Insurrection." Words and facts matter.

https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

So, Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman's deaths weren't murders?

concertaholicshirt · July 2021

Ummmmmm... what?????? OJ was charged with First Degree Murder. Regardless of the verdict, he was charged with the crime being discussed, unlike the defendants in the current situation. As I said, no charges for Rebellion or Insurrection were filed against any of those charged with crimes on Jan 6. Your comment makes no sense, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

Halifax2TheMax · July 2021

concertaholicshirt said:

Ummmmmm... what?????? OJ was charged with First Degree Murder. Regardless of the verdict, he was charged with the crime being discussed, unlike the defendants in the current situation. As I said, no charges for Rebellion or Insurrection were filed against any of those charged with crimes on Jan 6. Your comment makes no sense, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

The absence of charges for a specific crime doesn't mean the crime didn't occur. My guess is that that prosecutors have a more difficult challenge in obtaining a conviction for rebellion/insurrection than they do for the charges as listed. If they don't cop a plea, they'll be convicted of one or more lesser charges and pay some penalty, rather than going scot free because a jury wasn't convinced of rebellion/insurrection. 50% chance they get convicted of rebellion/insurrection or 99% chance of being convicted of one or more of a lesser charge. They need to pay something and as I would prefer a conviction for rebellion/insurrection, I'll take what the government can obtain. They need to pay some price, even if its less than desired.

I'm sure OJ was offered 2nd degree murder if he pleaded and avoided trial. Happens all the time.

mrussel1 · July 2021

concertaholicshirt said:

Been a while since I posted on the forum, but I checked in about Ohana and this is a point of contention for me. For clarity, at the time of the riot at the Capitol, I called for the harshest of measures... the HARSHEST... to be taken against anyone breaching the inside of the building. I saw it as crossing a line between legitimate protest and unlawful rioting, and the fact that it was our Capitol building crossed a line that made me want the HARSHEST of responses at that moment. Now, I'm happy with jail time for those who entered the Capitol building.

That said, it was NOT an insurrection. It simply wasn't. Part of that is my opinion, but the more meaningful part is the charges. If you look up: 8 US Code Sec 2383, you see the following law on Rebellion or Insurrection:

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If you go to the database/table created by the Trump haters at Insider (who call it an "insurrection") and search out the word "Insurrection" you will see that not a single person was charged with this crime. If it was an insurrection, then they should have been charged with it. There are a lot of charges for the almost 600 people charged, but none of it was for "Rebellion or Insurrection." Words and facts matter.

https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1

I don't necessarily think it's an insurrection, even though several Republicans called it as such in the immediate aftermath. However, just because something wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't meet the statutory definition. Charging someone with that crime is a high bar, needing clear evidence of intent. It's interesting that you chose §2383, but I have believed §2384 could have been charged to some of the ones that have the graver conspiracy charges. This is seditious conspiracy and I think there is no doubt that several had the intent to commit what I have bolded.

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.

mrussel1 · July 2021

To be crystal clear, the attempt to prevent the lawful counting of the electoral college votes, as required by the Constitution, was seditious conspiracy.

Halifax2TheMax · July 2021

This explains it well and as the investigations continue, charges may very well be upgraded.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese

Insurrection

“What happened here today was an insurrection,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, on Wednesday night.

Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.

Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, mounted an armed standoff with the federal government in 2014—his son, Ammon Bundy, did the same in Oregon in 2016—on the basis of an explicitly anti-U.S. government philosophy. Still, prosecutors did not charge them with insurrection, which legal experts say is nearly impossible to prove in court.

mrussel1 · July 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

This explains it well and as the investigations continue, charges may very well be upgraded.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/01/08/a-civilian-s-guide-to-insurrection-legalese

Insurrection
“What happened here today was an insurrection,” said Sen. Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, on Wednesday night.
Insurrection also falls under the same suite of federal laws as sedition, and the two can be difficult to distinguish. But it is charged by federal prosecutors far more rarely—almost never in American history. It means, essentially, to incite, assist in or engage in a full-on rebellion against the government: a step beyond just conspiring against it, and requiring that significant violence be involved.
Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher, mounted an armed standoff with the federal government in 2014—his son, Ammon Bundy, did the same in Oregon in 2016—on the basis of an explicitly anti-U.S. government philosophy. Still, prosecutors did not charge them with insurrection, which legal experts say is nearly impossible to prove in court.

damn I'm good!

concertaholicshirt · July 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

concertaholicshirt said:

Ummmmmm... what?????? OJ was charged with First Degree Murder. Regardless of the verdict, he was charged with the crime being discussed, unlike the defendants in the current situation. As I said, no charges for Rebellion or Insurrection were filed against any of those charged with crimes on Jan 6. Your comment makes no sense, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

The absence of charges for a specific crime doesn't mean the crime didn't occur. My guess is that that prosecutors have a more difficult challenge in obtaining a conviction for rebellion/insurrection than they do for the charges as listed.

mrussel1 said:

However, just because something wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't meet the statutory definition. Charging someone with that crime is a high bar, needing clear evidence of intent.

Most of these people were charged with numerous offenses, so charging Sec 2383 along with the others presumably would've been done if there were the remotest of possibility of getting a conviction, as even if the prosecution of that charge weren't successful, it wouldn't preclude those charged with being convicted of the numerous other offenses for which they were charged. In addition, it shouldn't matter how high the bar is or how challenging it would be to get a conviction for insurrection; members of Congress and other public figures are openly saying that this is worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor... well, we went to wars over those events. A more challenging prosecution should be the least of the government's concerns if the allegation of "insurrection" isn't just divisive hyperbole. I suggest it is just divisive hyperbole, and should be ceased at once. By all means, lock these assclowns up, and for a lot more than 8 months, but this wasn't an insurrection. Again, simply my opinion, but the lack of charges seems to back me up somewhat.

dankind · July 2021

concertaholicshirt said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

concertaholicshirt said:

Ummmmmm... what?????? OJ was charged with First Degree Murder. Regardless of the verdict, he was charged with the crime being discussed, unlike the defendants in the current situation. As I said, no charges for Rebellion or Insurrection were filed against any of those charged with crimes on Jan 6. Your comment makes no sense, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

The absence of charges for a specific crime doesn't mean the crime didn't occur. My guess is that that prosecutors have a more difficult challenge in obtaining a conviction for rebellion/insurrection than they do for the charges as listed.

mrussel1 said:

However, just because something wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't meet the statutory definition. Charging someone with that crime is a high bar, needing clear evidence of intent.

Most of these people were charged with numerous offenses, so charging Sec 2383 along with the others presumably would've been done if there were the remotest of possibility of getting a conviction, as even if the prosecution of that charge weren't successful, it wouldn't preclude those charged with being convicted of the numerous other offenses for which they were charged. In addition, it shouldn't matter how high the bar is or how challenging it would be to get a conviction for insurrection; members of Congress and other public figures are openly saying that this is worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor... well, we went to wars over those events. A more challenging prosecution should be the least of the government's concerns if the allegation of "insurrection" isn't just divisive hyperbole. I suggest it is just divisive hyperbole, and should be ceased at once. By all means, lock these assclowns up, and for a lot more than 8 months, but this wasn't an insurrection. Again, simply my opinion, but the lack of charges seems to back me up somewhat.

Or if it's a 9/11/Pearl Harbor event, go to fucking war. Take them all out fucking Mossad Munich style.

At the very least, strip them of their US citizenship and the rights and privileges that accompany it.

mrussel1 · July 2021

concertaholicshirt said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

concertaholicshirt said:

Ummmmmm... what?????? OJ was charged with First Degree Murder. Regardless of the verdict, he was charged with the crime being discussed, unlike the defendants in the current situation. As I said, no charges for Rebellion or Insurrection were filed against any of those charged with crimes on Jan 6. Your comment makes no sense, unless I'm misunderstanding your point.

The absence of charges for a specific crime doesn't mean the crime didn't occur. My guess is that that prosecutors have a more difficult challenge in obtaining a conviction for rebellion/insurrection than they do for the charges as listed.

mrussel1 said:

However, just because something wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't meet the statutory definition. Charging someone with that crime is a high bar, needing clear evidence of intent.

Most of these people were charged with numerous offenses, so charging Sec 2383 along with the others presumably would've been done if there were the remotest of possibility of getting a conviction, as even if the prosecution of that charge weren't successful, it wouldn't preclude those charged with being convicted of the numerous other offenses for which they were charged. In addition, it shouldn't matter how high the bar is or how challenging it would be to get a conviction for insurrection; members of Congress and other public figures are openly saying that this is worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor... well, we went to wars over those events. A more challenging prosecution should be the least of the government's concerns if the allegation of "insurrection" isn't just divisive hyperbole. I suggest it is just divisive hyperbole, and should be ceased at once. By all means, lock these assclowns up, and for a lot more than 8 months, but this wasn't an insurrection. Again, simply my opinion, but the lack of charges seems to back me up somewhat.

No, a federal prosecutor shouldn't charge someone under the 'remotest' of possibilities for a conviction. The standard for a federal prosecutor is that the evidence would lead to a probable conviction. In fact, avoiding an acquittal is a main tenant of federal prosecution.

Halifax2TheMax · July 2021

If only George Floyd had been afforded the same level of "justice." Gotta love the last line. And I have no sympathy for any of these people. None.

What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6?

Robert Gieswein is a good man, according to family and friends, who describe him as gentle and compassionate. His mother says he has “an amazing work ethic.” His younger sister calls him “the most inspiring person in my life.” He bought clothes and shoes for the residents of a nursing home where he worked as a nurse’s aide. The 24-year-old had no criminal history when he traveled to Washington, D.C., in January and, according to the U.S. government, joined a violent siege of the U.S. Capitol.

Gieswein appears to be affiliated with the radical militia group the Three Percenters, the FBI says, and the leader of a “private paramilitary training group” called the Woodland Wild Dogs. On Jan. 6, he donned goggles, a camouflage shirt, an army-style helmet and a military-style vest reinforced with an armored plate and a black pouch emblazoned with “MY MOM THINKS I’M SPECIAL.” Then, wielding a baseball bat and a noxious spray, he stormed the U.S. Capitol, attacked a federal officer and helped halt the certification of the 2020 presidential election, the government claims.

Gieswein has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts, including assaulting an officer and destruction of government property. Now he wants to be let out of jail, subject to very strict conditions, while he awaits trial — because the man he really is, according to his lawyer, is not the man the government says he was on that day.

“If what the government says is true, then Mr. Gieswein committed assault on January 6,” federal public defender Ann Mason Rigby said July 1 during a hearing on his detention. “The question before the court is: Is he incorrigibly violent? Is that a characteristic that cannot be controlled? And that’s why you have to look at his history.”

That’s what the U.S. District Court in D.C. is doing with at least 535 people who were somehow involved in the breach of the Capitol; there are hundreds of ongoing investigations beyond that, according to FBI Director Christopher A. Wray.

What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6? - The Washington Post

Continued next post

Halifax2TheMax · July 2021

Continued from previous post

It's a lot to absorb, psychologically and legally. The FBI is still tracking down participants and digging through their life stories. D.C. judges are handling multiple hearings per day; at least 11 were on the court's calendar on Monday alone. Defendants languish in jail as their families suffer. Attorneys are deluged with video and photo evidence produced by their own clients and gathered by the government. Amid the echoes and static of remote hearings, players are debating the differences between a principal actor and an aider or abettor, if a "momentary lapse in judgment" could last multiple hours, and whether a weapon meets the legal definition of "dangerous" if it didn't cause serious harm.

What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6? - The Washington Post

continued at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/capitol-riot-defense-trump-election/2021/07/19/e14f665e-d812-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html

josevolution · July 2021

Halifax2TheMax said:

Continued from previous post
It's a lot to absorb, psychologically and legally. The FBI is still tracking down participants and digging through their life stories. D.C. judges are handling multiple hearings per day; at least 11 were on the court's calendar on Monday alone. Defendants languish in jail as their families suffer. Attorneys are deluged with video and photo evidence produced by their own clients and gathered by the government. Amid the echoes and static of remote hearings, players are debating the differences between a principal actor and an aider or abettor, if a "momentary lapse in judgment" could last multiple hours, and whether a weapon meets the legal definition of "dangerous" if it didn't cause serious harm.
What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6? - The Washington Post
continued at
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/capitol-riot-defense-trump-election/2021/07/19/e14f665e-d812-11eb-bb9e-70fda8c37057_story.html

Exactly I don’t have a microdot of pity for anyone who walked stormed or danced into the capitol screw them all !

Bentleyspop · July 2021

So many idiots....

Bumble match turns in January 6 suspect who allegedly whipped police. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/23/politics/capitol-riot-bumble-dating-app-match-andrew-taake/index.html

mickeyrat · July 2021

https://www.rollcall.com/2021/07/28/justice-department-leaves-rep-mo-brooks-on-his-own-in-jan-6-lawsuit/

Justice Department leaves Rep. Mo Brooks on his own in Jan. 6 lawsuitHouse General Counsel's Office also declines to take a side in member-vs.-member litigation

Alabama Republican Rep Mo Brooks here talking with Capitol Policel won039t get the backing of the Justice Department or House lawyers in his bid to be removed from a lawsuit related to the Jan 6 mob attack on the Capitol Tom WilliamsCQ Roll Call file photo

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, here talking with Capitol Policel, won't get the backing of the Justice Department or House lawyers in his bid to be removed from a lawsuit related to the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)

By Todd Ruger

Posted July 28, 2021 at 12:19pm

Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks will have a lonely fight to get legal protection from California Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell’s lawsuit over the Jan. 6 mob attack on the Capitol, now that government lawyers declined to back Brooks.

The House General Counsel’s Office told a federal judge that it was not appropriate for House lawyers to weigh in on whether Brooks should be removed from the lawsuit stemming from his claim that he was acting within the scope of his employment as a member of Congress.

That’s because the litigation pits one current member of Congress against another as individuals and “does not challenge any institutional action of the House or any of its component entities,” House General Counsel Doug Letter wrote in a court filing on Tuesday.

And the Justice Department took a harder and more judgmental line later Tuesday when it declined to certify that Brooks had been acting within his official role as a member of Congress when he spoke at a rally ahead of the attack.

“Brooks cannot show that his actions in inciting a deadly riot were somehow within the scope of his federal employment,” the Justice Department wrote.

Brooks, who has filed his own responses in Swalwell’s lawsuit, has until Aug. 10 to file a response to the House General Counsel’s Office and the Justice Department.

Swalwell filed a lawsuit in March that accuses Brooks, former President Donald Trump and others of directly inciting the attack on the Capitol. It describes how Brooks promoted and spoke at the rally near the Washington Monument before the attack.

A federal judge will ultimately decide whether Brooks qualifies for a federal law that essentially gives immunity to government employees or officials on claims for negligent or wrongful acts when acting within the scope of their official duties.

The statute allows members of Congress to have the United States substituted as the defendant in such a suit, and the government — not the lawmaker — bears any resulting liability.

The House generally has a strong institutional interest in defending its traditionally broad view of what counts as a member acting within the scope of their office. The House General Counsel’s Office, under control of the Democrats because they have a majority, had not weighed in on the member-vs.-member lawsuit.

The office kept that stance Tuesday even when the judge asked them to weigh in. Letter pointed to the same stance in a 2007 lawsuit, when then-Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, sued Rep. James McDermott, D-Wash., for disclosing to reporters a recording of a conference call with Republican leadership that a couple in Florida had intercepted on a police scanner radio.

The Justice Department based its stance in the Brooks case in part on a letter from California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the chair of the House Administration Committee, that states that Brooks undercut his own case for protections.

“Essentially, in deflecting the allegation that his speech was an incitement to violence, Representative Brooks has sworn under oath to the court that his conduct was instead in furtherance of political campaigns,” Lofgren wrote to the DOJ.

Standards of conduct for members and House precedent “are clear that campaign activity is outside the scope of official duties and not a permissible use of official resources,” Lofgren wrote.

Brooks, in a petition he filed himself, points out that his tweets and his speech at the rally centered on the contested presidential election and whether to certify the state electoral counts, which was the business before Congress on the day of the Jan. 6 attack.

The courts could decide that Brooks’ speech that day falls under the scope of official activities, such as communicating with the public on matters of public concern.

Brooks was among the 147 Republican members of Congress who voted to reject votes from at least one state in the hours after the Trump-inspired mob’s attack delayed the process of counting electoral votes to determine the outcome of the presidential election.

The Justice Department, in its filing, argues in part that the law that governs how Congress counts electoral votes does not give Brooks a right to challenge state results.

continues ..

Halifax2TheMax · August 2021

Seems 3D is back in vogue! There's always more to the story, like bamboo fibers, overseas ballots, hacked ballot tabulating machines and dead people voting. Freedumbs gonna dumb. 'Murica, home of the scared.

As many Republicans try to rewrite history of Jan. 6 attack, Sen. Ron Johnson suggests FBI knew more than it has said

A Republican senator suggested in a private conversation Saturday, without evidence, that the FBI knew more about the planning before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot than it has revealed so far, according to a video obtained by The Washington Post.

The comments from Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), made after a political event at a Wauwatosa, Wis., hotel, reflect the spread of an unfounded claim that has traveled from far-right commentators to Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show to the highest levels of the GOP.

“I don’t say this publicly, but are you watching what’s happening in Michigan?” Johnson said while discussing the Capitol attack with some of the event’s attendees. “. . . So you think the FBI had fully infiltrated the militias in Michigan, but they don’t know squat about what was happening on January 6th or what was happening with these groups? I’d say there is way more to the story.”

Later on.............

The claims were based on the false assumption that those named in numerous court filings as “unindicted co-conspirators” were federal agents or informants. Carlson, for instance, said on his June 15 show that “in potentially every single case, they were FBI operatives.”

In fact, under federal case law, federal prosecutors cannot refer to federal operatives as “co-conspirators,” because they are acting on behalf of the government, not as part of the conspiracy. Instead, “unindicted co-conspirators” are referred to as such for other reasons, including a lack of evidence to file charges or an after-the-fact cooperation agreement with prosecutors.

3D makes an appearance!.............

Asked about Johnson’s claims, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill pointed to a recent statement from the speaker’s office calling the GOP campaign to blame Pelosi an act of “deflection, distortion, and disinformation” and a “pathetic attempt to distract” from the select committee’s work.

What's a senator without referencing freedumb?..........................

The video of Johnson’s remarks was taken by Bridget Kurt, a 49-year-old Atlanta resident and hospice employee who was staying at the Radisson hotel in Wauwatosa while visiting family. She said she approached Johnson in the hotel bar after the political event ended and the premises were reopened to the public.

Kurt said she was compelled to confront Johnson as a lifelong Republican who has been dismayed with party leaders’ handling of the coronavirus pandemic and the Jan. 6 attack.

“I am so tired of the conspiracy theorists and the Trumpsters destroying our country, our world and our Republican Party,” said Kurt, a Wisconsin native who said she campaigned for Paul D. Ryan in the former House speaker’s early congressional races. “It’s sad, because Wisconsin is better than this.”

Johnson, who is nearing the end of his second term and has not yet announced whether he plans to seek reelection, has been a prominent voice among elected Republicans urging skepticism of coronavirus vaccinations, questioning potential side effects and vocally opposing vaccine mandates.

“It’s time for Americans to reclaim their freedom,” he said in a recent statement opposing President Biden’s vaccination rules for federal employees.

Kurt is heard addressing Johnson at the end of the four-minute recording: “I just want to let you know there truly is a surge in Georgia. I work in hospice. So I just want to make sure you’re encouraging people to get the vaccine.”

“I’m not going to do that,” Johnson responded as his supporters jeered Kurt. “I don’t encourage or discourage.”

The skit continues....................

Ron Johnson on video: FBI knew more about Jan. 6 riot - The Washington Post

Kat · August 2021

The FBI always knows more than it says. I'll bet they know more about Senator Johnson too.

Halifax2TheMax · August 2021

Kat said:

The FBI always knows more than it says. I'll bet they know more about Senator Johnson too.

I don't disagree but the proper forum for finding out about what the FBI knew/knows, and when is with the investigating committee, not casting inaccurate legal aspersions (asparagus) in the right wing media echo chamber. But alas, that would allow for and give legitimacy to the committee and we certainly can't have that. The funny thing is, it was POOTWH's DOJ and FBI "that knew more about the tourist visit before it happened."

I also agree that the FBI knows a whole lot more about the repub complicity and is just waiting to be asked in the appropriate forum.

Capitol Riots 2

Comments

What were the Capitol rioters thinking on Jan. 6?

As many Republicans try to rewrite history of Jan. 6 attack, Sen. Ron Johnson suggests FBI knew more than it has said

Categories