Capitol Riots 2

12425262830

Comments

  • mickeyrat said:
    Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

    The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

    The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

    The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

    “Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”


    its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...
    Still begs the question, yes?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    mickeyrat said:
    Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

    The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

    The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

    The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

    “Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”


    its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...
    Still begs the question, yes?

    yes, its not real til it passes.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    Is Moscow Mitchy Baby going to encourage his caucus to vote “no?” From WaPo:

    The House voted Wednesday to pass an electoral reform bill that seeks to prevent presidents from trying to overturn election results through Congress, the first vote on such an effort since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob seeking to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral win.

    The bill passed on a 229-203 vote, with just nine Republicans breaking ranks and joining Democrats in supporting the measure.

    The Presidential Election Reform Act, written by Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), explicitly cites the Capitol attack as a reason to amend the Electoral Count Act of 1887, “to prevent other future unlawful efforts to overturn Presidential elections and to ensure future peaceful transfers of Presidential power.”

    “Legal challenges are not improper, but Donald Trump’s refusal to abide by the rulings of the courts certainly was,” Cheney said Wednesday during House debate on the measure. “In our system of government, elections in the states determine who is the president. Our bill does not change that. But this bill will prevent Congress from illegally choosing the president itself.”


    its believed there are 10 gop senators supporting a senate version...
    Still begs the question, yes?

    yes, its not real til it passes.


     
    What's in the House, Senate bills overhauling Jan. 6 count
    By MARY CLARE JALONICK
    2 hours ago

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The central idea behind House and Senate bills to reform an arcane federal election law is simple: Congress should not decide presidential elections.

    The bills are a direct response to the Jan. 6 insurrection and former President Donald Trump’s efforts to find a way around the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs, along with the U.S. Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners. The House passed its version of the legislation on Wednesday, and a Senate committee will consider its bipartisan bill next week.

    While the House bill is more expansive, the two bills would make similar changes, all aimed at ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation by bad actors or partisans who want to overturn the will of the voters.

    House Administration Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a lead sponsor of the House bill, says people who wanted to overturn the 2020 election took advantage of ambiguous language “to have Congress play a role that they really aren’t supposed to play.”

    Supporters in both chambers — Democrats and some Republicans — want to pass an overhaul before the start of the next Congress and ahead of the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, as Trump has signaled that he might run again. Ten GOP senators have backed the legislation, likely giving Democrats the votes they need to break a filibuster and pass their electoral bill in the 50-50 Senate.

    A look at what the two bills would do:

    CLARIFY THE VICE PRESIDENT’S ROLE

    Lawmakers and legal experts have long said the 1887 law is vague and vulnerable to abuse, and Democrats saw Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat ahead of Jan. 6, 2021, as a final straw. Supporters of the former president attacked the Capitol that day, echoing his false claims of widespread election fraud, interrupting the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory and calling for Vice President Mike Pence’s death because he wouldn’t try to block Biden from becoming president.

    Both the House and Senate bills would clarify that the vice president’s role presiding over the congressional certification every Jan. 6 after a presidential election is “ministerial” and that he or she has no power to determine the results of the election — an effort to make that point emphatically in the law after Trump and some of his allies put massive pressure on Pence. He resisted those entreaties, but many lawmakers were concerned that the law wasn’t clear enough on that point.

    The Senate bill states that the vice president “shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors.” The House bill has similar language and adds that the vice president “shall not order any delay in counting or preside over any period of delay in counting electoral votes.”

    MORE DIFFICULT TO OBJECT

    The two bills would also make it more difficult for lawmakers to object to a particular state’s electoral votes. Under current law, just one member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. Both bills would significantly raise that threshold, with the House bill requiring a third of each chamber to object and the Senate bill requiring a fifth of each chamber to object.

    The House bill goes even further, specifying very narrow grounds for the objections, such as if certain electors are ineligible under the law or if a state submitted too many votes.

    Brookings Institution Fellow Norm Eisen, a legal expert who consulted with lawmakers writing the legislation, said the House bill puts tighter parameters around “opportunities for mischief” by lawmakers who may be taking sides.

    NO FAKE ELECTORS

    Both bills would ensure that there is one “single, conclusive slate of electors,” as senators put it, a response to Trump allies’ unsuccessful efforts to create alternate, illegitimate slates of Trump electors in states that Biden narrowly won in 2020.

    Each state’s governor would be required to submit the electors, which are sent under a formal process to Congress and opened at the rostrum during the congressional session on Jan. 6 after every presidential election. The House and the Senate bills would also establish legal processes if any of those electors are challenged by a presidential candidate.

    'CATASTROPHIC EVENTS'

    The House and Senate legislation would also revise language in current law that wasn’t challenged during the 2020 election, but that lawmakers think could be vulnerable to abuse. The law now allows state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by calling a “failed election,” but the term is not defined under the law.

    The Senate bill says a state could only move its presidential election day if there are “extraordinary and catastrophic” events that necessitate that to happen. House lawmakers and legal experts like Eisen have argued that the Senate language is still too vague, and the House bill would only allow such a delay if a federal judge agrees that there has been a genuine catastrophic event affecting enough ballots.

    The House bill would also limit such a move to the affected geographic area and would require the extension to last no longer than five days after Election Day.

    CERTIFYING ELECTIONS

    The House bill would add language to try to prohibit state or local officials from refusing to count valid votes in a presidential election or refusing to certify a legitimate election — an attempt to assuage some lawmakers' fears that the next presidential candidate will follow Trump's lead and try to pressure lower-level officials to overturn the results. Presidential candidates could go to court to force such a count.

    The Senate bill has no such language.

    ___

    Follow the AP's coverage related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege.


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Carried over from the Biden thread:

    HughFreakingDillon said:
    well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment. 
    From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc. 

    This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

    Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?
    As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
    Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. 


    You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do. 
    That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.
    It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place.  So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner. 
    Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Carried over from the Biden thread:

    HughFreakingDillon said:
    well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment. 
    From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc. 

    This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

    Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?
    As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
    Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. 


    You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do. 
    That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.
    It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place.  So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner. 
    Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment. 

    that "moment" was at a minimum from fucksticks first statements about a rigged election , how many months before Nov 2020? Or even further back from the aggrieved politics from fuckstick and others during his administration or even further back by the fearmongering politics of that party and talk radio, fox news and the like..

    Like drug addicts , seeking out their drug of choice i.e. fox news etc they may not be responsible for becoming addicts in the first place  but they are certainly responsible and accountable for their actions while "under the influence".
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Carried over from the Biden thread:

    HughFreakingDillon said:
    well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment. 
    From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc. 

    This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

    Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?
    As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
    Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. 


    You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do. 
    That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.
    It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place.  So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner. 
    Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment. 

    that "moment" was at a minimum from fucksticks first statements about a rigged election , how many months before Nov 2020? Or even further back from the aggrieved politics from fuckstick and others during his administration or even further back by the fearmongering politics of that party and talk radio, fox news and the like..

    Like drug addicts , seeking out their drug of choice i.e. fox news etc they may not be responsible for becoming addicts in the first place  but they are certainly responsible and accountable for their actions while "under the influence".
    Yup. 
  • I don't recall the Shaman being violent.  That's one at least.
    he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?
    Not violent though.
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    I don't recall the Shaman being violent.  That's one at least.
    he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?
    Not violent though.

    did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat said:
    I don't recall the Shaman being violent.  That's one at least.
    he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?
    Not violent though.

    did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.
    Every video shown has him not using that staff.  The AG or whatever wanted to use that tidbit though, the tip of it as a weapon and rightly so, it is a weapon, but he never wielded it as one.

    So, still not violent.


  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    mickeyrat said:
    I don't recall the Shaman being violent.  That's one at least.
    he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?
    Not violent though.

    did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.
    Every video shown has him not using that staff.  The AG or whatever wanted to use that tidbit though, the tip of it as a weapon and rightly so, it is a weapon, but he never wielded it as one.

    So, still not violent.



    ok, apologist. he was part of the larger whole that was violent.

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyrat said:
    mickeyrat said:
    I don't recall the Shaman being violent.  That's one at least.
    he was egging the mob on. he was at the podium. he was saying, on video, "ohhhhhh naaaaaancy!!!" was he not?
    Not violent though.

    did not his "staff" have a pointed object affixed to the top? he had a weapon . used or on his person in the commission of a crime.
    Every video shown has him not using that staff.  The AG or whatever wanted to use that tidbit though, the tip of it as a weapon and rightly so, it is a weapon, but he never wielded it as one.

    So, still not violent.



    ok, apologist. he was part of the larger whole that was violent.

    Apologist?  No.  Stating facts.  In the end I would give him a lesser sentence than others but he still deserves a sentence, that's not apologetic.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,585
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Carried over from the Biden thread:

    HughFreakingDillon said:
    well, based on most of them leaving when the violence erupted, I'd say it's an accurate assessment. 
    From where do you get the info that most left when the violence erupted? I would like to read up on it. It got me thinking about #s at the ellipse vs. #s at the capitol, etc. 

    This article from ABC News estimates 10k people came onto capitol grounds… granted, only 20% or so entered the building, but that’s a still a decent amount who marched down there after listening to speeches invoking trial by combat & fighting like hell. https://abc7.com/jan-6-insurrection-us-capitol-riot/11428976/

    Do we know how many were at the ellipse vs how many marched down to the capitol grounds?
    As you said, 10k showed up to the capitol, 2,000 - 2,500 entered the building. From all the footage I've seen, the majority were just being stupid. More seem to be roaming around, taking selfies than assaulting people.
    Its difficult to post an opposing opinion here without it being taken out of context. That doesn't mean I'm defending anyone. I think many of them deserve jail time. Anyone who entered the capitol should face some consequence. I just don't think it automatically means they are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. Some I'm sure would, but the majority aren't wanting a civil war and won't be taking up arms.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest the mob that stormed the Capitol and kicked the shit out of the Capitol police are willing to resort to violence for political reasons. 


    You can complain all you want about being taken out of context, but you're also contradicting yourself. Yesterday you said you wouldn't assume the intent of the people who were there, and here you're assuming what they are & aren't willing to do. 
    That’s not contradicting. I didn’t say I wouldn’t assume their intent. I believe I said we can’t know for sure, we’re arguing a hypothetical and that is my opinion. It’s still my opinion. I don’t know for sure what was going on in their heads, but I can have an opinion about it. And I could be completely wrong. Maybe they were hoping to murder some politicians and have a violent takeover, but I just don’t believe the majority wanted to and wouldn’t want to in the future.
    It's not like these people exist in a vacuum. It's relatively easy to form opinions based on the other decisions they made that put them there in the first place.  So while nobody knows exactly what is going on in someone else's brain, I don't think these are people deserving of the benefit of the doubt. They're not "average joes" who got caught up in a riot. They chose to attend a "stop the steal" rally. They participated in a march to the capitol building at the exact date and time the election was being certified. They chanted about killing the vice president and taking back the country. They broke through police barricades. They physically assaulted as many of the outnumbered police that were there until there was nobody left to assault. Then they posed for pictures and did the typical touristy thing once they broke into the building. No big deal. Just a lil coup attempt before grabbing dinner. 
    Nor did 1/6 happen in a vacuum, but never mind all that. The majority of the poor souls who were there are just victims of circumstance who got caught up in the moment. 
    No one said that.
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 7,585
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with. 

    mace has not been defending them. 
    Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country. 
    I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
    It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over. 
    Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that. 
    My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.
    There were only a couple hundred police to attack. After the mob assaulted them, there was nobody else for them to assault except members of congress who had just gotten away. 

    Over 50% of Republicans believe a Civil War is on the horizon. You can keep denying these things if you want. But these people are out there and they are a threat to our country's future. 
    Just because 50% think it’s likely to happen doesn’t mean they want it to or are willing to die so Trump can get back in office. I can’t think of a single person I know that I believe would pick up their gun and jump into a battle. If that was really the case, statistically I’d know a few dozen. The number of people who are wanting and willing to make that happen are very few, despite how many people think it is likely.
    A civil war isn’t going to happen. Republicans aren’t going to forcefully take over. Millions of people aren’t going to take up arms against this country. That’s part of the fear spreading to make us hate each other even more.
    Yeah. It doesn't take millions, dude. Please stop taking posts so literal. I'm in a suburb of a blue state and I have clearly seen people I used to be friends with go off the deep end on facebook and would not be surprised to see them jump to action if the time comes. 

    Roe V Wade will never be overturned either, right? It's just a states issue, right?  Like I said, keep downplaying these things.....they're lurking on the horizon whether you choose to believe or not. The longer these far right politicians keep stoking the flames the worse things will get...

    Judging by your lack of response, I think we have common ground on the violence on Jan 6th though. At least we're getting somewhere!
    Taking what posts literally? The comment about millions willing to to go to civil war? There were multiple posts trying to defend that claim, pretty sure it was meant to be literal.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 5,184
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    some here seem to have a difficult time processing the difference between defending someone and stating an opposing viewpoint of events as they unfolded/not assuming what's going on in someone's mind based on who they are affiliated with. 

    mace has not been defending them. 
    Calling people who breached police barricades en route to invading the capitol building, in an effort to stop the certifying of our election "average joes" is akin to defending them in my opinion. Sorry Hugh. I have no sympathy for anyone who approached the capitol building that day.....including the republican nominee for governor in my state. I think he represents the type of people who were there perfectly. No evidence that he set foot in the capitol, but he was there and he is certifiably crazy and a direct threat to the future of our country. 
    I’m not defending those people. All I’m saying is I don’t believe the majority of those people are really wanting a civil war, willing to take up arms or personally inflict violence on government officials.
    It looked like a couple hundred attacking police, then 2000 more just followed and roamed around an empty Capitol taking selfies. They let the mob mentality take over. 
    Thats not defending them. I don’t feel sorry for anyone being arrested who entered the building. They’re getting what they deserve. My comment is simply arguing against the idea that millions are willing to take up arms against the government and that Jan 6 is proof of that. 
    My average Joe comment wasn’t that they were all average joes who just showed up, but that more of the people there (the average person in the crowd) wasn’t there to start a civil war.
    There were only a couple hundred police to attack. After the mob assaulted them, there was nobody else for them to assault except members of congress who had just gotten away. 

    Over 50% of Republicans believe a Civil War is on the horizon. You can keep denying these things if you want. But these people are out there and they are a threat to our country's future. 
    Just because 50% think it’s likely to happen doesn’t mean they want it to or are willing to die so Trump can get back in office. I can’t think of a single person I know that I believe would pick up their gun and jump into a battle. If that was really the case, statistically I’d know a few dozen. The number of people who are wanting and willing to make that happen are very few, despite how many people think it is likely.
    A civil war isn’t going to happen. Republicans aren’t going to forcefully take over. Millions of people aren’t going to take up arms against this country. That’s part of the fear spreading to make us hate each other even more.
    Yeah. It doesn't take millions, dude. Please stop taking posts so literal. I'm in a suburb of a blue state and I have clearly seen people I used to be friends with go off the deep end on facebook and would not be surprised to see them jump to action if the time comes. 

    Roe V Wade will never be overturned either, right? It's just a states issue, right?  Like I said, keep downplaying these things.....they're lurking on the horizon whether you choose to believe or not. The longer these far right politicians keep stoking the flames the worse things will get...

    Judging by your lack of response, I think we have common ground on the violence on Jan 6th though. At least we're getting somewhere!
    Taking what posts literally? The comment about millions willing to to go to civil war? There were multiple posts trying to defend that claim, pretty sure it was meant to be literal.

    Voting to support violence is violence.

    Trump was directly supporting violence against Dems this week.

    Accusing your political opponent of fraud is violent.

    most candidates running on the R midterm ticket support the accusation of election fraud by dems without proof and are as a result supporting violence.

    Moderates pretending that Jan six is not related to the entire election problems caused by trumpism and continuing to vote Republican are supporting a violent movement, which imo risks more violence.

    Millions will ignore all the evidence of recent threatened violence and vote R, giving the violent minority alot power, if they happen to win the midterms.
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 5,184
    edited September 22
    This country can be incredible. Many want to pretend that Jan six is not related to all the election problems caused by trumpism (“keep your riot talk out of this Biden topic”)

    And I’ve been accused a few times of fabricating a comment that millions wanted civil war after the mar a lago raid.

    I donno, wasn’t the news flooding with stories similar to the below after the raid, or did I make it up?



    ….

    After news broke Monday evening that the FBI had raided Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump, right-wing influencer Steven Crowder delivered an alarming message to his nearly 2 million followers on Twitter: “Sleep well. Tomorrow is war.” 

    The next day, during his show on YouTube, where he has nearly 6 million subscribers, Crowder called for ​​the “defunding” and “dismantling” of “our intelligence agencies” and the FBI over the raid on Trump’s seaside mansion. He also called for a purge, imploring the GOP to get revenge.

    “The next president of the United States needs to prosecute everyone,” he said. “Needs to clean house everywhere.” 

    “If a Republican gets in, investigate everybody, raid everybody,” he added. “Use all of it. I don’t care if we become Nicaragua at this point.”

    Monica Crowley, a former Trump administration official and Fox News personality who now hosts her own radio show, suggested it might be time for people to lay their lives on the line. “This is it,” she tweeted. “This is the hill to die on.” 

    Others invoked ancient Rome. “The Rubicon has been crossed,” tweeted far-right YouTuber Tim Pool. Conservative radio host Jesse Kelly posted a quote from Roman general Pompey Magnus: “Do not quote laws to men with swords.


    And Jon Miller, a former host with the right-wing outlet Blaze TV, was even more blunt.

    “Either we destroy our political enemies ruthlessly and mercilessly or they destroy us,” he wrote on Gab for his 45,000 followers. “It’s that simple.”

    In pro-Trump online communities such as The Donald, posts with hundreds of likes suggested there would be a civil war and users wrote violent comments claiming people need to be hanged over the raid. The top comment with over 1,000 likes on a thread about the raid appeared to urge people to "lock and load" weapons. The most popular reply to that — "Are we not in a cold civil war at this point?" 



    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • This country can be incredible. Many want to pretend that Jan six is not related to all the election problems caused by trumpism (“keep your riot talk out of this Biden topic”)

    And I’ve been accused a few times of fabricating a comment that millions wanted civil war after the mar a lago raid.

    I donno, wasn’t the news flooding with stories similar to the below after the raid, or did I make it up?



    ….

    After news broke Monday evening that the FBI had raided Mar-a-Lago, the Florida home of former President Donald Trump, right-wing influencer Steven Crowder delivered an alarming message to his nearly 2 million followers on Twitter: “Sleep well. Tomorrow is war.” 

    The next day, during his show on YouTube, where he has nearly 6 million subscribers, Crowder called for ​​the “defunding” and “dismantling” of “our intelligence agencies” and the FBI over the raid on Trump’s seaside mansion. He also called for a purge, imploring the GOP to get revenge.

    “The next president of the United States needs to prosecute everyone,” he said. “Needs to clean house everywhere.” 

    “If a Republican gets in, investigate everybody, raid everybody,” he added. “Use all of it. I don’t care if we become Nicaragua at this point.”

    Monica Crowley, a former Trump administration official and Fox News personality who now hosts her own radio show, suggested it might be time for people to lay their lives on the line. “This is it,” she tweeted. “This is the hill to die on.” 

    Others invoked ancient Rome. “The Rubicon has been crossed,” tweeted far-right YouTuber Tim Pool. Conservative radio host Jesse Kelly posted a quote from Roman general Pompey Magnus: “Do not quote laws to men with swords.


    And Jon Miller, a former host with the right-wing outlet Blaze TV, was even more blunt.

    “Either we destroy our political enemies ruthlessly and mercilessly or they destroy us,” he wrote on Gab for his 45,000 followers. “It’s that simple.”

    In pro-Trump online communities such as The Donald, posts with hundreds of likes suggested there would be a civil war and users wrote violent comments claiming people need to be hanged over the raid. The top comment with over 1,000 likes on a thread about the raid appeared to urge people to "lock and load" weapons. The most popular reply to that — "Are we not in a cold civil war at this point?" 



    Not to mention that 61% of repubs believe the US should declare itself a "Christian" nation and that Lorena Bobbit publicly stated at a rally to thunderous applause that, "government shouldn't tell the church what to do, the church should tell the government what to do."

    Makes me wonder what side some of the posters on here will align with when their neighbors, coworkers and community members take up arms against the government. But we all know that if blood isn't spilled, its all okay.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©

  • 09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 9,900

    Hero of the ABs
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 5,184
    It’s just a couple of crazies…as long as I can enjoy a latte with my gop business contacts, I am happy!!



    The Montgomery, Alabama-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic extremism, last month reported a 7 percent rise in hate groups in the U.S. in 2018, with 1,020 groups identified. White nationalist groups, specifically, surged nearly 50 percent, growing from 100 chapters in 2017 to 148 in 2018.

    Last year marked the fourth year in a row that the number of hate groups increased, after a short period of decline. The rise, SPLC says, was fueled by political polarization, anti-immigrant views and the ease of spreading those ideologies through the internet. 

    Beirich noted that Alexa web traffic analytics show the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer site now gets about 4.3 million page views a month.

    “More and more people are interested in their ideas,” she said.

    In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken just after the Charlottesville rally in August 2017, 9 percent of the respondents said they thought it was strongly or somewhat acceptable to hold neo–Nazi or white supremacist views. As ABC Newsreported at the time, that’s equivalent to about 22 million Americans

  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 26,791

     
    'Fighting fit': Trial to show Oath Keepers' road to Jan. 6
    By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER
    Today

    The voting was over and almost all ballots were counted. News outlets on Nov. 7, 2020, had called the presidential race for Democrat Joe Biden. But the leader of the Oath Keepers extremist group was just beginning to fight.

    Convinced the White House had been stolen from Republican Donald Trump, Stewart Rhodes exhorted his followers to action, suggesting they emulate a popular uprising that brought down Yugoslavia's president two decades earlier. He published a version of his appeal online, headlined, “What We The People Must Do.”

    “We must now ... refuse to accept it and march en-mass on the nation’s Capitol,” Rhodes declared to fellow Oath Keepers.

    Authorities allege that Rhodes and his band of extremists would spend the next several weeks amassing weapons, organizing paramilitary training and readying armed teams outside Washington with a singular goal: stopping Joe Biden from becoming president.

    Their plot would come to a head on Jan. 6, 2021, prosecutors say, when Oath Keepers wearing helmets and other battle gear were captured on camera shouldering their way through the crowd of angry Trump supporters and storming the Capitol in military-style stack formation.

    Hundreds of pages of court documents in the case against Rhodes and four co-defendants — whose trial opens with jury selection Tuesday in Washington's federal court — paint a picture of a group so determined to overturn Biden's election that some members were prepared to lose their lives to do so.

    The trial is the biggest test so far for the Justice Department’s efforts to hold accountable those responsible for the attack on the Capitol, a violent assault that challenged the foundations of American democracy. Rioters temporarily halted the certification of Biden's victory by sheer force, pummeling police officers in hand-to-hand fighting as they rammed their way into the building, forcing Congress to adjourn as lawmakers and staff hid from the mob.

    Despite nearly 900 arrests and hundreds of convictions in the riot, Rhodes and four Oath Keeper associates — Kelly Meggs, Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell — are the first to stand trial on the rare and difficult-to-prove charge of seditious conspiracy. Prosecutors will try to show that the insurrection for the Oath Keepers was not a spur-of-the-moment protest but part of a serious, weekslong plot to stop the transfer of power.

    The trial could shed new light on Trump's attempts to cling to power. It comes amid growing legal peril for the former president, who faces multiple investigations, including one by the Justice Department into his handling of sensitive government documents.

    Defense lawyers for the Oath Keepers will tell jurors the government case is all a lie.

    The Oath Keepers accuse prosecutors of twisting their words and insist there was never any plan to attack the Capitol. They say they were in Washington to provide security at events for figures such as Trump ally Roger Stone before the president's big outdoor rally behind the White House. Their preparations, training, gear and weapons were to protect themselves against potential violence from left-wing antifa activists or to be ready if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act to call up a militia.

    Rhodes' lawyers have signaled that their defense will focus on his belief that Trump would take that action.

    “When he believed that the President would issue an order invoking the Insurrection Act, he was prepared to follow it. When that invocation did not come, he did precisely nothing," Rhodes lawyers wrote in court documents.

    "The Government would like this Court to believe that is sedition, when in fact, it is the opposite. It is loyalty to an oath taken in defense of the Country."

    ___

    Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers in 2009 and it has grown into one of the largest anti-government groups in U.S. history. It recruits past and present members of the military, first responders and police officers, and promotes the belief that the federal government is out to strip citizens of their civil liberties. It portrays its followers as defenders against tyranny.

    On Nov. 9, 2020, less than a week after Election Day, Rhodes held a conference call and rallied the Oath Keepers to go to Washington and fight. He expressed hope that antifa (anti-fascist) activists would start clashes because that would give Trump the “reason and rationale for dropping the Insurrection Act."

    ”You've got to go there and you’ve got to make sure that he knows that you are willing to die to fight for this country," Rhodes told his people, according to a transcript filed in court. He urged those on their way to Washington to stop at Arlington National Cemetery to see the graves of thousands of people who died fighting for the United States.

    “They were willing to give up their entire life,” Rhodes told them. "Most of us are in our 50s or 60s or older. You’ve lived a good life. You’ve lived way past the age of these young men. ... And if you don’t stand up now, everything they fought for and died for will be fought for nothing.“

    Some Oath Keepers would stay outside Washington but be "prepared to go in armed if they have to," Rhodes said on the call. If they failed to “save” the country, Rhodes predicted there would be “a bloody, bloody civil war."

    After the call, another Oath Keeper, Watkins, told people who expressed interest in joining her Ohio militia group about “military-style basic” training planned for early January, prosecutors say. The Florida chapter of the Oath Keepers held training in “unconventional warfare."

    Watkins told one recruit, "I need you fighting fit” by the inauguration, which was Jan. 20, 2021. Watkins later predicted their “way of life” would be over if Biden became president.

    “Our Republic would be over. Then it is our duty as Americans to fight, kill and die for our rights,” she wrote in another message.

    By December, Rhodes and the Oath Keepers had set their sights on Congress' certification of the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6, prosecutors say.

    Trump's Dec. 19 tweet about a “big protest in D.C. on January 6th” that he predicted would "be wild” seemed to energize the Oath Keepers.

    Days later, Meggs — the leader of the Florida chapter— wrote in a Facebook message: “Trump said It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! It’s gonna be wild!!!!!!! He wants us to make it WILD that’s what he’s saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!!"

    During an interview Dec. 22 with a regional Oath Keepers leader, Rhodes described Jan. 6 as “hard constitutional deadline" for stopping Biden from becoming president.

    On Dec. 23, Rhodes published an open letter on the Oath Keepers website declaring that “tens of thousands of patriot Americans, both veterans and nonveterans” would be in Washington. Many would have their “mission-critical gear stowed nearby just outside D.C," he wrote, warning that they might have to “take to arms in defense of our God given liberty.”

    In late December, the Oath Keepers were making plans for “quick reaction force" teams to be stationed at a Virginia hotel in order to shepherd weapons into the city quickly if needed, prosecutors say. In one message days before the Capitol attack, Caldwell suggested getting a boat to ferry “heavy weapons” across the Potomac River into the Oath Keepers' “waiting arms."

    As 2021 approached, Rhodes spent $7,000 on two night-vision devices and a weapon sight and sent them to someone outside Washington, authorities say. Over several days in early January, he would spend an additional $15,500 on guns, including an AR-platform rifle, magazines, mounts, sights and other equipment, according to court documents.

    "There is no standard political or legal way out of this,” Rhodes wrote in a message on New Year's Eve.

    ___

    Oath Keepers from across the country began traveling to the Washington area.

    Rhodes had instructed them to be ready, if asked, to secure the White House perimeter and “use lethal force if necessary” against anyone, including the National Guard, who might try to remove Trump from the White House, according to court documents in the case of one member who has pleaded guilty.

    On Jan. 5, Meggs and the Florida Oath Keepers brought gun boxes, rifle cases and suitcases filled with ammunition to the Virginia hotel where the “quick reaction force” teams would be on standby, according to prosecutors. A team from Arizona brought weapons, ammunition, and supplies to last 30 days, according to court papers. A team from North Carolina had rifles in a vehicle parked in the hotel lot, prosecutors have said. Surveillance footage shows Oath Keepers rolling bags, large bins and what appears to be at least one rifle case into the hotel.

    On the morning of the riot, one of the quick reaction force team members warned on a podcast about the prospect of violence: “We are applying as much pressure as we can. The only and obvious next step is to go into armed conflict but hoping very much that that doesn’t happen.”

    Trump delivered his speech at the Ellipse behind the White House, repeating his false claims about a rigged election and urging his supporters to “fight like hell." The crowd started marching to the Capitol, eventually fighting past police barricades.

    As word began spreading that people were storming the Capitol, Rhodes wrote: “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no attempt by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it in their own hands. They’ve had enough.”

    At the Capitol, the Oath Keepers formed two teams, military “stacks,” prosecutors say.

    The first stack, with members wearing protective vests, helmets and communication devices, pushed through the crowd and up the Capitol steps. Over a channel called “Stop the Steal J6” on the walkie-talkie app Zello, Watkins said they were inside.

    “Get it, Jess. ... Everything we (expletive) trained for,” someone responded.

    Some members of the first stack headed toward the House of Representatives searching for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., but couldn’t find her, according to court documents. Members of the second stack confronted officers inside the Capitol Rotunda, prosecutors allege.

    Rhodes isn't accused of going inside the Capitol but was seen huddled with members outside after the riot. Rhodes and others then walked to the nearby Phoenix Park Hotel, prosecutors say.

    Inside a private suite there, Rhodes called someone on the phone with an urgent message for Trump, according to an Oath Keeper who says he was there. Rhodes repeatedly urged the person on the phone to tell Trump to call upon militia groups to fight to keep the president in power, court papers say. The person denied Rhodes' request to speak directly to Trump.

    “I just want to fight,” Rhodes said after hanging up, according to court papers. Authorities have not disclosed the name of the person they believe Rhodes was speaking to on the call. Rhodes' lawyer has said the call never happened.

    That night, Rhodes and other Oath Keepers went to dinner at an Olive Garden restaurant in Virginia. In messages over the course of the evening, they indicated their fight was far from over.

    “We aren't quitting!! We are reloading!!" Meggs wrote in one message.

    “Patriots entering their own Capitol to send a message to the traitors is NOTHING compared to what’s coming,” Rhodes wrote in another.

    In the days between the riot and Biden's inauguration, Rhodes spent more than $17,000 on firearm parts, magazines, ammunition and other items, prosecutors say.

    ____

    Rhodes returned to his home state of Texas after the Jan. 6 attack and remained free for a year before his arrest in January 2022.

    In interviews before he was jailed, he sought to distance himself from those Oath Keepers who went inside the Capitol, saying it was a mistake to do so. But he also continued to push the lie that the election was stolen from Trump and painted the investigation of the Jan. 6 events as politically motivated.

    The Oath Keepers' "team leader on the ground that day was an experienced combat vet. ... If he had actually intended for anyone to go into the Capitol and commit an insurrection, it would have looked very, very different from what we saw," Rhodes said in a March 2021 interview with the website Gateway Pundit.

    “The idea that that was somehow an insurrection, with no guns no actual, obvious intent to do anything is just ridiculous, a complete joke," he said.

    A lawyer for Caldwell wrote in a recent filing: “Defense counsel have reviewed thousands of text messages, Signal messages, emails, Facebook Messenger messages, social media posts, etc. and have found no evidence that the Rhodes defendants planned any specific acts of civil disobedience or violence on J6."

    The lawyer added: “If Caldwell or the Oath Keepers or both had a plan to forcibly, corruptly, illegally, or violently stop the Electoral College certification on J6, it was the best kept secret in the annals of American history."

    ___

    For full coverage of the Capitol riot, go to https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege


    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Judges, when it gets there, need to start ordering up mental health evaluations. Goes for POOTWH as well. Are they even competent to testify under oath or stand trial?

    Ginni Thomas claims 2020 election was stolen in meeting with House Jan. 6 committee

    WASHINGTON – Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, repeated claims the 2020 election was stolen, despite a lack of evidence, while testifying Thursday before the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The committee wanted to interview Ginni Thomas about her advocacy for challenging the results of the 2020 election. The chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters after the session she repeated her opinion the election was stolen despite a lack of evidence.

    Ginni Thomas claims 2020 election was stolen in meeting with House Jan. 6 committee (msn.com)

    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,241
    Judges, when it gets there, need to start ordering up mental health evaluations. Goes for POOTWH as well. Are they even competent to testify under oath or stand trial?

    Ginni Thomas claims 2020 election was stolen in meeting with House Jan. 6 committee

    WASHINGTON – Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, repeated claims the 2020 election was stolen, despite a lack of evidence, while testifying Thursday before the House committee investigating the Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021.

    The committee wanted to interview Ginni Thomas about her advocacy for challenging the results of the 2020 election. The chairman, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., told reporters after the session she repeated her opinion the election was stolen despite a lack of evidence.

    Ginni Thomas claims 2020 election was stolen in meeting with House Jan. 6 committee (msn.com)

    because of course.

    this lady is in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




  • static111static111 Posts: 4,008
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 7,488
    edited September 30
    static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
  • static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
    I'll defend him.  I'm sure if I was in his situation I'd have been pushed right into Pelosi's chair too.  It's completely plausible /s
  • static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
    I'll defend him.  I'm sure if I was in his situation I'd have been pushed right into Pelosi's chair too.  It's completely plausible /s
    I'm sure it's a comfy chair & his feet were probably pretty sore after violently assaulting the Capitol police all his efforts to turn against the crowd and go against the tidal wave of people, all moving in the same direction. 
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin LouisPosts: 20,241
    static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
    I'll defend him.  I'm sure if I was in his situation I'd have been pushed right into Pelosi's chair too.  It's completely plausible /s
    i hate it when someone overpowers me and picks up my feet and puts them on someone's desk without at least taking off my boots first.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
    I'll defend him.  I'm sure if I was in his situation I'd have been pushed right into Pelosi's chair too.  It's completely plausible /s
    I'm sure it's a comfy chair & his feet were probably pretty sore after violently assaulting the Capitol police all his efforts to turn against the crowd and go against the tidal wave of people, all moving in the same direction. 
    static111 said:
    Another poor soul who just got caught up in the moment.  :D




    the ole caught up in the moment with a nightstick defense
    Don't forget the stun gun. 

    Proly carries it every where tho, Bet he was just out for an afternoon walk when he went down the wrong street & then couldn't turn against the crowd & got pushed into the building & Nancy Pelosi's office & then Nancy Pelosi's chair....  obviously. 
    I'll defend him.  I'm sure if I was in his situation I'd have been pushed right into Pelosi's chair too.  It's completely plausible /s
    i hate it when someone overpowers me and picks up my feet and puts them on someone's desk without at least taking off my boots first.
    I thought this was the guy that changed his tune and said what he believed was a ruse?

    Must have been another old white dude that said it?
Sign In or Register to comment.