Where Were You on June 9, 2022?

 

On the ninth day of the sixth month, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Two, the American House of Representatives convened a television show about a political protest some years earlier.  The clips from this show will be used as “facts” for elections in 2022 and 2024.  These clips will be used by Democrat campaigns, of course, but more to the point, they will be used by the state-run media to condition voters and vote managers.  The more people in on the next steal, the less work each plotter involved must do.

I cannot rate the show very highly.  It has terrible pacing and features weak performances from the usual crew of identical new faces who for some reason keep showing up on our screens.  It wasn’t like this in the old days.  It used to be that a show needed some strong performances and tight writing to get popular.  There was a kind of platinum age of television heralded by the beloved but now-unwatchable “Babylon 5,” which was a watershed in long-arc, multi-season plotting of a broadcast series.  Shows followed in different genres: “The Sopranos,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Dexter,” “Game of Thrones,” “Breaking Bad,” “Better Call Saul.”  This current offering from the House is poorly done.  It’s amazing it got greenlit.

I never watched the Sopranos until these days.  I’m midway through the fourth Season.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 271 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Just the idea that Pence was going to be captured and killed by these rioters is laughable.

    Nobody sane believes that. It’s amazing that you think Trump was silently approving of such a thing. More mind-reading. Please stop.

    • #121
  2. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Just the idea that Pence was going to be captured and killed by these rioters is laughable.

    Nobody sane believes that. It’s amazing that you think Trump was silently approving of such a thing. More mind-reading. Please stop.

    I’m glad you are so confident of your opinions what Trump did or was capable of doing. No doubt you were there Jan. 6, you’ve read all the credible sources, and you know Trump is of sufficient high character that he’d never wish ill on another. 

    I will stop now, because the conversation with you has reached its nadir. 

    • #122
  3. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    It’s funny that after 6 or 7 years and two spurious impeachments, and now in the run-up to a crucial election, we have a TV show, produced and promoted much like a Gilligan’s Island reunion, asking questions of what happened a year and a half ago, produced by a cohort of biased Democrats, and people are actually saying: Oh, good!  Let’s see what testimony they can produce!

    I don’t know why this line keeps ringing in my ears.

    “Now would I say something that wasn’t true?  I’m asking you sugar, would I lie to you?”

    • #123
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jager (View Comment):
    Each side is convinced that  the facts will prove their case.

    Not me.  The facts will not prove my case.  They haven’t so far, and just as with Benghazi, the truth does not matter.  Let us plan our defenses accordingly.

    • #124
  5. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Just the idea that Pence was going to be captured and killed by these rioters is laughable.

    Nobody sane believes that. It’s amazing that you think Trump was silently approving of such a thing. More mind-reading. Please stop.

    I’m glad you are so confident of your opinions what Trump did or was capable of doing. No doubt you were there Jan. 6, you’ve read all the credible sources, and you know Trump is of sufficient high character that he’d never wish ill on another.

    Your problem is that you always reach for the extremes. If I disagree with you that Trump wished Pence would be killed, then obviously my view is that Trump is a paragon of virtue.

    I see this with a lot of mind-reading NeverTrumpers. Everyone who disagrees with their views of Trump “worships the Orange God” or some dumb thing.

    I agree that this conversation has reached its nadir.

    But this whole show trial is the nadir of American politics.

    It is, in fact, Soviet.

    • #125
  6. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    I am then to believe that this idiotic reality TV star, created a intricate 7 point plan with lots of moving parts and was well on his way to over throwing the government.

    Just that construction — that they were thisclose to overthrowing the government — is so over the top hysterical that the only response should be laughter.

    How were they going to do that, being unarmed and milling about aimlessly?

    But that’s the Narrative that shall not be questioned.

    Meanwhile, fully armed officers fatally shot one unarmed protester and fatally beat another. And we’re supposed to just go “okay, that’s reasonable use of force.”

    You forget that it was an armed insurrection. They just forgot to read the memo to bring their arms.

    Boy, they almost pulled off taking over the US government, though, didn’t they. They alone were capable of cleaning out the entrenched US federal bureaucracy, but they missed it be thiiiis much.

    Hah! The most heavily armed population – Republicans – forgot their weapons on the day they planned “an insurrection”. And DJT had a “seven-part plan” to overturn the election. Seven parts? Unlikely  in the extreme for anyone. Laughable on the part of DJT.

    • #126
  7. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Just the idea that Pence was going to be captured and killed by these rioters is laughable.

    Nobody sane believes that. It’s amazing that you think Trump was silently approving of such a thing. More mind-reading. Please stop.

    I’m glad you are so confident of your opinions what Trump did or was capable of doing. No doubt you were there Jan. 6, you’ve read all the credible sources, and you know Trump is of sufficient high character that he’d never wish ill on another.

    Your problem is that you always reach for the extremes. If I disagree with you that Trump wished Pence would be killed, then obviously my view is that Trump is a paragon of virtue.

    I see this with a lot of mind-reading NeverTrumpers. Everyone who disagrees with their views of Trump “worships the Orange God” or some dumb thing.

    I agree that this conversation has reached its nadir.

    But this whole show trial is the nadir of American politics.

    It is, in fact, Soviet.

    But it’s others who speak in extreme terms. Got it. Thanks. 

    • #127
  8. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    There’s always been a lot of mind-reading when it comes to criticizing Trump. But there’s never been and need to do mind reading. Trump was about as transparent a president as we’ve ever had. He didn’t hide his thoughts about anything.

    Agreed–he was convinced the election was stolen from him, and he was willing to do what it took to prevail. He may not have incited the mob, but he would have been perfectly happy if they had succeeded in taking over the Capitol and preventing the proceedings. He appears not to have cared if Pence had been captured and killed by the mob.

    And that’s disgusting enough.

    Terrifying.

    Come on–this is not the only footage, and these are not the only ones who entered the Capitol. As I noted previously, the evidence (yet to be presented) suggests several types of groups. First, an organized contingent that breached the Capitol while Trump was still talking. This was then followed (apparently) by a more spontaneous group–some of whom were very peaceful (see above), some of whom were not.

    I’d love to know who the organized contingent was. I’ve seen video of obvious antifa-types dressed in black, changing into red hats (and probably khakis!) , before heading to the Capitol. But don’t know the timeline.

    There were also feds there – this has never been denied, though there’s no admission (as far as I know) as to how many or what they were up to. After seeing things unfold in MI, it’s not too much of a leap to assume they were up to no good.

    I know people who were in DC on Jan 6, and to a one they were to protest a very suspicious election. They were there hoping to hear that the election was going to be audited, they were there to support their president.

    So it’s ironic that they were protesting the very thing they’re accused of. A threat to democracy.

    • #128
  9. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-house-committees-grand-unified-theory-of-jan-6

    Byron York puts it in perspective. 

    Anyone giving credence to this farce is a moron.

    Maybe even a fruitcake.

    • #129
  10. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Dbroussa (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):
    The GOP, when they take over will do a serious investigation about the what and why of the security failures.

    While I agree with the rest of your comment, I think that this is pure fantasy. The GOP, almost to a person, just want this to go away. Maybe that is a good thing because going after prior political foes isn’t productive overall, but I do completely agree with the sentiment. They got away with this, and will do it again.

    I heard an interview the ranking GOP member on the House management committee (or whatever group is in charge with security) and he promised that he would lead an investigation into the security failures next January. No doubts or caveats.

    I lack the required naivete required to believe that will ever happen. The 2022 elections either won’t happen, or they’ll be stolen. We’ve let something important slip away. Rule of law, justice, the belief that people’s votes count and will be counted accurately.

    And I agree with @dbroussa; the GOP (with a few exceptions) doesn’t have the will or the spine or the desire to do anything but make this go away as quickly as possible.

    • #130
  11. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I really liked it. Mike Pence is emerging as a moral giant, the man who stood in the breach and did what he knew he had to do, instead of what he was being pressured to do. Mike Pence for the “Profiles in Courage” award.

    Liz Cheney was like a prosecutor in opening argument outlining her case. “We will prove….” was a sentence construction that she use frequently and effectively.

    • #131
  12. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    I agree that this conversation has reached its nadir.

    But this whole show trial is the nadir of American politics.

    It is, in fact, Soviet.

    But it’s others who speak in extreme terms. Got it. Thanks.

    If you can’t see what’s wrong with this show trial, we cannot find common ground.

    My country is at the point of no return. You just see it as a little speed bump before we get back to the status quo — a status quo where we simply change from D-elitists to R-elitists.

    That’s a luxury you have that I do not.

     

    • #132
  13. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Django (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Cheney has the receipts, you don’t.

    LOL! No, she doesn’t. She tells lies.

    I’d suggest a little caution here. Let’s take one narrow issue: once the Capitol building was breached, what did Pres. Trump do? I think there is ample proof that he was completely derelict in his duties to act. It’s not enough to say that Congress should have had the Capitol police better prepared, etc. (though they should have been). Pres. Trump (allegedly, but probably provably) did nothing to mobilize any law enforcement/guard troops to help quell and expel the mob. He also approved of the mob’s actions. This, in and of itself, was worthy of impeachment and barring from future office. He was in a position to call off the mob and to send assistance. But he refused, and that’s unconscionable.

    What authority did he have over those people? We have him on video saying that people would march to the capitol and “peacefully” demonstrate. Some didn’t listen to that, so why would those people listen to any other words he might use?

    He had informal and formal authority. The informal is that he should have immediately condemned the actions and did whatever he could on social media, etc. to urge the mob to cease. This would have been the decent, moral thing to do, even if it didn’t work.

    The formal is that he should have immediately coordinated with the Capitol police and mobilized the national guard. Instead he essentially cheered the rioters on–which was disgraceful.

    He doesn’t have authority over the Capitol Police – congress does.

    This is all pipe-dreaming.  Encouraging people to protest does not equal urging people to riot or break stuff.  If that were true, where is your outrage for every political actor – who shares those same authorities you seem to think simply adhere to people you don’t like – who actively urged people to protest and literally break stuff, during the BLM riots?

    What about the other protests at the Capitol over the years, actively supported by politicians?  Million Woman march comes to mind – they “stormed” Senate office buildings.  Here, let me search Ricochet for your historical outrage posts, and….nothing.

    Oh, and President Barry actively urged physical confrontations with the political “others”.  Guess that was fine.  No impeachment for Barry!

    • #133
  14. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    I am then to believe that this idiotic reality TV star, created a intricate 7 point plan with lots of moving parts and was well on his way to over throwing the government.

    Just that construction — that they were thisclose to overthrowing the government — is so over the top hysterical that the only response should be laughter.

    How were they going to do that, being unarmed and milling about aimlessly?

    But that’s the Narrative that shall not be questioned.

    Meanwhile, fully armed officers fatally shot one unarmed protester and fatally beat another. And we’re supposed to just go “okay, that’s reasonable use of force.”

     

    How and where would they throw it both from and to, exactly?

    They don’t do anything in Congress.  There are no magic levers of governmental control hidden in the cloak room.  All you’d do is disrupt the vote, which they can literally do anywhere, vote from their offices, vote the next day, not cower and just vote, etc.

    Pick one.  But the nation can’t crumble because chowderheads walk the halls of Congress. If that were true, our 535 stallwarts would have crippled the nation years ago.

    • #134
  15. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    He had informal and formal authority. The informal is that he should have immediately condemned the actions and did whatever he could on social media, etc. to urge the mob to cease. This would have been the decent, moral thing to do, even if it didn’t work.

    The formal is that he should have immediately coordinated with the Capitol police and mobilized the national guard. Instead he essentially cheered the rioters on–which was disgraceful.

    This is patently false. He did tell the “mob” to go home. He did not cheer on “rioters.”

    The Star Chamber deliberately left off those parts, which is why we dissent.

    This is not patently false. He waited a long time before issuing a tepid request for the mob to stop. I think the testimony will show he privately approved of the mob and that he dithered for a long time before doing anything.

    How can testimony show what he privately approved of?  They’ll subpeona the small devil that lives on his left shoulder?

    • #135
  16. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):
    The formal is that he should have immediately coordinated with the Capitol police and mobilized the national guard. Instead he essentially cheered the rioters on–which was disgraceful.

    The Capitol police are a different branch of government. It was Pelosi that changed the coordination procedures beforehand that made it more difficult to initiate a National Guard response. It is unlikely that with the old procedure that the National Guard could have responded before things ended.

    What is disgraceful is that Nancy Pelosi refused to allow the National Guard to be deployed beforehand and that Chuck Schumer failed to pass on specific threat intelligence he was given on the 5th. The GOP, when they take over will do a serious investigation about the what and why of the security failures.

    No disagreement re: the Capitol police not being under the control of the executive branch. Do you have a citation that the National Guard was not permitted to deploy beforehand? Admittedly, it has been some time since I read a lot about Jan. 6, but I do not remember reading that the executive branch was hindered in calling out the Guard. Even if there was hindrance beforehand, I can’t imagine that once the mob entered the Capitol, the police would have refused assistance from the Guard.

    In any event, can you link to any support for your claims?

    How about you provide links to support yours, or just use that Google thing?

    Jesus.

    Also – if you think guardsmen who were told to stand down could muster in the space of a couple of hours from their disparate homes in the surrounding areas, you have an outmoded idea of what Minutemen are.

    • #136
  17. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    Mobilizing the National Guard actually takes some time. These are people with regular (non-military) lives. Trump offered 10,000 National Guard troops days before the riot. The police turned them down. Trump had the Guard on stand by. That is the only reason they were able to react as quickly as they did.

    We don’t normally have National Guard troops sent to places that the police do not ask for them to be. The Capitol Police were in charge of the situation, they needed to react. The Capital Police are housed in the legislative not executive branch, Trump had no authority over them, nor possibly any ability to send them troops until they asked for them.

    https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald

    I’ve read the article you linked to–thanks. Several thoughts: first, there appears to be lots of blame to share. The Capitol police first rejected the mobilization of the Guard, only to reverse course one day later. For some reason though, the Trump administration never got around to completing the mobilization. I thought this was an interesting quotation:

    “As Sund’s requests were denied, the Trump administration continued working on getting then-President Trump to formally authorize the deployment of as many as 20,000 National Guard troops to the Capitol ahead of the Jan. 6 rally, according to Just The News, which conducted interviews with then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and his Chief of Staff Kash Patel.”

    Why did President Trump never authorize the deployment then?

    Finally, the mayor of DC bears blame too. She expressed an opinion publicly asking the Guard not be deployed, but she has no authority so to do. DC is under federal oversight, and no one should have listened to her opinion if they thought additional assistance might be needed.

    DC police shares security responsibility in the district, along with Capitol police.

    You could ask around.

    • #137
  18. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Meanwhile . . .

    Where’s the hearing on this event? Which Democrats encouraged this?

    Schiff is planning to get to the bottom of this immediately, as soon as he eats another pint of cookie dough ice cream.

    • #138
  19. Gazpacho Grande' Coolidge
    Gazpacho Grande'
    @ChrisCampion

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    No disagreement re: the Capitol police not being under the control of the executive branch. Do you have a citation that the National Guard was not permitted to deploy beforehand? Admittedly, it has been some time since I read a lot about Jan. 6, but I do not remember reading that the executive branch was hindered in calling out the Guard. Even if there was hindrance beforehand, I can’t imagine that once the mob entered the Capitol, the police would have refused assistance from the Guard.

    In any event, can you link to any support for your claims?

    See:

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/08/maryland-governor-describes-delayed-permission-to-send-national-guard/

    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/12/why-the-dc-national-guards-role-was-limited-during-us-capitol-riot/

     

    From NYT:

    WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials placed “unusual” restrictions on the D.C. National Guard before the Capitol riot, its commander told senators on Wednesday, saying the military leaders’ fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics used during racial justice protests last year slowed decision-making and squandered time as the violence by a pro-Trump mob escalated.

    Military and federal security officials detailed in a joint Senate committee hearing the additional security breakdowns that led to the failure to quell the mob attack on Jan. 6. Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander, said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it.

    The delay he outlined was longer than previously known and came to light in the latest hearing by lawmakers investigating the attack.

     

    Days before the riot, the Pentagon had removed General Walker’s authority to quickly deploy his troops, he testified. He said he was unable to move troops even from one traffic stop to another without permission from Ryan D. McCarthy, the Army secretary. Once General Walker had approval for deployment, the Guard arrived at the Capitol only minutes later, at 5:20 p.m., and helped re-establish the security perimeter on the east side of the building.

     

    General Walker said he could have had 150 troops to the complex hours earlier. The violent rampage that unfolded over nearly five hours caused injuries to nearly 140 police officers and left five people dead.

    “That number could have made a difference,” General Walker said of the possibility of deploying his troops earlier.

     

     

    Yeah.  National Guard troops showing up to disperse the already-dispersing crowd, with guns, sounds like a great idea.

    • #139
  20. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    It’s amusing to me people sounding like they’re just discovering this information about Pelosi refusing Trump’s request for beefed up security, or the National Guard, or Bowser refusing to let them use the DC police. We’ve known that and have been asking questions about their roles since right after the incident. But somehow, people are still going “What? Did that really happen?” Yes, . . . yes it did. I understand that if you only watch CNN, you probably didn’t hear about it.

    I mean, when I talk about the Capitol Police beating Roseann Boyland to death, I’m guessing a large number of you have no clue about it. So when this committee blames the rioters for the deaths of seven people, you just nod along like bobbleheads, because obviously if this committee said it, it must be true. 

    Do you not understand that this committee is made up of known liars?

    The ruling class really does depend on the media keeping people in the dark, don’t they?

     

    • #140
  21. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    It’s amusing to me people sounding like they’re just discovering this information about Pelosi refusing Trump’s request for beefed up security, or the National Guard, or Bowser refusing to let them use the DC police. We’ve known that and have been asking questions about their roles since right after the incident. But somehow, people are still going “What? Did that really happen?” Yes, . . . yes it did. I understand that if you only watch CNN, you probably didn’t hear about it.

    I mean, when I talk about the Capitol Police beating Roseann Boyland to death, I’m guessing a large number of you have no clue about it. So when this committee blames the rioters for the deaths of seven people, you just nod along like bobbleheads, because obviously if this committee said it, it must be true.

    Do you not understand that this committee is made up of known liars?

    The ruling class really does depend on the media keeping people in the dark, don’t they?

     

    Liz Cheney says “We will prove…” and it as though Shiff and his empty promises – which turned out to be provable lies -never happened…

    • #141
  22. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Franco (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    It’s amusing to me people sounding like they’re just discovering this information about Pelosi refusing Trump’s request for beefed up security, or the National Guard, or Bowser refusing to let them use the DC police. We’ve known that and have been asking questions about their roles since right after the incident. But somehow, people are still going “What? Did that really happen?” Yes, . . . yes it did. I understand that if you only watch CNN, you probably didn’t hear about it.

    I mean, when I talk about the Capitol Police beating Roseann Boyland to death, I’m guessing a large number of you have no clue about it. So when this committee blames the rioters for the deaths of seven people, you just nod along like bobbleheads, because obviously if this committee said it, it must be true.

    Do you not understand that this committee is made up of known liars?

    The ruling class really does depend on the media keeping people in the dark, don’t they?

     

    Liz Cheney says “We will prove…” and it as though Shiff and his empty promises – which turned out to be provable lies -never happened…

    The very fact that Adam Schiff is on this committee makes it illegitimate. Then add in the rest of this group of evildoers, and you have inner circle of hell stuff.

    • #142
  23. Dotorimuk Coolidge
    Dotorimuk
    @Dotorimuk

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    The word “banana” is forbidden.

    You won’t be able to afford bananas in a few months.

    • #143
  24. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The article is from Breitbart News.  My beloved Andrew Breitbart must be turning over in his grave at what they have done to his website.

    I would like to hear you elaborate on this. I think the Breitbart editorial position is always right on everything. Sirius XM podcast/broadcast is outstanding and I’m glad to pay for it.

    • #144
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Liz Cheney was like a prosecutor in opening argument outlining her case. “We will prove….” was a sentence construction that she use frequently and effectively.

     

    Boy are you easily impressed.

    We will prove that Liz Cheney and her father Dick, all the Bushes, possibly the Pences, high ranking members of the FBI the CIA and others, were poseurs, liars and frauds who at best do not have America’s best interests in mind.

    How’s that for a formulation? Impressive???

    Cheney has the receipts, you don’t.

    From what I heard they don’t have very much new so far for some reason.

    • #145
  26. DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    RufusRJones (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    The article is from Breitbart News. My beloved Andrew Breitbart must be turning over in his grave at what they have done to his website.

    I would like to hear you elaborate on this.

    What’s to elaborate? Basically, anyone who ever showed the slightest bit of support for President Trump is cast into eternal flames.

    It doesn’t go deeper than that.

     

    • #146
  27. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):
    The formal is that he should have immediately coordinated with the Capitol police and mobilized the national guard. Instead he essentially cheered the rioters on–which was disgraceful.

    The Capitol police are a different branch of government. It was Pelosi that changed the coordination procedures beforehand that made it more difficult to initiate a National Guard response. It is unlikely that with the old procedure that the National Guard could have responded before things ended.

    What is disgraceful is that Nancy Pelosi refused to allow the National Guard to be deployed beforehand and that Chuck Schumer failed to pass on specific threat intelligence he was given on the 5th. The GOP, when they take over will do a serious investigation about the what and why of the security failures.

    The Democrat bots on twitter go crazy when you say this.

    • #147
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Unapologetic … (View Comment):

    Meanwhile . . .

     

    Where’s the hearing on this event? Which Democrats encouraged this?

    I completely forgot about that part of the summer riots.

    That just makes last nights “hearing” all them more ridiculous

    It wasn’t really a hearing anyway. It was a presentation. Completely one-sided with nobody to offer any other interpretation. Using heavily edited and cherry-picked sound bites and video portions.

    It was a show trial.

    Any “conservative” or “Republican” who supported it is an enemy of America.

    Does that sound extreme? Good. Because what happened yesterday was a Soviet-era show trial. And those who support it are basically commies.

    This is accurate.

    • #148
  29. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    cdor (View Comment):
    There is some question as to whether or not Trump requested National Guard troops.

    How is it possible that this isn’t cleared up? 

    • #149
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Annefy (View Comment):
    I’d love to know who the organized contingent was.

    12 proud boys and 15 oath keepers. Effectively no weapons. 

    • #150
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.