The FBI role in January 6th
There is evidence that the FBI was involved in inciting the January 6 incident.
Watch the video below. Ted Cruz questions Assistant FBI Director Jill Sanborn. She will neither confirm or deny that the FBI had operatives in the crowd on January 6 posing as supporters of President Donald Trump. He points out Ray Epps. Tucker Carlson's release of January 6 video proves Ray Epps lied to the January 6 commission. Why is Epps not in jail?
Watch Ted Cruz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZQRetozhSY
Here is Senator Myorkas asking FBI Director Christopher Ray if the FBI had operatives posing as supporters of Donald Trump on January 6. When he stumbles, Senator Myorkas says "The answer should be NO." Ray refuses to confirm or deny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCIj7J5wNWc
So, it is an established fact that Ray Epps went around the crowd and tried to get people to storm the Capital. Tucker Carlson's video proves Epps was in front and one of the first to enter the Capital building. Yet, he was never charged. He was on a most wanted list from te FBI and then removed for some reason.
Shouldn't we know if the FBI was involved in instigating January 6? Isn't this more proof the FBI has been compromised by the democrat party?We certainly have the right to know if the FBI had agents present in that crowd, who they are, and what they were doing. I would think with the Media (Tucker) now having the complete footage, we will be learning more about who was there, and what they were doing.
It is very obvious there are those citizens that did not like Tucker getting his hands on the footage and what he has put out thus far. He has truely outed the Jan 6th committee for vilification of the Shaman, and their hyperbolic representation of Officer Sicknink's death. I am sure Tucker will be dropping mistruths we have been fed, for some time.
I think that Congress will push for a deeper investigation into the FBIs knowledge about what they knew prior to the event, and if they had agents in the crowd. This Epps character is all over even footage that we have seen. And Tucker brought him up long ago and had many questions bout why he was not charged for his part in the protest. Even showing he was the one that was instigating the crowd to enter the capitol. He was one of the first to enter...
In my view, Tucker will have more relevant footage on our Mr. Epps, in the very near future. Epps has been a thorn in his side for some time.
I have no doubt whatsoever, our FBI has been weaponized for over a decade now.
IMO, If we don't clean out the bad ones, the agency will be nothing but a puppet to the Democratic party, just doing their bidding, as they have been for some time now. For me, my view was solidified due to the Russiagate mess, with the FBI, and the Clinton campaign. I keep my eyes wide open.
So pleased you posted this topic. I think we will be hearing a lot more about Mr. Epps, not to mention video proof of what he was doing in that crowd. Facts can be hard to digest, but facts are facts, and I think the videos can clear up who was doing what at the Jan 6th protest, and who was not doing much of anything...It is difficult to deny that the FBI has become a rogue agency who works for the democrat party and not the American citizen.
It is important to know the role of the FBI in what happened on January 6. American citizens deserve to know. The intense lies of the democrat party are coming to light.Nah, it's not difficult at all for some.
GAThat's because all these television shows like Without A Trace, Criminal Minds, Numbers and so forth deceivingly decorate the FBI as an institution of heroes. If these FBI fans personally knew individuals who had worked for the FBI and saw everything that went on with them from within the walls of that institution, their opinion of the FBI would not be as positive.
I came to my conclusion regarding the FBI over some years. I have watched all the hearings, from James Comey to our present Head Wray. It was not easy to realize the FBI had become somewhat corrupt at the top. But, my head is never set in the sand, too much corruption to deny.
I think problems arise with some not realizing what has occurred due to not being interested enough to take time and listen to actual hearings. Second-hand media news spin to reach a specific narrative.
I appreciated your links... I pick up congressional hearings on CSpan. So much is being missed about what is going on in the Congressional hearimgs. Just not fodder for the media.
Not good enough, this all occurred while Trump was President.
I saw the video, it is just more right wing conspiracy theory. Stolen elections, you know, all that rot....
Definitive proof, is the only acceptable kind...
When it comes to Republicans, regardless , in my book they have zero credibility.The head of the FBI and the Assistant head of the FBI refused to answer the question. As Senator Myorkas said when the head of the FBI refused to give an answer, "The Answer Should Be NO." This is some very suspicious behavior by the FBI.
It made me very uneasy watching those hearings. The FBI could easily have answered many of the questions, but would not. It is obvious if Wray would have admitted that agents were in the crowd, the hearing would have gone into a closed session to protect why, and who may have been in the crowd.
I am very sure the Congressional investigation may go into closed hearings, with a select few asking questions.
Republicans launch an investigation into the Jan. 6 committee that examined the riot
"WASHINGTON — A Republican-controlled House committee launched an inquiry Wednesday into the Democratic-controlled Jan. 6 committee, which a staff member said will review whether pertinent information about the riot was omitted from the high-profile examination of the attack on the U.S. Capitol"
"The House Administration’s subcommittee on oversight will be combing through the massive amount of records collected by the Jan. 6 committee, which was dissolved in January, said the staffer, with the goal of analyzing how the panel conducted the investigation."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congre … -rcna74017To begin with having the video about the Qanon Shaman in the Capital building not being shared with his defense attorney, destroying his civil rights needs to be examined. If the video that was never turned over to other defense attorneys that could have changed the outcomes of their trials, all of the convictions need to be thrown out.
Yes, of course we should know!
I have brought up several times, people who were actually there...on Jan. 6, 2021. They were calling into talk radio, mentioning instigators and antagonists who just seemed to show up after Trump's speech. This is when many chose to leave, especially those with kids. Many others are heard trying to shush the agitators and calm the crowd.
Epps name gets mentioned early on and then fizzles out when the narrative is being prepared....
Yes , we should know everything as it truly was, rather than assist with the Democrat's and RINO 's narrative.I have witnessed all of the same on video. And we need transparency, especially in these very trying times It's the only way we can become healed as a Nation. However, I have tried to be optimistic, I am very much disappointed in how some won't even accept what these current Carlson videos have proved. The media and the Democratic party have been, and continue to stir up hate. All to divide, in my view.
And is it not working to some extent? We have some very logical users right here on HP's forum, that are skeptical about what is being reported in regard to Carlson's tapes. It would seem there could be no better proof than what the eyes can see.
What to do about the FBI?
Should the FBI be disbanded and have another law enforcement agency created or maybe two to cover the law enforcement duties of the FBI?
It needs to be changed so that not so much law enforcement power is concentrated among so few people.
The video at the beginning of the thread of Ted Cruz talking to the assistant head of the FBI is quite disturbing.Mike as I said thank you for posting those links. I very much doubt if many have watched them I watched the hearing live and was very disgusted with this agents deminer, as well as felt she was clearly protecting her own ass and did not want to ever have her answers bite come back to indicate she may have lied under oath.
I think the FBI needs to be investigated top down... I myself feel it all comes from the top. I truely feel the majority of agents would cooperate with an investigation as we have seen over 20 FBI whistle-blowers giving information to Republican congressmen.
I think ones the dam would break, we would see many steps up and talk. Men and women that are dedicated to this country, and their job. Not sure if you caught the hearing where an FBI former agent Nicole Parker testified in the first House ‘weaponization’ hearing? Her testimony was riveting. Media underplayed her appearance.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3851 … n-hearing/
I find Ted Cruz a truth seeker... I have always been impressed by Ted..Sharlee,
I'm stunned more people aren't upset about this. I think much of it is fear. IF it is proven the FBI instigated the events of January 6, much upheaval would occur in our country. Can you imagine if it was proven FBI agents acting as supporters of Donald Trump are the ones who stormed the Capital building and put things in motion?
I believe that democrats would continue to be in a state of denial and attack anyone who provided this proof. That person or persons would probably be arrested and THAT makes me really afraid for our country.I think if the FBI had any hand in this Jan 6th protest(even if they had knowledge that it would occur and did nothing to stop it) it will be one of America's biggest scandals ever.
I can imagine that some FBI agents were there to stir up trouble and do their duty to make sure Trump's political career would be done and done with on that day.
I just hope this mess will be thoroughly investigated. I also agree many Democrats in no respect would be able to digest the FBI had a hand in the protest, even if there was very factual proof. It appears some are having a hard time even processing the Tucker tapes.
There are people on both sides of the aisle seeking to disband the FBI and for very good reasons. A Professor Alex Vitale describes in an interview how the FBI has terrorized both left-wing and right-wing interest groups over the course of the past century. Here is an article where he participates in that same interview to describe these transgressions on the part of the FBI and the desire among many to defund the FBI.>>>>>> https://www.democracynow.org/2022/8/16/ … trump_raid
I say that if the FBI does not get disbanded, then it should be converted into a privately-funded organization similar to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) or the Chamber of Commerce, except that it should be prohibited from receiving any kind of funding from the Federal government. In other words, it should be converted into a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that depends entirely on voluntary contributions and gets no tax dollars.
If there are people who still actually like the FBI so much, then let them be the ones to keep it afloat financially rather than all the taxpayers doing so. I'm sure all those TV producers who glamorize the FBI on programs like Criminal Minds, FBI, Bones, Standoff, The Rookie: Feds and the likes could reach into their deep pockets and fund the FBI privately in that event.Considering they are the branch that investigates foreign and domestic terrorism on US soil, pretty sure most people still actually like them. They conduct the background checks for our national security apparatus and exist to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction on our country.
They can have my tax money, that's for sure."They can have my tax money, that's for sure."
As the Biblical saying goes, you will be casting your pearls before swine. The FBI is the United States' version of the Third Reich. You only have to read about all the human rights violations that they have committed through the years. If they were to become a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and I were to inherit $250,000 as you did, I would never waste my money on them in the form of any contribution.
"Considering they are the branch that investigates foreign and domestic terrorism on US soil, pretty sure most people still actually like them."
Unless you have statistical data regarding their actual approval rating to prove so, then that same assertion of yours is not cogent and is pure conjecture at best. Also, even though it may be their duty to investigate terrorism, it doesn't mean that they are efficient or effective at it. Their investigative techniques are noticeably primitive.
"They conduct the background checks for our national security apparatus and exist to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction on our country."
Other government agencies (e.g. Department of Homeland Security; National Security Agency; United States Marshals Service; Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; United States Department of Defense, etc.) pick up those same tasks and duties and do a much better job than the FBI could ever do. The FBI spends so much time preying on their own lower-level employees and on politicians they dislike that they are constantly dumping their responsibilities on other government agencies.
Some people actually believe that the FBI investigates alien abductions. Well, I certainly would hope that you do not take any stock in all the nonsense that The X Files feeds it audience.
RMN: "The intense lies of the democrat party " You can seriously say that with a straight face? After Trump and now an unveiled FOX?
We are discussing A senator questioning an FBI agent. Not Fox or Donald Trump. Can you not even address the links Mike posted, and what was shared? Did you take the time to watch the footage?
Whatever Trump or Fox news has done is not the subject. You quickly jumped off the subject.That's what a discussion is. Keeps it interesting.
I challenged a comment presented as fact.
Oh -- are you saying you are challenging what Senator Cruz said or the questions he was asking? I don't understand. Maybe share what you found he was saying was not factual. He was pretty much-asking questions, that the agent felt she could not answer.
I included the comment I was challenging.
And this from the party that supposedly backs the blue. Give me a break. She likely could not answer because it would have put the lives of those confidential sources at risk. And having sources among those there in no way equates to the FBI being responsible for the events of the day.
Going so far as to want to disband the FBI based on unconfirmed conspiracy theories is really just ridiculous. There's being anti-government, then there's being so extreme that you want the FBI disbanded for enforcing our laws. And claiming it's partisan because the majority of the lawlessness we are seeing is done by one of the two major political parties is classic victim mentality.
The opening sentence that claims there is 'evidence' simply shows that many on the right do not understand what constitutes evidence. Just like the video 'evidence' of ballots of suitcases in Georgia. Or the video 'evidence' that two poll workers were passing a USB drive to each other, that turned out to be a piece of candy. This is the latest fabricated 'evidence' to fit a narrative of the delusional to help them hate their own dedicated government employees.In this case, the FBI had an opportunity to clarify things. They could have said "Yes" we had people there that day or "No" we did not have people there that day. A yes or no answer would have not put anyone's life in jeopardy.
A yes is a confirmation to those groups that they have confidential informants(CI) in their midst and definitely endangers lives. A no means the potential for perjury. A yes in public also undermines their future ability to recruit those CI's. That's pretty much common sense.
It's pure stupidity by Cruz to ask, when it should be assumed that the FBI is getting information from confidential informants, especially in a public hearing. If he wants to have a classified discussion with the FBI, so be it.I still believe the American people have a right to know the role of the FBI in the events of January 6. I've even read reports where the first people to break into the Capital building were FBI agents posing as supporters of Donald Trump. There is really no way to confirm this, but it is quite possible.
There is no answer about Ray Epps who is recorded telling people to bust into the Capital building. Yet, he was never charged. People who simply walked into the Capital building and walked around were charged. Yet, someone captured on video trying to get people to break into the Capital is initially on the FBI most wanted list, but then is removed. People around Epps were shouting at him "Fed, Fed, Fed."
These are facts.
I think they refuse to answer the question about FBI assets as this could show the FBI was instrumental in breaking into the Capital building on January 6. If that is established, it will change everything.'Reports?' Or someone's opinion piece? That's not a fact, that's a theory as you note by there not being any proof to support it and you acknowledging that there was no way to confirm it and only being a possibility. That's like the definition of a conspiracy theory.
The answer about Ray Epps is that he never entered the Capitol, so he broke no laws. Unless you think him as guilty as Trump for using his First Amendment rights outside the Capitol. Just as people calling him a Fed, despite any proof of him actually being a Fed, really isn't a proof of anything but people's paranoia.
And you can certainly have your opinions about why there was a refusal to answer the question, just as I have mine. A refusal to answer is not proof of anything though and you've created a narrative that doesn't exist based on a non-answer. That is really the only true fact here."he never entered the Capitol, so he broke no laws"
Oh, going around in a crowd trying to incite people to storm the capital is indeed a crime. He is captured on video doing just such a thing. You need to look at 18 U.S. Code § 2101. It's against the law to promote or encourage a riot. At the very least, he should have been arrested and not mysteriously removed from the FBI top wanted list. It is too suspicious.
I still believe the American people should know the extent of the FBI operatives on January 6 who posed as supporters of President Trump. It could change the entire perspective of events that day.If that were the case, then the FBI could have charged so many others for incitement. Name one other case where someone was charged with inciting a riot based on speech of the 1,000 people that they have charged.
There are those that were charged with seditious conspiracy, but it appears that there were e-mails and communications prior to the event showing organized efforts.
Ray Epps sounds like so many others there on the day blustering about taking the Capitol. The difference is, he did not.Okay, show me video of other people other than Ray Epps on January 6 telling people to storm the capital.
Waiting.Well, this took all of two minutes to find.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYCSjNh1FvAI would say you can't incite something that has already started.
What Ray Epps did happened before even the speech of President Donald Trump. He went around telling people they were going to storm the capital. Epps did this on January 5th and 6th.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikta_UQBT04Of course you would, but the video I selected still had the police line in place there, which means the people advocating (and not charge with) incitement had not broken through the police lines or into the Capitol yet.
Incitement, whether on the day of or day before is still incitement and a chargeable offense.
So how many were charged with incitement? I'm waiting.I don't think you understand the legal definition of incitement. Let me state this a different way. You can incite an event once it has begun because it has already started and there is nothing to incite.
And I don't think you understand that when someone says, 'let's take this (curse word that someone would report to get me banned),' in reference to breaking into the Capitol, that is hasn't been taken yet. And like I noted, the police lines are still in existence, so much of the violence has not taken place in that video, so people are still inciting others to 'riot' if the police lines are there.
Now, if you asked the people who took part in the insurrection, did they go there because Ray Epps or because Donald Trump? Were they there to riot or to stop the Congress from 'stealing an election?' You sure you want to go down that path? I could likely find the testimony of multiple people that claim they were incited to 'riot' based on the words of Donald Trump and not Ray Epps."I could likely find the testimony of multiple people that claim they were incited to 'riot' based on the words of Donald Trump and not Ray Epps."
I bet you could. And for every one you found I bet I could find 10 that would tell us that Trump never told the mob to go peacefully to the Capital. More that would say Trump spoke in "code" and the hidden message was to murder people. And a handful that will claim Trump personally colluded with Putin to throw the first election, as was claimed at first.Yeah, I mean how could a group that included armed members of militias that Trump stated were not there to harm him, so they could keep their weapons, be confused by someone telling them they needed to fight or that they wouldn't have a country anymore? Especially when he said that line minutes before telling everyone to go to the Capitol.
Oh, and Trump's campaign has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have colluded with the Russians in that first election. Multiple dates of meetings with a known Russian Intelligence member and what was discussed and passed along to the Russians was laid out by the bipartisan Senate Report. And that went all the way to his Campaign Chairman, so if a handful think Trump was involved, they have good reason since the Campaign Chairman is one step short of the candidate.As you and I both know there was just 1 (one) gun found on capital grounds and as far as I know the owner has never been identified. To say the rioters included "armed members of militias" is a gross misrepresentation.
Nope - you don't get to change my words from "Trump colluded" to "Some menbers of the campaign talked to Russians".
Nor do I think I could only find a handful; many tens or even hundreds of thousands is more likely.As usual, there's a failure to understand the basic definition of words as being armed means being equipped with weapons. It's definitely not a misrepresentation at all as it was confirmed by testimony at those January 6 hearings you clearly missed.
Sure I get to note that there was proven collusion by the Trump Campaign as you're the second person in these forums in the past week to deny it even happened - or that 'talking to Russians' was all that was done - when campaign strategy was passed to them as well as internal campaign data.
Knowing what a control freak Trump is, many can have their own conspiracy theories on whether Manafort and Gates got permission from Trump before colluding with the Russians.Mark Ibrahim was indicted on federal charges because he brought a gun with him onto Capitol grounds and made false statements to federal agents.
Mark Mazza was sentenced to 60 months in jail on Friday after pleading guilty to assaulting an officer that day and unlawfully carrying a firearm. He entered the Capitol grounds armed with two handguns, one of which – a revolver called the “Judge” loaded with shotgun shells and hollow point bullets – he lost on the lower west terrace just outside the building.
Guy Reffitt was sentenced to 7 1/4 years in prison when a jury found him guilty on five counts: two counts of civil disorder and one count each of obstruction of an official proceeding, entering and remaining on restricted grounds with a firearm and obstruction of justice.
Christopher Michael Alberts was indicted for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm on Capitol Grounds or Buildings; Unlawful Entry or Remaining on Restricted Grounds without Lawful Authoirty; Carrying a Pistol without a License Outside Home or Place of Business; Possession of a Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding DeviceGood luck getting him to admit that the figures he presented, or that no one had been identified, were in no way reality.
IB has given proof some protesters were armed.
Question --- Did anyone shoot a gun at the Protest? Did anyone actually use a gun to shout at another person at the Capitol on that day? It was clear some were armed and had guns."Did anyone shoot a gun at the Protest?"
Yes, a capital police officer who murdered Air Force veteran Ashley Babitt.Definition: Murder - to kill someone unlawfully and with premeditation.
Murdered you say? When is the trial?
Oh yeah, that's right. Two separate investigations deemed Ashley Babbitt to be a credible threat to the safety of the Congressional Reps being evacuated directly behind the officer sworn to protect them and that she did not heed orders to desist. So both investigations found that this was a justified use of force.
If you're going to choose to be a domestic terrorist and attack your own nation, don't be surprised when you get shot for being a danger to others.
The claim of murder is as accurate as the one that there was massive fraud in the 2020 election.Wow. The song "Cold-hearted Snake" comes to mind!
She was unarmed, she wasn't a threat to anyone, she was a veteran who had put her life on the line!
Her only crime was getting caught up in the moment and she deserved her day in court, not a death sentence!!
If her actions deserved a death sentence, then none of us are safe and I have to wonder if my words and opinion are safe to share any longer!Nice Paula Abdul reference!
She may have been unarmed, but when she's about to lead a large group of violent people towards evacuating representatives, a large group that has already attacked and overwhelmed the Capitol Police, then your claim that she wasn't a threat is just not true in any way.
Her crime was a failure to obey police commands to desist, while advancing as a threat. The police were there to protect and they did their duty. Shame on her for putting them in that position.
As to 'none of us are safe,' if you are leading a large mob that has already shown its ability to use violence (violence on police nonetheless) and are a threat to others, that's not 'words and opinions.' That's domestic terror and for those that engage in it, they take their life into their hands when they do so.Shar has been hopelessly attempting to help you see, IF this was anything close to what you and a few others here have claimed/are claiming...there would have been dead bodies all over the place.
"You're killin' me, Smalls!"Just because they chose not to use guns, does not lessen the fact that this was an insurrection - a violent uprising against their own government. Could it have been more violent, sure. And that violence would have led to more casualties on both sides.
But the hopeless part is trying to convince so many at this site that violence was used to stop the peaceful transfer of power. It was organized and many others were incited to join in after the use of rhetoric that was construed to mean attack by many at the Ellipse. The Capitol Police likely could have held off the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys with the numbers of officers they had on site had the masses not been sent there, without warning the Capitol Police that that was the plan, by Trump.
And all based on blatant lies by the losing candidate. No one would have even been there on January 6 if he did not organize a rally to 'stop the steal' which was his fabrication.Stripped of the exaggerations and assumptions, you are correct. Violence (however minor and inconsequential) was used to try and maintain a fair election, which meant stopping the counting of electoral votes based on fraudulent citizen voting.
But when the exaggerations turn into an "insurrection"; a violent uprising against the United States, one has no choice but to conclude that the rest of the violent riots against the government (whether local, state or federal) were also insurrections. That brings up the question of why they aren't termed so and why no trials are being held for the act of insurrection, treason or other political crimes. The sole time the label was applied was for something that Trump was involved in, however remotely, and that says a lot.'Violence (however minor and inconsequential) was used to try and maintain a fair election, which meant stopping the counting of electoral votes based on fraudulent citizen voting.'
Violence was used by a group of people who were falsely convinced that they were trying to accomplish those things. In reality, they were brainwashed people who attacked their own country based on lies by a loser.
I have no issue with terming other violent attacks against government entities as insurrections. I've conceded that in the past.
There are some other differences that make January 6 a little different from the social justice violence. The January 6 insurrection aimed to prevent the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another for the first time in history. Many see it as a violent attempted coup d'etat, which likely added to difference in labeling.
Seattle had an occupation, but there does not appear to be another instance where the social justice violence aimed to overthrow the entire system of government and replace it with the one preferred by the losing side.
"Oh yeah, that's right. Two separate investigations deemed Ashley Babbitt to be a credible threat to the safety of the Congressional Reps being evacuated directly behind the officer sworn to protect them and that she did not heed orders to desist. So both investigations found that this was a justified use of force."
The footage shows two officers on the other side of that door with her as she began to claim through that window. In fact, when she was shot they immediately were the ones to give her aid.
Why did these offices not seem to find her a threat?
Again here is the footage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjscskqLx0U
In my view, this woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and an officer in the panic of the day shot her. We will never know what went through the officer's mind when he shot her.
But in actuality, she was the only person that was shot and killed. Perhaps the only shot fired at the riot.Because the officers who gave her aid came from the opposite direction (you can see them coming up the stairs and not out of the doorway where the shots came from) and were greater in number, not the same ones who shot her as you claim. They had been called it to put down the people trying to advance in to where the few officers protecting the reps were stationed and people dispersed after the police proved they were willing to use lethal force so the threat was minimized and aid was able to be administered. Facts matter.
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/loca … l/2535527/
The best footage I have found shows the minutes up to the shooting. , and just after.
So, I must go with what I see. Three officers stood in front of the doors. The glass was partially already broken. Three stood firm, someone said --"step aside and let us walk in, in a path, and mentioned "we had your backs when no one else did"... The officer moved to the side, stood by the wall, and let the crowd push in and break the remaining glass, the victim started to claim through the door window, and someone immediately yelled --- "he has a gun, and boom, shot her. One could not hear the officer that shot due to the nose. he claimed he shouted out several warnings to the victim.
I think this tape is very clear and shows exactly what happen. It is the most complete video I have seen.
The fact remains the officer said he felt threatened, and that he did his job. He was exonerated.Right, and what you see when Babbitt falls is four police officers with helmets on and assault rifles at the top of the stairs next to Babbitt. What you see before they break in the window is three officers and not one wearing a helmet or any of the three carrying an assault rifle. Which means those that gave aid were ones coming to repel the advance from the stairway below, as I stated.
Yes, there certainly was a large team of officers coming up the stairs. My point. The officers that were in front of the doors did not in any respect find it necessary or apparently feel they needed to even draw a weapon. They stood aside, and let the crowd break the remaining glass from the doors.
Do you think if Babbit was a threat or armed they would not have taken some form of action? She was a small woman, and unarmed.
In my view, in the heat of the moment, the shooting officer panicked, just not knowing what would happen if the crowd made it through the door. He had no way of knowing what or how many were going to come through that door. And it appeared he and maybe one other officer were on his side of the door.
I think video footage shows both sides of the door, and what was happening. I also noted what appeared to be a couple of men dressed in suits on cell phones at the far end of the hallway.I have always wondered why the officers moved aside. Their presence there was preventing people from trying to break through. They are still there when people start pounding on the glass, so I was surprised they didn't move back in between the crowd and the doors.
Perhaps they got called away, because at the end of the video just after Babbitt is shot, you do not see them in the frame at that time. So your question about them not acting might be because they had left by the time she became the threat by climbing through the doors.
And your view of the heat of the moment differs from the conclusions of two different investigations into the matter. It's odd that you will accept the conclusions of the medical examiner in the Sicknick cause of death, but not the conclusions of the Capitol Police or Department of Justice in the Babbitt shooting.I have watched the interview that the officer did, he clearly stated he was fearful for his life. he claims he still is. I think this situation spun out of hand on both sides of the door. The three that moved aside may have been fearful, and who knows, may have felt it better to move, than be caught up in what could have turned more violent.
I have never claimed not to accept the findings of her death. Just that there was room to conclude it may have been prevented. If we had cooler heads in a bad situation. I think the emotions and fears of the day came to a head, and the officer felt threatened. He was all but alone on his side of the door. and did not know what was coming at him. Would I be scared? Yes... How about you?They were outnumbered. There was a violent mob pushing. The rioters were telling them more people were coming and would push through, so they would have been trapped against the doors, like some other police members that day. They looked young and scared. So is not hard to imagine they feared for their lives and they moved when they felt it was no longer possible to stopped them.
Still, I think they remained in their places protecting the doors until they saw the anti-riot? unit coming. In the video, there was a moment when they look in that direction, that's when they decided to move.
Murder is not in any way the truth. Unarmed people in a mob can pose a threat and that is what the investigations you choose to ignore to malign the Capitol Police Officer in this instance show.
Even after laying out the definition of murder, there is a refusal to accept the reality of how this death in no way fits into that definition and the use of words clearly not understood. Where was the premeditation element?
This example is just another where so many Trumpers depart from actual reality."with premeditation"
She was unarmed and she was not given a warning by the police officer who shot her.
She was murdered.She was in the midst of committing a violent crime. Shooting her was not murder by definition, as the difference between "killing" and "murder" is a matter of legal definition, not moral opinion.
Premeditation - the action of planning something (especially a crime) beforehand.
She was given multiple warnings and did not heed them. Aside from that false claim though is that not being given a warning is an attempt to equate that to premeditation, which is, again, a complete misunderstanding of the definition of the word premeditation to try and fit it to a fabricated narrative. One that tries to excuse the actions of someone who posed a danger to our elected representatives on that day.
The difference between the right at this site and the left is that you don't see the left trying to excuse and condone acts of domestic terror. It's why many can agree with Biden's assessment that Trump supporters pose a danger to the country because they make those attempts to justify the violence against their own country.You are wrong.
Ashli Babbitt was not given a warning by the police officer who shot her.
Ashli Babbitt did not see the police officer who shot her.
Ashli Babbitt was shot by a police officer who stuck his arm out of a closed door and pulled the trigger.
It was a cowardly act.
This was a case of murder.
"you don't see the left trying to excuse and condone acts of domestic terror"
Except in places like Portland and Seattle. The left is okay with the billions of dollars of damage and the federal buildings destroyed during those riots.
What you do see from the left on this site is hypocrisy to the extreme.Of course you think I am wrong. You think I am wrong about election fraud. You think I'm wrong about the application of the crime of murder despite a total lack of premeditation - even when one of your right-wing allies tried to explain the concept to you.
The officer's testimony contradicts your statement about the warning.
How do you know Babbitt did not see the police officer that shot her? Did you ask her? That comment is pretty ridiculous. It's easy to see the officer and Babbitt in the video Sharlee posted, so it's safe to assume they saw each other.
In that video, the officer moves towards Babbitt who is advancing through the doorway and repels her advance with lethal force in order to protect the evacuation going on behind him. Justified use of lethal force.
That the word murder is stubbornly and continually used just puts on display a complete lack of understand of the simplest of terminology. It's no wonder that those who would say it are so easily duped by the lies of the Trump campaign.
And no, the left did not condone the violence or rioting in Seattle or Portland. The left condones peaceful protesting when due process is ignored and a death sentence is performed in the streets. The left wants people who loot and commit vandalism arrested and charged. It's just not that easy, as we saw on January 6 when no one was arrested, when the police are that outnumbered.
I thought that was a fact. But did not want to go out on the limb.
What protest? You mean the insurrection since people were convicted of seditious conspiracy and the goal was to stop the peaceful transfer of power?
And my claim was that people were armed that day. Being armed means carrying weapons. Now, if you need a list of the weapons that were used, that would be quite simple.Yes, I realize the context of your statement. Just wondered did any of the people carrying shoot or use their guns. My point, they could have if they set their minds to use their weapons. Shows, restraint, on gun owners' part.
Amen and hear, hear and restraint is wearing thin for a lot of people who can't believe that many of their fellow citizens can't manage to see the forest for the trees!
Yeah, I guess they should be applauded for not wanting to actually murder anyone with their guns. With other weapons, they seemed less inclined to care about what damage they were doing to the police.
Who else are you folks going to try to pin this insurrection on? Aliens?
Seven million dollars spent on ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 Benghazi attack, six by Republican-controlled House committees. Do you know what they discovered? It was a tragedy. Nothing else.
How many millions will be spent trying to blame January 6 on somebody - anybody - besides Trump and his extreme right followers?
The Jan 6th incident was a historic event. We need true transparency. The FBI has been outed on many occasions at this point with what appears to be weaponization vis the White House, and perhaps the DOJ.
Hiding pertinent information, lying to the FISA court, and much more. I find it odd that any citizens would not have noted how many times in the past 6 8 years the FBI is not in the forefront of a scandal.
"Former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, 38, pleaded guilty today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to a false statement offense stemming from his altering of an email in connection with the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) application, announced John H Durham "
"According to court documents and statements made in court, between July 2015 and September 2019, Clinesmith was employed with the FBI as an Assistant General Counsel in the National Security and Cyber Law Branch of the FBI’s Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. On July 31, 2016, the FBI opened a Foreign Agents Registration Act investigation, known as “Crossfire Hurricane,” into whether individuals associated with the Donald J. Trump for President Campaign were coordinating activities with the Russian government. By August 16, 2016, the FBI had opened cases under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella on four individuals, including an individual identified in this case as “Individual #1.”
FISA court slams FBI conduct in Carter Page surveillance warrant applications
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/17/poli … index.html
https://www.lawfareblog.com/fbis-fisa-mess
The FBI suppressed the Huter Biden Laptop before 2020 election.
https://www.dailynews.com/2022/12/25/fb … en-laptop/
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ct/pr/fbi- … linesmith,)%20application%2C%20announced%20John%20H.
And then there was Russiagate... In my view the FBI has truely been weaponized, and most likely more than we will ever know.The people who are stirring up hate are the one's turning January 6 into a false narrative that tries to blame the FBI. We already have one big domestic terrorist with a huge following who programmed one of his followers to attack a Cincinnati FBI office after they did their duty and served a lawful subpoena on him. Trying to deflect the blame away from that same person who organized the rally and turned his followers on the Capitol based on lies is no less deceitful.
And let's go over this Russiagate term. You use it as if it wasn't proven without a doubt that there were multiple meetings between Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik - a known Russia spy - where internal campaign strategy and polling data was passed between the two parties.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sit … olume5.pdfDo you not feel with all the problems we have witnessed over the past years that the FBI should not be investigated? I mean are investigations not our on;y way to get a glimpse of the truth nowadays?
I am leary of any investigations to be honest -- after watching all the problems with the Jan 6th investigation. We were not given all the information, and to me, it was simply a production for TV.
In my view, the FBI needs to be investigated, it seems they are very much weaponized. I find this very disturbing. Just too much smoke.I will not dismiss the case of the lawyer altering the e-mail, nor of Comey violating Bureau policy to announce an active investigation a few weeks before an election.
Now, aside from speculation, what ties can be shown between the FBI and those in attendance on January 6? Should not some evidence be there before jumping into an investigation?Oh yes, there should be evidence before accusation... That's why it should be necessary to have closed-door hearings, out of respect for the agency. This all could be cleared up quickly if Congress would handle this in the right way. However, we both know this can be strung on for a long time as a political weapon. With an election coming up... Oh my, both parties are well aware of how to drag an issue out, to use on the campaign trail.
The FBI at this point needs to be cleared or if problems are found revamped. IMOWhat I see this as is the same kind of scapegoating we saw from the right-wing media that tried to put this on BLM. We've spent so much time talking about the left's initial misrepresentations, that we could easily lump the FBI attempted scapegoating and BLM's into the the right's faulty reporting on the topic. Both began shortly after the actual event happened. Neither had the evidence to support it, IMO.
That is something you will never see or get.
Consider this, some of the highest members of the FBI were ousted by Trump, if you recall, James Comey was fired and disgraced, his actions to cover-up Clinton's indiscretions made public. Trump also helped ruin Peter Strzok if you recall that fiasco.
Trump made a lot of enemies, within the halls of DC, within the FBI, CIA, etc.
Do you know what a Color Revolution is?
Color Revolutions are known as the "product of machinations by the United States and other Western powers"... in other words, efforts by shadow agencies like the CIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
It does not take a stretch of the imagination to contemplate that such efforts and such agents could be against Trump and his supporters to ensure that they can be labeled, arrested, and charged with crimes, as they have been.
Its nothing more, or less, than the efforts of those in power to ensure they remain in power and thwart the threats to themselves and their allies.
As President Biden has stated, there is no greater threat to Democracy than Trump and his supporters, so, one should expect every means legal and illegal, moral and immoral, will be used to defeat that enemy as deemed necessary by those with the power to do so.OMG Ken, that makes perfect sense. I have racked my brain, and I will admit I have recognized that this administration, and not only this administration is using tactics to divide and point hate at a group of citizens. Referring to Republicans in every negative means they can dig up. In my view, trying to promote a left group that feels they are superior and have the right to negate even facts, to keep their narratives alive and thriving.
They clearly want to keep power, and their plans are very much obvious to anyone that will stop spinning and have a good look.
Biden slips up with his terminology frequently, and o several occasions make outrageous statements about Republicans. He is so obviously making every effort to split this country in two.
I really don't think at this point there is any chance of stopping what is to come. Many Americans have clearly been brainwashed into a dumbed-down state. I mean just consider what many are willing to overlook... Spy ballons, "no biggie" drones being downed, "no problem" a freaken proxy war with Russia. Unbelievable.
All about looking here not there --- and it seems to be working so well.Biden is very dividing as a "president". He has stated this so many times. Well, the Americans who voted for Biden are getting what THEY deserve; however, the REST of us are getting it too. Biden is leading America to.....PERDITION then DESTRUCTION.
"He is so obviously making every effort to split this country in two."
I'm sorry. Which president are we talking about now? The one who won the popular vote of the one the minority got elected before he tried to overturn an election?
Yes. Once again I am inserting Trump into the discussion because people have incredibly short memories.
Scary, but you are absolutely 100% correct on this.
'It does not take a stretch of the imagination to contemplate that such efforts and such agents could be against Trump and his supporters to ensure that they can be labeled, arrested, and charged with crimes, as they have been.'
And yet, that is just what it is, a stretch of the imagination by a paranoid, anti-government faction of one of the two political parties in this country. That if they don't get their way and then commit crimes because of that petulance, that it just has to be some government conspiracy against them and not just the accountability for their own actions.
And many Americans see Trump and his supporters as the greatest threat to democracy. They exist in a fabricated reality where up to 70% would believe such spectacular lies as a conspiracy between Joe Biden (from his basement no less) and multiple Republican Secretaries of States, who were on record supporting Trump, to steal the 2020 election.
And then after accepting those lies, they were brought to the Capitol, riled up, and attacked it in support of those lies.
When their leader gets served a subpoena for crimes and endangering national security for lying about returning classified documents he stole, he programs another supporter to violently attack an FBI field office.
That makes two domestic terror attacks, three if you count the guy who sent poorly made pipe bombs to everyone that Trump listed as his political enemies. Four, if you want to list the two armed guys arrested on their way to attack the Philadelphia Convention Center where votes were being counted.
At what point do Trump's supporters realize that they are in a cult whose members are willing to commit these domestic terror attacks? It seems as if the answer is never. And that is where so many Americans see them as the greatest danger to our country."That if they don't get their way and then commit crimes because of that petulance, that it just has to be some government conspiracy against them and not just the accountability for their own actions."
Oh, Amen.
It wouldn't be the first time that the FBI has carried out a malicious grudge against anyone.
It is not "murder" when a police office fires his weapon either to protect himself or to stop someone during the commission of a crime. I expect you know this as well as I do.
Yes, I agree with that statement. The officer was totally exonerated, that is the bottom line.
Well Sharlee,
Who exonerated the officer? The Capital Police? Other Federal Agencies? I hardly believe that is a unbiased review of this event. It is about as unbiased as the January 6 Committee.
There are two types of law. Judicial law which are laws passed by legislatures. There is also case law. Case law based on how previous cases have been decided. There is case law, courts have determined, a police officer MUST warn an unarmed person they will be shot and give them the opportunity to "retreat."
This was not done. The federal individual simply stuck his arm around an open door and fired his weapon. VERY cowardly and very unprofessional. So, since he did not issue a warning to an unarmed person he was about to shoot and provide them with an opportunity to retreat, it could be classified as a murder. I consider it at the very least manslaughter.
I don't think those on the left will comprehend this legal concept. I know you probably do understand it.Did you even watch the video Sharlee posted? The officer is seen in the doorway off to the side, and when Babbitt climbs into the doorframe, he moves towards her before shooting, not just 'sticking his arm around an open door' as you falsely claim in direct contradiction to the video evidence we can all see in this very thread.
Next, he issued multiple verbal warnings including, 'Stay Back! Stay Back! Do Not Come in Here!
It's amazing how many falsehoods can be posted about this incident, even tripling down on the claim that 'it could be classified as murder' which is just a complete lack of understanding about what constitutes that crime. Talk about not comprehending the legal concepts of something, geesh.Did those rioters look like they would retreat if warned to?
If it were me, I would have shot a few more. It might well have served as a deterrent, discouraging further entry.
This mad dog mob that assaulted the Capitol and I as security was charged with protecting the building and the VIPs within.
I would have had no idea what the intent of such a mob were. They were just letting off a little steam? Right......
I know that conservatives would weigh the guard down with the medals that they would bestow upon him had it been a mob of blacks attacking the Capitol and the security guard were white.He showed great restraint. They all did.
The argument of her not being armed is stupid. They didn't know that. And, in anyway case, just the sheer number of violent people was enough of a threat.Why this particular mob was to be handled with "kid gloves" is beyond me.
They need to arm these security men with "tommy guns" next time.
Missy Ann can never be considered guilty of anything....We need to all remember this conversation the next time a Republican becomes President, when the left hits the streets in a rage, destroying everything in their path, as they've often done! If the Police feel threatened, they just start shooting into the crowd, right, is that what has been determined here?
The left? Pretty sure the social justice protests were not a left issue - but a racial justice issue of please do not kill people in the street before they get a trial.
And I'm also very sure the police were more than just 'threatened' on January 6. If you don't agree that when the police are physically attacked in hand-to-hand combat and outnumbered, that they should be allowed whatever means to protect themselves at that point, then we will disagree.It is most definitely a left issue. Also, funny that you would mention "a trial".
So now Ashli Babbitt wasn't just in the wrong place at the wrong time, she was participating in hand-to-hand combat?!AB,
I think the problem was that Ashli Babbitt was the wrong gender and race for the left to get worked up over.
An unarmed black man with an extensive criminal history gets killed by police and they're willing to burn down entire cities.
An unarmed white female who is an Air Force veteran is killed by police and they are now backing the police.
What a bunch of hypocrites.I also find it interesting that a police officer dies of natural causes and the left tries to make it as if the protesters were responsible. Guess what? During the George Floyd riots many police officers were shot and killed for real. Unlike the police who committed suicide being counted and being killed by protesters, these police officers died at the hands of protesters.
This took me less than 5 minutes to find police officers who WERE killed by protesters. They didn't influence their deaths, they were murdered by them.
Why can’t the left admit police officer were actually shot and killed during the George Floyd riots? NO police officers were shot and killed during the Jan. 6 incident.
4 St. Louis officers shot, ex-captain killed during unrest
ST. LOUIS (AP) — Protests that began peacefully over the death of George Floyd turned violent in the St. Louis area, where four police officers were shot and wounded and a retired St. Louis police captain was killed by looters at a pawn shop, actions that the governor blamed on “criminals” and “thugs.”
https://apnews.com/article/83b1ecab54f0 … a218a4c994
Authorities identify federal officer killed in Oakland during George Floyd protest
The FBI’s San Francisco field office said the officer, Dave Patrick Underwood, died after someone fired at him from a vehicle.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/au … t-n1220516https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of … ted_States
I don't know that we can compare a maraschino cherry with a watermelon? But conservatives like to equate them as if they are equal, well, they are not.
As for George Floyd, From May 26, 2020 through the end of June, 15-25 million in the United States alone participated in peaceful protests, 93 percent, with kudos to the international observances as well.
George Floyd Protests: A Timeline
Per New York Times:
At least six people have been killed in violence connected to the protests that started after Mr. Floyd died in police custody.
How does an average of 20 million people over a little more than a month compare with 2,000 people in a matter of hours?
Yes, the Sicknick affair was media misrepresentation and falsehood, evidence points that way. The M.E. said his death was due to natural causes. It just appear d a strange coincidence that it occurred at the very time of the melee.
I am not just against the police, but against them and any other official that abuses their authority and discretion. I guess that is just the lefty in me.
All the same, there ar circumstances where use of police lethal force is justified, the George Floyd case was not, but the Babbitt case was.
I am not going to just stand there in the face of violent, murderous mob coming for me and not shoot somebody..........Pretty sure you're including those protests that turned violent when counting people in "peaceful protests". Are you saying that a specific person, peacefully protesting in a riot, was participating in a peaceful protest?
Because I in no way do I think that 93% of the protests over Floyd were "peaceful". One would have to really twist the facts to produce that number. 93% of the people, probably, but not 93% of the "protests".
Here is the issue.
The Left is fine with destroying businesses, buildings, entire cities, killing cops.
But if you actually go after the source of all our problems, if you go after the real criminals and complicits that are responsible for our nations woes.... They want you dead or destroyed.
Funny how when governments are overthrown by a violent minority in other places, like Ukraine for instance, it's OK... Infact it's freedom at its finest and fully supported by our government.
But when it's the American people full of disgust and distrust of their own government, they are terrorists, evil threats to Democracy.Actually, without facts, the right just accuses the left of being 'fine with destroying businesses, buildings, entire cities, killing cops.' When the reality is the left has denounced all of those actions time and time again.
Just another false and hateful narrative where the right can omit the actual facts to live in an alternate reality.The left denounces such sad occurrences...and refuses to actually do anything about it. Witness 100+ days of rioting and burning in Portland Or while the liberal government sat back doing nothing except denying federal forces to help out.
Not much difference in stating the 'liberal government sat back doing nothing except denying federal forces to help out' than saying the left is fine with the violence. It ignores that the federal forces enflamed a situation that had been dying down, let alone other actions the 'liberal government' took.
You're right - there isn't much difference. Understandable as the left has for years gotten softer and softer on criminal activity.
It is not the right that has created enclaves to protect the illegal activities of foreign citizens. It is not the right that has created "safe" zones to do your illegal drugs in. It is not the right that demands homeless people can take over parks or other areas to pitch their tents in and destroy the area.
And no, the feds did not "inflame" the situation that had been dying down. It was going strong when the offer of help was made and when federal buildings were protected rather than simply turning them over to rioters to destroy...something that inflamed the left, though!Yeah, like I noted above, it's as much about humanity and the right's lack of any in trying to solve the issues. Instead, referring to it as getting softer on criminal activity.
And what the right has done is try and deny the very existence of criminal activity when it gets committed by their party. Even in this thread, a murder committed by a member of a far-right group was attributed to 'protesters.' January 6 was a tourist visit. Donald Trump, already named as an unindictable co-conspiracist in a conviction, must just be getting politically prosecuted. The right's excusing their own criminals is equally as bad as the left's - not that you will find anyone on the right to admit it since they live in such an alternate reality where they think they are always the good guys.
And like the refusal to admit to the amount of violence and domestic terror currently emitting from the far-right, there is the same denial of the multiple reports and government officials that agree that the arrival of federal forces enflamed the situation.I know. If Trump were just in prison there would be no further crime. The world would be a better place, full of flowers and love.
No, Valeant, there is nothing from the right to even compare to leftist "leaders" aiding and abetting criminals to continue their criminal activity (sanctuary cities). There is nothing from the right comparing to left "leaders" participating, at the front of, violent protests.
There is nothing from the right comparing to the idiocy of leftist government in their quest for a fantasy utopia. Did you know it is no longer a crime to defecate on the streets and sidewalks of Denver (and some other cities)? Regardless of morality, common sense tells us it is dangerous to our health...but the left says it's all right because some people need to do it. And the problems grow as the result of their idiotic decisions. That is just a few of them that the left is promoting.
But it's all Trump's fault and he must be jailed.Do you know that you are a victim of misinformation about the Denver claim? That you have this failure to fact-check the claims you make?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/denve … urination/
It would also be very easy to argue this fictional point: 'There is nothing from the right comparing to left "leaders" participating, at the front of, violent protests.' It's like you never heard of January 6 where Senators and the the GOP President were out front organizing and secretly planning to send their mob to the Capitol.
And when it's so easy to see the crimes that a person like Trump committed, and the two times that the elected leaders in the GOP conspired with his defense team to let him evade accountability, that is more than equivalent to sanctuary cities that aim to reduce the crime rate in their communities.Can you quote from the Snopes article where it is still a criminal offense? Because I can't find it; all I can find is that it is NOT a criminal offense, which is what I said.
Yes, I know the claim is that Trump planned it all, but to date that has not been proven. It is still nothing but a fantasy of the left. Which is why I sarcastically commented that the world would be nothing but love and flowers if we would just jail Trump. All is laid at his doorstep, whether truth, fantasy, imagination or simply exaggeration.
(Hard to understand how a city can reduce crime by hiding criminals from law enforcement. To anyone actually thinking about it, anyway; to the left it apparently makes perfect sense.)I still don't understand why we have to quote something from an article that is plain as day where it lists the maximum penalties for violating something that is still a crime. That the penalties were simply reduced, but that your media tells you is no longer a crime and you fall for it.
And no, Trump's planning of the rally and plan to send his supporters to the Capitol is not a fantasy as they have testimony under oath and written communication about both events. The only fantasy is the one that the right creates to deny these things happened.
(And it's not hard to understand when you realize that the crime rate is higher for citizens than those here illegally. That by encouraging those here illegally to report crimes without penalty or to use public services, the actual rates of criminal activity drop. But again, the right likes to dismiss true reality to make ridiculous and untrue claims all the time as this thread shows over and over again).
"Do you know that you are a victim of misinformation about the Denver claim? That you have this failure to fact-check the claims you make?"
What about Valeant's clarification? crickets?
Step lightly, you are talking about my home town.....
Your facts and assertions seem to always seem to be soo selective....
Your opinion is only as good as what you can prove and independently support."Do you know that you are a victim of misinformation about the Denver claim? That you have this failure to fact-check the claims you make?"
Snopes disagrees with you; it is no longer a crime to urinate or defecate on public streets. It is illegal, but not criminal; there is no real penalty for doing it. Which is what I said.I got this from the Snopes article, did I miss something?
Sec 1-14. Offenses classified ...
(b) Class 2 Offenses
(1) Any person convicted of a class 2 offense may, for each offense, be jailed not to exceed sixty (60) days. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit sentencing options that are otherwise available to the court, except that no person convicted of a class 2 offense shall be subject to any fine.
(2) Class 2 offenses shall include the following ...
c. Sec. 38-99. Urinating or defecating in public.Sounds like the difference is that between "criminal" and "petty" or perhaps "misdemeanor", doesn't it?
I don't know about you, but I consider being placed in jail for up to 60 days for violating a city ordinance as punishment. What do you call it?
Jail. Just as you. And being placed in prison for a year? Is that called the same thing?
It appears Denver's ordinance changes between 'then' and 'now' were a reduction of penalties and classification of 'degrees'. If that's right, and, simple jail time isn't directly tied to criminal acts, and if the logic of your 'illegal vs. criminal' works, then . . .
The 'debunked' story is still misinformation because it has never been a crime to poop on Denver's sidewalks.
Except for the part about 60 days in jail not being a 'real' punishment, agreeing with your logic does work.
GADude can never admit he's wrong. He will slink away like he always does when the facts contradict his fabrications.
But they didn't contradict him. He said it was not a crime, and it isn't, in his view or yours.
So even though his logic makes the title and message of the article true, its presentation is still misinformation because it twists the context to imply something that isn't.
Damn, looks like you are both right. ;-)
But imagine if 'acceptable' rather than "illegal" was the original claim. Then only Wilderness would be right—by extrapolation. You should take the 'W'.
GA
"In 2017, the Denver City Council changed its city ordinance dealing with public urination and defecation. Before the change, a conviction carried up to a year in jail and up to $999 in fines. After the change, a conviction only carried up to 60 days in jail."
https://www.shouselaw.com/co/blog/crimi … -colorado/
That's quite a change, from $1,000 and a year down to 60 days. And it would seem to indicate that it was a crime to defecate on the street; if it wasn't then what was the fine and year in jail for? Was that year in jail and big fine for a misdemeanor?The legal opinions Google offered varied a bit in their specific reasonings, but the consensus was that, legally, violating an ordinance is not a criminal code violation. If an action isn't breaking a 'law' it isn't a crime. A municipal ordinance isn't a law. *shrug
GA
"by a violent minority in other places, like Ukraine"
Again, you really shouldn't make comments like this about Ukraine. If you're talking about the Orange Revolution, you could not be more wrong. I could write quite a bit about this, but, I have other things to do in life.
Funny how you leave out the part in Oakland that the person that shot him was part of the far-right Boogaloo Bois and not someone who was in any way part of the social justice movement. That you claim this one died 'at the hands of protesters' is your latest false claim.
Had it not been for the left's riot and their cause of the breakdown of law and order, this would not have happened. This is because of the left.
You need to acknowledge the police officer getting killed and others being shot.Take it back one step - had it not been for the murder of someone in the streets, social justice protests would not have happened. And that you equate social justice solely to the left continues to be a fabricated narrative. I will acknowledge and speak out against all violence against police as my father is retired law enforcement. Can you ever do the same?
The left always has selective social justice.
"my father is retired law enforcement"
Ah, when people on the left lose an argument they resort to virtue signaling. The left is so sad and predictable. This is what is known in the debating world as "deflection." Good one.And you couldn't even bring yourself to denounce violence against police. That is the deflection, and sad part, about your response. Not unpredictable seeing as how the leader you support just sent a dog whistle that was the same call for violence that we saw on January 6.
"had it not been for the murder of someone in the streets, social justice protests would not have happened"
I like how the rioters are the victims here. They wouldn't have rioted, caused billions of dollars worth of damages and caused police to get shot and killed, but they didn't like what the police did.
You're saying, "Look what the police made the rioters do."
The left believes they are not responsible for the riots. It's not their fault. Look what they made us do.
I believe a victim mentality is a requirement to be part of the left. I think the belief that you're never responsible for anything you do is a pretty damaging ideology from the left.
It is one they own.Did I say rioters are the victims or is that your claim? We are talking about cause and effect and you want to blame rioters for the premeditated shooting of a security guard in Oakland by a far-right member of the Boogaloo Bois.
I'm saying that if police did not murder in the streets, there would be no protests, and therefore no opportunists looking to riot. I'm not sure how many times we have to denounce rioters for it to get through to you - maybe it just never will in the same way you still believe that the 2020 election was stolen - but it gets tiring listening to your made up narratives about what is actual reality."I'm saying that if police did not murder in the streets, there would be no protests, and therefore no opportunists looking to riot."
That comes under the heading of obeying the law. The police officer were dealt with under the law. The left only likes laws that give them what they want and ignore the rest.
It's not if the police murder in the streets, it's WHO dies in their custody that matters to the left. If a white male who is unarmed and is murdered by police, the left is silent. There have been more than one incident when a black police officer has killed a white person. More silence.
Yes, we are, talking about cause and effect.
Thousands of people had their livelihoods taken from them because of those riots. Businesses owned by people of all color were destroyed and many of the owners unable to open again.
I guess THAT is what the left considers social justice? Destroying the lives of thousands of people, causing billions of dollars worth of damage, police being shot and killed, former great cities turned into havens for crime and criminal activity.
I suppose that is real justice in the eyes of those on the left.
If five black police officers kill a black man, the left is silent.
If you are the right skin color, a career criminal and killed by police after resisting arrest, THEN you will have cities burned to the ground and other people shot and killed in your name.
Some more cause and effect.
The left, the wizards of smart, defund the police. This in turn turns destroyed cities into cesspools of criminal activity.
The left has an extremely warped concept of social justice.
YES!! The left has bended and twisted themselves into pretzels, to find someone... anyone.....{obviously they can't consider Ashli Babbitt, they have to make her into some monster} whom they can pin the murder of...on a Trump supporter!!!
All while completely ignoring the targeting of police officers BY THEM...the maiming and murdering of police officers BY THEM, along with the destruction and demise of private property, many Mom & Pop small businesses, city blocks of ruin...and on and on!
Actually, the problem was the black guy in the streets was already in custody and no threat when he was then murdered, this according to the verdict of this trial.
A domestic terrorist who was part of a mob that injured hundreds of police was trying to advance to attack elected reps and prevent the peaceful transfer of power. The officer in those investigations was cleared.
The false equivalency of those two examples where one was found guilty of murder and one was exonerated, to claim hypocrisy is the issue where Trumpers continue their denial of basic facts.Ah, but if it had been a black man shot by the capital police, how many cities would have burned? Circumstances don't matter to the left. Only their agenda.
Here is a basic fact of the left's hypocrisy.
Why weren't cities burned down for Tony Timpa? I guess he didn't meet the left's race requirements for social justice.
"He died after a cop kneeled on his neck for 14 minutes. Now, his family can finally sue.
Tony Timpa died after a police officer kneeled on his neck for 14 minutes. A court originally denied his family the right to sue."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 024452002/
Again, the hypocrisy of the left is overwhelming.If it had been a black man who refused orders and made himself a threat to our elected reps during an insurrection, and he got shot, I would see it the same way. That's what you don't get. You need to believe there is some black versus white issue. It's your latest invention - and there have been many in this thread so far.
And your argument for Tony Timpa is simply the proof of this not being a left issue. Thank you for providing it. Think of the group that led the George Floyd protests - BLM. Which candidates have they put up for elected office. Trying to equate social justice to the left is just not a truth.
Now many on the left supported not murdering people in the street, and they would have supporter action to prevent Timpa's death also had there been a WLM group that put the event into the national spotlight. But apparently you pointing it out seven years later makes you think that it should have been a bigger issue. Did you march for him? Or does that make you the same kind of hypocrite you accuse everyone else of being.
It's a humanity issue, which might explain why the right failed to get behind it. So many showed that they could care less when black people are killed in violation of their due process rights.
You make Ashli Babbitt out like she was just standing around and got shot. Not true and you know it. She made herself into a threat, a danger. And yes, the mob that broke into the Capitol had engaged in hand-to-hand combat prior to her being shot. Many officers had already been injured, so the mob was considered a threat by that point. Denying that is to deny reality."violation of their due process rights"
Sort of like the Qanon Shaman who had video that would have exonerated him intentionally kept from his attorneys? But, the left, as always, feels this is justified. Circumstances don't matter, only their warped agenda.The guy pleaded guilty to unlawfully obstructing an official proceeding, how do the video clips exonerate him? Don't the other videos of him in the chambers count?
GAHow can you be unlawfully obstructing an official proceeding when you are being escorted around a building by police? How can you obstruct anything when you walk past nine police officers who pay you no attention? That is certainly an odd way to obstruct anything. Maybe the police who escorted him around the building should also be charged?
There are already folks arguing against your point. I think they're doing a good job of it. Their points are the same ones I would make so I'll let them answer your questions, again.
GA
V, there was an open door which the majority walked through, no longer speculation, but rather, truth!
I have stated that Ashli was caught up in the moment. I have stated that she was in the wrong place, at the wrong time. That is not sufficient cause for a random shot from a capital police officer to take her out!
As for George Floyd, he was a career criminal, high as a kite, for fentanyl was in his system...an officer kneeling on his neck, didn't help, when he was resisting arrest, but it was a combination of things. The officer took things too far, no doubt, the whole situation was a series of bad decisions.....much like what happened with Ashli Babbitt!!! Yet, the left turned George Floyd into a Saint, while turning Ashli Babbitt into Bin Laden!!!
George Floyd isn't an innocent victim as portrayed and wasn't worthy of the sainthood bestowed upon him which has led to police officers targeted and gunned down.
It led to entire city blocks burning, it destroyed many Mom and Pop businesses, it destroyed historic monuments and unknown amounts of personal property and innocent people's livelihoods.
It is quite obvious who is responsible for the most death and mayhem, it isn't the right! It isn't Trump supporters, although, you've convinced yourself that it is.AB, that door was opened by violently smashing in the windows to the Capitol, after violently overrunning the police lines outside. So do you deny that the crowd had already used violent means against police and property to gain entry to the Capitol?
Wrong place, wrong time does not get to excuse the fact that she made herself into a threat by trying to lead a mob, one that had already used violence against police, towards people that the Capitol Police were sworn to, and had a legal right to, protect.
George Floyd is not an innocent, and neither was Ashli Babbitt. The difference being that Floyd was no longer a threat when he was killed. Trying to make them out to be the same is just a false equivalency. One was ruled a third-degree murder and unintentional manslaughter by a court of law, the other was ruled justifiable use of force - that people like you and Mike refuse to accept - by multiple investigations.
As to quantifying the death and mayhem, again, like Mike, you are equating that issue solely to the left when what happened with George Floyd would likely be condemned by both sides of the aisle. Unless you are saying that you are in support of police being able to kill people in handcuffs by kneeling on their necks. Neither side supported any rioting, so not sure why you attribute that to just the left.
Now January 6 was solely a right-wing cause. 70% supported the lies leading up to it and you still have a GOP House trying to whitewash, and succeeded with people like Mike, the insurrection. And with the multiple domestic terror incidents we have seen and continue to see from Trump's base, yes, I see them as the greater threat.
Perhaps, under SIMILAR circumstances, I would say that what is good for the goose….
Not to mention the fact that many were armed and said (yelled) as much.
Thank you, IslandBites, for your research. It is too easy to talk off the top of your head about something this important.
Like I said, will never admit how wrong he was. Cannot even understand how city ordinances work, or that the penalty for violating it was simply reduced and not eliminated.
Yeah, but . . . This is really one of those 'yeah but' opportunities.
Yeah, legal opinions say violating an ordinance isn't technically a crime, but, you can get arrested and taken into custody for it, and you can get jail time for it. Sounds like a criminal punishment to me. Is this one of those times when the reality is an interpretation?
GAHere is the claim:
'Did you know it is no longer a crime to defecate on the streets and sidewalks of Denver (and some other cities)? Regardless of morality, common sense tells us it is dangerous to our health...but the left says it's all right because some people need to do it.'
The claim was made that the left changed a city ordinance to make something that was a crime into something that is not a crime. As if it is now legal to defecate on the streets of Denver. That is patently false.Wilderness is the one to address your "as if ' interpretation. Factually he is right, it is no longer a crime (technically) because it never was one.
See what I mean about 'yeah, buts'?
GAActually, I think it's you here who is failing to understand what was said.
If he was factually right like you claim, would he not have said that is has never been a crime? By saying that it no longer is, his claim is that it once was (not true) and that the left changed it to no longer be (also not true), which are the falsehoods at the heart of this claims. The left never invalidated the ordinance (also making his claim that the lefts says it's alright a falsehood).Yep, I got your point. Just adding some pepper to the stew.
GA ;-o
It is important to realize the FBI never admitted to having undercover people involved in the January 6 incident at the Capital. The also NEVER DENIED it. The assistant director of the FBI was asked directly by a U.S. Senator if Ray Epps was part of the FBI. Again, the FBI neither confirmed and they also NEVER DENIED Ray Epps was part of the FBI on January 6. It is a fact that he was on the FBI's most wanted list shortly after January 6, but was mysteriously removed. Without being arrested or even interviewed by the FBI.
It has to make you wonder why they couldn't say NO we had no agents acting as members of President Trump's followers who broke into the Capital. Why?
SO, how important is it to know the role of the FBI in the events of January 6? If it is established some time in the future that the FBI was directly involved in the events of January 6...what should happen? Would that change everyone's view of what happened on January 6?
The FBI has never denied it.Again, if they have undercover agents there and they admit it, it puts the lives of agents at risk. Saying nothing in an unclassified briefing is the best move. If your only proof is a non-denial, then all you have is a conspiracy theory.
There is a very simple reason behind a non-denial and you just refuse to accept it. Par for the course.The American people deserve to know the role of the FBI in January 6.
The American people deserve to know if the FBI's operatives were responsible for instigating January 6.
The truth of their role in January 6 could change everything.
The American people deserve the truth. The FBI works for the American people and not the democrat party. It seems they may have forgotten this.Well its not going to happen.
There are things the CIA, FBI, etc. did against there own people going back decades now, and the truth has still not come out, and won't in our lifetimes.
I've been part of things that were outright lied about, in the news, by the precious defendants of truth and information like CNN and the NY Times.
That is the way of it, our government lies about things it doesn't even have to lie about, our government is a habitual liar...a pathological hypocritical one, at that."I've been part of things that were outright lied about, in the news, by the precious defendants of truth and information like CNN and the NY Times."
I can completely relate to you.
"our government lies about things it doesn't even have to lie about, our government is a habitual liar...a pathological hypocritical one, at that"
You are 1,000 percent correct.
I still think we should take every opportunity to expose the truth.
If you can come up with any actual proof, since a non-denial or a removal of someone from their most wanted list who never entered the Capitol is not actual proof of anything, that undercover FBI agents instigated January 6, then maybe it'd be more than the equivalency of a guy standing in the street with an end of world sign.
"If you can come up with any actual proof"
This is why there needs to be an investigation into this very thing.
I am not saying the FBI did instigate January 6. I'm stating the obvious when I say they have behaved in some VERY suspicious way, and they need to provide answers.
American people deserve to know the truth. The FBI needs to answer questions.This is so typical Mike, it matters not to too many of our fellow American citizens, they are content with whatever they are fed, it isn't going to get any better, I'm afraid!
So the theory is that the FBI infiltrated and convinced right-wing militias to attack the nation's Capitol in an effort to make Trump look bad? That's the scapegoat that you guys are settling on?
It's as far-fetched as multiple GOP Secretaries of State conspiring with Biden, who was hiding out in his basement when he convinced them, to steal the 2020 election from Trump.
And the right wonders why the rest of the country sees them as a danger. It's thinking like this that their own government conspires against them and they need to attack them first.If you can't even be bothered to at least question a little bit...how one, Joe Biden, became President, without popularity, without being liked, without campaigning, without anyone showing up for his two or three appearances {to make it look legit} even though he didn't know where he was and yet.....he garnered more votes than THE MAN/THE LEGEND, Barack Obama...then no, we'll never come close to seeing eye to eye.
The question has already been answered as troublesome and contentious as the Trump administration has been, you don't find it odd that many chose to vote against him for just a little relief?
From my standpoint Joe Biden wasn't my ideal choice, but anything was better to having Trump win a second term and it is likely that most Americans agreed with that assessment, hence President Joseph Biden.
Trump was distrusted and disliked more than Joe Biden was.
So, there is nothing to be surprised about....Do you think that Barack believes Joe is more popular?
I have always wondered about that.Well, I don't know.
Popularity is relative. Obama only won in 2008 because the overwhelming support of non-white voters. If only whites were voting, John McCain would have won. The headwinds against the GOP regarding the blame for the 2008 meltdown were difficult to overcome for any of their nominees. Even John McCain being an experienced, good and decent man, could not overcome that. Romney ran a weak campaign in 2012 against Obama who already had the advantage of incumbency.
2020 is a far political cry from politics 8-12 years ago. If I were Obama, I would compare Biden's popularity against the slew of GOP candidates being offered today.
Otherwise, comparing Biden and Obama popularity without taking into account the political lay of the land each them faced is difficult.
The flip side of that is the failure to consider the record-setting lack of popularity of the opposing candidate. That a person who pandered to the 40% of the country that supported him and alienated everyone else pushed so many voters into the never-him camp. That advocating against the most basic of health measures to keep people safe during a deadly pandemic exposed the incumbent as disqualifying to so many voters.
It would not have mattered if it was Biden or Sanders or Warren. So many Americans saw the failures, corruption, self-dealing, and nepotism of the incumbent that it was anyone but him.
Like so many other issues, the right omits the most glaring of pieces of the puzzle to wonder how something very obvious could have happened. This one was not rocket science. But there are many here that wear the rose-colored glasses to only see that Trump advocated for the things they wanted. For a different subset of the population, those things, combined with his many embarrassments, were disqualifying.There was a Never-Trump campaign which began the day he, Donald Trump, rode down the escalator to announce he would be running for President - you know it and I know it!!
Hillary Clinton used campaign funds to pay for the bogus Steele Dossier, worked with corrupted D.C. swamp agents to spy on Donald Trump's campaign. The Never-Trumpers came up with Trump and Russia stole the election from Hillary, because he wasn't supposed to be there, Hillary was...it was her time!! She was to be crowned.....but for Donald Trump getting in her way!!! No matter what she did, mattered not, the people were ready for some change in the swampy swamp!
Mueller investigated and investigated and investigated and concluded that there was no evidence of any Trump/Russia collusion or conspiracy.
I do believe that the swampy swamp never gave up, propaganda hurt Trump in his second bid, but not enough to have him lose the election. I also think that if they had put Maxine Waters in, in lieu of Joe, she would have won. The votes would have been there! It would have been a true modern-day miracle!
But, you keep on believing that Joe's the man and that he took care of business, as he continues to do.Indeed, there was a never-Trumper faction the day he announced as many knew exactly who Trump was based on his history. But that faction only grew in size as he made no attempts to govern across the aisle, fabricated alternate realities where others were to blame for his failures, and accepted the help of a hostile foreign government.
I was no pro-Hillary as Kasich was my choice until the GOP put up someone worse. Many would have crossed over if the GOP put up someone with a proven history of governing. Instead, they wanted a self-interested third grader who knew how to troll.
Like I said, the right cannot even acknowledge the Senate report, instead having to fall back on Mueller whose conclusions were warped by Barr.
And it wasn't a swamp that hurt Trump in his second bid. It was normal Americans who could see how unqualified for the position he was. In the face of a national crisis, Trump failed. Had it not been for his own negative actions, he might have been reelected since he was good for the economy in many ways.
So you keep believing, as is your right as one of the faction that is totally devoted to Trump, that Trump didn't alienate anyone who did not show him, and any ridiculously stupid idea he came up with, fealty and that is what cost him. The rest of us will continue to understand that it was an election to vote Trump out of office, no matter who ran against him." It was normal Americans who could see how unqualified for the position he was."
I will always put my faith in normal Americans who make up the majority. NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE would guarantee no more presidents put in office by the minority.
The Clinton Foundation funded a lot of bad things.
" But there are many here that wear the rose-colored glasses to only see that Trump advocated for the things they wanted. For a different subset of the population, those things, combined with his many embarrassments, were disqualifying."
"Things they want".... These words are very much odd in the context you have used them. Is it not a gimmie that many vote for a president due to what they run on? What do they offer in the way of promises?
And yes, different as you use the word subset want different "things" it is only natural that an individual will vote for the candidate that they feel offers an agenda they can get on board with.
Would it be fair to compare Boden to Trump? I don't feel time needs to be wasted on such a conversation. It is evident what this man and his administration have done to set America back.
I must say, in my view., it is not the Republicans that wear rose-colored glasses. That would be anyone that could possibly support the current administration and this feeble president."I must say, in my view., it is not the Republicans that wear rose-colored glasses. That would be anyone that could possibly support the current administration and this feeble president."
------
Again, that is a matter of opinion. I cannot share the one that you have expressed.I think that is a gimmie. We could certainly go back and forth, but I have come to able to admit, I truely don't care to argue the point.
I think it makes me part of a crowd that spins in a circle. Time for me to jump out of that circle. I think it will make it easier to view, and decipher what has really been happening while we all have been spinning.
Right, in your view. Or in the media spin that is fed to you non-stop. The same media spin that sold you on election fraud (that you still cling to) and the giant red wave.
Biden has not been infallible, but he has done as much good as bad. The same could be said of most presidents. Difference is, I can admit that Biden has done some bad things. No chance anyone in the Trump cult does the same."No chance anyone in the Trump cult does the same."
Good thing the "Trump cult" is so small then - approximately the same size as the die-hard Democrats that found Obama to be the world's savior and will forever deny that he did anything wrong or that he doesn't walk on water to this day.Yeah, I see what you're saying, wilderness. In my humble opinion, anyone who accuses Donald Trump of running a cult needs to rethink their opinion of the FBI and stop making them out to be such a beacon of heroism. Speaking of cults, the Church of Scientology is a dangerous cult that has been in existence since the 1950s, and yet the FBI has never succeeded in taking them down. The FBI could have put a stop to The Peoples Temple, which was a religious cult, but their failure to do so led to the tragic loss of a countless number of lives down in Jonestown, Guyana at the hands of a monster named Jim Jones back in 1978. Because of it, our nation lost a great man in the form of Congressman Leo Joseph Ryan, Jr. on that fateful day that Jim Jones' soldiers assassinated him while he was trying to rescue a group of people from that cult.
The FBI spends more time ruining the lives of politicians and even everyday people than they do doing their job. That's why real cults literally get away with murder. The FBI is a rogue organization and has been for some time. Also, the FBI is kind of like the dental prosthetics industry. They've long outlived their purpose. Other government agencies perform their assigned duties and do a much better job of it.
I know I'm going to get pushback from others on this discussion thread, but I cannot remain silent about this topic.
I actually never felt there was significant fraud committed in the 2020 election, any more than we have witnessed in previous elections.
I have and still do support that the allegations should have been carefully investigated to satisfy all Americans that did and still do believe there was fraud committed.
I will admit that I felt we would see a giant red wave. However yes, I was faced with some unpleasant realizations from the outcome of the midterms.
Hmmm, a D.C. which gets in the way of the people's choice of candidates/Presidents or a D.C. which honors the people's role in Government, it's a no brainer for me.
Considering the role of so many in the GOP leading up to January 6, and their open rebellion against the people's choice, when they were smart enough to see the lack of fraud based on the courts and Attorney General investigations, not sure there's a partisan high ground in that stance.
You've ruled out a corrupted D.C. swamp doing whatever it takes to stop anyone who gets in their way, I have not, V.
"An attorney for Ray Epps, the Arizona man that January 6 conspiracy theorists falsely claim led an FBI plot to orchestrate the insurrection, demanded an on-air retraction Thursday from Fox News and its right-wing talk host Tucker Carlson, and claimed they made “false and defamatory statements” about him."
It's from FOX so maybe some of you folks will believe it.
"An attorney for Ray Epps"
I think this can be considered a biased source.Kathleen, I have been following this story. Becoming interested in the issue after hearing Ted Cruz interrogate an FBI agent in one of the hearings. It was clear that that particular hearing left many curious about Ray Epps. Just due to the many questions not being answered about the man, yet the agent was aware of the man.
Makes me wonder why the hearing did not go into a closed-door hearing, and the question was reasked.
However, we have the new development of Ray Epps, asking that the story be retracted, as well as an apology from Tucker Carlson. As of yet, Fox has not given a statement.
I wonder where this will all go. Will Epps bring a lawsuit against Fox and Carlson? Will Congress ask Epps to go under oath to clarify his part on Jan 6th? I also am aware he gave testimony to the Jan 6th committee. Stating under oath "Epps told the Jan. 6 committee that the wasn't working for the CIA or the National Security Agency or the Washington Metropolitan Police Department.
“The only time I’ve been involved with the government was when I was a Marine in the United States Marine Corps," Epps said."
So, I would be prone to think he would not commit perjury.
In my view, we have not heard the end of this.
I am displeased to see Congress ask the questions they asked the FBI about this man, and not totally pursue all the answers from the FBI. I am disappointed with Tucker Carlson spreading more or less his view, which bears little to no facts at this time.
Ted Cruz did paint a very intriguing scenario, lots of smoke. Only Congress at this point can demand answers from the FBI, and Ray Epps.
I feel we the people do deserve answers only the FBI can give."So, I would be prone to think he would not commit perjury."
You need to look at his testimony to the January 6 commission and then at the video released by Tucker Carlson.
In his sworn testimony to the 1/6 Committee, Epps said that he left the Capitol immediately after texting his nephew “I orchestrated it.” However, surveillance video shows him on Capitol grounds 30 minutes later.
The video also shows how others got arrested for something Epps did and yet Epps did not get arrested.
"NEW VIDEO of Ray Epps Hurling GIANT Trump Sign at Police on Jan. 6 But Was Never Arrested Like Several Trump Supporters Who Touched that Same Sign "
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 … tee-video/
61% Believe Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot
Voters overwhelmingly support releasing all videos of the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, and a majority think it’s likely that government agents helped provoke the riot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 80% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it is important that the public be able to view all the videos of the Capitol riot, including 58% who think it’s Very Important. Only 17% don’t think it’s important for the public to be able to see all the riot videos.
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public … pitol_riotTransparency is definitely needed in this situation.
I was shocked to see so many Americans feel that 61% Believe the Feds Helped Incite Capitol Riot.
I truely feel we need transparency, it's the only way to get to the truth and try to work on putting this behind us.
I was on board with Cruz after the 2020 election having a quick investigation into Trump's allegations. If we would have done that, we would have obtained the truth and again moved on.I think it speaks volumes about what people think of our government to believe such a thing is possible.
Anything and everything, the most loathsome despicable acts against humanity you have ever heard about or seen... and more.
I truely think that a large majority have little to no trust in our government.
We have been lied to. We have a president that is not capable of making sound decisions, as well as to looks very much possible this president has been playing pay-for-play for some time. As well as he is very clear he has weaponized the DOJ, FBI, etc.
And a Congress that will not address the need to remove him.I l kindly agree to disagree. There is a Congressional committee investigating the many issues they feel Biden and his administration have weaponized several Fed agencies. I have become very convinced that this administration, as well as Biden, has been very much politically corrupt, and dishonest.
Funny, I think they were lied to about Biden's fitness for office. If they listened to his State of the Union, they would have seen someone very present and capable.
And they put their trust in a lying conman who fabricated fraud, but distrust actual government agencies. Not sure how much stock we should put in the seriousness of their judgment abilities.
As for pay-for-play and weaponization, both of those were absolutely acceptable when their party had control of the government. When it becomes an issue equally, then people will believe it to be more than just partisan whining.
I saw a news flash one evening stating that Joe Biden had less than an 11 percent approval rating from the American people regarding his intentions to run for reelection in 2024. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has even announced recently that he intends to run for president on the Democratic ticket in 2024, which makes Joe Biden look even worse inasmuch as it is uncommon for someone to run against an incumbent on the same party ticket. It's almost like Mr. Kennedy is making a statement to the world through his actions that the American people have no faith in Joe Biden's ability to preside over our nation.
Nieve or inexperienced are good words to use for anyone that trusts our federal government and its agencies (IE - FBI).
This nation was founded on lack of trust of government and those who founded it comprehended the more power a government had, the less freedom individuals would have.
‘Discredit, disrupt, and destroy’: FBI records acquired by the Library reveal violent surveillance of Black leaders, civil rights organizations.
https://www.lib.berkeley.edu/about/news/fbi
They have only refined their techniques and improved the technology since those times.
In the name of "national security", the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.
First implemented after 9/11 during Bush Jr., when Obama had the chance to rescind those intrusions into the privacy of Americans, he instead increased the capacity and abilities the Patriot Act allowed for.
The Patriot Act basically upends the 4th Amendment, Americans no longer have privacy protection rights, law officials no longer need to use Warrants to gain access to your home or personal information.
It is highly probable due to the nature of the Biden Administration's infatuation with Trump and his supporters, and the battle Trump fought with the FBI (costing more than one top ranking person to lose their jobs) that the FBI currently classifies ‘Mainstream’ Conservatives as Domestic Terrorists.
Conservatives Are in The Same Category As Islamic Terrorists
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/10/di … errorists/
I believe this to be the 'mindset' of the folks who run the FBI today. Same with the Biden Administration concerning Conservatives and all non RINO-Republicans.
I harken back to what I mentioned regarding Social Credit and CBDC and how those were deployed in China. It really only works in a one party system and there are a great many like-minded individuals across the spectrum in DC that want to take us there.Well, it's like this, Ken. Diehard FBI fans will insist that the initials "FBI" stand for Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity. However, I must counter their contention by pointing out that the initials "FBI" really stand for Fascist Bastion of Imbeciles. They're an institution of Neanderthals who have no respect for the rights of everyday Americans.
Related Discussions
- 96
New January 6 Video
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
It is a shame that the Democrats refused to show so much of the January 6 video that was taken.Watch it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opy7MLGAPBk
- 15
Bipartisan Senate Report says Capital Police problem January 6 attack
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
Guess what? President Donald Trump is not responsible for the January 6th breach of the Capital building. It was planned long before he gave his speech. At last, the truth comes out. "A Senate investigation of the January6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has uncovered...
- 175
Jan 6th Tape Brian Sicknick Was The Root Of A Big Lie.
by Sharlee 2 years ago
It shows Sicknick walking through the building “after he was supposedly murdered by the mob outside.” Yet the Jan 6th committee did not reveal this fact or show this video. Time to ask why. Tucker Carlson releases exclusive Jan. 6 footage, says politicians, media lied about Sicknick ...
- 1121
Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
- 24
FBI: Black Identity Extremists (BIE) Domestic Terrorist Threat
by Susie Lehto 7 years ago
Well, this has gone largely unreported. The 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., has spawned a violent domestic threat from “black identity extremists” who have stepped up attacks on police.“It is very likely that BIEs’ perceptions of unjust treatment of African-Americans and the...
- 20
Letter From an FBI Agent to the American People
by Willowarbor 2 months ago
Uncommon Sense was a Common Vice"Those with knowledge of the United States Marine Corps will recognize the irony of this title. I wish its words were not true, but as I write this, I believe they are. Currently, there is an effort to cull a significant number of career Special Agents from the...