- Thread starter
- #261
Easy, all the clowns who jumped on the bandwagon about the infamous phone call.........Eric Ciaramella, Vindman, Brenner, Clapper, Schiff, Pelosi....I miss anyone?And then tell us how you could possibly know who is who in the Deep State?
Approved 10,000 NG troops to be available upon request from USCP, MPD. Hardly sounds like someone who doesn't care about the loyal hard working citizens who guard and service the capitol does it?As a leader concerned with the safety of the loyal hard-working citizens who guard and service the Capitol why would Don Trump intentionally anger and incite his supporters at the Eclipse ......and then direct them to go to the Capitol?
A large group, on their own volition, took it upon themselves to congregate below the capitol steps early in the day, before Trump made His speech. While He was giving his speech, a large portion left the speech, which was still in progress, and walked down to the capitol steps and joined those already there..
Why would he intentionally put employees at risk of harm?
Approving NG troops for LE support is hardly putting anyone at the risk of harm. If anyone put anybody in harms way, it was the Fed and Local LE groups that failed miserably in that days events planning. That part wasn't focused upon much, in your much heralded J6 made for TV spectacular. Funny that wasn't addressed isn't it?
How would the President have advance knowledge people would be armed?Most especially when he knew a significant number of those angered supporters were armed?
Capitol police was well aware of the goings on at a multitude of events in the DC area, that day. They had intel on a myriad of possible scenarios.Why wouldn't he have given a heads-up to the Capitol Police that he was gonna direct an angered and armed mob at 'em?
There was some knowledge and intel that a march was highly probable, from your J6 TV spectacular report.Why did Trump and his enablers NOT apply for permits for a march, and instruct those who were in-the-know to not divulge of Trump's plan to order a march from the podium?
Did you think the testimony of Trump's Attorney General, William Barr, when he told Don Trump his claims of a "stolen election was bullshit" was effective use of an eyewitness?
Is this, by chance, the same Bill Barr you are referencing?
On Sunday, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said Barr was again using his position to protect the president.
"This is one more example why, I think, Bill Barr has repeatedly demonstrated that he's more interested in being Donald Trump's personal lawyer than he is being the attorney for the United States of America," Warner told CBS's "Face The Nation."
Other Democrats who decried the announcement included Sen. Elizabeth Warren. In a tweet Saturday, Warren implored Congress to pass a bill stripping Barr's authorities in matters involving Trump and his family.
"This is a naked abuse of power. I've already called for AG William Barr to resign & for Congress to impeach him," said the Massachusetts Democrat.
Not at all. Trump wasn't on trial.And were you disappointed, or even just surprised when all those eyewitnesses refused to testify in Don Trump's defense?
A majority of voters say they believe the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is biased, according to a new Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey.
Fifty-eight percent of voters polled said they believed the committee set up by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was biased, while 42 percent said they thought it was fair.
“Americans want an examination of the riots over the summer and the origins of the virus over investigating Jan. 6th,” said Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey. “The voters reject the Pelosi move to toss Republicans off of the committee and see it now as just a partisan exercise.”
Last edited: