Remember when there was a ploy by right wing terrorists to kidnap the governor of MI? Remember all the folx on the left using this as an example of how right wing domestic terrorism was the biggest threat we faced in the US? Well, it looks like the FBI played a significant role in the whole thing and this might not be what all the lefties thought it was.
Tuesday, December 28, 2021
Remember?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
This entire case may collapse from what I've seen thus far.
That may well be. But you know we won't hear anything from the folx that were all up in arms about this being the example of "right wing, white supremacist, domestic terrorism" and how much of a threat it is.
"Remember all the folx on the left using this as an example of how right wing domestic terrorism was the biggest threat we faced in the US?"
Um... you know it's NOT those in the left making up this out of thin air? It's the FBI, Homeland Security and legal agencies across the US... you know, all those radical lefties...
We're just pointing to the reality on the ground as espoused by legal authorities.
Do you suspect there's a vast conspiracy by all those (largely conservative-leaning) folks in law enforcement?
Get serious.
It's interesting that you "cite" the FBI, when it's looking more and more like that FBI was behind this incident.
Are you really suggesting that the federal "LE" bureaucracy is really "conservative leaning"?
I'd take y'all a lot more seriously if all these "white conservatives" didn't end up being liberals or FBI agents/informants.
Indeed. There's a lot out there that suggest federal LE agencies are more politicized than we may have thought, and left-leaning to be sure. If not leftist, then totally NeverTrump and now we continue to see elements of that in the treatment of those arrested on Jan 6, and more to the point, how much effort was put in to find and bring in people from around the country who were in DC on that date, regardless of whether or not they were involved in the events at the Capitol building. Tucker Carlson had an interview with this couple from Alaska who were visited by (and possibly "brought in"...it's been a minute and I don't recall all the details) the FBI. They were among those who never even entered the building. Others who didn't enter were arrested as well. And why? Because the leftists in power are trying to make a statement with regard to anyone and anything even remotely related to Trump or support for his presidency...not because they actually believe the "insurrection" was the worst thing since the Civil War, which is absurd on its face. And they're employing federal LE to achieve their ends, the leadership of which is just as politically twisted as they are.
I suspect that the rank and file LEO probably lean conservatives, if for no other reason than conservatives are less likely to cut LE funding and hang them out to dry.
But, I'd suggest that once you get to DC and into the entrenched bureaucracy at the DOJ, Homeland Security, and the FBI, that you'll see the switch away from conservatism and toward either liberalism or simply self preservation. I'd also agree that there did seem to be a fair amount of anti Trump sentiment among the bueareauricrats because Trump (at least theoretically) posed some level of risk to their positions and pensions.
What's hilarious regarding those who buy the insurrection narrative is that they are convinced that these are a bunch of heavily armed "right wing" folks, who decided to overthrow 1/3 of the federal government without any weapons, plan, or organization. It's amusing to watch people who wholeheartedly believe two things that contradict each other, by simply ignoring one or the other when it's convenient.
It's really all quite a sham given Pelosi's refusal to allow the minority leader his picks. Those picks would have been too disturbing to her agenda, so she pretends she has bi-partisanship by placing Cheney and Kinzinger on the committee. No one with half a brain is unable to see through this deceit.
What could trump be charged with? Ask ultra-conservative Liz Cheney...
"Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the select committee’s vice chair, gave the first indication at a hearing earlier this month that the panel is examining whether Trump committed a crime.
Quoting the statutory text for a felony obstruction offense, Cheney said that a key question for the select committee investigation is, “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’ official proceedings to count electoral votes?”
Obstruction of an official proceeding is a charge that carries a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison. Federal prosecutors have wielded it against hundreds of rioters alleged to have participated in the attack on the Capitol."
Trump clearly contributed to the problem. And then through his own inaction did not intervene to stop the problem, the crime being committed by these right wing Wacko's. And that they were too inept to pull off the stunt and obstruct the election as they hoped to do is not sign that they shouldn't be charged or that no crime was committed.
Do you agree, Craig, that at the very least Trump was morally wrong in his actions that day and his continued repeating of the damnable lie that the election was being stolen? Can you agree with the majority of the nation that this was clearly a great and dangerous wrong on his part, even if it wasn't a crime?
Marshal, if there are conservative republicans on the committee along with democrats, then it is literally bipartisan. ..
Yes, it is true that by-and-large the modern GOP has its collective head up Trump's ass, but that doesn't mean it's not bipartisan. It just means there's a serious problem with the modern GOP if Liz Cheney is an outcast.
Craig... "What's hilarious regarding those who buy the insurrection narrative is that they are convinced that these are a bunch of heavily armed "right wing" folks, who decided to overthrow 1/3 of the federal government without any weapons, plan, or organization..."
As noted earlier, ineptitude does not absolve one of criminal behavior. We know the criminal behavior happened because they've already been convicted of criminal behavior. They were attempting to obstruct the free transfer of power, a free Election process.
Have you listened to any to the NPR coverage of the anniversary of the January 6th insurrection? They're covering it quite well and making it plain to those who are able to listen objectively. Go check it out.
What's hilarious is the way supposedly law abiding conservatives have abandoned any suggestion that they care about the law or about a free Republic. It's hilarious. And pathetic.
What an interesting reply.
You don't actually cite any specific US criminal or penal code, you cite someone you call an "ultra conservative" with absolutely zero context.
You then claim that "Federal prosecutors have wielded it against hundreds of rioters alleged to have participated in the attack on the Capitol.", yet cite absolutely zero evidence that this claim actually reflects reality.
"Trump clearly contributed to the problem. And then through his own inaction did not intervene to stop the problem, the crime being committed by these right wing Wacko's."
You do understand the rather large chasm between you asserting these sorts of vague statements, and actually meeting the standard of proof necessary to convict Trump of a crime, don't you?
Where have I suggested that those involved in rioting in 2020 should not be charged and convicted for any crimes they committed?
I agree that many things that Trump does and has done are "morally wrong". Are you suggesting that those things violate some objective and universal standard or morality? Are you suggesting that your version of "morally wrong" should lead to prosecution?
No, I can't agree that Trump telling people not to riot and then remaining silent was a "great and dangerous wrong". Can you agree that rioting, looting, burning, and destruction of government property are "great and dangerous wrongs", "morally wrong" and that those who engaged in such should be charged or convicted of crimes?
Your problem is that you have to exaggerate the "moral wrong" of those you disagree with politically,
Strangely enough, if one looks at the actual crimes that the 1/6 rioters have been convicted of, or pled guilty to, the vast majority of those crimes have nothing to do with insurrection or obstruction, the vast majority up to this point have been misdemeanors.
No I haven't listened to any coverage of the 1/6 anniversary, I certainly wouldn't consider NPR to be particularly balanced if I did.
What's hilarious is that most liberals have been making excuses for the rioting throughout 2020. I haven't heard anyone on the who has suggested that those who committed crimes on 1/6 should not be charged and tried for any crimes they might have committed.
"The longtime partner of late Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick says former President Trump “needs to be in prison” for his contribution to the events that took place on Jan. 6.
Asked by "PBS NewsHour’s" Judy Woodruff ahead of the anniversary of last January's riot how Trump should be held accountable, Sandra Garza said he should face incarceration, but noted the unlikelihood of that occurring...
But Donald Trump has been playing these legal wrangling games for decades. He knows how to skirt the system. He knows how to — he's a very litigious person himself. And then, when he's been sued, he knows how to play these games to get around things and avoid jail and prison time."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/show/trump-should-serve-time-for-jan-6-riot-partner-of-capitol-cop-who-died-says
Somewhere in one of these posts you questioned whether or not the FBI was conservative. Of course, they are. They traditionally have been and there's no evidence that they're not now. Are you not aware of this? Are you not aware that law enforcement types in general tend to be conservative?
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/fbi-donald-trump-base-230755
Here's some of the reporting from NPR. Do you agree that, to the degree that these survey results are correct, that a majority of conservatives and republicans and white evangelicals hold some troubling views?
"The survey found stark divisions between Republicans and Democrats on the 2020 presidential election, with two out of three Republicans saying President Biden was not legitimately elected, while 98% of Democrats and 73% of independents acknowledged Biden's victory...
The level of distrust among Republicans evident in the survey was such that about 8 in 10 said the current political system is "stacked against conservatives and people with traditional values." A majority agreed with the statement: "The traditional American way of life is disappearing so fast that we may have to use force to save it."..
The AEI survey found that partisan divisions were also evident along religious lines. About 3 in 5 white evangelicals told the pollsters that Biden was not legitimately elected..
The AEI survey found that white evangelicals were especially prone to subscribe to the QAnon movement's conspiracy theories. Twenty-seven percent said it was "mostly" or "completely" accurate to say Trump "has been secretly fighting a group of child sex traffickers that include prominent Democrats and Hollywood elites."
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/11/966498544/a-scary-survey-finding-4-in-10-republicans-say-political-violence-may-be-necessa
"Somewhere in one of these posts you questioned whether or not the FBI was conservative. Of course, they are."
Actually, that doesn't accurately describe what I said at all.
"They traditionally have been and there's no evidence that they're not now."
How devastating, Dan makes the above pronouncement, and it's all settled. Of course, it doesn't address his misrepresentation of what I said...
"Are you not aware of this? Are you not aware that law enforcement types in general tend to be conservative?"
Are you not aware, and do you not care about what I actually wrote, or are you content to argue against this straw man you've created?
OK, well as long as the "long time partner of capitol police officer Brian Sicknink" says so, then to hell with all that presumption of innocence, charging, trying and convicting bullshit. Lock him up.
Are you talking about the Capitol police officer who died of natural causes? Is it possible that his partner might not be particularly unbiased in his opinions?
Of course, if you choose to believe that one opinion poll (with very little information about the actual questions asked or the makeup of the small number of people surveyed) is the arbiter of the Truth on these matters, then you are certainly welcome to believe that.
Were you aware that GA has finally decided to investigate the allegations of ballot harvesting?
In the absence of any details about the questions asked, or the breakdown of those surveyed, I'll pass on spending a lot of time arguing against or for people's opinions.
Craig... "You don't actually cite any specific US criminal or penal code,.."
? Perhaps you missed it. Here it is again.
Quoting the statutory text for a felony obstruction offense...
"OBSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING is a charge that carries a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison."
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/04/biden-disapproval-rating-high-voters-blame-him-on-economy-cnbc-poll.html
If we're taking opinion polls as gospel Truth, then I'm sure you'll agree that Biden is really sucking at being president.
Re obstruction.
The judge who found Clinton guilty was quite clear; "In her finding of contempt of court, Judge Wright issued a scalding opinion saying the “record demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence” that Clinton at the deposition gave “false, misleading and evasive answers that were designed to obstruct the judicial process.”
Simply stated, Wright wrote, “the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ….”
If obstruction by a president was such a big deal, why didn't we hear that Clinton should be in jail?
No, I saw that you quoted someone who was giving their opinion on what they believe US code to be. You hadn't provided the actual criminal code information asked for.
I'm sorry that differentiating between someone's opinion about something, and the actual thing was so confusing for you.
I can only assume that you agree that Clinton should be in jail for his actual obstruction then.
The fact that you've actually found a statute that Trump could theoretically be tried for is a long way from actually charging, trying, and convicting him. If it was so cut and dried, one wonders why he hasn't been charged.
I'm sure it's the conspiracy theory you cited in an earlier comment.
Again, do you not recognize how gravely wrong what he has done is?
Hes not likely to be convicted because hes a rich powerful white man and they don't tend to be convicted. Don't be naive.
There's a lot of comedy Dan presented to which I'd like to respond. For now, I would simply say that for the entirety of Trump's term in office, "illegitimate president" was almost a nickname applied to him by Dems, with none other than his failed opponent Hillary Clinton using the term herself. Where was the outcry over her charge that foul play was the reason Trump won? I don't recall Dan talking about "damnable lie" any time someone referred to Trump in this way. This is another case of lefty projection, of lefty hypocrisy and lying...something for which Dan has become legendary.
I'm also not surprised Dan is enamored with NPR's presentation of the events of Jan 6. I've no doubt they cast Trump supporters in the worst possible light, without the least mention of anything else. American Greatness journalist Julie Kelly has done yeoman's work reporting on all that the Enemy of the People choose not to report about the details of that day. And there's still that little issue regarding the thousands of hours of video we'll likely never see on the premise it will provide valuable info for the next group of "insurrectionists".
I'm beginning to derive great enjoyment in seeing just how Dan will lie next and which vile individual or group of people he'll defend as if they're noble heroes. Comedy gold.
And yes, if you're speaking of Clinton's lying to Congress, I would have been fine for jailing him or whatever the appropriate sentence is for lying aboutan affair. Even though that was only lying about a blowjob.
And that's the difference between me and modernconservatives. I think the presidency is serious enough that someone lying even over something as stupid as a blowjob should be held to account. You all, on the other hand, are fine with the president trying to overthrow the whole Free Republic and with these stupidly false stolen election false claims.
What a shame. You can even find it Within you to condemn these false claims and this attack on our free Republic. As if you don't even see or understand how dangerous these lies are.
And maybe that's the problem.
Dan,
Lying under oath is called perjury, it's an actual crime. The subject of the lie is irrelevant. Your obsession with minimizing Clinton's crimes because it's just about his having an extramarital affair with a WH intern young enough to be his daughter, is irreelvant.
You'll note that I quoted the judge who found him guilty of contempt, and you'll note that what he did was to "obstruct" the legal process by lying.
I'll give much more weight to the judge than to you.
Trump's "false claims" were not under oath. Do you understand why that makes a difference?
Apparently the DFL folx are treating 1/6 like COVID. If you were anywhere the capitol during the riot, then died, you've become a martyr.
Even the guy killed in April by a Farrakhan supporter who hit him with his car.
Why do I even have to ask such obvious questions?
"And that's the difference between me and modernconservatives. I think the presidency is serious enough that someone lying even over something as stupid as a blowjob should be held to account."
Liar. Where's your condemnation for Joe Biden. He's pathological in his lying...maybe even worse than you. If you truly have respect for the presidency, how could possibly support Biden. His lying g and incompetence was already legendary before he added the first year of his term as president. Now look at what you and other morons have done to the Republic!! How dare you suggest Trump was ever a threat or is now! Clearly there's no ceiling to your abject idiocy and lying. Trump's got nothing on you and Joey Plugs.
There's far more evidence of a stolen election than you could ever provide to support the laughable notion you're a Christian.
You're a joke, a fraud and a reprehensible excuse for a human being.
Post a Comment