A new GOP way to thank people
A Washington, D.C., police officer injured during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack said that he was snubbed by a Republican congressman who previously compared the riot to a “normal tourist visit."
More video released and there will be more to come
I’m not playing the compare game, but I believe a lot of people are having trouble giving a shit after seeing what happened to police in major cities all across the US last summer on the heels of them peaceful protests because they were “exercising their civil rights.”
From last year:
And today:
Again…not comparing, but hey…they brought this shit on themselves. Imagine how the cops in those cities feel… 
…and now back to the topic at hand.
Sure, because nuance matters for nothing.
It is the topic at hand. Jan. 6 didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Could you explain the nuance that are trying to bring to the conversation about the Capitol insurgents?
Of course, no events happen in a vacuum, so what do you see as the connection?
I suspect the widespread and widely seen atmosphere of protests devolving into rioting over the entire year contributed to the result of this protest devolving into rioting.
You DON’T see a connection?
Well said! Please note “Tucker Carlson… was way more definitive about what actually exists in terms of evidence than was justified”
Imagine that. 
He should stick with the reasonable factual conspiracies. Not that I watch him and his video clips…like ever. He has what we used to call a punchable face. lol
edit:
Shit. 
Glen said google this. I did.
So many conspiracies, so little time
Along with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Gosar is one of the leading proponents of a brand of Jan. 6 revisionism that seeks to unsettle the consensus view that frames the Capitol disturbances as a dangerous uprising. Some theorists of this ilk go so far as to insist the riot was as peaceful as a pasture of lambkins and that it was actually Antifa or “fake Trump protesters” that hammered and bear-sprayed the United States Capitol Police. Gosar says the riots were conducted by “peaceful patriots“ and that “outright propaganda and lies” about the day have been deployed against “law-abiding U.S. citizens, especially Trump voters” to paint them as political criminals. Dancing a similar move, Johnson has advanced the theory that “agents provocateurs” were behind the violence. “Those are people that love this country,” Johnson said in March of the rioters, “that truly respect law enforcement, would never do anything to break the law.” This week, Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson joined them in Jan. 6 trutherdom with a tangled commentary that proposed that the FBI itself helped perpetrate the riots.
Oh, gawd, you must be muttering to yourself. Not another baseless conspiracy to disarm! Didn’t we just spend seven months proving in the courts and the forums of public opinion that no meaningful amount of voter fraud took place in the presidential election? Now we’ve got to prove that Jan. 6 wasn’t a contemporary COINTELPRO operation or the product of deep anarchists? How long must we suffer?
The short answer is “forever.” The human appetite for alternative, and usually hare-brained, explanations for why events blossomed the way they did can never be sated. Oh, you can battle a poison fruitcake ideology like QAnon to the point that it can be contained in a 55-gallon drum and sealed. You can repel one nutter idea after another—Obama birtherism, Benghazi, Sandy Hook, the Katrina levee breach, Bush’s foreknowledge of 9/11—a new one will pop up to replace it like a target in an arcade. As long as anxieties about an uncertain future persist, people will devise irrational and inconsistent theories and share them. Some of these people will even be members of Congress. We’ll just have to deal with them.
The Simple Remedy for Jan. 6 Trutherism
Not as exciting but it’s always good to do a check on some of the legalities too.
And Duke Law School Professor Lisa Kern Griffin told the newspaper that “undercover officers and informants can’t be ‘co-conspirators’ for the purposes of establishing an agreement to violate the law, because they are only pretending to agree to do so.”
“An unindicted co-conspirator has committed the crime of conspiracy, and investigative agents doing their jobs undercover are not committing crimes,” Griffin said.
Andrew McCabe, a former FBI deputy director, made similar arguments in a June 16 CNN interview refuting the claims Carlson made on his TV show.
“When an indictment is written, at the time the indictment is written, and signed off by the judge, there are people who need to be referred to, in the indictment, just to make it a coherent story, so it makes sense, but who the government is not prepared to charge at that time,” McCabe said. “There may be all kinds of different reasons that they’re not prepared to charge that person at that time.”
“But the one reason that does not exist is the one that [Carlson] suggested,” McCabe added. “It’s not an undercover officer, because you cannot refer to those people as unindicted co-conspirators.”
Indeed, federal case law from 1985 (United States v. Rodriguez) acknowledged that “government agents and informers cannot be conspirators.”
Also, a Department of Justice manual advises federal prosecutors not to identify unindicted co-conspirators by name without “some significant justification.”
Let’s see if that is still the case in a year or so. You can’t believe that all relevant documents are out so quickly…can you?
A unsettling visual view of January 6 and the attack by Trump supporters on the Capitol.
Yet we also found that the crowd did include members of groups who seemed eager for a confrontation, like well-organized militias and far-right groups including the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys.
Many of the Oath keepers were charged, some who only attended the rally had their homes searched, although oddly enough Stewart Rhodes the leader of the Oath keepers isn’t being charged, others being charged have charge sheets which refer to him as “person one”, they use secret meetings Rhodes was in but some of those being charged were not as evidence of that they were there to storm the capitol and people who were in rooms paid for by Rhodes are being charged but not Rhodes himself.
Strange, I’m sure the FBI have their reasons.
More on news of things that actually happened, that actually threatened way of democratic life:
This is hyperbolic nonsense. Even if those morons had “taken over” how exactly would it have threatened democratic life? They all have been shot or arrested in the onslaught of cops secret service and fbi. Get real!
Furthermore chasing ghosts to get an impeachment seems more like what you’re worried about.
Bit uplifting
One rule for Madam, another for deplorables:
They flaunted their participation in the Jan 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol on social media and then, apparently realizing they were in legal trouble, rushed to delete evidence of it, authorities say. Now their attempts to cover up their role in the deadly siege are likely to come back to haunt them in court.
An Associated Press review of court records has found that at least 49 defendants are accused of trying to erase incriminating photos, videos and texts from phones or social media accounts documenting their conduct as a pro-Donald Trump mob stormed Congress and briefly interrupted the certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s election victory.
Experts say the efforts to scrub the social media accounts reveal a desperate willingness to manipulate evidence once these people realized they were in hot water. And, they say, it can serve as powerful proof of people’s consciousness of guilt and can make it harder to negotiate plea deals and seek leniency at sentencing.
> “It makes them look tricky, makes them look sneaky,” said Gabriel J. Chin, who teaches criminal law at the University of California, Davis.
In December 2014, Clinton’s legal team provided about 30,000 emails – totaling 55,000 pages – to the State Department.
“[Clinton] then was asked by her lawyers at the end, ‘Do you want us to keep the personal emails?’ And she said, ‘I have no use for them anymore.’ It’s then that they issued the direction that the technical people delete them,” Comey told lawmakers.
In total, more than 30,000 emails were deleted “because they were personal and private about matters that I believed were within the scope of my personal privacy,” Clinton told reporters in March of 2015, as the controversy around her private emails was growing.
“They had nothing to do with work,” Clinton added. “I didn’t see any reason to keep them … no one wants their personal emails made public, and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy.”
Clinton said her team “went through a thorough process” to identify work-related emails, and she said he had “absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.”
> However, after a year-long investigation, the FBI recovered more than 17,000 emails that had been deleted or otherwise not turned over to the State Department, and many of them were work-related, the FBI has said.
Republican critics have accused Clinton of using a private server and ultimately deleting emails to skirt federal records laws aimed at promoting transparency, and earlier this month the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said, “The sequence of events leading up to the destruction of Secretary Clinton’s emails … raises questions about whether Secretary Clinton, acting through her attorneys, instructed [aides and others] to destroy records relevant to” a Congressional investigation of the deadly Benghazi attack.
> At the July hearing before Chaffetz’s committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, asked Comey, “Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails that they kept from [Congress]?”
> “I don’t believe so,” Comey responded.
I think I just tend to see real threats before they actually happen. Kinda like how I was warning of orange guy’s inevitable attempts to kill democracy and be an authoritarian well in advance of him trying it (I’m not really trying to take credit in the midst of hundreds of millions of others seeing it, just pointing out those with deductive reasoning).
Just because it didn’t work, doesn’t mean Trump, many of his political allies, and many of his fervent fans were not fully on board with trying. I agree it was unlikely, because the majority of Americans like democracy, but a lot of people still tried, and a lot of other people had to push back.
The pooh-poohing of what was a terrorist act, people invading the capitol with weapons, with the full intent of taking out political opponents, I think it’s sad.
Sadder yet is not being able to see what Trump and allies were trying to become, in full view of what people like Xi have become. But there’s no connection there of course, other than all of his attempts, and praise lavished on people like Xi.
Of course you’d never say someone was obsessed about talking about Xi. The funniest part of all. 
You say this with a straight face while vaccine pasports and going door to door to find out who is vaccinated and who isn’t is being discussed.
Trump being a dictator is what the media pumped out in reality his on FBI saw him and his administration as the enemy all of Washington DC did. Virtually all of them anyway.
the 6th had a rowdy mob, most people that got into the capitol building were waved in, we are still witing for the FBI to release thousands of hours of video which they are tightly holding onto and selectively releasing what they want while at the same time people are wondering what extent the FBI were involved with the rowdy mob itself.