Author Topic: Insurrection (Including J6), the Second American Civil War, and "the Resistance"  (Read 285916 times)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19482
    • View Profile
[Far Left] They're getting the [George Floyd riots] band back together with another phony, wrong headed cause.

If it succeeds, it will tear apart the Democrat Party.

Do you think any of these kooks will come to Chicago for the convention?

In the George Floyd riots, they [the Far Left and everyone who joined them] were fighting Democrat power as well, Democrat-run cities and police departments.

No Republican-run cities were affected (because there aren't any).


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Freitas: Will the Right Retaliate
« Reply #2002 on: May 01, 2024, 07:40:22 AM »
second

Have not watched this yet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS8dAj9kxRQ


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
1460 (and counting) to 1
« Reply #2004 on: May 14, 2024, 09:01:25 PM »
The number of JC convictions to the number of BLM rioters convicted:

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1790551714057142347?s=61


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: June 11, 2024, 07:00:38 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19482
    • View Profile
Not if it’s a clip of Nancy Pelosi stating contemporaneously she failed to prepare adequately for Jan. 6 that Pelosi’s daughter recorded and shared with HBO:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/06/pelosi-on-jan-6-video-i-take-responsibility-for-not-having-the-national-guard-there/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=pelosi-on-jan-6-video-i-take-responsibility-for-not-having-the-national-guard-there

A little late (almost 4 years) in the J6 blame game ... but we'll take it!

Nancy Pelisi's fault.  Their presence instead of embedded rabble rousers would have prevented all that

But preventing it from happening wasn't what they wanted.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
FO
« Reply #2008 on: June 14, 2024, 08:48:31 AM »
(4) “OPERATION CAMPUS FLOOD” TO BOOST CAMPUS PROTESTS: Pro-Palestine activists are calling for an escalation in Bay Area campus protests and occupations under a campaign called “Operation Campus Flood.”

Organizers are calling for a week of autonomous action for the greater San Francisco Bay, California-area college campuses.
An article published in left wing media calls for the “liberation” of books and computers from college libraries; the expropriation of materials needed to build and sustain a larger escalation; the seizure of buildings; and asks whether a “direct attack” will be required.
Why It Matters: While this is initially limited to the Bay Area, two factors could lead to other regions adopting Campus Flood-type escalations. First, the pro-Palestine protests are organized by a national network of activist groups like Palestinian Youth Movement and Students for Justice in Palestine, and political organizations like Democratic Socialists of America. Successful tactics and strategies spread to other parts of the country through these national organizations. And second, escalation is a core part of left wing doctrine, i.e., when one tactic isn’t working, escalate until it starts working. We did see this in the beginning of the campus protests: when mere encampments weren’t working, students began taking over campus buildings, reminiscent of the 1968 occupations against the Vietnam Conflict. Being that these protests are not having the intended effect, left wing groups will typically escalate into more disruptive or violent demonstrations. We may see culminating action in the fall when students return to school. – M.S.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
When the Narrative Needs a Murder they Make One
« Reply #2009 on: June 19, 2024, 06:37:21 PM »
They are shameless in the fictions they create and the real murders they ignore:

Who Had Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick ‘Murdered’?
His reported ‘death by fire extinguisher’ was no accident. Congress needs to find out pronto who ordered the hit.

by JACK CASHILL

June 18, 2024, 10:45 PM

A memorial for Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick (Nicole Glass Photography/Shutterstock)

This plot seems too diabolical to be true, but true it is. Late in the day of January 7, 2021, unknown operatives within the D.C. establishment made the conscious decision to have Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick “murdered.” Two of them relayed the news of the Sicknick murder to the New York Times. Reporters Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Tracey Tulley described these operatives as “law enforcement officials.”

Babbitt was, in fact, one of four protestors to die that day, three as a result of police action.

In the unrevised version from January 8, 2021, the reporters told Times readers that “pro-Trump rioters … struck [Sicknick] in the head with a fire extinguisher.” For authenticity’s sake they added this chilling detail: “With a bloody gash in his head, Mr. Sicknick was rushed to the hospital and placed on life support.”

To secure Sicknick’s status as a martyr to the cause of democracy, the operatives saw to it that Sicknick’s cremated remains were laid in honor in the Capitol Rotunda. The previous last American to be so honored was Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and, before her, civil rights hero John Lewis. Sicknick’s remains were then buried with full honors at Arlington National Cemetery. He had served six years in the Air National Guard.

In analyzing a given event, it is sometimes hard to distinguish conspiracy from incompetence. In this case, incompetence led to conspiracy. At 2:44 p.m. on January 6, a panicky Capitol Police officer, Lt. Michael Byrd, ignored all standard police protocol and fatally shot 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt, a 14-year Air Force veteran. This shooting was part of no one’s plan. (READ MORE from Jack Cashill: First, They Came for the J6ers)

Byrd was positioned on the far side of the heavily barricaded doors leading to the House lobby. On the exposed side stood three Capitol Police officers. A few minutes before the shooting, Babbit had walked by herself down the long, narrow corridor leading to the lobby doors.

Following her was citizen journalist Tayler Hansen who recorded her movements. Hansen offered the officers some water, while Babbitt joked with them. These were her people. She had spent most of her military career in police work.

Within a minute or two, a trailing crowd of roughly thirty people quickly filled up the hallway behind Babbitt. In that crowd was Zachary Alam, thirty, a repeat offender with no social media ties to Donald Trump or MAGA. Alam moved to the front of the crowd, reached between the officers, and began punching the glass panels while yelling, “F*** the blue.”

Appalled by Alam’s behavior, Ashli’s police training kicked in. “Call f***ing back-up!” she shouted at the feckless officers as they stood in place with their backs to the doors, doing nothing. “She was basically yelling at these officers telling them to do their jobs,” said Hansen.

For more than a minute after the first window was cracked, protestors argued with the officers but did not touch them or threaten them. Nor did they smash any more windows. In a subsequent press release the Department of Justice (DOJ) observed, “Eventually, the three USCP officers positioned outside the doors were forced to evacuate.” The video does not bear this out at all. The officers were not in any imminent danger.

As soon as the officers pulled away, Alam grabbed a helmet from a protestor and broke out all the glass from the transom on far the right side. “Ashli was actively trying to disarm these people,” said Hansen, “trying to calm them down through this entire kind of confrontation with these police officers.”

After yelling for Alam to stop, Ashli took matters into her own hands, literally. A southpaw, she yanked at Alam’s backpack with her right hand. As he spun around, she slugged him square in the face with her left fist. His glasses flew off on impact.

Fleeing the madness, Ashli hopped with some assistance into the window frame now fully free of glass. Only a person as small as she could have managed that feat. Just seven seconds after she slugged Alam, said Hansen, “Michael Leroy Byrd ended up issuing the kill shot with no verbal warning.”

Complicating matters for the operatives was that the shot had been recorded by John Earle Sullivan, a black provocateur with BLM roots. Sensing a payday for his footage, Sullivan had his agent contact CNN on January 6 and enter into a one-week agreement for use of the critical forty-four seconds. CNN paid him $35,000.

This video undermined the Democrat narrative. Babbitt was, in fact, one of four protestors to die that day, three as a result of police action, but her death was the most visible. The shooting of a petite, attractive, unarmed young Air Force veteran made it difficult to sell the saga of heroic police officers fending off a rabid mob, especially since all the dead were J6ers, and none of the police was seriously injured.

Sara Carpenter, one of ten women I profile in my new book, Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6, shed unwitting light on the plot to “murder” Sicknick. A medically retired NYPD officer, Carpenter was driving back to New York after her day at the Capitol when she called an old friend who lived in Maryland.

When Carpenter mentioned where she had been that day, her friend started screaming at her, “You killed somebody,” the “you” referring to the protestors. “You killed a Capitol Police officer with a fire extinguisher.” The friend’s husband had once been a Capitol Police officer. Carpenter presumed he had inside information.“It sent me reeling,” she told me.

Fortunately for the operatives, the 42-year-old Sicknick just happened to die on January 7 from a stroke. They then wedded Sicknick’s real death to the fire extinguisher rumor and commissioned the aforementioned “law enforcement officials” to sell this cruel fiction to the New York Times. It appeared under the shocking headline, “He Dreamed of Being a Police Officer, Then Was Killed by a Pro-Trump Mob.”

Independent journalist Glenn Greenwald made a screen shot of the Times account before it could be revised. “This horrifying story about a pro-Trump mob beating a police officer to death was repeated over and over, by multiple journalists on television, in print, and on social media,” said Greenwald. He called this counterfeit murder “the single most-emphasized and known story of the event.” It cowed the entire GOP into silence.

The D.C. medical examiner’s office performed Sicknick’s autopsy on January 8. To preserve his fictional murder as fact, the medical examiner sat on the autopsy report for more than 100 days and might never have released it were it not for pressure from a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

This suit also forced the medical examiner to reveal the true cause of Sicknick’s death, specifically two strokes at the base of his brain stem caused by a clot. Sicknick died a “natural death” on January 7. There was no fire extinguisher. No bloody gash. No rush to the hospital. Sicknick, a reported Trump supporter, did not deserve this ghoulish exploitation. (READ MORE: Why Republicans Should Make January 6 Their Issue)

There is considerable debate as to whether January 6 was a trap or even an inside job. Beyond debate is the fact that someone had Brian Sicknick murdered. His reported “death by fire extinguisher” was no accident. Congress needs to find out pronto who ordered the hit.

Jack Cashill’s new book, Ashli: The Untold Story of the Women of January 6, is now available for purchase.

https://spectator.org/who-had-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-murdered/?lh_aid=98279&lh_cid=mkzva1k3et&lh_em=crfdc%40yahoo.com&di=6294fd4b12408eafc18d0d77547e680e

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Columbia Court Compare & Contrast
« Reply #2010 on: June 20, 2024, 08:42:31 PM »
Perhaps misfiled, but compare and contrast Bragg’s approach with Trump to this slack effort, or indeed J6 defendants. Had these kids been Republicans they’d still be in jail awaiting trial:

https://freebeacon.com/campus/manhattan-da-drops-charges-against-30-columbia-protesters-arrested-over-campus-building-occupation/
« Last Edit: June 21, 2024, 07:41:03 PM by Body-by-Guinness »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19806
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2011 on: June 21, 2024, 06:46:35 AM »
30 people break into college building and occupy it and are arrested
but released due to lack of evidence and their first arrest.

justice works ! 

no one is above the law !

 :roll:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Clarion Project
« Reply #2012 on: June 21, 2024, 07:01:50 AM »


Anti-Israel Violence Sweeps Country

Felony burglary charges have been filed against 13 Stanford University students associated with the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) for breaking into the school president’s office and locking themselves inside. Read More
Anti-Israel activists vandalized the homes of individuals associated with the Brooklyn Museum and the United Nations with red paint and graffiti. Read More
Masked anti-Israel protesters took over a New York City subway car and demanded to know if there were any “Zionists” on the train — then warned them: “This is your chance to get out.” Read More
The U.S. Department of Education has initiated an investigation into a complaint that Chapman University failed to respond to antisemitic harassment and exclusion of Jewish students in violation of the Civil Rights Act. Read More
An NYC Anti-Israel protester told Jews who were honoring the hundreds of Israelis killed on Oct. 7 that he wished “Hitler was still here” because the Nazi leader would have “wiped all you out.” Read More
UC Berkeley Professor Hatem Bazian shared a livestream from the Gaza encampment at the University in which speakers praised violent Palestinian “resistance.” Read More
Minnesota Man Sentenced for Support to ISIS

Abdelhamid Al-Madioum, 27, of St. Louis Park, Minn., was sentenced to 10 years in prison followed by 15 years of supervised release for providing material support to ISIS.

Al-Madioum joined ISIS in Syria in 2015, received military training, and served as a soldier and personnel database administrator.

He continued to support ISIS after being injured in military activities until his capture by Syrian Democratic Forces in 2019. Read More

Eight ISIS Supporters Arrested in Multi-City Sting Operation

Eight Tajikistan nationals were arrested for attempting to support ISIS by providing money, technology, and equipment to the terrorist organization.

The arrests were a result of a joint operation between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other international law enforcement agencies in a coordinated sting operation spanning Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia.

The suspects used complex financial transactions to mask the flow of funds intended for ISIS.

The suspects crossed into the US via the Southern border and were linked to ISIS later, as a result of the U.S. government’s highly sensitive targeting of the communications of ISIS members abroad.  Read More


Militant-Right & Militant-Left Extremism
Nicholas Fuentes, leader of far-right group America First, attends an anti-vaccine protest in front of Gracie Mansion on November 13, 2021 in New York City - Stephanie Keith/Getty Images
Nicholas Fuentes, leader of far-right group America First, attends an anti-vaccine protest in front of Gracie Mansion on November 13, 2021 in New York City - Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

Far-Right Conference Canceled in Detroit

The group America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), led by the far-right nationalist Nicholas Fuentes, canceled their conference in Detroit due to a dispute between the organizers and the venue.

The event was supposed to be a counter to the Turning Point USA’s convention also being held in Detroit. Fuentes entered a TPUSA event, but was quickly escorted out by security while shouting that Israel was in control of the conference.

Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was in attendance, along with fellow antisemites and anti-Israel personalities Jake Shields, Sulaiman Ahmed, Anastasia Maria Loupis, and Nicolas "Sneako" Kenn De Balinthazy. Read More

Three Plead Guilty to Targeting Pro-Life Pregnancy Resource Center

Three Florida residents–Caleb Freestone, Amber Smith-Stewart, and Annarella Rivera–pleaded guilty to conspiring to threaten and intimidate employees of pro-life pregnancy resource centers by vandalizing the facilities with threatening messages.

The attacks, conducted between May and July 2022, targeted centers providing abortion alternatives and included messages like, “If abortions aren’t safe then neither are you.”

The defendants face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, with sentencing to be scheduled later. Read More

NYPD Arrests Man Heavily Armed During Traffic Stop

Judd Sanson, 27, was arrested in East Elmhurst, N.Y., after a traffic stop revealed an arsenal of weapons, including a loaded 9 mm pistol, along with a body armor vest with an NYPD patch inside it, an MTA vest, and a baton with the written words “Left Me No Choice” and an Arabic expression that means, “Ask In God For Forgiveness.”
Police also recovered a Guys Fawkes mask, which is sometimes used as an anti-government symbol. 
Sanson, who allegedly expressed extremist views online, faces multiple charges, including criminal possession of a weapon and unlawful use of a police uniform emblem. He faces up to 15 years in prison if convicted. Read More

  Hate Crime
A Bellingham (Wash.) police patrol vehicle in front of Whatcom Middle School - KOMO News via KOMO News screenshot
A Bellingham (Wash.) police patrol vehicle in front of Whatcom Middle School - KOMO News via KOMO News screenshot

Man Charged With Hate Crime After Assaulting Black Student

Bellingham, Wash., police are investigating a hate crime after a Black student was attacked during a Whatcom Middle School field trip.

The assault occurred at a local park, where the student was targeted with racial slurs before being physically attacked by another student. Read More

Man Facing Hate Crime Charges for Road Rage Incident

A man in Baltimore faces charges after a road rage incident believed to be a hate crime.
The suspect allegedly used racial slurs and made threats against the victim, who is of Asian descent. The incident escalated to physical violence, with the suspect attempting to assault the victim. Read More
Tacoma Man Charged With Attempted Murder

Dallas Clayton Stevens, 31, of Tacoma, Wash., was charged with second-degree attempted murder, first-degree assault, possession of a dangerous weapon, and a hate crime.

Stevens shot a Black employee outside a Tacoma pot shop in a racially motivated attempted murder case. Read More

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19482
    • View Profile
Re: Clarion Project
« Reply #2013 on: June 21, 2024, 09:34:26 AM »
"Minnesota Man Sentenced for Support to ISIS ...

Abdelhamid Al-Madioum, ..."
    "Minnesota man".   :wink:
----------------

Yes, those traditional Minnesota names!  It reminds me of state high school basketball tournament broadcasting of a central Minnesota team:  " Larson has the ball, brings it up court, passes to Erickson, over to Anderson, in to Nelson, back out to Larson, he shoots, he SCORES!

After a few minutes it sounds like a parody. But now we have Abdelhamid Al-Madioum - and somehow the crime rate went up...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2024, 11:24:48 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
WT: Gingrich: House must repudiate J6 Committee
« Reply #2014 on: June 25, 2024, 07:03:40 AM »


House must repudiate Jan. 6 committee

Findings, subpoenas and other actions should be null and void

By Newt Gingrich

The hard work of Rep. Barry Loudermilk and his team on the House Administration Committee has proved that the Jan. 6 committee operated completely outside the bounds of legitimacy. The Jan. 6 committee broke House rules, violated legal ethics, trampled witnesses’ constitutional rights, and established a systematic pattern of lying and misleading Congress and the nation.

The evidence Mr. Loudermilk, Georgia Republican, has been developing further makes clear that then-Rep. Liz Cheney was a driving force in polluting the committee.

Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi picked all the committee members. The committee never met the House standards for genuine bipartisanship. The speed and recklessness with which it was established and populated further indicated that it was poisoned from the beginning.

On June 28, 2021, Mrs. Pelosi introduced the resolution to establish the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Two days later — in a largely partisan vote — the House passed it with a 222-190 vote. All the Democrats and only two Republicans, Ms. Cheney and then-Rep. Adam Kinzinger, voted to establish the committee. The other 190 Republicans present voted against it.

The next day, Mrs. Pelosi appointed eight members: Reps. Bennie Thompson, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, Pete Aguilar, Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin, Elaine Luria and Cheney. The following month, she appointed Mr. Kinzinger, the Illinois Republican who was openly anti-Trump and had voted to impeach him. He was a perfect fit for the Pelosi-Cheney goal of having a one-sided investigation.

Then-Republican leader Kevin McCarthy had previously named five potential Republicans for the committee: Reps. Jim Banks, Jim Jordan, Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls. Neither Ms. Cheney nor Mr. Kinzinger was on McCarthy’s list. Mrs. Pelosi had of course rejected Mr. Banks and Mr. Jordan, so Mr. McCarthy pulled all Republicans from the committee. So, at this point, Ms. Cheney and Mr. Kinzinger were effectively functioning as Democrats.

By Sept. 2, 2021, Mr. Thompson had named Ms. Cheney vice chair of the committee.

From Mrs. Pelosi’s standpoint, Ms. Cheney was the perfect pick. Ms. Cheney’s own rabid hatred of former President Donald Trump had driven her from being a rising star in the Republican Party to being a pariah who worked with Democrats.

The Wyoming Republican Party had censured Ms. Cheney over her anti-Trump mania. She had infuriated enough House Republicans to be ousted as chair of the House Republican Conference, the third-highest minority party job. She went from that highranking post to becoming vice chair of the select committee designed to help Democrats and attack Republicans.

On the committee, Ms. Cheney’s hatred for Mr. Trump further drove her to a series of actions that violated House rules and ignored legal ethics. She destroyed evidence to keep it from the House and manipulated information to prove her points — even when they were profoundly false. Throughout the process, she also knowingly violated the canon of ethics by manipulating witnesses without their attorneys’ knowledge. Ms. Cheney’s contempt for Republicans was clear when she said to the committee in June 2022, “Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

I remember watching at the time and thinking what a deep level of anger and arrogance it must take to publicly condemn people who had once made you their thirdranking leader.

Then, it occurred to me: Mrs. Pelosi was tactically attacking Mr. Trump as a current opponent — and strategically destroying a potential future rival in Ms. Cheney at the same time.

This only clarified my belief that the Jan. 6 committee was a calculated, partisan fraud focused solely on imposing a false narrative on the country to help elect Democrats.

As Mr. Loudermilk is proving in his investigation, the current Congress owes it to history and justice to repudiate the Jan. 6 committee and declare its findings, subpoenas and other actions null and void.

For more commentary form Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. And subscribe to the “Newt’s World” podcast

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
PP: J6 defendant wins at SCOTUS; CBS
« Reply #2015 on: June 28, 2024, 09:42:50 AM »
J6 defendant wins at SCOTUS: "These people should be in jail," Joe Biden mumbled last night about the January 6 defendants. "And they should be the ones who are being held accountable." The ones who tangled with police should be in jail, but not the ones who were let in as tourists by the police. The Supreme Court may have made that outcome possible with a key ruling issued this morning. "The justices on a 6-3 vote handed a win to defendant Joseph Fischer, who is among hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants — including Trump — who have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding," reports NBC News, probably after a shot of bourbon. "The court concluded that the law, enacted in 2002 as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act after the Enron accounting scandal, was only intended to apply in limited circumstances involving tampering with physical evidence." It now goes back to a lower court for reconsideration. The Biden DOJ threw everything and the kitchen sink at J6 defendants in hopes of inflating the number of those jailed and, thus, the seriousness of the "insurrection." At least for now, using an obscure and unrelated statute to do so isn't going to cut it.

===================

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-january-6-obstruction-trump/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0oT3i7Stk4evHC-8nVM-zN4eOU81PGpGt0HGJGBND6Az89sKSN3pF8pOk_aem_Jebi2gp_I60gdBN3LyyFCQ

Supreme Court limits scope of obstruction charge levied against Jan. 6 defendants, including Trump
By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: June 28, 2024 / 2:15 PM EDT / CBS News


Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a former Pennsylvania police officer who was charged with obstructing an official proceeding after he entered the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, and narrowed the Justice Department's use of a federal obstruction statute leveled against scores of people who breached the building where Congress had convened to count state electoral votes.

The court ruled 6-3 in finding that to prove a violation of the obstruction law, the government must show that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined five conservatives in the majority, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the two other liberals.

The case was sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, and the court said it can assess the sufficiency of the obstruction charge brought against defendant Joseph Fischer in light of its ruling.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts said that accepting the Justice Department's reading of the law would give prosecutors "broad discretion to seek a 20-year maximum sentence for acts Congress saw fit to punish only with far shorter terms of imprisonment."

Jan. 6 cases
The Supreme Court's decision could affect the ongoing prosecutions of nearly 250 defendants charged with obstruction for their participation in the Jan. 6 assault. It could also upend cases that have already been adjudicated, since those who were convicted of violating the obstruction statute or pleaded guilty could seek resentencing, withdraw their pleas or ask for new trials. There are 52 cases in which a defendant was convicted and sentenced on charges where the obstruction count was the sole felony, and of those, 27 are currently incarcerated, according to the Justice Department.

Trump supporters gather on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
Trump supporters gather on the West Front of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.
KENT NISHIMURA / LOS ANGELES TIMES VIA GETTY IMAGES
Crucially, the ruling could also impact the federal prosecution of former President Donald Trump, who is facing charges stemming from an alleged scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The obstruction statute and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding are among the four counts Trump faces in the case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. Trump has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

symbol
00:04

02:00
Read More



While the impact on the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's case was not immediately clear, the former president could ask a federal district court to toss out the two obstruction-related counts as a result. Smith told the Supreme Court in a filing in another case that regardless of the ruling in Fischer's case, the obstruction charges against Trump are still valid because he is alleged to have organize false slates of electors, which involves documents.

The justices are still weighing a bid by Trump to have the entire indictment dismissed on the grounds of presidential immunity, though they have yet to issue a decision. The special counsel's office declined to comment on Friday's ruling.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was "disappointed" by the decision, but said it would have a minimal impact on Jan. 6 cases.

"There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today's decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court's ruling," Garland said in a statement. "We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy."


Fischer v. U.S.
The law at the center of the case was passed in the wake of the Enron accounting fraud scandal and makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct or impede an official proceeding. The statute is typically used in cases that involve evidence tampering, since its first provision is focused on documents. But after the Jan. 6 attack, federal prosecutors leveled the obstruction charge against more than 350 defendants who allegedly entered the Capitol after Congress had convened to certify the election results.

More than 1,400 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 assault. The vast majority — 82% — were not charged with violating the obstruction statute, according to the Justice Department.

One of those defendants who was charged is Fischer, who faced seven counts, including assaulting a police officer, disorderly conduct and corruptly obstructing an official proceeding. Violators of the obstruction statute face up to 20 years in prison.

Fischer moved to dismiss the obstruction count, and a federal district judge ruled that nothing in the indictment alleged that he "took some action with respect to a document, record, or other object" to obstruct the congressional proceedings.

That judge, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, was the only one out of 15 hearing Jan. 6 cases in Washington who adopted a narrow reading of the law.

The federal appeals court in Washington, though, ruled against Fischer in a divided decision last year. He then appealed to the Supreme Court, and Fischer's case marked the first in which the justices confronted the aftermath of the Jan. 6 attack.

Writing for the court, Roberts noted the motivation behind enacting the obstruction statute — to close a gap in the law exposed by the Enron scandal — and said it would be "peculiar" if Congress hid away in the second part of the measure a "catchall provision that reaches far beyond document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place."


The "better conclusion," the chief justice said, is that Congress designed the statute to encompass other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity beyond those it specified.

"Given that [the provision] was enacted to address the Enron disaster, not some further flung set of dangers, it is unlikely that Congress responded with such an unfocused and 'grossly incommensurate patch,'" Roberts wrote for the court.

But Barrett, in dissent, said the obstruction law is a broad provision and argued that while the events like Jan. 6 were not its target, statutes often extend further than the initial problem they were intended to solve.

"Joseph Fischer allegedly participated in a riot at the Capitol that forced the delay of Congress's joint session on January 6th. Blocking an official proceeding from moving forward surely qualifies as obstructing or impeding the proceeding by means other than document destruction," she wrote. "Fischer's alleged conduct thus falls within [the law's] scope.

She was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

On the heels of the Supreme Court's ruling, at least one judge on the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., moved quickly to schedule additional proceedings in some cases of Jan. 6 defendants who have been sentenced for violating the obstruction law. One of those involves the first defendant to be convicted in a jury trial, Guy Reffitt, who was sentenced to 87 months in prison. Reffitt was found guilty of obstructing an official proceeding and other offenses, and the judge overseeing his case has called for more proceedings in light of the Supreme Court's decision.

The legal fight over the obstruction law was one of three cases before the court in its current term with implications for Trump. In arguing that the obstruction charges against Trump would not be impacted by a ruling in this case, Smith pointed to his claims that Trump deceitfully organized fake slates of electors in seven battleground states and urged state officials to send the false certificates to Congress. The creation of those documents, Smith said, "satisfies an evidence-impairment interpretation."

« Last Edit: June 28, 2024, 11:49:40 AM by Crafty_Dog »


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Jack Smith: Stone Cold Loser
« Reply #2017 on: July 01, 2024, 11:23:56 AM »
I'll add he has also been a Deep State hatchetman pursuing effective Republicans for a couple decades now:

@julie_kelly2

Now is a good time to remind everyone that Jack Smith is and always has been a stone-cold loser.

His J6 case is barely on life support in DC after he fudged the case. Judge Cannon is systematically destroying his docs case in addition to destroying the reputation and sanity of his prosecutors in Florida.
And Justice Thomas just gave Cannon one more reason to dismiss docs case for unlawful appointment of Smith--a defense motion currently pending in her court:

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
DOC and DC Judge Hang J6 Defendants out to Dry
« Reply #2018 on: July 10, 2024, 04:51:08 PM »
Evidence of the DOJ and DC judge withholding exculpatory evidence:

https://x.com/breannamorello/status/1811164090955436221?s=12

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2019 on: July 10, 2024, 05:06:20 PM »
Fk.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Implications of Fischer. Nut Graff: DOJ Hosed on Many J6 Convictions
« Reply #2020 on: July 11, 2024, 01:05:57 PM »
Though the left is both downplaying and rending their breasts over this SCOTUS decision, it boils down to prosecution 101, something it seems the DOJ hasn’t mastered:

This is a guest post by David W. Fischer, a Maryland and D.C.-based criminal defense attorney and the senior partner at Fischer & Putzi, P.A.  Most recently, Mr. Fischer defended January 6 defendant Thomas Caldwell, who was acquitted on seditious and other conspiracy charges.  He is not related to Joseph Fischer, the defendant in the Supreme Court’s Fischer v. United States decision.

Declassified with Julie Kelly is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

On June 28, the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Fischer v. United States, a decision that affects hundreds of January 6 defendants (J6ers) who were charged with felony “obstruction of an official proceeding” for their actions on January 6.  The statute at issue in Fischer, 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), provides:

Whoever corruptly —

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) took the position that subsection (2) of the statute is an independent clause and, accordingly, alleged that the physical presence of protestors illegally inside the Capitol itself constituted “obstruction” of the Electoral College certification on January 6.

Writing for the 6-3 majority, however, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected the DOJ’s reading, instead holding that the government must prove that a defendant’s alleged obstruction must relate to the impairment of evidence, i.e., “records, documents, or objects,” intended for use in the proceeding.

Contrary to the DOJ’s recent spin, the Fischer decision was a massive defeat for the government, as it had (mis) used Section 1512(c)(2)—a felony that entailed draconian sentencing guidelines and a presumption that charged defendants be held pre-trial without bail—against nearly 340 J6ers.

Fischer Decision is Hardly Controversial

While left-leaning lawyers have been endlessly tweeting about Fischer being proof of a judicial putsch in favor of Donald Trump, the Supreme Court’s decision is hardly surprising.  For years the Supreme Court, led by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has reigned in the DOJ’s broad interpretations of obstruction statutes.  In fact, the Fischer majority heavily relied on Justice Ginsburg’s seminal opinion in United States v. Yates, a 2015 decision, where the Supreme Court rejected the DOJ’s contention that a similarly-worded obstruction statute applied to fishermen deep-sixing their catch just before an inspection of their vessel.

The main point of contention in Fischer was Congress’s use of the word “otherwise” between the two clauses in Section 1512(c).  The majority—correctly—ruled that “otherwise” was intended to connect the two clauses; hence, the second clause was not a sweeping, independent obstruction statute but, rather, a “residual clause” designed by Congress to criminalize similar, but slightly different, acts of evidence destruction.

For example, if a crooked CEO under investigation by the S.E.C. sets out thousands of incriminating documents on his porch, knowing they will be blown away by the wind, he did not “alter,” “destroy” “mutilate,” or “conceal” documents, but he would still be guilty of Section 1512(c)(2) because his conduct “otherwise” obstructed a grand jury investigation by preventing relevant documents from being reviewed.

How will Fischer affect January 6 defendants?

The Fischer decision opens the door to the dismissal of every single Section 1512(c)(2) count that was charged against January 6 defendants, even those defendants who have already entered a guilty plea (mostly under prosecutorial threat) or were found guilty by a judge or jury.  Why?  To answer that question, one must understand the importance of charging language used in grand jury indictments and other charging documents.

In order to properly charge a person with a crime, the government, through the grand jury, must spell out each and every “essential element” of the crime charged.  It is not good enough to allege in an indictment, for example, that John Doe “committed a burglary.”  Instead, a constitutionally valid burglary indictment must include all essential elements that comprise the crime of burglary, e.g., that John Doe “did break and enter the dwelling of Jane Smith with the intent to commit a felony therein.”  The correct charging language is constitutional, as it puts John Doe on notice that his alleged criminal conduct was: 1) breaking and entering; 2) the dwelling of another person; 3) and did so with the intent to commit a felony.

If the prosecutor screws up and fails to list each and every essential element of a crime in the indictment, the prosecutor has failed to charge a crime, even if it is obvious which crime was intended to be charged.  The failure to list all essential elements of a crime makes the indicted count “jurisdictionally defective.”

In other words, the Court lacks the power, i.e., the authority to exercise jurisdiction, to enter a judgment of conviction against the defendant, since a crime has not been alleged.  More importantly, the prosecutor is prohibited from correcting a jurisdictional defect in an indictment.  Finally, a defendant can move to dismiss a jurisdictionally defective indictment at any time—before or during trial, after he or she is convicted, and even in an appellate court.  In short, failure to allege each and every essential element of a crime in an indictment equals a failure to charge a crime, and courts cannot punish those who were never charged with a crime in the first place.

How does this apply to J6ers?

Every indictment in January 6 cases that charged defendants with violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) used the exact same charging language: “On or about January 6, 2021, the defendant did corruptly obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding[.]” Under the Fischer decision, however, the government must prove that a J6er’s intent was to “impair the use or availability” of “documents, records, or objects” or “witness testimony” for an official proceeding.

Accordingly, every J6er Section 1512(c)(2) indictment is defective because all fail to allege two essential elements of that statute—that the defendant 1) targeted tangible or intangible evidence; and 2) did so with the intent to impair the use or availability of this evidence for an official proceeding.

In short, the DOJ charged hundreds of J6ers with non-crimes; any current or convicted defendants will likely have success in moving to dismiss their Section 1512(c)(2) counts or in setting aside their guilty pleas based on the holding in Fischer.

Will the DOJ Empire Strike Back?

The DOJ is not happy about the Fischer decision and is currently strategizing ways to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling.  For example, in certain cases the DOJ may attempt to recharge using corrected charging language in indictments, which will claim that particular defendants targeted the ceremonial ballot box or other documents used by Congress during the January 6 certification.  Creative charging language, however, doesn’t change the evidence, which is quite strong that none of the J6ers were targeting evidence.

January 6, obviously, was a protest that got out of hand.  Unfortunately, many of the judges in D.C. have been amenable to the DOJ’s expansive reading of the law.  Nevertheless, the Fischer decision likely means very good news for most defendants who were charged with obstructing Congress.

https://www.declassified.live/p/after-fischer-what-next

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2021 on: July 11, 2024, 02:22:24 PM »
Nice find BBG.  Clear and precise discussion of the legal issues.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
DHS Stonewalling
« Reply #2023 on: July 17, 2024, 08:21:41 PM »
The lawlessness of Dem admins often astounds:

@julie_kelly2
Subscribe

NEW: Sources tell me DHS Secretary Mayorkas is stonewalling the release of this DHS IG report, which would include any security failures or perhaps involvement by the Secret Service on January 6.

For 2 years, the Biden White House, Democrats in Congress, and the media have attacked DHS IG Joseph Cuffari, who discovered that all of the texts belonging to roughly two dozen Secret Service officials including the head of USSS related to Jan 6 had been deleted at the end of January 2021--under the Biden regime.

Cuffari sought a criminal investigation into the purge of the messages--which occurred AFTER Democrats notified each federal agency to preserve all records and documents for Jan 6.

Instead, the J6 Committee and Biden White House started to smear Cuffari, claiming he failed to notify Congress about the missing texts--which is not true.

Cuffari today announced an inquiry into the Secret Service for the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2024 on: July 18, 2024, 07:50:57 AM »
Fk. 

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
WSJ: Why the Insurrection argument falls flat.
« Reply #2025 on: July 20, 2024, 09:17:04 AM »


Why the Jan. 6 ‘Insurrection’ Argument Falls Flat
Whatever Trump’s role, the riot was one of many cases of Covid-era folly. Most voters would prefer not to be reminded.
By Barton Swaim
July 19, 2024 5:17 pm ET


President Biden has based his 2024 campaign on a theme that, as a consequence of the failed assassination attempt on his opponent, now sounds dissonant and unbecoming. That theme is that Donald Trump is a “threat to democracy.” The evidence for that claim, other than some of Mr. Trump’s zanier remarks over the years, consists mainly of one thing: the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.


Democrats bring up this event at nearly every opportunity. The New York Times and Washington Post have never stopped running stories about every detail of that day and its aftermath. The riot is routinely called an “insurrection,” as if such a motley crowd, acting on a lamebrained theory about the Electoral Count Act of 1887, could have overthrown the government and imposed a dictatorship.

It’s true that the Jan. 6 riot was a disgrace and an embarrassment to the United States. But Democrats have vastly overinterpreted its political significance. Their belief that it would work as a peremptory argument against a second Trump term was a fantasy. To understand why, consider another event, which almost all of us would rather forget: the Covid-19 pandemic.

The governmental response was colossally foolish: harsh lockdowns and school closings that didn’t arrest the virus’s spread while imposing massive economic and educational costs; social discord over mask and vaccine mandates that offered little if any health benefit. Yet few of the governors and big-city mayors who imposed these policies and quashed dissent suffered any electoral consequence—even those caught breaking their own draconian rules: Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, among many others.

They all claimed to be following “science” and “data,” but somehow science and data are unable to support them in hindsight. Nobody expects the lockdown lords, as my colleague Daniel Henninger once called them, to admit they were wrong, but one might have expected their failure and hypocrisy to be punished at the ballot box. It wasn’t.

The melancholy reality, two years after the pandemic’s end, is that nobody wants to think about what went wrong. Consider the near-total absence of the pandemic experience in popular culture. The Covid-19 pandemic was a world-shaping event that reorganized social life at every level. Everyone was affected by it, and almost everyone had strong opinions on it. Yet in 2024, if you didn’t already know that the entire developed world had been transfixed by the virus four years ago, you would have almost no clue. You could watch scores of movies and television shows produced in the last two years, and read a hundred popular novels published after the pandemic subsided, and have no idea that four years before, everybody thought and talked about one thing every day: the virus. Only the poor odd soul still wearing a mask would suggest to you that anything had happened.

For ordinary people, the whole Covid era in all its expressions—masking, social distancing, sheltering in place, not going to the park because city officials had taken down basketball rims and tennis nets—is a mad muddle best left unremembered, or at least undiscussed. Why would anyone want to remember?

More or less the same was true of the far deadlier 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. “The important and almost incomprehensible fact about Spanish influenza is that it killed millions upon millions of people in a year or less,” writes Alfred Crosby in “America’s Forgotten Pandemic” (2003), an updated version of his important study “Epidemic and Peace” (1976). “Nothing else—no infection, no war, no famine—has ever killed so many in as short a period. And yet it has never inspired awe, not in 1918 and not since, not among the citizens of any particular land and not among the citizens of the United States.”

Recorded data of the Spanish flu pandemic are plentiful. Memoirs of it aren’t. The people who lived through it didn’t want to talk about it ever again.

In the case of Covid, it’s reasonable to think that many Americans are reluctant to reconsider their experience because they themselves behaved in a lot of stupid ways. A horrific video of an arrest gone awry, in which a black man was killed by a white policeman kneeling on his neck, impelled hundreds of thousands of Americans to burst into the streets shouting inanities. “Defund the Police” and “ACAB”—all cops are bastards—were among the many idiotic slogans thrown around to justify mayhem in the summer of 2020. Ignoramuses toppled and vandalized statues, hoodlums smashed windows and looted stores, and black-clad masked insurgents—real ones—tried to destroy government buildings.

Mainstream media reporters defended violence in the cause of fighting “systemic racism,” made excuses for looting, and strained to present nihilistic ruffianism as a just response to oppression. The famous CNN chyron announcing “fiery but mostly peaceful protests” nicely captures the madness of the pandemic summer. Media commentators and public-health authorities, having insisted for months that people wear masks and keep 6 feet apart even outdoors and shamed those who rejected this absurd guidance, suddenly proclaimed mass street protests acceptable on the grounds that they advanced an ideal higher than public health.

A year of faceless interactions, pointless shutdowns, government-generated bankruptcies and Zoom “meetings” made everybody a touch insane—unhinged, unbalanced. News reports at the time noted a spike in car crashes, even though fewer cars were on the road. Conventional wisdom held that less traffic encouraged drivers to speed, but that made no sense—you aren’t more likely to crash when fewer cars are around. A better explanation: The whole pandemic experience robbed everybody of their judgment. When people lacking judgment drive automobiles, they tend to drive their cars into trees, utility poles and other cars.

Advertisement


Another factor contributed to our collective injudiciousness in 2020: a hotly contested presidential election.

Presidential elections have always caused otherwise reasonable people of goodwill to behave in regrettable ways. The 2020 election was a perfect storm of acrimony and unreason, falling as it did in the middle of a pandemic in which many politicians ceded the authority their constituents had granted them to public-health experts who had no idea what they were doing.

In 2020, most of the press had for four years devoted itself to destroying a president who was then running for re-election. Recall the Russia-collusion hoax, the myriad claims by academics and media personalities that Mr. Trump would create a fascist America, or the easily falsifiable claim, still gospel in much of the media, that he had called neo-Nazis and white supremacists “very fine people.”

The propaganda intensified in the autumn of the election year: The postmaster general was trying to suppress mail-in votes to benefit Mr. Trump; Russia was paying Afghan jihadists to kill U.S. troops and the president didn’t care; Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t a newsworthy story since former intel officials said it was likely Russian disinformation—a claim that was itself disinformation. And on and on.

Until then, ordinary Republican voters hadn’t yet cracked, as Democratic ones had over the previous summer. Mr. Trump’s loss made Republicans crack.

For four years the media have been calling Mr. Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election the “big lie.” Many of his claims, fed to him by sycophants and delusional partisans, were outrageously false. As ever, Mr. Trump turned a valid, nuanced argument—that Democratic states and municipalities had liberalized election laws and procedures in the middle of the contest in ways that benefited Democrats—into a series of cockamamie assertions and wild exaggerations about outright election fraud.

He had always done this, and he still does. Recall his famous claim, in a series of Twitter posts on March 4, 2017, that President Obama had “tapped” Mr. Trump’s phone. The media guffawed. The claim was literally false. But in substance there was truth in it: Mr. Obama’s Justice Department had in fact spied on the candidate and his campaign, obtaining a warrant to wiretap one adviser. Or his claim during last month’s debate with Mr. Biden that “every legal scholar throughout the world” wanted Roe v. Wade overturned. Plainly he had been coached to say that even some liberal legal scholars thought Roe was wrongly decided in 1973. What came out was classic Trumpian hyperbole: not a few influential liberal scholars, but all of them, everywhere.

In 2020-21, Mr. Trump had every reason to complain about the ways in which Democrats had used the pandemic to justify loosening election rules. He could also see, as anyone could, that the media were deliberately ignoring Mr. Biden’s mental and physical limitations. All this, and the media’s almost daily falsehoods about him, led the president to claim, in his customarily maximalist way, that the election had been “stolen.”

Democrats and the media invariably portray the 2020 election as an ordinary one. It was an election like any other, they seem to believe, only for some reason it ended in protest and violence. But nothing about the pandemic year was normal, and certainly not the election.

The losing side of the 2020 election was guaranteed to claim that it had been stolen—particularly given Democrats’ recent propensity to protest legitimate election results, as they had done in 2000, 2004 and 2016. Yet although the election hadn’t been stolen by fraud, as many Republicans alleged and some still believe, the feeling that Mr. Trump’s presidency had been stolen piecemeal—by innumerable lies, a bogus investigation and the sudden liberalization of election laws—was entirely rational.

Mr. Trump’s postelection behavior was mystifying and discreditable, even in a year of lunacy and bad judgment. Couldn’t he make a measured, coherent case that the election had been unfair but nonetheless accept the result and mount an opposition campaign for 2024? He couldn’t. Did he have to accept every easily falsified tale of election fraud told to him by toadies and trumpet it to his supporters? He did. And those supporters were as ready to hear stories of election chicanery as their left-wing correlatives had been ready, six months before, to accept any allegation they heard, however ludicrous, about police violence and systemic racism.

The consequence, on Jan. 6, 2021, was a haphazard rush on a poorly guarded Capitol building in which a few ideologues and miscreants mixed with a mass of decent if misled Americans who, at the end of a white-hot election turned berserk by arbitrarily changed pandemic regulations, made the mistake of taking Mr. Trump’s rants both seriously and literally. Believing the bonkers legal theory that the vice president could forestall the transfer of power by refusing to certify electors from states in which the loser alleged fraud, protesters aimed to stop Congress from certifying Mr. Biden’s victory.

Unlike the vast majority of the lawbreakers who looted stores, vandalized monuments and attacked government buildings the previous summer, the Jan. 6 protesters were, almost to a man, found and prosecuted. Of more than 1,250 charged, more than half pleaded guilty, many offering apologies. Nonetheless the media and the Democratic Party settled on a preposterously overwrought term for this misbegotten event: “insurrection.”

The events of Jan. 6 were generated by pandemic-year poor judgment. Which is why Republicans will pay the same electoral price for it that Democrats have paid for lockdowns, school closings and onerous, pointless mandates: almost none. The Biden re-election campaign has based its entire effort on the idea that Mr. Trump is a “threat to democracy” and therefore that Jan. 6, or something like it, could happen again. To gauge the wisdom of that strategy, imagine Republicans basing their entire 2024 campaign on the idea that Democrats imposed senseless public-health mandates four years ago and will do it again if Mr. Biden wins.

Democratic officeholders and strategists have failed to understand that voters outside their own base, and perhaps many within it, don’t want to think about the long nightmare of 2020-21 any more than they have to. The Capitol riot, like the lockdowns, school closings and mandates, may never be forgiven—but they are already forgotten.

Mr. Swaim is an editorial page writer at the Journal.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
New Look @ J6
« Reply #2026 on: July 23, 2024, 10:35:03 AM »
New committee chair looking into J6 claims the last finding involved substantial "cherry picking" and promises the new assessment will be fair. Newly released video here:

https://rumble.com/c/CHASubcommitteeOnOversightRepublicanMajority

Story here:

https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-subcommittee-releases-thousands-hours-new-j6-footage?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
What’s Good for the J6 “Insurrectionists …”
« Reply #2027 on: July 25, 2024, 05:59:19 AM »
… is good for these Antifa rioters:

@shipwreckedcrew

If the USCP have now declared the protests a "riot" that means 18 U.S.C. Sec. 231 is now in play.

That is felony.

Extensive use of "facial recognition" technology was used to ID J6 defendants.

There should be no less of an effort made here.

The FBI and other federal agencies should have LEOs in the crowd attempting to capture the IDs of rioters. :-D

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile



Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Partisan DC Courts & the Art of the Slow Walk
« Reply #2031 on: August 13, 2024, 03:13:37 PM »
@julie_kelly2

This is a major scandal.

It has been more than EIGHT MONTHS since the DC appellate court heard oral arguments in the appeal of Couy Griffin's conviction for the most common J6 misdemeanor--knowingly entering restricted grounds/building.

During the hearing on Dec. 4, the 3 judges (Clinton, Obama, Trump) indicated they would send the case back to Judge Trevor McFadden, who found Griffin guilty of 1752(a)(1) in March 2022.

Griffin's attorney asked for either an acquittal on the sole charge or require DOJ to prove to McFadden that Griffin knew the area was restricted (he did not go inside the building) and knew VP Pence was on the grounds, which rendered the area off limits bc he was a Secret Service protectee at the time.

Either way--the panel strongly indicated they believed foreknowledge was a necessary element to demonstrate guilt.

A ruling of that nature would have caused chaos in DC courthouse, potentially impacting hundreds of cases.

But as the panel weighed its decision, something seismic happened: SCOTUS granted cert in Fischer one week later.

Dem-heavy DC appellate court recognized the threat to the J6 prosecution AND narrative if both the most common misdemeanor and most common felony (1512c2) were reversed by higher courts.

Since SCOTUS granted cert, the court held oral arguments in April and posted its decision on June 28.

That entire time, the DC appellate court--an Obama appointee is the chief judge--SAT on releasing its order related to Griffin's appeal and continues to do so. Normal time btw oral arguments and decision is 4-5 months.

Apparently, this is not concerning to the "legal experts" who have accused other courts of slow walking key opinions in other political cases.
You can listen to the discussion here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings2023.nsf/C3B796AEF25005F785258A7B005450C1/$file/22-3042.mp3

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19806
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2033 on: August 13, 2024, 08:26:43 PM »
it seems to me revolts have some sort of event that is a breaking point that enough people decide  to fight back en masse

freedom worth more.

Growing up in a world from which I was taught to respect and admire freedom fighters.
OTOH ,   none of us really thought we might become  one especially against our own government - media - academic elite ruling class.

VDH would be good person to ask from an ancient and modern history point of view.

His book
does speak of complacency
does speak of it won't happen to us....
no one would dare to do this to us.....
The other side being so educated would never do this to us.....

Michael Savage says people will revolt only when they are reduced to starvation

I don't know if this is true
Did Colonists revolt against King George because they were starving ?








Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Cheney, J6 Committee Suppressed Evidence Trump Sought National Guard
« Reply #2034 on: August 26, 2024, 04:30:39 AM »
A claim much hay was made about during the J6 show trial was that Trump had failed to seek National Guard troops to help maintain order. He in fact did seek them while Cheney & company hid docs showing he indeed did so:

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/08/exclusive-liz-cheney-january-6-committee-suppressed-exonerating-evidence-of-trumps-push-for-national-guard/
« Last Edit: August 26, 2024, 04:33:21 AM by Body-by-Guinness »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Douglas Murray: Riots coming to America
« Reply #2036 on: September 15, 2024, 04:32:41 PM »
Note how he begins with comparing jobs to illegals and legals vs jobs to Americans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk__mZBZ91E


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Transcripts prove Trump urged use of NG troops to protect the Capitol
« Reply #2038 on: September 24, 2024, 01:47:25 PM »
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/bombshell-transcripts-trump-urged-use-troops-protect-capitol-jan-6-was

Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed

By John Solomon
Published: September 23, 2024 11:00pm

Then-President Donald Trump gave clear instructions to Pentagon brass days before the Jan. 6 riots to “do whatever it takes” to keep the U.S. Capitol safe, including deploying National Guard or active-duty troops, but top officials did not comply because of political concerns, according to transcripts of bombshell interviews conducted by the Defense Department's chief watchdog that shine new light on government disfunction ahead of the historic tragedy.

Gen. Mark Milley, the former chairman of the Joints Chief of Staff, confirmed to the Pentagon inspector general three years ago that during a Jan. 3, 2021, Oval Office meeting Trump pre-approved the use of National Guard or active duty troops to keep peace in the nation’s capital on the day Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 election.

Milley's interviews were among several key to transcripts obtained by House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., and shared with Just the News.

“The President just says, ‘Hey look at this. It’s going to be a large amount of protesters come in here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event,’” Milley told the inspector general in one of two interviews he did in spring 2021 during a probe of the Pentagon’s response to Jan. 6.

Milley said then-Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, himself a former general, assured Trump there was an adequate safety plan for Pentagon assistance to Washington, D.C. “Miller responds by saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got a plan, and we’ve got it covered.’ And that’s about it,” Milley recalled.

"Just make sure it’s safe"
Milley confirmed a second time during the interviews that Trump was clear in his wishes. “It was just what I just described, which was, ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or soldiers, active-duty soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe,” the general told the IG.

File
26 - Milley - 4.8.21.pdf
The transcripts of Milley’s April 8, 2021, and April 16, 2021, interviews confirm reporting by Just the News two years ago that Trump wanted troops to keep the capital city safe.

But other transcripts gathered by Loudermilk during his subcommittee’s ongoing probe of Jan. 6 security failures show civilian leadership at the Pentagon admittedly openly they would not comply with Trump’s wishes, with some saying they did not like the optics of armed soldiers or Guardsmen roaming the Capitol with weapons during what was supposed to be a peaceful transition of power.

“There was absolutely -- there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period,” Miller told the inspector general during his March 2021 interview.

Miller said officials instead used an interagency process to devise an alternative plan that would put some DC National Guard troops on the ground in the nation’s capitol to direct traffic but not to guard the Capitol, a plan that District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser suggested.

“The operational plan was this, let’s take the D.C. National Guard, keep them away from the Capitol. Let’s put -- the request, it wasn’t my request, Bowser and her Metropolitan Police Department were like ‘Let’s put D.C. National Guard on traffic control points and at the Metro stations to free up credentialed law-enforcement officers that can go out and arrest people,’” Miller explained.

File
25 - Miller - 3.12.21.pdf
Miller admitted there was a political calculus to his decision not to deploy troops near or at the Capitol ahead of time for preventative security.

“I hate to use the word optics because it’s been used and so prejudicially and negatively. It wasn’t the optics. It was like there was would have been huge political consequences that, because that’s what I got paid to do. Is I had the factor in the politics of this and that was my concern is the situation does not warrant at this time U.S. military forces,” he explained,

Pentagon refused to assist D.C. Police
Former District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee confirmed in his interview that Pentagon officials, specifically Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, resisted his department’s initial request around New Year’s Eve for troops in advance of Jan. 6, especially if they were to be deployed anywhere near the Capitol.

“I received a call directly from the Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy and at that time -- at that point he had reviewed our request for the support of D.C. National Guard, and what he relayed to me this phone call was not what I initially thought that he would saying,” Contee recounted in his interview. “He did not initially say, ‘Yes, you get the National Guard responding and they’re going to handle this traffic and crowd management that you asked for that they’re going to be responding to handle it.’

“That was not what was stated. What was stated to me was that he was not inclined to fulfill the request with Guardsmen simply because the optics of it was bad,” Conte added. “He said that he did not want to have boots on the ground on the -- he didn’t want to have boots on the ground anywhere near the Capitol is what was stated.”

File
2 - Contee - 3.17.21.pdf
Loudermilk said he is deeply concerned that Pentagon officials substituted their own personal politics for the president’s instructions.

“President Trump directed senior DoD leaders to ensure events on J6 be safe. They ignored his guidance, prioritized optics concerns over security, and pushed a flawed narrative in their IG report,” he wrote on the X social platform last week. “The American people deserve the full truth.”

Eventually, the Pentagon approved less than 400 DC Guard troops to be used on traffic control. But documents gathered by Loudermilk’s team show the DC Guard was told directly by McCarthy it could not use weapons or engage with protesters, a limitation that became magnified when violence broke out.

“DCNG are not authorized to perform any additional tasks or duties not authorized in this memorandum,” McCarthy’s staff wrote the National Guard commander on Jan. 5, 2021. “In addition, without my personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following: a,) to be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, and batons. (Removed body armor and helmets)

“Addition: DCNG Soldiers have the inherent right to self‐defense. DCNG Soldiers will store their helmets and body armor within vehicles or buildings in close proximity to their positions. In the event of an elevation of the threat requiring immediate donning of this equipment for self‐defense, DCNG leadership will immediately notify the Secretary of Army,” that email read

File
WalkerOrder.pdf
Subsequently, on the afternoon of Jan. 6 when violence broke out, the Pentagon would eventually deploy hundreds more though it took hours to get them to reach the Capitol, a delay that frustrated Capitol Police.

The DC Homeland Security Coordinator Christopher Rodriguez told the Pentagon inspector general that the same concerns about political optics that nixed troops at the Capitol ahead of time may have factored into the delay on the afternoon of Jan. 6, noting a top Army official used the word “optics” during a call as emergency resources were being urgently sought to quell the violence at the Capitol.

“I do believe it was one of the generals that was on the line from Secretary of Army staff that I referred to,” Rodriquez recalled.

When pressed about what he heard on the call, Rodriguez said: “It shocked me quite frankly. And we recognize that we might not be able to get an answer to getting needed support up to the Capitol in a timely fashion”

File
37 - Rodriguez - 2.12.21.pdf
The Pentagon IG ultimately concluded the Pentagon acted quickly after violence broke out, noting Miller signed an order to approve troops to the capitol within 45 minutes of the request for help.

File
DODIG-2022-039 V2 508.pdf
"Optics"
But Loudermilk has since challenged that assertion publicly, including in interviews with The Washington Times, noting there were other delays after the order that kept troops from arriving until sundown.

“The DC National Guard was significantly delayed from deploying to the U.S. Capitol on J6 because senior DoD leaders had 'optics' concerns,” Loudermilk wrote on X earlier this month.

The transcripts also show there remain some factual disputes among key players.

For instance, ex-Defense Secretary Miller told Congress that Trump gave a specific number of troops he wanted to see made available for security ahead of Jan. 6.

“The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day...I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter or President Trump banter that you all are familiar with, and in no way, shape, or form did I interpret that as an order or direction," Miller testified.

But Milley, the former Joint Chiefs chairman, said he did not recall that number ever being uttered in the meetings with Trump. "There was no discussion of 10,000 troops," the retired four-star general said.

The transcripts also provide some hints that top Pentagon officials personally disliked the 45th president. For instance, former Acting Secretary Miller at one point compared the former president to Cuba’s most infamous communist leader, the late Fidel Castro.

“Everyone was like, ‘Did you listen to the President’s speech?’ I’m like, ‘The guy speaks for 90 minutes, it’s like Castro or something. No. I’ve got work to do,” Miller told the IG at one point
« Last Edit: September 24, 2024, 01:50:30 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
WT: Neo-Nazi plot MD
« Reply #2040 on: September 27, 2024, 11:14:58 AM »
Woman sentenced for power grid attack plot with neo-Nazi leader

By Lea Skene ASSOCIATED PRESS BALTIMORE | A Maryland woman who’s held White supremacist views for decades and recently conspired with a neo-Nazi leader to plan an attack on Baltimore’s power grid was sentenced Wednesday to 18 years in prison for her role in the plot.

The high-profile case ultimately came to focus on the defendant’s past trauma and her mental state as she struggled with addiction and embraced increasingly radical, racist views. Sarah Beth Clendaniel, 36, pleaded guilty to planning the attack in May.

Clendaniel was working with Brandon Russell, who cofounded a small, Florida-based neo-Nazi group, to plan a series of “sniper attacks” on Maryland electrical substations that could have caused significant damage to the regional power grid. It was meant to create chaos in the majority-Black city, according to federal prosecutors.

“It’s true, your honor, I do still hold National Socialist beliefs,” Clendaniel told the judge during her sentencing hearing Wednesday in Baltimore federal court, saying she adopted the ideology at age 13. She pledged to never again act on those beliefs.

“I know there’s a line there that I can’t cross,” she said.

U.S. District Judge JamesBredar said he wanted to believe that Clendaniel wouldn’t have actually carried out the plot, which he called “extreme in every respect.”

“I think that’s a huge question, but who can take that risk?” he said, before sentencing her to 18 years in federal prison — the sentence prosecutors had recommended — and lifetime supervision upon release.

In explaining his decision, Judge Bredar noted new information from prosecutors that Clendaniel had recently been placing jail calls to a white supremacist leader in California. Those calls show Clendaniel was unrepentant and undeterred, prosecutors said.

“This is something that is very much a part of her,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen O’Connell Gavin said during the hearing.

Clendaniel was charged last year along with Russell, a Florida resident who co-founded the group Atomwaffen Division. His case hasn’t gone to trial yet. Russell previously served five years in prison after pleading guilty to explosives charges that stemmed from a deadly shooting at an apartment that he shared with Atomwaffen’s other founder.

Clendaniel and Russell began exchanging letters around 2018 while they were incarcerated in different facilities. They developed a romantic relationship that continued after they were released from prison, court records show.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
No one is coming to save you
« Reply #2042 on: October 01, 2024, 09:16:41 AM »
Second post

   
Nobody Is Coming To Save You
321: Natural Disasters, Port Strike, Security Considerations
Arbitrage Andy
Oct 1

 
It’s been a rough several years for normies as things continue to get more real. I talk about the hate and critique that I’ve experienced for choosing to talk about and focus on things that actually matter in the world today. I wasn’t going to only make financial/early 20’s lifestyle memes forever.

Eventually (during Covid) I woke up to just how serious things are getting in my country and across the world. Moreover it became apparent to me just how many things we know as truth are in fact lies.

Upgrade to paid

Some of those things are unpopular or what normies consider “conspiracy” but I don’t really care. I’d rather seek out the truth and talk about things that have a real impact on our lives than drone out on pop culture, corporate bullshit, or meaningless status games, worried about what people perceive me as and where I fit in the rank and file.

I’d rather talk about the real risk of escalation in Ukraine or the Middle East than talk about my fantasy line up. I’d rather prepare as best I can for what I know is likely coming in the next few years as a result of the political environment in the US than go drink 20 beers at a random bar and stay out until 4am. I’d rather build my own business and work towards true freedom than play politics, achieve a meaningless title, or endure woke social games in the corporate world to be “liked” by peers.

As they say online, once the red pill has been taken you can never really see things the same way again and I genuinely feel that way, for better or for worse.


Not to say I don’t enjoy hobbies, good fun, or dicking around sometime — but I am trying to paint a picture of why I focus on the things I do here at Arb Letter. These aren’t exotic or edgy topics — they’re just raw accounts of what’s going on around us. If you find yourself thinking these topics are wild or unconventional it’s probably because you ingest too much corporate media, which notoriously AVOIDS talking about things that actually matter.

I’m interested in what’s actually going on — not the PG rated, widely accepted, feel good bullshit that so many people eagerly slurp up, because it either makes them feel better about themselves or it calms their anxiety about being completely unprepared for what we are watching transgress.

As things ramp up politically, socially, and financially, many are going to be in for rude awakenings. The world is not going to be what they want it to be anymore — not that it ever was, but the veil that we all lived under is lifting, the consequences of feckless policy idealism are surfacing.

Socially — we are living in a low trust environment now. Trust is low for institutions, for fellow citizens, and even with communities. People are on edge.

Financially — markets may be chugging along, but costs are rising, inflation is not gone for good, and the wealth gap is growing quickly. National debt is unsurmountable. Now we have a massive port strike that will impact the economy negatively if it drags on.

Politically — the US no longer is recognizable. It’s highly partisan — both sides playing like this is the last election that matters, because it very well could be. The agendas presented are full 180s apart. Violence is being used. State level voting rules are being altered, and the arrival of 10M+ illegals throws a curveball into the mix.

Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, a private military company, said recently on a Podcast that a country or nation is only a country or nation when people can agree on a common set of values or truths. That is very much not the case in the US and other places now. People cannot agree on what we should represent, support, do, or even say anymore.

That creates a much more unpredictable environment for these events to play out in as opposed to one in which everyone can agree on common courses of action in the best interest of the country


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
Simplicius
« Reply #2044 on: October 13, 2024, 05:29:49 AM »
View in browser

The Eerie Calm Before the Storm
Simplicius
Oct 13

 
Note:

I’ve made a kind of pledge to do roughly three paywalled pieces per month, or one every ten days give or take. However, I’ve realized there are certain topics I’m increasingly hesitant to broach in detail publically due to certain recent developments in the global legal censorship sphere, to be intentionally vague. As such, there are a few things here and there I may paywall not for the usual reason of a scheduled ‘premium’ product for my paid subscribers, but simply to keep off unneeded eyes.

As such, I don’t want my free subscribers to think it a tightening of the yoke or coercion toward paying—there will simply be a few extra paywalled pieces here and there on sensitive topics particularly around sensitive times, as on this current eve of a momentous US election. Not that I think anything I’ve written is particularly sensitive or even remotely controversial, but unfortunately things are the way they are.


Let’s take a moment for a small reflection on the state of things as we enter into the weeds of this election-eve month of October, known for the dark ‘surprises’ it often has in store. In less than a month the world stands to change forever, for better or worse, as what is likely the most momentous election in US history stands to bear its poison fruits.

It feels like the calm before a great storm, and many have remarked on how ‘odd’ it is that even the Democrats do not seem to be overtly panicking despite catastrophic polling of their lead racehorse Kamala Harris. A strange sort of numbness has set in over the nation, perhaps in the form of normalcy bias—in some ways, it does not even feel like an election is imminent, let alone the most portentous one.

Why is that? Partly due to the fact that it’s the most technological election, wherein various instruments of state power have been utilized to create everything from vast blackouts of information to vortical diversions via some inane psyop or another which bleeds through the information space to distract us. Not to mention, our information platforms are more fractured, compartmentalized, and segregated into moated echo-boxes than ever before. Everyone has reached their tolerance limit of hyper-ingesting the propaganda of the other side and has subsequently retreated into their own safer info-abodes.

The big questions are on everyone’s minds: will America descend into civil war or chaos of some form or another? There are a multitude of competing theories:

Kamala “wins” a tight midnight race, a la Biden in 2020—Trump disputes it and hell breaks loose.

Trump wins a controversially close race of his own, and the Democrats unleash some kind of lawfare or outright military coup.

It’s such a close and fraud-riddled race that neither side concedes and no swearing in commences in January, amidst a slowly fracturing state.

There are two other ways to think about it. On one hand, it appears that Republicans have done little to fortify the ‘system’ against the same kinds of fraud widespread in 2020—i.e. vote harvesting, mass mail-in hijinks, total control of the vote count process by regime-aligned forces, which includes the electronic vote counting machines suspected to being compromised. As such, it’s easy to imagine the same scenario repeating again, albeit even more dramatically, given Kamala’s historic unpopularity.


On the other hand, there are some reasons to believe something entirely different will occur. There is no pandemic to truly justify the same levels of mail-in fraud, some states and their governors have wised up to previous tricks, and to top it all off Kamala’s numbers are arguably so disastrous as to simply make it impossible to pull off a convincing 4 a.m. highway robbery the likes of which Biden got away with.



Even the most diehard Democrat supporters must be reaching their limits of sufferance. The migrant crisis has been the first issue to truly evocatively make obvious that something extremely dark and sinister is happening to the country. For a long time, they hid it well in plain sight—but when they ran out of ‘big cities’ like NYC to dissemble the migrants into, they were forced to start dumping them into small towns like Springfield, Ohio, Charleroi, Pennsylvania, Sylacauga, Alabama, Greeley, Colorado, Logansport, Indiana, and countless others, where the unprecedentedly orchestrated invasion became an inescapable albatross.


This is why I personally am leaning toward the conclusion that Trump may actually win this—the fatigue from the country’s precipitous decline has become painfully felt among every demographic group.

However, even if Trump were to win in such unquestionable fashion as to preclude any electoral challenges, the danger would not be over. There are several contingency layers potentially in place to still prevent him from taking office:

1. The sentencing for his trial was recently pushed back to January. There were legitimate talks of him getting real prison time in Rikers Island. As such, if he were to win they could still try to jail him. Recall, he was fully convicted of 34 felony counts—34 felonies; that would certainly entail a lengthy prison sentence.

2. Then there are the lawfare tricks of disqualifying Trump’s electoral votes described by James Rickards:

Even if Trump can win the election with 270 or more Electoral College votes, likely as of now, the fight will not be over. The Democrats have another lawfare trick up their sleeves.

If Democrats retake the House of Representatives, then on Jan. 6, 2025, the New Democrat-controlled House could pass a resolution that Trump is an “insurrectionist” and disqualify his electoral votes under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Kamala would not have 270 electoral votes needed to win. This would throw the election of the president to the House of Representatives voting as state delegations, not as individuals. Under the XII Amendment (1804), only Kamala Harris could receive votes for president assuming Trump was disqualified and no other candidate won any electors at all.

J.D. Vance would suffer no insurrectionist disqualification. So the result could be Kamala Harris as president and J.D. Vance as vice president (similar to Jefferson and Burr in 1800).

Another possibility is that the Republican-controlled state delegations in the House could boycott the presidential vote in which case a quorum would be lacking. In that case, the vice president (J.D. Vance) “shall act as president” under the XII Amendment. This is not a far-fetched scenario. Democrats led by Jamie Raskin have already set the wheels in motion.

Trump has 28 days to flip the narrative on Kamala Harris and win the election. If he does, the Democrats have a doomsday plan they will unveil on Jan. 6, 2025, to disqualify Trump.

Like in January 2021, some believe an election ‘certification’ crisis can develop. However it should be noted that Democrats have fortified this loophole since last time when Mike Pence was being called upon to not certify Biden’s victory as presiding officer:

Further, in December 2022, Congress passed bipartisan legislation that amended a 1887 law to make it more difficult to object to the results of a presidential election. The new legislation clarifies that the role of the vice president in certifying the election is “merely ceremonial,” and that they do not have the authority to decide the results of the election. The law now states that the vice president “shall have no power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes” when certifying the election.

The legislation also makes it harder to force a vote for a particular state, with “one-fifth of each chamber” needing to object to certifying the electors instead of just one member of each the House and the Senate. Governors will now have to sign off on one slate of electors to be sent to Congress, countering Trump’s 2020 attempt to send fake slates of electors to Congress. -Source

3. Other dangers include an outright military coup due to the perceived ‘retaliation’ Trump is set to mete out to his political opponents—the same ones who betrayed and tried to destroy him during and after his first term:



On the eve of the election things feel too unsettlingly quiet. It’s as if the Democrats are demonstrating supreme confidence—which is odd given Kamala’s polling numbers—or have ulterior plans waiting to be activated.

A potential for the latter has slowly appeared over the sudden not-so-subtle insinuations concerning Iran this week. Trump himself bizarrely appeared to pin blame on Iran for the attempts on his life:


And now a seemingly orchestrated narrative is being cooked up to lay the groundwork for one easy-to-see set of circumstances:


Others have read the obvious tea leaves:

False flag in the works?

US President Joe Biden has instructed the National Security Council to warn Iranian authorities against plots against former President Donald Trump and former US officials, sources told The Washington Post and Politico.

He reportedly said that Washington would consider any assassination attempts an act of war.

Suddenly Biden is rushing to ‘protect Trump’ from this phantom Iranian threat, when he previously refused not only to lift a finger but even potentially stone-walled Trump’s Secret Service protection.

Read that again:


https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/11/iran-trump-assassination-plans-00183488
He reportedly said that Washington would consider any assassination attempts an act of war.

This is after sitting Congressmember Matt Gaetz revealed that “five hit teams are in the country hunting Trump”, one of them linked to Ukraine:


The potential ‘play’ here should be obvious. The Israeli-controlled deep state can take out Trump under the guise of Iranian “blood vengeance” for Soleimani and others, and voila!—Israel gets its big American-led cowboy war to destroy Iran. It kills several birds with one stone because Trump is removed as candidate, Israel gets its war, and Iran as a threatening entity can be curtailed for a generation or two, or so goes the thought.

This could be the big October ‘surprise’ dialed up to a million and black swan in one as a last-ditch move to prevent Trump from taking office amid internal polling that shows Kamala has no chance, according to many.

Of course even if that were the plan, they’ll still have to get lucky enough to actually catch Trump slipping. Hopefully he’s wise to the moves, but judging by his presumptuous blaming of Iran he nearly appears happy to accept his role as sacrificial lamb to his beloved Eretz Yisrael. There is no greater show of love than sacrifice, after all. In doing so, he could very well fulfill prophecies of being some chosen Messianic figure who brings to bear the long foretold construction of the Third Temple.

Of course, were he to weather all these coming troubles, Trump will inherit a rabidly destabilizing deep state hellbent on taking down the whole country just to thwart him. As such, the final contingency plan relies on unleashing all the economic and social turmoil kept bottled up just for that rainy moment.


The Longshoremen’s strike threatening to cripple the nation was recently postponed until January 15, just five days before the inauguration—coincidence?

It’s also likely that the Democrats and their NGO hirelings have burrowed ‘sleeper cells’ amongst the millions of migrants, spreading them throughout the country to be activated during Trump’s term to sow social chaos and perhaps even outright terrorism of a sort. The gist is that, if he manages to negotiate the coming gauntlet, Trump’s term cannot be allowed to ‘succeed’ in any way, and all manner of economic and social strife and chaos will be sown throughout the land to drown his term in malaise. Most notably the debt and inflation ‘time bomb’ of the video above could be unleashed to crush any chances of Trump’s radical economic reforms.

It’s an understatement to say he’ll have his work cut out for him if he can even make it to the seat and win the perilous game of American thrones.



As a final summation, the next three months stand to reach a climactic fever pitch, in the global scope of things. Israel is straining its leash, ready to ignite a historic conflagration in the Middle East; Ukraine is on its shakiest grounds, with Zelensky foaming to spark his own nuclear firestorm. All the while the tenuous political threads of the US system could snap once and for all within weeks in another botched election, unleashing incalculable results.

Of course in all these troubled times, there exists some rays of hope, as the boiling-over tensions can potentially resolve long-standing crises into a cooler phase or denouement of some kind. Questions can be answered and conflicts can reach their natural conclusions by next year, a sort of ‘going over the hump’ of a peak crisis period.

In the case of the US election, rather than the eerie silence being a sign of some grand forthcoming Democrat counter-strike, it could merely signal the final succumbing to inevitability. That earlier-mentioned numbness may have presaged a deer-in-headlights moment of acceptance, signifying the total drought of ideas for how to reverse the situation. They’ve done all they could, flooded the nation with millions of illegals and have reached the ends of their natural powers of fraud and skullduggery, now merely resigned to awaiting the outcome in feeble submission.

After all, despite no outward signs of ‘panic’, there have been signs of a kind of frail acceptance and fatigue, for instance in Obama’s recent spiritless ‘pep talk’ to a group of black male Pennsylvania voters in Pittsburgh. He looked defeated and demoralized, at times annoyed, sliding into uncharacteristic urban patois to scold the skeptical-looking ‘brothas’—as he called them—for not showing up enthusiastically for the manufactured diversity candidate.


Feeling blue at Barry’s Black & Blue pity party?
Trump himself has blundered his way through this most uncanny of campaign trails, turning away many of his voters; Nick Fuentes has recently turned completely against Trump, for example, ordering his considerable following to not vote for him. But at the same time, Kamala is a disaster of such historic proportions that it’s difficult to imagine any scale of Trump blunders eclipsing the damage she’s done to her own party.

As such, although the election—if there even is one—will likely be fraught with fraud, I’ve still got Trump edging it out as of now. Unfortunately, the fight will only just begin there, as the Democrats will likely launch into an array of dirty tricks that could threaten to take the entire country down with them.

However, I have hope we’ll get to the other side in one peace.

« Last Edit: October 13, 2024, 05:29:00 PM by Crafty_Dog »

ppulatie

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1146
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2045 on: October 13, 2024, 04:19:33 PM »
I have a bit more insight into the events of J-6 than most people. I will explain.

My wife's nephew (Captain Robert Glover) by marriage was the CO of DC Metro Special Ops. Special Ops handled security planning for the Inauguration. They also handled VIP travel planning, escorts etc. When you see the Motor Cops on escort duty, that was his unit.

Glover was On Scene Commander at the Capital from early afternoon on. He had been all over the Capital area all day long. Transcripts of radio calls with him were played during the J-6 hearings as well as his own testimony before Congress.

From what I can gather, and cannot talk to him about it because he will not say a thing, he and the Capital Police really caused the escalation of violence. Cops panicked because of the large numbers of people there. They started with gas which set off questionable people in the crowds.

About 12:30pm, Glover was informed that some NG had arrived near the Capital and ready to be deployed. There were between 110 and 120 troops. Glover did not deploy them because there were "so few." Instead, he had the NG establish a "holding area" where arrested people would be placed, guarded by NG.

Radio transcripts reflect that Glover actually panicked as the crowd grew in size. He called for more cops, which were available because Virginia Highway Patrol cops were on scene, as well as many other VA state, county and city cops that were there through reciprocal aid. Plus FBI, etc.

Reading his testimony, I know that he lied to Congress on some key issues. But nothing was said. And there is what I believe to be the reason for lying.

Glover was Number 3 in the DC Metro Command structure. He would have eventually taken over Chief of Police, except for an important event. He was being investigated for having a website on a known site that hosted porn. Just a few months after his testimony, he was allowed to "retire" with full pension, while large numbers of DC cops were pissed and thought he should have been prosecuted. (This did not surprise me because there were some real indications that he was a perv that I heard about.)

It is my opinion that he was allowed to retire with pension in exchange for his lies.

BTW, the SOB called my wife all the time when he was having marriage problems. But he never once called me to offer condolences when my wife passed in Jan 2023.

Yes, I might have some bitterness towards him.

PPulatie

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3244
    • View Profile
Liz Cheney Used Signal to have Encrypted Convos w/ Witness ...
« Reply #2047 on: October 15, 2024, 03:19:00 PM »
... that they changed her lawyers and then testimony, being the source of the "Trump grabbed the steering wheel" claim. Despite being a lawyer admitted to the DC bar and knowing it was unethical to have a conversation w/ a witness without her lawyer being present (and acknowledging as much), Cheny did so anyway. Ain't it great when those shouting about rumors of questionable behavior from the rooftops shamelessly partake of questionable behavior?

https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/hldliability-liz-cheney-contacted-controversial-j6-witness?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 72445
    • View Profile
FO: Former ABC political director predicts shitstorm if Trump wins
« Reply #2048 on: October 18, 2024, 04:34:10 AM »


(3) HALPERIN: THERE WILL BE BLOOD IF TRUMP WINS: Journalist and former political director at ABC News Mark Halperin appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show and predicted violent post-election fallout in the likely event former President Donald Trump wins in November.
Halperin said that a Trump win “will be the cause of the greatest mental health crisis in the history of the country,” adding that “tens of millions of people will question their connection to the nation… and I think that it will require an enormous amount of access to mental health professionals. I think it’ll lead to trauma in the workplace. I think there’ll be some degree – alcoholism, broken marriages… I don’t think it will be a passing thing; that by the inauguration, we’ll be fine. I think it will be sustained and unprecedented and hideous. And I don’t think the country’s ready for it.”
Halperin also said he expects violence, particularly domestic violence in the workplace, at kids’ birthday parties, and other gatherings. “I think there’ll be protests that turn violent. I hope they’re not, but I think there will be some. But I think it will be less anger and more a failure to understand how it could happen.”
Lastly, Heparin says he does fear domestic conflict, but hopes that state governors are able to quell political violence internally through strong bipartisan action at the state level. “I think the chances are minimized if the losing candidate makes it clear they don’t want that [political violence] to happen and if the governors are vigilant in devising plans to balance public safety with the First Amendment.”
Why It Matters: In short, Halperin predicts that a Trump win will cause trauma akin to the news of ‘your wife turning into a lesbian and leaving you for your best friend,’ as he put it. Halperin seemed to have been warning that we’re more likely to have cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome patients ‘going postal’ as opposed to mass riots and chaos in a 2020-esque repeat. The election is still uncertain, but I do see a potential case where sporadic acts of domestic terrorism against the Trump administration and/or its symbols are more likely than sustained, acute, nationwide riots. We’re seeing types of this rhetoric now with the pro-Palestine groups’ promises to “bring the war home” and build a “Palestine liberation and resistance” movement in the United States. I’ll discuss this in greater detail during Friday’s Early Warning Roundtable (10:00 am Central on the Early Warning Network app). Three final points: First, Halperin seemed optimistic that both Trump and Harris could be gracious enough to not incite the other side and calm an otherwise disruptive 2025. Second, he talked about a disruptive scenario where Harris wins, Dems take the House, but Republicans keep the Senate. A GOP-controlled Senate could block Harris nominees seen as immoderate, setting up four more years of government dysfunction, which could lead to another sovereign credit downgrade. Lastly, Halperin described Harris as “cautious and indecisive,” which is concerning because she has no executive experience and would be partially staffed with Obama/Biden holdovers who guided those presidents into a more dangerous world. Either way, next year will likely be another long year. – M.S.