Author Topic: Insurrection (Including J6), the Second American Civil War, and "the Resistance"  (Read 317825 times)

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Re: Carville calls for Second American Civil War
« Reply #2050 on: October 25, 2024, 01:45:34 PM »
https://leohohmann.com/2024/10/23/dangerous-post-election-narrative-james-carville-calls-on-democrats-to-take-up-arms-against-trump-regime-if-kamala-loses/

If it’s rank and file Dems, it won’t turn out well. Imagine a Carville v. Joe Deer Hunter dust up. That Cajun would no longer be ragin’ in short order. Be like if members of The View showed up to one of your stick fights.

Were this instead a call to the military … well that would be as profound a crisis as this country has ever faced, and our geopolitical foes would be all over it.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
So who is Eric Herschmann
« Reply #2052 on: October 27, 2024, 05:02:47 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Herschmann

"Cheney, who was then the J6 Committee’s vice chair, called the note, which included a script for Trump to read during the unrest at the Capitol, proof of Hutchinson’s key role in the White House's response to the riots."

This from the Wiki article:

"After the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson before the January 6 Committee, a spokesman for Herschmann confirmed "that a handwritten note regarding a potential statement for then-President Donald Trump to release during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was written by him during a meeting at the White House that afternoon, and not by White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson."

So clearly Hutchison lied.  But it was for Democrats so nothing will happen and Cheney will BS her way out of it.

as an aside

interesting
I was once interested in going into the field of questioned documents - got an MS in Forensic Science at GW
and did an internship at the USPS forensic department.

Then decided to go to med school   :-P
« Last Edit: October 27, 2024, 05:05:49 PM by ccp »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2053 on: October 27, 2024, 06:57:36 PM »
"I was once interested in going into the field of questioned documents - got an MS in Forensic Science at GW
and did an internship at the USPS forensic department."

Far out.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2054 on: October 27, 2024, 08:28:12 PM »
 :-DThank for spelling far out and not shorthand FO

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2055 on: October 27, 2024, 08:29:40 PM »
:-DThank for spelling far out and not shorthand FO

Wait, FO isn’t forward observer? I’m so confused….

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2056 on: October 28, 2024, 06:50:58 AM »
Yes, FO is Forward Observer  :-D :-D :-D


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
Harrison Ruffin Tyler's maternal great grandfather
« Reply #2058 on: November 04, 2024, 08:16:49 PM »
You ask who the heck is Harrison Ruffin Tyler.   Well, he is President Tyler's still living grandson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Ruffin_Tyler

Why do I post here in Second American Civil War rather then the history section.

It is because of his maternal great grandfather on the other side of his family tree who was Edmund Ruffin III

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Ruffin

He was from Revolutionary War ancestry.
He was of Southern plantation family who owned well over 100 slaves in multiple plantations at his peak.

His suicide note is quite remarkable and applicable to today's political strife:

"When the war ended with Confederate defeat, Ruffin, who had already suffered the loss of his wife and eight of his eleven children, was crushed. Increasingly despondent after the surrender of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Court House in 1865, along with the other surrenders that were to follow, Ruffin decided to commit suicide. On June 18, 1865, while staying with his son and daughter-in-law at Redmoor in Amelia County, Ruffin went up to his room with a rifle and a forked stick. He was called away to greet visitors at the front door. After they left, Ruffin returned to write a
final diary entry:


And now with my latest writing and utterance, and with what will [be] near to my latest breath, I here repeat, & would willingly proclaim, my unmitigated hatred to Yankee rule—to all political, social and business connections with Yankees, & to the perfidious, malignant, & vile Yankee race.[31]: 230 

Ruffin wrapped himself in a Confederate flag, put the rifle muzzle in his mouth and used the forked stick to manipulate the trigger. The percussion cap went off without firing the rifle, and the noise alerted Ruffin's daughter-in-law. However, by the time she and his son reached his room, Ruffin had reloaded the rifle and fired a fatal shot.[31]: 230  Edmund Jr. and neighbor William H. Harrison transported his body to Marlbourne, his plantation in Hanover County, Virginia, for burial."

objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1064
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2059 on: November 05, 2024, 02:13:55 AM »
What to Expect This Election – And Beyond

Brace yourself.

November 4, 2024 by Mark Tapson


We’re right on the cusp of – yes, it’s true and not just a hyperbolic cliché – the most consequential election of our time. What can you expect on November 5th – and then beyond?

The short answer is: expect the unexpected, which sounds like another cliché as well as a waffling response, but the only thing we can be sure of is that from here through Inauguration Day and beyond, chaos is going to be the order of the day.

First, the election itself. As things stand now, I personally do not see how Donald Trump can lose – even factoring in what will surely be widespread attempts at voter fraud including an unknown quantity of illegal aliens who have been registered to vote by the Democrats (which is precisely the reason, of course, that they threw open the southern border for four years). The Democrats know they’re going to lose, which is why activists have already started burning ballot boxes in Washington state and Oregon (and you can expect more ballot boxes in other states to begin meeting the same fate). I don’t see how the Democrats can even cheat their way to victory this time. We all know – and the Democrats especially are painfully aware – that Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are a disastrous duo whom no one likes and they have run a terrible campaign that is floundering more and more each day.

Conversely, we also all know – and the Democrats especially are painfully aware – that Trump has been a rock star on the campaign trail and that YUGE crowds have come out for him everywhere. Kamala could only boost her crowds with a bait-and-switch, promising Beyoncé concerts that never materialized, for example. Kamala couldn’t even score a victory with a solo CNN town hall; CNN commentators afterward couldn’t cover for her disastrous performance. Her entire campaign has been based on lies and fear-mongering about fascism and democracy because she’s incapable of talking policy or differentiating herself from the decrepit, deposed Joe Biden.

Biden, by the way, may have dealt her campaign a fatal blow late last week by calling Trump supporters – more than half the country – “garbage.” It’s his “deplorables” moment and Kamala and her media allies have been unable to convincingly disavow what he said. Not that all of them are willing to disavow that characterization anyway. A major billionaire democrat donor actually publicly declared that describing the Right as garbage is “an understatement.” The left hates us with the heat of a thousand suns.

That’s why this election is so consequential. Yes, every presidential election in the 21st century, if not before, has been labeled “the most consequential election of our time.” But every election has been the most consequential at the time, because our political landscape has become increasingly fractured by an increasingly radical far-Left movement which dominates the Democrat Party, which now wields both political and cultural dominance, and threatens to steer the country irreversibly further Left under a potential Harris/Walz regime.

In any case, while Kamala’s campaign implodes, Trump is off racking up tens of millions of views of a 3-hour interview with podcaster Joe Rogan; he’s shrugging off assassin’s bullets at rallies; he’s capitalizing big-time on Democrat attacks by slinging fries at McDonald’s and campaigning in a garbage truck; he blew the roof off a Madison Square Garden rally – and don’t even get me started on JD Vance’s media appearances, in which he mops the floor with frustrated, agitated, Left-wing talking heads. He’s a role model for how to deal with the hostile liars in the media.

As an aside: I’m happily married but I’m on the verge of a serious bromance with JD Vance, who exudes a real presidential presence. I am praying for four years of Trump in the Oval Office and then eight more under JD Vance. That would just about Make America Great Again.

Anyway, there’s no question that in a free and fair election, Trump would win. However, we all know that in America we don’t have free and fair elections anymore, thanks to massive Left-wing voter fraud and a feckless Republican party that has allowed our electoral process to degenerate into a hopeless mess which no one trusts.

So again, we can expect the unexpected in terms of the election, even though I believe Trump will ultimately win – assuming he is not assassinated first, and I’m not joking or being flippant about that. We all know the Left is praying (there are no atheists in foxholes) that someone takes him out before Nov. 5th, or at the very least before he takes office in January. And it won’t end there. Once he re-enters the White House, he’ll be facing four years of assassination attempts because the left will never stop wanting him dead.

The real concern is not so much the election itself but the aftermath, because Democrats will under no circumstances allow Trump to become President again. They have already promised they will do everything in their power to de-legitimize the vote count or disqualify Trump or otherwise do whatever it takes to prevent the transfer of power.

If the Democrats refuse to allow the peaceful transfer of power (which they’ve spent the last four years accusing Trump of), America will be thrust into a hot civil war. If Trump loses, it will only be because of massive voter fraud, but the Right will not sit back this time and accept it. I will not be surprised at all if there is violent pushback. So whether he wins or loses the vote count, America is going to be wracked by violent unrest and chaos for months like nothing we’ve seen since 2020, if not worse. And Trump himself will face daily internal resistance within the halls of power from whatever remains of the Deep State, which hopefully this time he will have the focus to clean up.

If Kamala “wins,” her presidency will be the most radical in American history. It’s easy and tempting to dismiss her as an epically incompetent dim bulb, because that’s what she is. It’s easy and tempting to mock her pompous word salads, her nervous cackling, her Meryl Streep-level range of accents when addressing different demographics, but remember that she is also ruthless, ambitious, and cruel, and she enjoys destroying lives through political power. With her in the White House we can expect four years of vindictiveness and retribution against political opponents, in addition to the most radical imaginable policies.

Despite the Left’s attempt to paint Tim Walz as a regular guy, like a local Little League coach, he too is a ruthless radical. A Harris/Walz administration will be catastrophic for America, so brace yourself. Start now, if you haven’t already, preparing for the worst times America has endured in living memory. Because her enemies both internal and external will smell blood in the water and, if I may mix my metaphors, launch a full-court press to take America down for good.

If you’re not already a prepper, learn to be one. Start creating local networks of friends and neighbors whom you can count on in hard times, and prepare yourself physically, mentally, and spiritually for various hardship scenarios, especially if you live in urban areas ruled by Democrats. Because those areas are going to witness ugly unrest and violent breakdown like we saw during the George Floyd riots.

The same goes for America even if Trump and Vance win the election, because the Democrats will “resist” by any means necessary. Through the Democrat narrative to demonize Trump as Literally Hitler™ and his supporters as Nazis and fascists, the Left is laying the groundwork for violent “resistance” intended to destabilize the country from Day One.

Rep. Jamie Raskin, who is one of the biggest liars and propagandists in Congress, has vowed that Congress will remove Trump by invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding federal office. Raskin has said that it’s going to be up to him and his fellow Dem lawmakers on January 6, 2025, to tell the “rampaging Trump mobs that he’s disqualified.” He added, “And then we need bodyguards for everybody in civil war conditions.”

Vote accordingly, if you haven’t already, and prepare for the worst, whatever the outcome. I don’t mean for that to be disheartening, just realistic and motivating. As Donald Trump, Jr. put it in a tweet, “Vote like your lives, freedom, wellbeing and children’s future depend on it. Because they do. Don’t be demoralized just get out and bring your friends and overwhelm anything the democrats throw at you!”

These are the times that try men’s souls. Rise to the occasion.


"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
Stage 5 TDS - great label!
« Reply #2062 on: November 09, 2024, 10:55:34 AM »
"Mr. Fanone is clearly a ticking time bomb with Stage 5 TDS"

Like Michael Turkey Cohen.

Pelosi I would say is stage 4.   Blames Biden when she was one of the ones who allowed the Radical Left to take over her party.

Obama and Michelle stage 4.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2063 on: November 09, 2024, 11:30:32 AM »
Just read some Jeffery Toobin. I’d say stage 2, but that’s likely after he got done relaxing in front of the monitor during a Zoom call. Otherwise stage 4, at least.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
AOC wants to know why some in her district voted for her AND Trump
« Reply #2064 on: November 11, 2024, 07:46:48 AM »
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-directly-addresses-people-who-voted-for-both-her-and-trump/ar-AA1tSZPA?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=7113038ae76a4b098140413653a752af&ei=16

The big miss by these people is this:

Trump and AOC are NOT the same.

One's prescription is for capitalism, MAGA, hard work, responsibility, competition, sovereignty.

The other's is for Communism. 

Totally different.  But these people who can vote for both probably do not understand this, or care.



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
Re: Insurrection (Including J6) and the Second American Civil War
« Reply #2066 on: November 14, 2024, 02:57:45 PM »
A good one for the FBI thread as well.

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
J6 Cop that Shot Unarmed Woman Plied w/ Cash & Bennies
« Reply #2067 on: November 21, 2024, 07:49:04 AM »
This is galling: the Capitol Police Officer that shot Alisha Babbit was moved to the head of the line to receive trauma compensation from a fund for injured officers, raised $164K via a Go Fund Me effort, and according to Kelly, has a protective detail and a no-show job:

https://x.com/julie_kelly2/status/1859594292165038280?s=12

ETA: More on this officer: https://justthenews.com/accountability/hldcop-who-shot-j6-protestor-has-lengthy-disciplinary-record-mishandled-firearms?utm_medium=social_media&utm_source=facebook_social_icon&utm_campaign=social_icons
« Last Edit: November 21, 2024, 10:44:51 AM by Body-by-Guinness »



objectivist1

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 1064
    • View Profile
Devine: The Buried J6 Truth
« Reply #2070 on: November 25, 2024, 07:39:43 AM »
Another great column by Miranda Devine of The New York Post. Even more damning information has now come out regarding January 6th and why more safeguards were not in place. Hopefully Trump will get to the bottom of this, pardon those being held without due process, and hold the proper individuals responsible. We can only hope and pray.


Tragic Ashli Babbitt and the buried Jan. 6 truth

By Miranda Devine

Published Nov. 24, 2024, 11:25 p.m. ET


So now we know that the cop who fatally shot unarmed Donald Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, 36, during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot was rewarded with a promotion and a $36,000 bonus.

There were no ill consequences for his rash actions that day. Instead, Capt. Michael Byrd, 56, was held up as a hero of democracy, despite the fact that he had a lengthy disciplinary record that includes leaving his loaded handgun in a public bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center, “improperly” firing his gun at a car near his home while off duty and abusing a Maryland cop who tried to stop him entering a high school football field as a “racist a–hole,” again while off duty, according to a letter released last week by the GOP-led House Administration Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight.

Three entries in Byrd’s internal affairs record are missing, wrote subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) in a letter to Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger.


Left’s convenient spin

Loudermilk is asking questions about Byrd and everything else about the Jan. 6 riot that was used so effectively to tarnish Trump and his supporters and that provided the excuse for the Biden administration to weaponize federal law enforcement against them.

The J6 riot was not an insurrection but a protest that escalated into an out-of-control riot because then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was denied intelligence about potential threats that day and denied National Guard backup that he was begging for.

In the cold light of hindsight, a new Trump administration will ensure that the narrative of J6 is rewritten to reflect the truth of that tragic day instead of the lies spun by Democratic Speaker emerita Nancy Pelosi’s J6 committee.

Sund is a crucial witness to history. Pelosi (D-Calif.) made him her scapegoat, firing him immediately, but she knew he had begged for the National Guard to assist his vastly outnumbered troops.

He needed the permission of the Capitol Police Board, and Pelosi and then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) controlled the two sergeants-at-arms who had to give him the OK. McConnell’s guy deferred to Pelosi, and Pelosi’s guy kept saying he had to “run it up the chain to get Pelosi’s approval,” says Sund.

But the National Guard didn’t arrive for hours, delayed not just by Pelosi but by officials at the Pentagon who had become so Trump-deranged that they believed the president would repurpose the troops to declare martial law and try to hang on to power.

This was a delusion that worst gripped Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the most powerful military figure in Washington.

Milley was constantly talking to people about the threat of a “coup” by Trump after the 2020 election, Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker wrote in their book “I Alone Can Fix It,” which paints Milley as a defender of democracy rather than an emotional weakling defying his commander-in-chief.

In the days leading up to the riot, Milley told his staff that Trump’s suggestions that the National Guard be deployed on Jan. 6 were just an “excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act” and call out the military.

The book paints a picture of an increasingly paranoid Milley fielding calls from unnamed “friends” egging him on in his delusion.

Milley came to see Trump as Hitler. “This is a Reichstag moment,” he told aides. “The gospel of the Führer.”

Milley seemed to get radicalized after the June 2020 riots at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, which got so violent that Trump and his family had to be evacuated by the Secret Service to an underground bunker.

Milley’s Trump grudge

Trump two days later ordered that Lafayette Square be cleared so he could reassure the public by appearing at St. John’s Church, which had been firebombed the previous night.

Milley was more upset at the criticism he received for appearing in a presidential photo op in his uniform than he was about the fact that the president had to be evacuated to a bunker.

During those violent riots, officers at the capital’s Metropolitan Police Department were “ordered not to assist at the White House,” says Sund, undoubtedly by DC Mayor Muriel Bowser, a rancid Trump hater.

Sund says the DC cops “were so furious having to watch bloodied Secret Service agents being taken out by ambulance” while they could do nothing. Afterward, he phoned then-DC Police Chief Pete Newsham and asked for an assurance that if he had problems at the Capitol, the DC police would come and help. Although Newsham retired five days before the Jan. 6 riot, the DC police “could not have helped me more,” says Sund, and sent him 1,000 officers.

But when it came to the National Guard, Sund hit roadblock after roadblock.

First it was Pelosi, and then the Pentagon.

After his troops had been fighting rioters for 80 minutes, Sund finally got approval from Pelosi to call in the National Guard, moments before the first window was broken.

He then called Gen. William Walker, commander of the DC National Guard, but Walker needed permission from Trump’s acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, who was suffering from the same Trump delusion as Milley.

It took four hours for the National Guard to arrive. But it was all over by then.

Walker’s hands had been tied by a curious memo issued by Miller two days earlier, ordering “unprecedented restrictions on the DC National Guard” applying to Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, Sund says in his book, “Courage Under Fire.”

In his Jan. 4, 2021, memo titled, “Employment guidance,” Miller dictates that, without his “personal authorization,” the DC National Guard cannot be issued “weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or … helmets and body armor” or “interact physically with protesters … employ any riot control agents … share equipment with law enforcement agencies … employ helicopters or any other air assets,” and so on. In other words, they could do nothing.

And nothing they did, until it was too late.

Ominous WaPo op-ed

Something else significant happened the day Miller issued his memo: An op-ed signed by 10 former secretaries of defense, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Jim Mattis, was published by the Washington Post warning that Trump might use the military to hang on to power. They warned, “Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures” would potentially face “criminal penalties.”

Miller got the message. He later testified to Congress that he wrote the memo because he was afraid Trump “would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an antidemocratic manner.”

As a result, Sund never got the National Guard backup he needed to stop the Capitol being overrun. Mayhem was inevitable.

Conveniently for the Democrats, the riot prevented Trump allies’ efforts in Congress from delaying certification of the Electoral College votes and was a perfect branding exercise to make Trump and his supporters look bad.

The irony is that Sund, the man who did more than anybody to save the Capitol that day, was forced out in ignominy before he was eligible for his pension — while everybody who failed got off scot-free.





« Last Edit: November 25, 2024, 07:55:59 AM by Crafty_Dog »
"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
FO: Trump nominees targetted
« Reply #2071 on: November 29, 2024, 08:04:14 AM »
(1) TRUMP NOMINEES TARGETED IN BOMB THREAT AND SWATTING CAMPAIGN: Trump Transition Team spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt said multiple Trump cabinet nominees received bomb threats, and were targeted by “swatting” attempts.

A White House spokesperson said the White House has been in contact with federal law enforcement and the Trump transition team, and an investigation is ongoing.

Why It Matters: So far Howard Lutnick, Pete Hegseth, Brooke Rollins, Lee Zeldin, and Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said they were targeted with threats. The Trump transition team did not say how many Trump nominees were targeted, but it is likely more were targeted with bomb threats and “swatting” calls to police. These are tactics expected from a planned pressure campaign against Trump cabinet officials, but federal authorities have not yet released information on suspects. – R.C.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
FO: "Scenes from the Atlanta Forest" shut down by its host
« Reply #2072 on: November 29, 2024, 08:56:05 AM »
second

(5) FAR LEFT BLOG SHUT DOWN: A popular revolutionary anarchist blog called “Scenes from the Atlanta Forest” announced they were shut down by their host, allegedly for posting the personal information of dozens of members of the Heritage Foundation and other target organizations.

The blog had for years been pivotal in disseminating information on the Atlanta Public Safety Training Center and direct action demonstrations against it, including occupation of the construction site and dozens of cases of vandalism and arson against construction equipment and police vehicles (covered in this report since 2021).

Why It Matters: The announcement implied that the web host was pressured by authorities to remove the blog, which contained years’ worth of posts, zines, and how-to information, including posts on how to construct incendiary devices. This will not have a major impact on the Far Left, as all the information remains available on mirrored and archived sites, and because of the constellation of similar blogs that are still active. It’s unclear who pressured the blog host, however, we will likely see attempts by the Department of Justice to dislocate these Far Left revolutionary websites, which will certainly continue to incite violence against the Trump administration, law enforcement, and other political targets. – M.S.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19787
    • View Profile
Conspiracy Theorists 1, 'Mainstream' Media Dems 0, on 'Insurrection' Analysis
« Reply #2074 on: December 12, 2024, 04:22:29 PM »
"BREAKING: The FBI had 26 confidential human sources at the Capitol on January 6, including four who entered the Capitol building and 13 who entered the "restricted area" around the Capitol, according to a just released DOJ Inspector General reporter."
https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1867287463187595764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1867287463187595764%7Ctwgr%5Ebdf000f6b86c53897c5dce7105fc20f3232b9c9f%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Finstapundit.com%2F689928%2F

26 admitted FBI agents plus how many from other areas of government, doesn't say.

Soooo, if you were watching footage of the riot and the entering of the capital, in real time or later on MSNBC or in a congressional committee, you would have no idea which were January 6th protesters and which were government agents in iring, instigating and pretending to be January 6th protesters.

In other words, you were told this is the protest but literally your eyes were lying to you, in part.

Does anyone on the Liz Cheney side of this realize what this means?

Someone needs to go back and mark all of the film with all 26 of these agents so that we know which is which.

The 26 doesn't include Epps? Or does it?


They waited 4 years and 2: election cycles to tell us.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2024, 04:24:28 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
IG Whitewash?
« Reply #2075 on: December 13, 2024, 07:58:32 AM »
To be precise, there is a difference between "agents" (employees of the FBI) and "informants/sources" (paid, paid off in lighter charges/sentences)

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

https://ace.mu.nu/archives/412784.php


https://revolver.news/2024/12/jonathan-turley-asks-the-million-dollar-question-about-all-those-j6-fbi-informants/
« Last Edit: December 13, 2024, 02:40:42 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
Trump needs to make an example of General Milley
« Reply #2077 on: December 14, 2024, 06:16:44 AM »


print-icon
print-icon
Trump Needs To Make An Example Of General Milley
Tyler Durden's Photo
by Tyler Durden
Thursday, Dec 05, 2024 - 08:45 PM
Authored by Christopher Roach via American Greatness,

In dealing with his enemies in the Deep State, President Trump could follow one of two paths. One would be the path of peace, reconciliation, and forgiveness. This would certainly be easier in the short term and also garner approval from insiders and the media. Alternatively, he could seek to clean house and punish the worst and most insubordinate offenders from his first term.



Which path Trump should take all depends on whether one believes the last eight years were normal partisan squabbles or if one believes that something monumental happened: the obstruction of democratic self-government by a technocratic Deep State.

I believe it is the latter for reasons I have explained before at length. In short, Trump was not allowed to govern, nor treated as other presidents were during his first term. The problem began before Trump, as entrenched bureaucratic interests have worked quietly to control more cooperative and less independent presidents, like Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the resistance to Trump reflected a mature, ideological, and increasingly self-conscious managerial class that believed they were entitled to rule without regard to electoral results.

Trump was a threat to business as usual.

Thus, a cabal of intelligence agencies cooperated to stop him from making changes to foreign policy or scrutinizing the outsized military-industrial complex. Contrary to the media’s dire pronouncements, these insiders were the real threat to democracy and self-government.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, was one of the worst offenders.

As documented in Bob Woodward’s book Peril, Milley spent a lot of time after the 2020 election caballing with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and reassuring her that the military would resist certain orders from President Trump.

He met with the small group of officers who control our strategic nuclear forces and demanded they pledge to get his approval before executing any launch orders, even though, as head of the Joint Chiefs, he is merely an advisor and is statutorily excluded from the chain of command.

Finally, and most controversially, he was telling his counterpart in China that he would let them know if an attack or other action was coming from the United States. He defended this as normal “deconfliction” communications, but these secret talks took place without authorization from either the Secretary of Defense or the president.

All of Milley’s actions took place after he earlier joined with a group of retired officers to impede Trump’s use of the military to stop nationwide riots around June of 2020. Milley sent out an implied message to the troops suggesting that they could ignore any order to deploy, even though active-duty troops have been used in such a capacity repeatedly, including during the 1992 L.A. Riots.

As he reminded the whole nation by using the term “white rage,” Milley is typical of the new class of liberal senior officers who take part in the culture wars, cleave to one-half of the partisan divide, and act like they are beyond the control of the president whom they serve when they disagree with his politics.

Milley’s bad behavior was particularly egregious because of his role.

The Joint Chiefs are supposed to serve as military advisors. They are statutorily excluded from the ordinary chain of command to maintain institutional separation between advisory and command roles. This arrangement is designed to contribute to increased trust and candor between the Joint Chiefs and the president.

Secret talks with partisan opponents of the president, unauthorized back-channel communications to enemies, casual comparisons of the president to Adolf Hitler, and pseudo-idealistic suggestions that troops should disobey the orders they find disagreeable undermine that trust for obvious reasons.

Some have argued this might all be permissible in extremis and as part of the right of service members to resist illegal orders. But too much is made of this right. This defense is only supposed to apply to a very narrow set of self-evidently illegal orders, typically involving war crimes. Whether the government properly approved the use of troops to stop a riot is not such a case. Normally, the military must follow orders without delay. This distinguishes it from slower and less energetic civilian institutions.

There are a great many controversial—but legal—orders. Likely the most controversial would be an order to use nuclear weapons. The protocols on nuclear launch authority give exclusive power to the president to order a launch—a necessary, though admittedly dangerous, power to account for the fast timelines associated with a possible enemy first strike.

Perhaps this authority should be pulled back—I believe it should, particularly for cases of non-retaliatory uses of these weapons—but this was the established policy stretching back to the Cold War. More important, it was firmly established when Milley took it upon himself to undermine Trump’s authority by secretly demanding a loyalty oath from the officers in charge of our nuclear arsenal.

Milley did what he did because he was afraid of his own shadow and convinced himself that Trump was losing it and about to become a dictator.

In his supercilious and adolescent phrasing, we were facing a “Reichstag moment.”

The military is not part of the Constitution’s system of checks and balances. The military and the entire executive branch are subordinate to the president. He is their source of authority and is the boss, having attained his authority from an election involving the entire American people.

Once upon a time, liberals worried that a conservative, authoritarian military might thwart a liberal president and his policies. But these fears proved to be completely overblown. The military was, until a decade or so ago, a self-consciously nonpartisan institution. Even as it trended more conservative during the Clinton years, there was no insubordination akin to Milley’s performance.

It turns out that while the country was on the lookout for right-wing military extremists, the military had few defenses from leftist partisanship. Whether classified as treason or mere insubordination, a similarly corrosive performance risks repeating itself during Trump’s second term.

In the immediate aftermath of the election, the left seems to realize it is unwise to resist openly and violently, as they did for much of the Trump administration. But I believe, at the moment, they are merely regrouping and working on a strategy they believe will work.

The military, which retains prestige because it is still perceived as a nonpartisan repository of patriotic rectitude, will likely loom prominently in these plans, just as it did during Trump’s first term. As we know, the military and Milley lost all qualms about using the military domestically when they flooded the zone with armed National Guardsmen to create a Green Zone for Biden’s 2021 Inauguration.

This unhealthy politicization and leftist partisanship among the military’s senior leadership must be stopped.

The military should return to its role as a neutral instrument of national power. But this means it must chiefly be controlled by the elected president in the manner he directs. In order to restore healthier civil-military relations, there must be a dramatic and symbolic reset reminding the military and the rest of the country that Trump has full executive powers as president.

In order to accomplish this, Mark Milley should be recalled to service, court-martialed, punished, and publicly dishonored in order to prevent a resurgence of the corrosive principle of leftist military partisanship during Trump’s second term.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19787
    • View Profile
Insurrection? 20 Obvious Questions relating to Jan 6
« Reply #2078 on: December 14, 2024, 08:59:22 AM »
Jack Cashill, American Thinker:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/12/20_or_so_obvious_questions_about_january_6.html
...
–Although now the FBI admits to having 26 confidential human sources in the crowd on January 6, how many total “assets” did the FBI and other entities plant, and what roles did they play?


–For what entity was Ray Epps working and under what terms?

–Who planted the pipe bombs outside the DNC and near the RNC headquarters?


–Who instructed Kamala Harris to conceal the fact that she was at the DNC when the bomb was found and why?

–Why did Harris allow hundreds of J6ers to be prosecuted for threatening her designated space at the Capitol when she wasn’t at the Capitol?


–Who were the “two law enforcement officials” who told the New York Times that “pro-Trump rioters” fatally struck Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick with a fire extinguisher, inflicting “a bloody gash in his head”?
–Who orchestrated the 100-day-plus suppression of Sicknick’s autopsy report?
–If Sicknick was not murdered, as the DOJ finally conceded, why did a federal judge give Julian Khater an 80-month prison sentence for spritzing Sicknick with an over-the-counter pepper spray?

–Has there been an official inquiry into the subsequent suicide deaths of four USCP officers, and if not, why has the DOJ routinely blamed the J6ers for causing those deaths?


–Why was there no crime scene investigation in the likely homicide of Rosanne Boyland?

–Who chose to ignore the obvious video evidence of Boyland being suffocated as a result of a police action and to falsely blame her death on an amphetamine overdose?

–Who suppressed the Boyland autopsy report for 90 days and stonewalled her family at every turn?

–Why was Lila Morris, the Metropolitan P.D. officer caught on video repeatedly bashing the unconscious Boyland over the head with a tree branch, not even disciplined?

–Why was Metropolitan P.D. lieutenant Jason Bagshaw promoted despite having been caught on video bashing the defenseless Victoria White bloody?
–Why did the DOJ not interview the eyewitnesses to the shooting death of Ashli Babbitt?

–Why did the USCP coddle and promote Babbitt’s killer, Michael Byrd, despite a shooting that, according to use-of-force expert Stan Kephart, “violated not only the law but his oath”?

–Who ordered the “shock and awe” raids on the homes of hundreds of non-violent protesters and why?

–Why has the so-called “Scaffold Commander” not been arrested despite multiple clear images of his face?

–Why has the man who constructed the mock gallows on the Capitol grounds not been arrested despite multiple clear images of his face?

–Why did the USCP allow the gallows to stand unmolested on Capitol grounds for more than four hours before the crowds gathered?

–Why was Emanuel Jackson quickly set free despite having been caught on video swinging a baseball bat at police officers over a two-hour period?

–If there was no insurrection, as the DOJ conceded, why were the sentences given to the J6ers so much more severe than the $30–50 fines given to the protesters who physically obstructed the Kavanaugh hearings?

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
What say we to this?
« Reply #2079 on: December 14, 2024, 03:46:21 PM »

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/right-wing-conspiracy-theories-are-having-a-bad-day/ar-AA1vLb7i?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=b9cd56583c5d4a39b11c5f83c4a6aa25&ei=12

Right-wing conspiracy theories are having a bad day
Right-wing conspiracy theories are having a bad day
© Jose Luis Magana/AP
If you spend much time watching Fox News, or if you look to social media sites such as X for information about American politics and the U.S. government, you have probably heard two specific claims over the past four years. First, that the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, was fomented at least in part by government actors, including from the FBI. Second, that President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden took millions of dollars in bribes from a Ukrainian businessman.

You’ve probably heard those claims because each offers a different lens into the purported corruption of the Biden administration and/or the governmental Deep State — and because right-wing media organizations such as Fox spent months amplifying them. That claim about the bribes, for example, was hyped by Fox host Maria Bartiromo alone hundreds of times. The agent provocateur allegations about the Capitol riot, meanwhile, were a staple of Tucker Carlson’s former Fox News show.

There was never solid evidence to suggest that either was true. Instead, the assertions relied on the willingness of those on the right and supporters of Donald Trump in particular to embrace flimsy disparagements of Trump’s opponents and, rather than demand incontrovertible evidence from those making the claims, insist that the accused prove their own innocence.

Proving a negative — that someone didn’t do something — is often all but impossible, one reason that those in a weaker rhetorical position often demand it. But, on Thursday, new evidence emerged that brings each of the claims above one step closer to having been affirmatively disproved.

The one about the alleged bribe that Bartiromo found so convincing has already been eviscerated. It depended on an interview the FBI conducted with an informant — a “confidential human source” (CHS) in bureau parlance. This particular CHS alleged that he had been told about the bribe by a Ukrainian businessman and relayed that claim to his FBI handler.

The allegation took a meandering route to public attention but was seized upon last year by Republicans in Congress. At first, they demanded that the FBI release the write-up of the interview with the CHS, later revealed to be a man named Alexander Smirnov. When the FBI balked, noting that the interview was not corroborated and might put their sources at risk, the Republicans suggested it was an example of how the federal government was acting in Biden’s political interest.

In short order, though, that process complaint was overshadowed by the details of the allegation itself. Eventually, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) simply released the interview documentation himself. This claim that Biden had maybe taken a bribe was one of a handful of things that then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-California) invoked when launching an impeachment probe targeting the president.

And then Smirnov was indicted on charges that he invented the allegation out of whole cloth.

The indictment made public by the Justice Department offered a compelling timeline showing how the conversation in which Smirnov claimed to have learned about the bribe couldn’t have happened. On Thursday, he agreed to plead guilty to the charges he faces and admitted to having made the whole thing up.

In a different part of the Justice Department on the same day, Inspector General Michael Horowitz released a new report addressing the other of our two initial false claims, the one about the Capitol riot.

The 84-page assessment of the FBI’s failure to understand that the Capitol riot was looming looks at a number of things that unfolded in the weeks before Jan. 6, 2021. But it also includes a very clear review of the idea that the FBI directly or indirectly stoked the day’s violence.

“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” the report reads. There were informants at the Capitol that day, it continued, but those were people who, like Smirnov, gave information to the FBI rather than working for it directly. But even considering that distance from the government, the inspector general’s office found no evidence the informants were involved in the day’s violence.

“We determined that three CHSs had been tasked by FBI field offices in the days leading up to the January 6 Electoral Certification, with the required approval of the [Washington field office], to travel to DC for the events of January 6 to report on domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event,” the report states. Later, it notes that in addition to these three, the review “found that 23 other FBI CHSs were in DC on January 6 in connection with the events planned for January 6.” The FBI only knew that five of those informants were likely to be in D.C.

“None of these FBI CHSs were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6,” the report states, “nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.”

Of the 26 CHSs present that day, four entered the building and another 13 entered the restricted area surrounding the Capitol. None was arrested for taking part in the day’s violence — and, as stated, none had been instructed to trigger it.

Those eager to believe that the government did have a hand in the riot have a few options for dismissing this new evidence. Maybe it was some other federal agency, for example, or maybe the inspector general is simply covering for the FBI. This is precisely why demands to prove a negative are unfair; you can always shift to demand different proof.

The developments that unfolded Thursday are not surprising. It’s been clear from the outset that neither of the claims embraced by Fox and their allies were credibly substantiated. What the developments remind us, though, is that there are prominent voices who embraced those claims and that, over time, those claims have gotten substantially less credible.

Yet those voices haven’t gotten much less prominent

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19787
    • View Profile
Re: What say we to this?
« Reply #2080 on: December 14, 2024, 04:14:39 PM »
Lying by omission with such ease!  On the one point, he doesn't seem to know about the IG report where the riot we now know was LOADED with government agents.(agent = one who acts on behalf of another)  or is he downplaying that? Dozens, but they weren't ALL government agents. Remember, Capitol police held doors open for trespassers, film the J6 committee hid from us. Now we need to go through every frame of film used to fool the public and juries to find out who was following whom into trespassing, if we want to put/keep people behind bars. How does what he says justify the murder of Ashli Babbitt, shot in cold blood? Meanwhile the people who burned down thousands of buildings during the summer of George Floyd love run free with no mention from the author. It's all about the narrative and agenda but they call themselves mainstream media.

Back to J6, how many government officials were part of this that were not FBI, a question still not answered. In some polite words the author should STFU until all facts are in.

On the other point, how slick is it to narrow what Hunter did, what James Biden did, what Joe did, what the rest of the family did, down to one bribe from one official in one country, that didn't happen. That is not even the tip of the iceberg of what is accused. Ukraine, and still guilty there, did he forget about China?  Hunter is accused of being involved with millions and millions of dollars of transactions in taking multiple payments, in multiple countries, over multiple years and spreading it with multiple family members. How did he miss that?

I wrote at the time of that plea, this will be used to cover up all the rest of it, but it doesn't even start to.

If ALL that money never changed hands, then what is the IRS charge against Hunter? A misunderstanding? They weren't relying on a claim they knew all along was false, or why the pardon?? ?? ?? What about those millions of dollars, you think the IRS doesn't have a record of them passing through Hunter, and prosecuted and convicted him with hard evidence? Or don't we trust the judicial system, and THAT has implications to you know who. What a bunch of bull crap.

"nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.”

  - THAT is VERY carefully worded statement, what the meaning of is is. Did they do that encouragement all on their own? Again, we need to review footage in the context of which are government plants, and which are Trump supporters and prosecute only those guilty and sentence equal to similar acts on the other side. .

Even if he was on either count or both and he's not, what does the conspiracy scoreboard say lately. The conspiracy theorists are beating the mainstream media in a landslide!  How sad for this nation.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2024, 08:33:23 AM by DougMacG »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
SS ordered cell phones cleansed
« Reply #2081 on: December 24, 2024, 06:11:03 AM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
IIRC Dan Bongino spoke of this with a similar report that he knew of more then one active SS agent who claimed thir cell phone "mysteriously" disappeared after 1/6.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
The Shrooming Shaman of J6 now
« Reply #2083 on: December 29, 2024, 11:27:25 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 20074
    • View Profile
I can't really tell but it looks like he (she) moved over near some bushed and maybe took something out of the bag and put that something in the bushes.

So where are images of the purported bombs?

I read they were inoperable.   It doesn't look even if it blew up it would do much damage in the location it was placed unless people were near that bench.

Funny how we keep reading newly released news etc, at the very end of Biden's 4 yr reign of terror.


Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Who are Those Men Crossing the Police Lines?
« Reply #2087 on: January 05, 2025, 08:09:39 PM »
A comprehensive look at undercover agents, provocateurs, & unexplained access & behavior within the capitol:

https://sharylattkisson.substack.com/p/draft?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
Herridge on the J6 Pipe Bomber
« Reply #2088 on: January 06, 2025, 03:21:26 AM »
Attkisson is a serious reporter with courage.   She first came to my attention when did deep and important work on Operation Fast & Furious-- about which we posted here.

Catherine Herridge is also a serious reporter with courage:

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

A seasoned law enforcement contact believes the FBI’s pipe bomber probe is “absolutely a cold case,” and the newly released video footage and details about the suspect are part of the bureau’s “tickle the wire” approach to generate new leads. 

The story of January 6th will never be fully understood until the pipe bomber is identified and their motive revealed.

DEEP DIVE:

This week, the FBI released new details and previously unseen video footage of its high priority suspect.  I write ‘high priority’ because the reward, of up to $500k, is the kind of reward typically associated with global terrorist networks.


Pipe Bomb /DNC Office


Pipe Bomb / RNC

The timeline is well documented.

On the evening of January 5th 2021, sometime between 7:30 and 8:30 pm, the suspect planted two viable pipe bombs.  One device was left near a bench outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) office and a second device was planted in an alleyway behind the Republican National Committee (RNC) office.  Both locations are a few short blocks from the U.S. Capitol building.

“When investigators lack leads or want to ‘tickle the wire,’ they may use things like crime anniversaries..to help get them fresh leads,”  Scott Sweetow, a retired ATF and former acting Director of the FBI's Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, explained.


YouTube video by FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation
Seeking Information on Capitol Hill Pipe Bomb Suspect

Over the years, I have discussed the case with Sweetow and others.  Some of the newly released information struck both of us as probably not ‘new’ to investigators.

The FBI estimates the pipe bomber’s height at 5’7”.  Having convered the FBI since 9/11, it’s the kind of basic information I would expect investigators to immediately release. Asked if the FBI sat on the details, Sweetow said it also struck him as odd. 

“Typically, in any investigation, you want to get maximum information out to the public to spur leads as opposed to waiting,”  Sweetow said. “If there is particularly sensitive information which cannot be released, sometimes it is a tactical decision to withhold that, but given the length of time that has passed since the attempted bombings, it really made little investigative sense to hold back information like this for as long as they did.”


National Explosives Task Force “Quick Look” Report - January 7, 2021

I was among the first journalists to report on the pipe bombs. Three days after the pipe bombs were discovered, I obtained this law enforcement bulletin that raised questions about the bomber’s timing and motive.

The choice of the RNC and DNC had obvious political overtones. According to the law enforcement records, the RNC device was reported at approximately 12:45 pm eastern on January 6th in the alley, wedged next to a garbage bin.  The DNC device was found a half hour later, at approximately 13:15 pm eastern, in the bushes outside the building.

Both devices were planted in lightly trafficked areas, suggesting the pipe bomber’s goal was to attract attention and not to inflict the greatest number of casualties.

In March 2021, I reviewed a second law enforcement report that summarized the FBI lab’s forensic report.  A key finding: both devices relied on mechanical kitchen timers.


March 2021 National Explosives Task Force Report


“both devices’ switches consisted of a generic kitchen timer”

The Task Force report read, “...the forensic examination of a pipe bomb (device 1) indicated the device contained a powdery substance consistent with the oxidizer potassium nitrate, the fuel sulfur, and a fuel consistent with charcoal.  A second pipe bomb (device 2) contained the low explosive black powder which consisted of the oxidizer potassium nitrate, the fuel sulphur and a fuel consistent with charcoal….Both devices’ switches consisted of a generic kitchen timer.”

“A wire ran from the zero side of the timer to the positive side of the 9-volt snap connector on device 1. The igniters on both devices consisted of one piece of steel wool with two alligator clips.”


Mechanical Kitchen Timers


The pipe bombs had some sophistication, combining a mechanical timer and electrical ignition system. There was no secondary means of detonating the devices.  My contacts report most pipe bombs recovered in the US have a simpler design.

When you are investigating a story, there is no substitute for going to the scene, and getting as close to the evidence as possible.  With some research, and the help of long time contacts, I purchased a similar kitchen timer (above.) 

I was struck by a flaw that is apparently well known to bomb techs. The 60 minute timers depend on the mechanical energy of a spring. If they are not properly wound, the electrical circuit will not be completed and the device will malfunction.

YouTube

Share your videos with friends, family, and the world.

studio.youtube.com/video/lUb468RvaOM/edit


While the photos are grainy, it appears at least one timer may have stopped short of “zero,” but it’s hard to say for sure.

All of this suggests the pipe bombs may have been designed to explode on January 5th. An explosion that night, hours before the Certification of Electoral Votes, would have fundamentally changed Capitol Hill’s security posture.

“Washington DC would have been locked down in a way few people have encountered, and substantial resources would have been marshaled due to the concern of additional attacks. Had this occurred, it is highly unlikely the subsequent events of January 6th could have occurred, as the capital would likely have been severely locked down,” Sweetow explained. 

While the bomb maker(s) may not have understood the potential flaw inherent in the use of kitchen timers, the apparent lack of DNA evidence suggests the bomb maker was not an amateur.

“This is absolutely a cold case. In the immediate aftermath of the bombing, the FBI threw massive resources at the case, which is certainly understandable given the political nature of the targets and the location being Washington DC,”  Sweetow emphasized. “The lack of forensic evidence in this case is highly unusual, and one of the most problematic things facing investigators.”

Aside from the newly released details from the FBI about the bomber’s height and distinctive sneakers, security videos from the street reveal another clue.  Almost as unique as DNA, it’s called “gait analysis”. 

Gait analysis is the way a person walks, their mannerisms, how they carry themselves. It can be a very powerful investigative tool.  Military and law enforcement sources tell me they use gait analysis to help identify targets in the field.

“I have long felt that the mannerisms of the suspect, to include their gait, the way they bent over multiple times, and generally carried themselves was highly suggestive of a female,” Sweetow said.  His analysis was backed up by a second contact, a retired Special Forces officer.

It is hard to reconcile the known facts in the pipe bomber case.   Massive resources were expended by the FBI, but no suspect(s) have been publicly identified.  The suspect seen in the videos may not be the bomb maker and, in fact, investigators maybe looking for a small cell.

While the bomb maker may have been tripped up by the kitchen timers, they were expert enough to apparently avoid leaving significant DNA evidence.   

And lastly, the motive may have been distraction after a contentious election, not an explosion with significant casualties. 

“Sometimes you never actually discover what the intent is of a bomber,” Sweetow said in closing. “The choice of political targets, following a very contentious election and impending congressional certification implies a political motive for the bomber.  Because of that, it is possible the suspect wanted to cause general chaos in the National Capital Region in the hopes of eliciting some sort of action, although what that action was is difficult to say.”

This is a worthy case for the next FBI Director.

For its part, according to the AP, the FBI “has assessed over 600 tips, reviewed about 39,000 video files and conducted more than 1,000 interviews over the past four years.”

While this content is free, consider becoming a monthly or yearly subscriber. We can do truly independent, investigative journalism without your generous support.

Best, Catherine
« Last Edit: January 06, 2025, 03:37:51 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
WT on crumbling of Dem narrative on J6
« Reply #2089 on: January 06, 2025, 03:47:54 AM »
Democrats’ stunning efforts to control the narrative of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the Capitol have crumbled under the weight of evidence of a two-year House investigation. “We have totally debunked it,” said Rep. Barry Loudermilk, the lead investigator. ASSOCIATED PRESS

ACCOUNTABILITY

House inquiry shreds Jan. 6 narrative

New findings punch holes in Democrats’ blame of Trump

By Kerry Picket and Stephen Dinan THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A two-year Republican inquiry has rewritten the narrative of the fateful attack on the U.S. Capitol four years ago and two years after congressional Democrats put most of the blame on Donald Trump.

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Georgia Republican, led the investigation that concluded Democrats’ single-minded focus on condemning Mr. Trump blinded them to many of the realities of Jan. 6, 2021.

The investigation punctured the story of the Democrats’ star witness, Cassidy Hutchinson, that Mr. Trump grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limousine and tried to force his Secret Service agents to take him to join the mob at the Capitol. Republicans also released tapes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, taking responsibility for leaving the Capitol largely undefended. Democrats heaped that blame on Mr. Trump. The Republican rewrite also tarnished the Pentagon, which said top Defense Department officials failed to deliver on Mr. Trump’s valid requests for military support.

In their extensive review, Republicans said they found no evidence that Mr. Trump supported rioters chanting for Vice President Mike Pence to be hanged or that he secretly planned to join the mob at the Capitol.

▶ New law prevents chaos in Trump certification. A3

Four years ago at the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (inset top) was recorded taking responsibility for the chaos, guns were drawn as rioters tried to breach the House chamber and Vice President Mike Pence barely missed an encounter with protesters.

ASSOCIATED PRESS PHOTOGRAPHS

The results, Mr. Loudermilk told The Washington Times, left Democrats’ narrative in tatters.

“We have totally debunked it,” he said. “It is totally based on fiction, not fact. It’s a predetermined narrative. Nancy Pelosi and [former Rep.] Liz Cheney and the group decided what they wanted to be the truth, so they carefully edited and cherry-picked evidence to come up with a story.”

What is undeniable about Jan. 6 is that thousands of Trump supporters descended on the Capitol grounds. Perhaps 2,000 breached the building, roamed its halls and offices, and caused some damage.

Members of Congress, who were certifying the Electoral College vote count affirming Joseph R. Biden as the presidential winner, cowered and fled. So did Vice President Mike Pence, who barely missed a group of rioters.

One woman was fatally shot as she and fellow rioters tried to break into an off-limits area near the House chamber. The subsequent deaths of five police officers have been attributed to the stress and chaos of the day. One suffered a stroke immediately after the riot, and four died by suicide within seven months.

Democrats, who controlled both chambers of Congress in the aftermath, announced a House investigation of the riot, and Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the Republican leader, named hard-charging members of his party to serve on the panel. Mrs. Pelosi refused to seat them, triggering a Republican boycott.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Illinois Republican, was approved for the panel, and Ms. Cheney, Wyoming Republican, was named vice chair.

Democratic members were Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, the Mississippi lawmaker who chaired the committee, and Reps. Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff and Pete Aguilar of California; Stephanie Murphy of Florida; Jamie Raskin of Maryland; and Elaine Luria of Virginia.

They found fault with the police and Pentagon responses but concluded that Mr. Trump’s resistance to the election results incited the mob. They said Mr. Trump called for supporters to march to the Capitol, attempted to join them, failed to order better defenses in preparation for the day, and refused to strenuously call for calm as the Capitol was breached.

The characterizations of Mr. Trump’s resistance to the election results stood up, but other claims fared poorly under Republican scrutiny.

Mr. Loudermilk said Ms. Hutchinson, whose testimony was the cornerstone of Democrats’ blame game, was shown to be unreliable. It was only after backchannel negotiations with Ms. Cheney that she claimed Mr. Trump sided with rioters chanting “Hang Mike Pence” and that he grabbed the steering wheel of the presidential limousine.

The people supposedly involved refuted both claims.

“The Select Committee chose to promote Hutchinson’s version of events — citing a series of other unnamed individuals who were further removed from the alleged incident than even Hutchinson — over that of two federal law enforcement agents who were the only possible eyewitnesses,” Mr. Loudermilk’s investigation concluded.

In one of the more bizarre instances, Ms. Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows during the riot, he said.

Mr. Loudermilk hired a handwriting expert who concluded that Ms. Hutchinson did not write the note.

The Republican inquiry also concluded that the military intentionally delayed deployment of the National Guard despite Mr. Trump’s Jan. 3 directive that the military give all necessary assistance.

Gen. Mark A. Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, recalled what Mr. Trump said: “It’s going to be a large amount of protesters coming here on the 6th, and make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.”

The acting defense secretary later said he considered those directives “throwaway lines.” Pentagon leaders said they were worried about the appearance of helping Mr. Trump’s election resistance.

Republicans say the Democratic-led investigation also wrongly shielded Mrs. Pelosi from blame.

The investigation uncovered video from an HBO documentary film crew, led by Mrs. Pelosi’s daughter, that captured Mrs. Pelosi as she was being evacuated from the Capitol. The House speaker said, “I take responsibility” for not having the National Guard on hand.

“We have responsibility, Terri,” she told her chief of staff, Terri McCullough. “We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have.”

Mr. Loudermilk’s inquiry said the Democratic investigation did not answer some key questions, such as who erected a gallows on the Capitol Grounds on the day of the riot.

He said several nearby offices had cameras that could have revealed the culprits’ identities, but neither the FBI nor the Democrats’ investigators seemed to review the USCP CCTV footage. If they did, they never released information about when the gallows were built or who built them.

He also wondered how the gallows were allowed to be built and remain up for about 26 hours.

“It is inconceivable that gallows could be constructed on U.S. Capitol property and left up all day,” Mr. Loudermilk said. “These men arrived early in the morning, several hours before the rally even started or anyone had gathered, to construct the gallows platform, yet this structure was allowed to stay intact for all to see.”

Mr. Loudermilk said the Democrats’ investigators failed to archive some of their work, such as videos of private interviews.

He said his team had to repeat much of the Democrats’ work to understand how they reached their conclusions.

Democrats said they turned over what they could and said some materials weren’t archived because they weren’t required. In other cases, Democrats said the materials could have implicated national security or threatened witnesses’ safety.

A spokesman for Ms. Cheney didn’t respond to an inquiry for this report.

After Mr. Loudermilk called for Ms. Cheney to face criminal investigation for her role in the Jan. 6 investigation, she released a statement saying Mr. Loudermilk’s report “intentionally disregards the truth” and “fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did.”

“Their allegations do not reflect a review of the actual evidence and are a malicious and cowardly assault on the truth,” Ms. Cheney said.

The Washington Times has reached out to the office of Mr. Thompson, the Democrat who led the investigation with Ms. Cheney.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy's daughter) veers from The Narrative
« Reply #2091 on: January 07, 2025, 02:59:31 PM »
Nancy’s daughter Alexandra Pelosi opines, on video, about J6. Suffice to say she veers significantly from The Narrative:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/never-seen-video-nancy-pelosis-filmmaker-daughter-alexandra/
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 06:36:18 AM by Crafty_Dog »

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
The Insurrection that Wasn’t, Per Jack Smith
« Reply #2092 on: January 16, 2025, 02:06:04 PM »


Smith dismantled the argument that Trump was involved in an ‘insurrection’ after helping launder the lie through the media.

Author Breccan F. Thies profile

BRECCAN F. THIES

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who resigned in disgrace last week after his lawfare prosecutions of President-elect Donald Trump were dismissed, released his findings in his Jan. 6 case.

While Smith attempted to use the report as an outgoing smear of an incoming president, he also finally admits what many have known all along: The Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, was not an “insurrection,” and Smith did not believe he could convince even a far-left D.C. jury that it was an one. On top of that, he also could not prove that Trump incited the riot.

Despite the fact that Smith’s lawfare was clearly politically motivated and essentially meritless, as The Federalist has covered on numerous occasions, the prosecutor attempted to save face by insisting that “the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as a prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is, in a word, laughable.”

But what’s truly laughable is that Smith dismantled the left’s own arguments that Jan. 6 was an insurrection — an allegation he did not pursue, but certainly helped launder through the corporate media with his lawfare.

Several pages of the 174-page long report, released Tuesday, deal directly with 18 U.S.C. § 2383, or, the Insurrection Act, and how nothing on Jan. 6 could have been construed to be an insurrection.

The thrust of Smith’s argument that Trump could not have been successfully prosecuted for insurrection under the act is the actual definition of insurrection, and the fact that his office would have had to provided evidence that such a thing occurred. “Generally speaking, an ‘nsurrection is a rising against civil or political authority[] — the open and active opposition of a number of persons to the execution of law in a city or state,'” the report stated.

“The Office would first have had to prove that the violence at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, constituted an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,’ and then prove that Mr. Trump ‘incite[d]’ or ‘assist[ed]’ the insurrection, or ‘g[ave] aid or comfort thereto,'” Smith wrote. “As to the first element under Section 2383 — proving an ‘insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof’ — the cases the Office reviewed provided no guidance on what proof would be required to establish an insurrection, or to distinguish an insurrection from a riot.”

Smith then went through multiple instances where courts had used the word “insurrection” in Jan. 6 prosecutions, but each time did not use the Insurrection Act to define it or have it based in anything other than, seemingly, rhetoric.

See, e.g., United States v. Chwiesiuk, No. 21-cr-536, 2023 WL 3002493, at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 19, 2023) (“As this Court and other courts in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia have stated previously, what occurred on January 6, 2021 was in fact an insurrection and involved insurrectionists and, therefore, the terms to which Defendants object are accurate descriptors.”); United States v. Carpenter, No. 21-cr-305, 2023 WL 1860978, at *4 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2023) (“What occurred on January 6 was in fact a riot and an insurrection, and it did in fact involve a mob.”); see also United States v. Afunchel, 991 F.3d 1273, 1279, 1281 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (using the term “insurrection” in a case that did not involve Section 2383).
“These cases, however, did not require the courts to resolve the issue of how to define insurrection for purposes of Section 2383, or apply that definition to the conduct of a criminal defendant in the context of January 6,” Smith wrote.

In each example, it appears “insurrection” was used as a political buzzword enabling the corporate media to advance the “insurrection” narrative without doing anything to meet the legal requirements for one.

Smith also could not prove that Trump incited the riots at the Capitol. Even while attempting to talk out of both sides of his mouth, saying there were “reasonable arguments … particularly when the speech is viewed in the context of Mr. Trump’s lengthy and deceitful voter-fraud narrative that came before it,” Smith admitted that his office could not “develop direct evidence” with admissions or communications with anyone involved that Trump intended to cause the riot.

Breccan F. Thies is an elections correspondent for The Federalist. He previously covered education and culture issues for the Washington Examiner and Breitbart News. He holds a degree from the University of Virginia and is a 2022 Claremont Institute Publius Fellow. You can follow him on X: @BreccanFThies.

https://thefederalist.com/2025/01/15/jack-smiths-report-proves-the-media-were-always-lying-about-j6-insurrection/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
J6 Redux?
« Reply #2093 on: January 22, 2025, 06:12:59 PM »
I hope:

• Repubs play it straight and narrow so this effort can be contrasted against the previous kangaroo passion play
• They go after the pre-pardoned, get 'em on record, and prosecute 'em if they lie
• A deep dive is performed where provocateurs, LEO plants/assets, ANTIFA false flags, etc. are concerned:

Speaker Johnson forms committee to probe Jan. 6, Democrats’ original investigation
BY EMILY BROOKS - 01/22/25 3:31 PM ET


Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Wednesday said he will establish a new select subcommittee that will probe the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot — and likely dig into the now-defunct Jan. 6 select committee that was led by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and then-Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.).

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) will chair the upcoming select subcommittee, which will be housed within the House Judiciary Committee.

Loudermilk pursued his own Jan. 6 investigation within the House Administration Committee, and had long been asking Johnson to break out the probe into its own entity.
Being classified as a “select” subcommittee means Johnson will have the sole official power to decide which members sit on the panel.

The move comes as many Republicans, including Johnson, have defended or brushed aside President Trump’s pardons this week of nearly all rioters involved in the Jan. 6 attack, including those who assaulted police officers.

“House Republicans are proud of our work so far in exposing the false narratives peddled by the politically motivated January 6 Select Committee during the 117th Congress, but there is still more work to be done,” Johnson said in a statement. “We are establishing this Select Subcommittee to continue our efforts to uncover the full truth that is owed to the American people.”

Loudermilk in a statement said he hoped to “uncover all the facts and begin the arduous task of making needed reforms to ensure this level of security failure may never happen again.”

By signing up, I agree to the Terms of Use, have reviewed the Privacy Policy, and to receive personalized offers and communications via email, on-site notifications, and targeted advertising using my email address from The Hill, Nexstar Media Inc., and its affiliates

But beyond security concerns, Republicans have been eager to continue investigating the original Jan. 6 select committee, with which Republican leadership refused to participate or cooperate.
Loudermilk in December released a report evaluating the “failures and politicization” of the Jan. 6 committee and recommending a criminal investigation into Cheney, accusing her of witness tampering by being in touch with star witness Cassidy Hutchinson, a former White House aide.

In a statement at the time, Cheney said Loudermilk’s report “intentionally disregards the truth and the Select Committee’s tremendous weight of evidence, and instead fabricates lies and defamatory allegations in an attempt to cover up what Donald Trump did.”

The desire for prosecution may have played into former President Biden’s move, just hours before the end of his presidency, to preemptively pardon the members of the Jan. 6 select committee and its staff.

Those and other last-minute pardons have prompted suggestions that Republicans compel testimony or depositions from those who received pardons, since it removes a reason to refuse to answer questions by invoking a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Loudermilk earlier this week indicated that Congress could call Jan. 6 select committee members in for questioning in light of the Biden pardons.
Asked if there is now an incentive to bring in the Jan. 6 select committee members for questioning, Loudermilk told The Hill: “I think definitely, this is a situation that we still got to dig a little deeper.”

“It’s also interesting, I think, to look at those he didn’t pardon,” Loudermilk added, mentioning Hutchinson.

The Jan. 6 select committee had subpoenaed a number of GOP lawmakers in its probe — including Reps. Scott Perry (Pa.), Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Andy Biggs (Ariz.), who did not comply. It had also asked Loudermilk to appear voluntarily to explain a tour he gave in the Capitol complex on Jan. 5, 2021, a request Loudermilk said was meant to push a “false narrative.”
In a joint statement Monday, Thompson and Cheney said they had faced “specific threats of criminal prosecution and imprisonment by members of the incoming administration, simply for doing our jobs and upholding our oaths of office.”

Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, praised the new panel.

“Rep. Loudermilk has been the leader in getting to the bottom of what the Democrat-led January 6 Committee failed to uncover, and we look forward to helping him bring all the facts to the American people,” Jordan said in a statement.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the panel, criticized Loudermilk for using his past work to attack Cheney but didn’t dismiss the idea of another committee.
“Look, the Jan. 6 violent attack on the Capitol, like every other historical event, can always be investigated further. There’s nothing to be afraid of there,” he said.

While Republicans largely boycotted the initial Jan. 6 Select Committee, Raskin stopped short of committing to assign any Democratic members to the new subcommittee, calling questions about the process an “inside the Beltway” inquiry.

“I don’t know, because, again, I haven’t seen what the terms of this are or what their plans are,” he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5101000-johnson-gop-committee-jan-6-democrats-investigation/

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
Soros Funded Philly DA Threat to Charge Released J6 Defendants
« Reply #2094 on: January 22, 2025, 09:22:39 PM »
2nd post.

A two edged sword in my estimation. Imagine if every patriotic DA started charging Dems for their federal crimes, particularly given all of Biden’s pardons:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2025/01/soros-backed-philly-da-exploring-state-charges-against-pardoned-j6-defendants/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soros-backed-philly-da-exploring-state-charges-against-pardoned-j6-defendants

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
This is beyond silly.  Upon what basis jurisdiction asserted?

Body-by-Guinness

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 3484
    • View Profile
This is beyond silly.  Upon what basis jurisdiction asserted?

Yup. As for basis: orange man bad and J6 was an insurrection, so any sort of lawfare asshattery is A OK.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 73371
    • View Profile
"J6 Committee will be investigated"
« Reply #2098 on: January 24, 2025, 08:44:27 AM »