US Capitol breached

[wig]

May not be too popular an opinion here, but if that guy really DID aim and release contents from a fire extinguisher onto police and then threw the expended tank at those officers, I agree that he ought to spend some time in the greybar hotel.

I do think the entire event was instigated and it's a false-flag from start to finish, but I don't agree at any level with physically attacking police officers. To be honest, he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons. When a police officer draws his or her weapon... you're a frog's whisker away from being ******.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

May not be too popular an opinion here, but if that guy really DID aim and release contents from a fire extinguisher onto police and then threw the expended tank at those officers, I agree that he ought to spend some time in the greybar hotel.

I do think the entire event was instigated and it's a false-flag from start to finish, but I don't agree at any level with physically attacking police officers. To be honest, he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons. When a police officer draws his or her weapon... you're a frog's whisker away from being ******.

He admitted it was stupid of him, and while I agree prison time is reasonable, I'm not sure about the 5+ years.
Then again, I have no clue what normal sentencing is supposed to be.

 

[DBS1970]

May not be too popular an opinion here, but if that guy really DID aim and release contents from a fire extinguisher onto police and then threw the expended tank at those officers, I agree that he ought to spend some time in the greybar hotel.

I do think the entire event was instigated and it's a false-flag from start to finish, but I don't agree at any level with physically attacking police officers. To be honest, he's lucky they didn't draw their weapons. When a police officer draws his or her weapon... you're a frog's whisker away from being ******.

I would agree with you if the Antifa/BLM rioters were not simply released without charges. This simply proves that our court system is FAR from impartial.

 

[Steelworth]

I would agree with you if the Antifa/BLM rioters were not simply released without charges. This simply proves that our court system is FAR from impartial.

Damn straight. Burn a person's business and livelihood down to the ground - $500 bond and maybe some community service. Storm the Capitol (which no, I don't agree with) and you're a still a political prisoner almost a year later.

 

[BLITZ]

No matter what.can we please stop calling it an insurrection. Look up the word. It just didn't happen

 

[Stewey]

Keep stonewalling, sugar-coating, whitewashing.

There is no picking sides. You literally either support the side of democracy or the side that tried to overthrow the United States of America.

This isn't DEM vs. GOP.

This is America vs. Traitors

Boy you aggrandizing lefty nut jobs like to lay it on thick don't you? There was never an attempt to "overthrow the USA" .

That designation goes to a leftist group headed by an Obama confidant and best buddy by the name of Bill Ayers. Remember him?

THIS DAY IN HISTORY​

MARCH 01
1971
March 01

Bomb explodes in Capitol building​

A bomb explodes in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing an estimated $300,000 in damage but hurting no one. A group calling itself the Weather Underground claimed credit for the bombing, which was done in protest of the ongoing U.S.-supported Laos invasion.

Bomb explodes in Capitol building

A bomb explodes in the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., causing an estimated $300,000 in damage but hurting no one. A group calling itself the Weather

www.history.com

The Weather Underground was a radical left wing militant organization first active in 1969, founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally known as the Weathermen, the group was organized as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) national leadership.[2] Officially known as the Weather Underground Organization (WUO) beginning in 1970, the group's express political goal was to create a revolutionary party to overthrow American imperialism.

 

[DBS1970]

No matter what.can we please stop calling it an insurrection. Look up the word. It just didn't happen

Yep.

As I have said before if it had been an insurrection people would have been armed and every Democrat captured would have been hanged from a lamppost and half the Republicans would have been tarred and feathered.

 

[Sarge]

No matter what.can we please stop calling it an insurrection. Look up the word. It just didn't happen

Everyone knows it wasn't an insurrection. It's a word used to sensationalize the stupidity of a small minority of Americans.

Americans are armed to the teeth. If they were interested in insurrection or a coup attempt, they wouldn't have shown up with flags and signs. Just saying.

 

[Stewey]

Neither was it an insurrection nor did Trump incite these protesters to riot.

Hey Tibs, why do you suppose the Demonrats during their second fraudulent attempt to impeach, omit Trump telling supporters to protest "peacefully and patriotically" in their little video?
Hmmm?

Claim​

In a video displayed during U.S. President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial on Feb. 9, 2021, House Democrats did not show footage of Trump telling supporters on Jan. 6 to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

Rating​

True
About this rating

 

[Tibs]

Why? Simple question. Why?

Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of his White House records to January 6 committee

Former President Donald Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday to block the release of documents from his White House to the House committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol, escalating his effort to keep about 700 pages of records secret.

edition.cnn.com

 

[Superman]

Why? Simple question. Why?

Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of his White House records to January 6 committee

Former President Donald Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday to block the release of documents from his White House to the House committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol, escalating his effort to keep about 700 pages of records secret.

edition.cnn.com

if you read the article you posted (man, that's a recurring theme, isnt it - you not reading the articles you post), you'd have stumbled onto this, the fourth paragraph:

"The limited interest the Committee may have in immediately obtaining the requested records pales in comparison to President Trump's interest in securing judicial review before he suffers irreparable harm," Trump's lawyers wrote in the court filings.

 

[Steeltime]

Why? Simple question. Why?

Trump asks Supreme Court to block release of his White House records to January 6 committee

Former President Donald Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday to block the release of documents from his White House to the House committee investigating the January 6 riot at the Capitol, escalating his effort to keep about 700 pages of records secret.

edition.cnn.com

God I hate dealing with stupid questions, but since that is the ONLY type you have ...

Why assert privilege? You mean, other than the fact the information is privileged? Other than that, you mean? How about:

• The law on waiver provides that a party cannot selectively waive privilege. If the President waives privilege on these communications, then other privileged materials - involving possible national security for example - may be subject to FOIA requests.
• Second, we as a society have determined that certain communications - attorney-client, pastor-penitent, doctor-patient, for example - are so important that we will simply not allow third parties to force disclosure. The rule is not contingent on how "important" the information might be, or how inculpatory or exculpatory, or the possible value of such information may be to an investigation. Privilege means the information is P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E-D - end of story.

Let me give you an example that makes the point clear to you. Say you were involved in a car accident and get sued. The other driver claims you were at fault but offers no evidence, at all, that you were intoxicated at the time of the accident. His lawyer demands that you turn over credit card receipts since these receipts "might prove you bought a bunch of drinks earlier that day."

You know you did not buy drinks or much of anything that day, but you don't want your personal buying record known to some lawyer litigating a car accident case. Hey, the evidence will HELP you, right? But you assert financial privilege and refuse to turn over the credit card statements.

"Why? Simple question. Why?"

Because it's none of the other guy's ******* business and our system protects privileged information, a system followed in Western culture for at least 800 years, that's why.

 

[Superman]

God I hate dealing with stupid questions, but since that is the ONLY type you have ...

Why assert privilege? You mean, other than the fact the information is privileged? Other than that, you mean? How about:

• The law on waiver provides that a party cannot selectively waive privilege. If the President waives privilege on these communications, then other privileged materials - involving possible national security for example - may be subject to FOIA requests.
• Second, we as a society have determined that certain communications - attorney-client, pastor-penitent, doctor-patient, for example - are so important that we will simply not allow third parties to force disclosure. The rule is not contingent on how "important" the information might be, or how inculpatory or exculpatory, or the possible value of such information may be to an investigation. Privilege means the information is P-R-I-V-I-L-E-G-E-D - end of story.

Let me give you an example that makes the point clear to you. Say you were involved in a car accident and get sued. The other driver claims you were at fault but offers no evidence, at all, that you were intoxicated at the time of the accident. His lawyer demands that you turn over credit card receipts since these receipts "might prove you bought a bunch of drinks earlier that day."

You know you did not buy drinks or much of anything that day, but you don't want your personal buying record known to some lawyer litigating a car accident case. Hey, the evidence will HELP you, right? But you assert financial privilege and refuse to turn over the credit card statements.

"Why? Simple question. Why?"

Because it's none of the other guy's ******* business and our system protects privileged information, a system followed in Western culture for at least 800 years, that's why.

too many words. he lost attention after "God I"

 

[Steelworth]

Cuckghanistani boy obviously not familiar with western culture.

 

[Steelr4evr]

Damn straight. Burn a person's business and livelihood down to the ground - $500 bond and maybe some community service. Storm the Capitol (which no, I don't agree with) and you're a still a political prisoner almost a year later.

If you knew for a 100% fact it was a fraudulent election and the current administration is completely criminal and illegitimate in its illegal coup of the executive office. What would be too much as an action to take?

 

[Steeltime]

Challenge seating duly-elected House members?!? Goddammit, more insurrecting by those right-wing insurrectionists:



Wait, Elias is a well-known (D)imbo?

Not insurrecting, see, that is actually protecting Democracy, (D)imbo style!

 

[DBS1970]

Challenge seating duly-elected House members?!? Goddammit, more insurrecting by those right-wing insurrectionists:



Wait, Elias is a well-known (D)imbo?

Not insurrecting, see, that is actually protecting Democracy, (D)imbo style!

They just keep pushing us towards another civil war.

 

[Steelworth]

Isn't that exactly what Kamala Harris did here?




Rules for thee but not for me?

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

When non political guys like Rogan are seeing it…

 

[DBS1970]

When non political guys like Rogan are seeing it…

Yeah this was a setup. We know this because Pelosi called off DC police providing extra crowd control, and the numerous people with visible faces that have been identified but NOT ARRESTED because they are either feds or paid FBI informants.

 

[ZonaBurgh]

Those that still call this an insurrection do it because they want to believe it was. No amount of reasoning will change their views.

Until the House and DOJ are rid of the Democrat Socialists, and that can't come soon enough, the mantra will continue.

Even with the little bit of evidence that has leaked out, no logical person can be blinded by the obvious. But I'm not sure that even if the hundreds of hours
of videos are released, minds will be changed.

Didn't someone on here say that reasoning with a liberal is like teaching your Golden Retriever to play the piano? Or something to that effect.

 

[Superman]

Those that still call this an insurrection do it because they want to believe it was. No amount of reasoning will change their views.

Until the House and DOJ are rid of the Democrat Socialists, and that can't come soon enough, the mantra will continue.

Even with the little bit of evidence that has leaked out, no logical person can be blinded by the obvious. But I'm not sure that even if the hundreds of hours
of videos are released, minds will be changed.

Didn't someone on here say that reasoning with a liberal is like teaching your Golden Retriever to play the piano? Or something to that effect.

or teaching ballet to an Ogre

 

[Steelr4evr]

They just keep pushing us towards another civil war.

It would seem so. Which is a really bad idea on their part.

 

[Steelworth]

Yeah this was a setup. We know this because Pelosi called off DC police providing extra crowd control, and the numerous people with visible faces that have been identified but NOT ARRESTED because they are either feds or paid FBI informants.

I found it comical that one of the guests says something to the effect of "maybe he was a rogue agent and was radicalized?". You think he'd be free and basically off the map and not being talked about 24/7 with that whole radicalization plastered everywhere, you ******* imbecile?

I swear to God, the lack of critical thinking skills these days is terrifying. You can tell Rogan wants these ******* all nailed to the wall so bad, but he's got such a large platform and probably feels he has to be careful and walk that fine line he doesn't go too far, or we'll eventually find him to have been accidentally shot in a tragic hunting accident. If anybody with eyes and ears actually trusts our government or its 'institutions', especially after the last two years, my condolences.

 

[Steelworth]

It would seem so. Which is a really bad idea on their part.

Yeah lemme think - soy boys with masks and helmets on with maybe bats or bricks against 350+ million civilians armed to the teeth?

The problem is, like ShitsHisPants said, is that the Gubmint have tanks & nukes. I have a hard time reconciling that it would come to that and don't even really want to think about it, but who's side are they really gonna be on when **** hits the fan? Freedom loving Patriots armed to the teeth they already desperately want to disarm - or the Marxists already doing their bidding?