ThatGuy Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 Comments that will not age well, or, "This Gun's For You, Ashli Babbitt": On 1/7/2022 at 1:31 PM, Peter said: Michael wrote, “. . . you will no longer be able to hear the propagandistic view that Jan. 6 was an insurrection by Trump supporters without wanting to vomit.” I am not speaking to Michael directly . . . but in general. And I do not dispute the evidence that the perpetrators were posing as Trump supporters. But how many Trump supporters, including Trump himself, may have applauded the violence on January 6th and still do? A “true believer” has a hard time adjusting their views to the facts. I now see the Capitol riots as being an attempt to overthrow our constitutional government. It was a coup attempt. Those people were traitors and our founding fathers would be on my side. And we patriots are still waiting for the “promised facts” concerning an election overturned because the results certified by the electoral college are proven false. It’s over a year later, so it isn’t going to happen. The Supreme Court isn’t going to step in. A possibly Republican dominated Congress in 2022 isn’t going to DE-certify the 2020 election. It is somewhat heart breaking to hear virtually all those closest to President Trump and several prominent people at Fox and elsewhere pleaded with him to come out and say, ‘No violence from my supporters on January 6th.” He would not do that. I am not hinting that these facts will affect or turn the 2024 nominating process or the 2024 election. Despite this glaring act of omission in President Trump’s character I will still vote for him because he will be better than a democrat. Yet, the door is still open for a different conservative Republican in 2024. “Let freedom ring,” my fellow Objectivists. And On 1/7/2022 at 12:48 AM, Peter said: What should the Capitol Police do in the next "disturbing of the peace?" I have thought about using more lethal weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 Here is Salty weighing in on the Ashli Babbitt story. He even goes so far as to say she went through the window to get away from the people around her--the ones she had been admonishing to stop the vandalism--since she could not go back. What's more, that is not only plausible, it makes sense. ASHLI BABBITT TRIED TO STOP ANTIFA FALSE FLAG ON JAN 6TH Ashli Babbitt Tried To Stop Antifa False Flag On Jan 6th WWW.BITCHUTE.COM article - https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stop-no-dont-babbitt-tried-stop-attack-capitol-speakers-lobby-video-analysis-suggests Website: https://saltmustflow.com OTHER PLATFORMS: Odysee:... Also, Salty speculates that the cop who shot her did so on orders. Not specifically to shoot Ashli per se, but shoot a Trump supporter. The reason? This idiot had left his loaded gun in a public bathroom before, yet instead of getting fired, he got promoted. Salty speculates that he was taken to an isolated room and told all would be taken care of, but sometime in the future, they would need a favor from him. And that favor came due on January 6, 2021--go out and cause some mayhem. Shoot a Trump supporter or something... That sounds extremely plausible to me, especially seeing how the cop got off without any investigation. One thing is for sure, and I agree with Salty 100% on it. The narrative is collapsing big time. This threatens to be a scandal far, far greater than Watergate ever was. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 The riot was an assault and invasion. The Capitol Police and the Secret Service are there to protect lives of people at risk. If a command to stop invading and rioting does not work, then greater retaliatory force needs to be used. Just because I do not like Biden's policies does not mean I do NOT want him protected. I do. As the Beatles sang, "If you want a revolution, you can count me out." Claims of fraud during an election, if left unproved, do not justify killing lawfully selected lawmen and bodyguards. That is murder. So, the next time this happens, I want all three branches of government and our federal properties protected with "whatever it takes." Too many on this site would agree with me if Trump were in office or if he is reelected in 2024 but do not agree if someone else wins the election. This is a rhetorical question, but what is wrong with you and your thinking fellow fan of Rand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Peter said: The riot was an assault and invasion. The Capitol Police and the Secret Service are there to protect lives of people at risk. If a command to stop invading and rioting does not work, then greater retaliatory force needs to be used. Just because I do not like Biden's policies does not mean I do NOT want him protected. I do. As the Beatles sang, "If you want a revolution, you can count me out." Claims of fraud during an election, if left unproved, do not justify killing lawfully selected lawmen and bodyguards. That is murder. So, the next time this happens, I want all three branches of government and our federal properties protected with "whatever it takes." Too many on this site would agree with me if Trump were in office or if he is reelected in 2024 but do not agree if someone else wins the election. This is a rhetorical question, but what is wrong with you and your thinking fellow fan of Rand? Lol. Ok, there, Benedict Arnold. You and Peggy Shippen just stay loyal to the Red Coats... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 19, 2022 Share Posted January 19, 2022 Aside from natural causes , no one besides Ashli Babbit and possibly one other woman were killed at the Capitol and in Ashli's case we can watch her being killed by an officer of the law. And who by the way, said in a television interview that he could not see 'her hands' meaning he could not have ascertained if she posed a threat to himself or anyone, so an unlawful killing on video and yet no cities have burned. The claims of fraud were for all intends and purposes left un-investigated, courts claimed that examination of the ballots and counting processes were outside of a strict legal recourse and appeals to those claims were shunted politically. From 'official' reports over a million citizens gathered to air their grievances , around 800 people entered the Capitol and some among them did so in a riotous fashion, but there was No unjustified murdering of selected lawmen or bodyguards. But I fear your wish will be granted , if a million citizens gather in DC to air their grievances against the current regime they will be suppressed with 'whatever it takes' from a federal response, and you will cheer because you are on the 'right side of history/democracy' , cuz that's the narrative you believe. Good news , you can change your mind. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 19, 2022 Author Share Posted January 19, 2022 5 hours ago, Peter said: The Capitol Police and the Secret Service are there to protect lives of people at risk. If a command to stop invading and rioting does not work, then greater retaliatory force needs to be used. Just because I do not like Biden's policies does not mean I do NOT want him protected. I do. Peter, I do not disagree with this. I can't think of anyone who does. So nobody I know of is going to defend that. Now onto another issue. Have you seen what has been going on in Congress? Not just the House Kangaroo Kommittee on 1/6. Look what Ted Cruz did recently in the Senate to the FBI about 1/6. It was ugly--ugly for the FBI. Ted Cruz asked point blank to the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI, Jill Sanborn, if any federal agents committed a violent crime on 1/6 and she said she couldn't say. He asked that over and over in different ways and she said she didn't know or couldn't say over and over. Take a look at this very short video and tell me this FBI lady was interested in protecting people (other than out-of-line feds and her own ass). TED CRUZ EXPOSES ROGUE FBI INVOLVEMENT AT WASHINGTON CAPITOL ON JANUARY 6 2021 WWW.BITCHUTE.COM 1. https://www.bitchute.com/video/JlsR1Rdlk2MP/ 2. https://newtube.app/user/RenaudBe/CqcBVSI 3. https://ugetube.com/watch/I3oOTkXaPnkTpsr With Ted Cruz... Watch it and see if you think this is the way the FBI is supposed to act. The truth is, that's not good for an agency sworn to protect people. Also, you have mentioned the Capitol Police several times. Are you aware that President Trump requested them for the rally and they were not deployed? Word is Pelosi issued a demand to not deploy them and the Capitol Police command complied with her demand. Also, only a few Capitol Police were there at the Capitol during the breach, not the full force. (There is a source for this I believe you will find OK later in this post.) So how are police supposed to protect anyone if their command refuses to allow them to be present? All of this, and a ton load more, is on record and available to the public. But you have to look at it to see it. CNN will not show it to you. So maybe you could try official records if you don't like the idea of alt media. But these are facts--and there are a whole lot of them. They will not go away with media spin. I know you and another are conflicting over this stuff and it has turned into something that is not discussion. I'm not part of that. All I'm asking for you to do is look at official stuff that cannot be spun. One can imagine and spin why the Assistant Director of the FBI claimed she didn't know what she obviously did (like information on the FBI's own most wanted list), or claimed that she could not provide information that was public knowledge and obviously not classified, but one cannot spin the fact that she said she didn't know and couldn't say when it came right out of her mouth in Congress and it's on video for the whole world to see. One cannot spin the fact that the Capitol Police, except for a few, were not protecting the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Speaking of the Capitol Police, just to give you a taste of what is out there, here is a news article from last January from NBC, which you seem to trust. The spin in the article can make one dizzy, but further down in the article, in the CYA part, it says the following without qualifications (direct quote--there is some spin which I did not quote, but there are no qualifications): Quote On Jan. 6, the Capitol Police, the 2,000-person force whose job is to secure the legislative complex, failed to deploy enough officers to protect the Capitol from rioters, and put them out in regular uniforms instead of riot gear. . . . Meanwhile, whatever plan the Capitol Police had to request reinforcements didn't work. . . . A Justice Department official said that the bulk of deployable agents from the DoJ and the Department of Homeland Security, usually held in reserve in advance of potentially violent events, were not called upon until after the protesters had breached the building. Because the Capitol Police have first jurisdiction over protecting the Capitol building and members of Congress, federal agencies could only be involved at their discretion. . . . In the hours after the breach, agents from the Federal Protective Service, Customs and Border Protection, the Bureau of Prisons, the FBI and Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms — some heavily armed, in tactical gear — were called in to assist Capitol Police and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department. From DHS, some Secret Service agents were deployed, but agents from Customs and Border Protection, who responded to protests in D.C. this summer, were not called upon until much later. A senior law enforcement official said that the DOJ offered federal law enforcement help to the Capitol Police on Wednesday as the situation deteriorated, but said the Capitol force was slow to accept the offer. . . . Capitol Police shot and killed one rioter, identified as Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt of San Diego... Ashli was the only fatality due to violence that day. There were some other deaths due to non-event causes, but only one murder. I don't want to be combative, but you claimed something that is not true: 5 hours ago, Peter said: Claims of fraud during an election, if left unproved, do not justify killing lawfully selected lawmen and bodyguards. That is murder. I realize this is an insinuation, but nobody killed any lawmen or bodyguards. Nor did they even try. You should revisit where you got that information and check it against more credible sources (like official records). Hell, even the mainstream fake news press, even though it is all over the place, often sets this stuff straight. Such killing and attempted murder simply never happened. Zero. You don't even have to go far to check. Try the Wikipedia article on the event (see here). I don't like Wikipedia anymore, but I doubt this particular information is false. It's hard as hell to falsify coroner reports for a famous event. 5 people died at the event. Ashli Elizabeth Babbitt was the only homicide. She was shot dead by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Leroy Byrd. And the other 4? Brian Sicknick, died from a stroke. Rosanne Boyland, 34, died of an amphetamine overdose (she was not trampled as given by the fake news media). Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Philips both died from heart attacks. These are all according to coroner reports. Also, later, there were 4 law enforcement suicides attributed as fallout to the event: Capitol Police Officer Howard Charles Liebengood, (three days after the event), D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith (January 15), Metropolitan Police Officer Kyle Hendrik DeFreytag (July 10), and Metropolitan Police Officer Gunther Paul Hashida (July 29). That's it. Four normal deaths, four law enforcement suicides, and one homicide. And who committed the murder, prey tell? A Capitol Police cop. To repeat, the only one killed, the only homicide, was an innocent unarmed Trump supporter who was trying to get the false flag goons to stop destroying the windows and doors of the Capitol in order to breach the building, but then felt she herself was in danger from them, the goons, not from the police. In fact, Ashli did not run from the police. She ran toward them for protection and one of them shot her dead. We can have different opinions and all is fair. But we cannot have different facts. A is A. A fact is what it is. It cannot be what it is and something else at the same time. Michael 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Is The Federalist considered alt media ? They’ ll probably use these little videos of the one corrupt board of elections in one county and try and spin it into some thing to gin up some base some where. After all , these guys and gals are basically heroes , one election one time to save democracy, .. Video Shows PA Official Admitting Election Laws Were Broken In 2020 THEFEDERALIST.COM This video provides yet another example of the widespread violations of election law during the last presidential election. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 10 hours ago, tmj said: Is The Federalist considered alt media ? They’ ll probably use these little videos of the one corrupt board of elections in one county and try and spin it into some thing to gin up some base some where. After all , these guys and gals are basically heroes , one election one time to save democracy, .. Video Shows PA Official Admitting Election Laws Were Broken In 2020 THEFEDERALIST.COM This video provides yet another example of the widespread violations of election law during the last presidential election. All I know is that I saw President Trumps entire speech and he is a man who is not only playing chess but already knows that he has checkmate in X amount of moves. There is so much evidence its already a done deal, its not if, its when. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Leftists: "Insurrection! Muh democracy!" Also leftists: “Tonight, Republican senators lined up to shake Krysten Sinema’s hand. Democratic senators should have given her the backs of their hands.” -Referring to a tweet from Robert Reich. The tweet was since deleted, but screenshots, as seen in this tweet, are forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 39 minutes ago, ThatGuy said: Leftists: "Insurrection! Muh democracy!" Also leftists: “Tonight, Republican senators lined up to shake Krysten Sinema’s hand. Democratic senators should have given her the backs of their hands.” -Referring to a tweet from Robert Reich. The tweet was since deleted, but screenshots, as seen in this tweet, are forever. Get a person angry or drunk and you will see their true colours 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmj Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 well.. their non-temperant colors anyway, animal instincts shine thru the moonshine lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 I also saw a story about a former Trump aide who is aiding “the investigation” by telling officials about meetings the President had just prior to Jan. 6. She named a person in the White House staff who waved several groups up the stairs to talk to President Trump. That person will know who President Trump talked to and then they can be subpoenaed. I can’t find the story, but it didn’t sound like she had a large grudge against the former President. She just seemed to be trying to be helpful. Peter Published Jan. 19, 2022 Updated Jan. 20, 2022, 9:29 a.m. ET by Adam Liptak. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a request from former President Donald J. Trump to block the release of White House records concerning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, effectively rejecting Mr. Trump’s claim of executive privilege and clearing the way for the House committee investigating the riot to start receiving the documents hours later. The court, with only Justice Clarence Thomas noting a dissent, let stand an appeals court ruling that Mr. Trump’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of internal White House communications was outweighed by the need for a full accounting of the attack and the disruption of the certification of the 2020 electoral count. In an unsigned order, the majority wrote that Mr. Trump’s request for a stay while the case moved forward presented weighty issues, including “whether and in what circumstances a former president may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent president to waive the privilege.” But an appeals court’s ruling against Mr. Trump did not turn on those questions, the order said. “Because the court of appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the order said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 35 minutes ago, Peter said: I also saw a story about a former Trump aide who is aiding “the investigation” by telling officials about meetings the President had just prior to Jan. 6. She named a person in the White House staff who waved several groups up the stairs to talk to President Trump. That person will know who President Trump talked to and then they can be subpoenaed. I can’t find the story, but it didn’t sound like she had a large grudge against the former President. She just seemed to be trying to be helpful. Peter Published Jan. 19, 2022 Updated Jan. 20, 2022, 9:29 a.m. ET by Adam Liptak. WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a request from former President Donald J. Trump to block the release of White House records concerning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, effectively rejecting Mr. Trump’s claim of executive privilege and clearing the way for the House committee investigating the riot to start receiving the documents hours later. The court, with only Justice Clarence Thomas noting a dissent, let stand an appeals court ruling that Mr. Trump’s desire to maintain the confidentiality of internal White House communications was outweighed by the need for a full accounting of the attack and the disruption of the certification of the 2020 electoral count. In an unsigned order, the majority wrote that Mr. Trump’s request for a stay while the case moved forward presented weighty issues, including “whether and in what circumstances a former president may obtain a court order preventing disclosure of privileged records from his tenure in office, in the face of a determination by the incumbent president to waive the privilege.” But an appeals court’s ruling against Mr. Trump did not turn on those questions, the order said. “Because the court of appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former president necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the order said. Things get way easier to grasp when one realizes that Nov 3 was the insurrection and Jan 6 was the Coup D'etat. At least in banana republics thwy have the confidence to do the coup in the daytime, not at 3 am. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 Marc wrote: Things get way easier to grasp when one realizes that Nov 3 was the insurrection and Jan 6 was the Coup D'etat. I don’t quite get what you are implying from Canada, but the opposing view might be that insurrections and coup d’état’s happen in banana republics. Therefor if “the vote” is judged to be sufficiently valid by the Electoral College and Biden is sworn in then anyone “rebelling” against that, without proof or perhaps the backing of the Legislature and Supreme Court . . . . is just a bad ass or a traitor. One huge fact is that the perpetrators are going to jail. Here on Delmarva we now have four people who participated in the attempted insurrection and they are all facing time behind bars. From your point of view they are heroes who should be pardoned. I don’t see that. I think many people (and this list is included) are emotional and when you let anger cloud your judgement you are straying from Randian philosophy. Loonies included. Joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 31 minutes ago, Peter said: Marc wrote: Things get way easier to grasp when one realizes that Nov 3 was the insurrection and Jan 6 was the Coup D'etat. I don’t quite get what you are implying from Canada, but the opposing view might be that insurrections and coup d’état’s happen in banana republics. Therefor if “the vote” is judged to be sufficiently valid by the Electoral College and Biden is sworn in then anyone “rebelling” against that, without proof or perhaps the backing of the Legislature and Supreme Court . . . . is just a bad ass or a traitor. One huge fact is that the perpetrators are going to jail. Here on Delmarva we now have four people who participated in the attempted insurrection and they are all facing time behind bars. From your point of view they are heroes who should be pardoned. I don’t see that. I think many people (and this list is included) are emotional and when you let anger cloud your judgement you are straying from Randian philosophy. Loonies included. Joke. Yawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 20, 2022 Share Posted January 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Peter said: I also saw a story about a former Trump aide who is aiding “the investigation” by telling officials about meetings the President had just prior to Jan. 6. She named a person in the White House staff who waved several groups up the stairs to talk to President Trump. That person will know who President Trump talked to and then they can be subpoenaed. I can’t find the story, but it didn’t sound like she had a large grudge against the former President. She just seemed to be trying to be helpful. One of these stories, most likely ... I've only read Hugo Lowell's story in the Guardian so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 hours ago, Peter said: Marc wrote: Things get way easier to grasp when one realizes that Nov 3 was the insurrection and Jan 6 was the Coup D'etat. I don’t quite get what you are implying from Canada, but the opposing view might be that insurrections and coup d’état’s happen in banana republics. Therefor if “the vote” is judged to be sufficiently valid by the Electoral College and Biden is sworn in then anyone “rebelling” against that, without proof or perhaps the backing of the Legislature and Supreme Court . . . . is just a bad ass or a traitor. One huge fact is that the perpetrators are going to jail. Here on Delmarva we now have four people who participated in the attempted insurrection and they are all facing time behind bars. From your point of view they are heroes who should be pardoned. I don’t see that. I think many people (and this list is included) are emotional and when you let anger cloud your judgement you are straying from Randian philosophy. Loonies included. Joke. Regardless of geography, the Coup D'etat was November 3. Another huge fact is that there are many "perpetrators" in jail in Cuba and North Korea. I am very angry that President Trump had his election win stolen and cannot wait until he gets reinstated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 21, 2022 Author Share Posted January 21, 2022 Biden himself is sending indirect messages that 2020 was rigged. And he openly said 2022 might be rigged (if his side loses, of course ). Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud THEPALMIERIREPORT.COM Trump: Biden Admitted 2020 Election May Have Been Fraud Text: Quote President Biden admitted yesterday, in his own very different way, that the 2020 election may very well have been a fraud, which I know it was. I'm sure his representatives, who work so hard to make it look legit, are not happy. Michael 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 hours ago, Marc said: Regardless of geography, the Coup D'etat was November 3. Wow. A member of the Psychic Hotline Mod Squad. How else could you know these things? What’s your BS number (I’ll bet it’s a ten!) and charge per minute? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 7 hours ago, Peter said: Wow. A member of the Psychic Hotline Mod Squad. How else could you know these things? What’s your BS number (I’ll bet it’s a ten!) and charge per minute? Yawn. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 7 hours ago, Peter said: Wow. A member of the Psychic Hotline Mod Squad. How else could you know these things? What’s your BS number (I’ll bet it’s a ten!) and charge per minute? Mod Squad! Love it ! I went to bed on Nov 3 , Trump had the victory all wrapped up with insurmountable leads in states that he had not already won. States like Florida, Ohio , and others which in effect meant that he had won because when you win a certain basket of States, you always win. Lo and behold, that night water pipes broke, and certan States stopped counting and etc etc etc and then Biden made the most incredible comeback in the history of voting in any country ever. It was like a football team was up 77-0 with 4 minutes left in the 4th. It would be impossible to score 11 touchdowns, and hit 11 onside kicks to win the game. Thats what happened, and it happened with a man who was getting six people athis rallies against the sitting President who had 50k at his rallies. Impossible my friend. Impossible. For you, I charge nothing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 4 hours ago, Marc said: Impossible. Not if you keep counting until the election is done. If you stop counting and go to sleep and you wake up and your dreams don't reflect reality, who is to blame? I find it interesting when a place like Guam is counted late but even more interesting when a metro area takes all night to tally. I have to believe that the workers at the polls are not sinister, evil people and will improve their techniques by 2022. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 10 minutes ago, Peter said: I have to believe that the workers at the polls are not sinister, evil people and will improve their techniques by 2022. Riiigghht... "Not sinister people" who barr entry to election auditors, encourage and engage in violence, have been proven and convicted of various election frauds in blue cities, and continue to improve their methods of deception and fraud. "Tuskagee Petey" + "Pollyanna Petey"= "Useful idiot". <swat!> "Thank you, Sir, may I have another?" "Redcoat loyalist" to the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatGuy Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 "A Tale of Two Cities" Claim: No, Trump did not order 10,000 troops to secure the Capitol on Jan. 6 - The Washington Post WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Fox personalities keep falsely saying that Trump requested 10,000 troops to protect the... Counter-claim: Bombshell Report Reveals Pelosi Denied Trump’s Request For 10,000 National Guard Troops For Jan. 6 Rally "Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president’s fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment. "According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. Trump told Miller to 'fill' the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: 'Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.'" Bombshell Report Reveals Pelosi Denied Trump’s Request For 10,000 National Guard Troops For Jan. 6 Rally REPUBLICANWIRE.ORG President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marc Posted January 21, 2022 Share Posted January 21, 2022 1 hour ago, ThatGuy said: "A Tale of Two Cities" Claim: No, Trump did not order 10,000 troops to secure the Capitol on Jan. 6 - The Washington Post WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Fox personalities keep falsely saying that Trump requested 10,000 troops to protect the... Counter-claim: Bombshell Report Reveals Pelosi Denied Trump’s Request For 10,000 National Guard Troops For Jan. 6 Rally "According to Miller’s testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia’s mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden’s presidential election victory. Trump told Miller to 'fill' the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: 'Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights.'" Bombshell Report Reveals Pelosi Denied Trump’s Request For 10,000 National Guard Troops For Jan. 6 Rally REPUBLICANWIRE.ORG President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking... Reminds me when Bobby Fisher did that Queens gambit and wom the most important chess games ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now