Jan 6
15 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 7, 2022, 8:03 a.m.

Now that Jan 6 has come and gone for the time being, perhaps people won't be so frothy in their thoughts or statements

I have watched your various re-actions to Jan 6 of past. I have also noted the increasing crime waves of gang smash and grab merchandise, chicago shootings, people afraid to walk the streets in broad day light some cities etc. Heck I would be afraid in any of your major cities any time of the day or night. How many women carry a fire arm in their purse. 

Now it seems if the value is less than 900-950 approx then no serious crime will be prosecuted

But if  my store was robbed of most all my inventory and insur premiums got too expensive I would be a victim. Perhaps a BK victim

And yet there was no serious victims that I could see on Jan 6  past

Why has so many resources being used on Jan 6 events and not so many [nil in most times] on peoples lives who have suffered BK

Looking in from the outside and not saying we don't have our faults in Canada

But seems to me your sense of right and wrong is a bit ass backwards re: the important stuff

Re: Jan 6
By TimNew - Jan. 7, 2022, 8:24 a.m.
Like Reply

But seems to me your sense of right and wrong is a bit ass backwards re: the important stuff

I have a very well established sense of right and wrong. Further, I believe it should be applied to everyone, regardless of race, sex or political affiliation.  Sadly,  at least half  in this country appear to disagree, and it's is hastening our downfall.

It continues to amaze me that the only serious attention given to the multiple and devastating "Mostly peaceful" riots of 2020 in nearly every city was given to a young man who shot 3 of the rioters that attacked him. The rest of it barely earned a footnote.

And that's just one example of many.

This country no longer practices, or even appears to conprehend a stable, consistent justice.  

And one day, sooner or later, if we continue on this path, I'll get arrested for saying things like this.

Re: Re: Jan 6
By joj - Jan. 7, 2022, 12:19 p.m.
Like Reply

Biden condemned the 2020 violence in the cities repeatedly.

Trump incited Jan 6.

A majority of Republicans in the House voted overturn the results of the election.  The most sacred tradition of our Republic.

They did it after 60 court rulings went against them including some Trump appointed judges.

If Trump had prevailed, it may well have been the end of the Republic.  (and may yet)

As horrible as the violence in 2020 was, the Republic was not in the balance.

THAT is what makes January 6th WAY more important than folks on MF believe it to be.

By TimNew - Jan. 7, 2022, 1:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Biden condemned the 2020 violence in the cities repeatedly.

He paid it lip service while his running mate and many in his party condoned it  and contributed to funds to bail out rioters while dem pols all over the country ordered police to stand down.

Trump incited Jan 6.

He asked for peaceful protest, repeatedly.  He asked for the national gaurd to be available in advance.  A request that was refused.

A majority of Republicans in the House voted overturn the results of the election.  The most sacred tradition of our Republic.

Ahh,    are you saying there has never been actions by anyone on the left to overturn the results of an election? Do you really need me to elaborate?  I'll be happy to if, 1.) you are unfamiliar with the  age old tradition and 2.)  you'll actually take the time to read the reams of data.  I can start with the  Hillary created fake Steele Dossier that lead to a useless investigation that yielded nothing, that they even knew was nothing years before they ended it, a bogus impeachment effort by the party that screamed "We'll impeach the MF'r" before he even took office? I'll work backward from there.  

Here's an article describing all the times since 2001 that dems have atempted to overtunr an election. If you don't like the source,  I'll provide a few dozen more.  It's a matter of public record.

Since 2001, Democrats Objected 3 Times to Electoral College Certification (dailysignal.com)

I can do this all day.  

They did it after 60 court rulings went against them including some Trump appointed judges.

The rulings were not against the evidence, the vast majority of which was not even reviewed by the courts. They were rejected on technicalities.   Audits have shown many irregularities and changes to election laws are the result.   Oddly enough, the left calls these changes an attempted coup.  Things like voter id and restricrtions on mail in votes. Of course, those changes are mostly reverting to what we had before covid "necessitated" relaxed standards.  

If Trump had prevailed, it may well have been the end of the Republic.  (and may yet).

This is laughably over dramatic and not based on available evidence or precedence.

As horrible as the violence in 2020 was, the Republic was not in the balance.

You Mean the riots that left much of the capitol city, as well as much of the rest of the country, in flames?

How about all the times the left stormed assorted state building in "protest" that were at least as dramatic as Jan 6th.  The Kavanugh hearings.  The list goes on and on. The main difference is the press coverage.

THAT is what makes January 6th WAY more important than folks on MF believe it to be.

The ONLY thing that makes Jan 6th important is that the left feels it's the only hope they have in November. I suspect they are fatally wrong.

By metmike - Jan. 8, 2022, 12:43 p.m.
Like Reply

joj stated:  Trump incited Jan 6.

Tim responded: "He asked for peaceful protest, repeatedly.  He asked for the national gaurd to be available in advance.  A request that was refused."

metmike: I can tell that you watch FOX news and don't fact check from that statement. I watch FOX news too in order to note what they do say, so that I can comment here based ON FACTS, not what I think.

Sean Hannity constantly repeats this lie. He was doing it again numerous times last night. You can repeat a lie as many times as you want to convince the non objective minds listening or reading but it's still a lie.

Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6

Dec. 16, 2021


metmike: What joj said was almost exactly right. Stating that Trump called for a peaceful protest when every objective mind on the planet knows that he spent 2 months using every resource that he had available........some extremely, off the charts fraudulent  trying to overturn the election that included telling his people to fight ......is completely ignoring ALL the objective facts and truth.

When somebody nails every point, even if its from the other party, the best thing to do would be to at least acknowledge SOME objective truths even if you don't agree with everything. 

Repeating the same old republican rhetoric lies from really bad, far right sources is just digging a deeper hole.

Give the democrats their victory here. 

Trying to vehemently fight a war that was lost on November 3, 2020 (republicans could have just acknowledged it and moved on-but Trump tricked much of the party) is just magnifying the causalities on the the republican side in the theater of truth.

joj spoke the objective truth on this.   

Republicans should go on to other, much more important issues dear to republican hearts which are winnable instead of having their credibility obliterated on this issue....handing their heads over on a platter to democrats over and over and over in discussions like this:



By metmike - Jan. 8, 2022, 12:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Previous discussions on this:

                Capitol Police officer says it's a 'disgrace' that Pence is dismissing January 6            

                            3 responses |                

                Started by metmike - Dec. 31, 2021, 10:39 a.m.            


    If you have been watching Fox News...            

                            59 responses |             

                Started by joj - Dec. 14, 2021, 8:55 p.m.            


                learning so much more from the Jan 6th committee            

                            32 responses |             

                Started by mcfarm - Dec. 17, 2021, 6:06 p.m.            


By metmike - Jan. 8, 2022, 1:01 p.m.
Like Reply

Despite my opinions/facts on the previous page, I believe that what Kamala Harris stated 2 days ago about the Insurrection was very likely the most historically dumb thing stated by a US vice president in history. Trump had the franchise for saying dumb things for a president though.

Her phrasing it this way, made it clear that the democrats are tremendously motivated by much more than the truth and want to politically weaponize the Insurrection more than anything. 

We all knew that of course but this made it embarrassingly obvious to even democrats with any objective brain cells........who have to be cringing when they listen/read to what she stated. 

How about it joj, do you agree?

Harris slammed for comparing Capitol riot to 9/11, Pearl Harbor attacks






Pearl Harbor




By TimNew - Jan. 8, 2022, 1:24 p.m.
Like Reply

LOL.  I KNEW this would be a response.

Fact check: Trump repeats false claim that Pelosi rejected request for National Guard ahead of Jan. 6

Hillarious, for several reasons.  First, anyone who pays any attention to fact checkers adfter the discussions during the Stossell v Facebook suit has a captured brain.  They admitted they don't use facts,  they use opinions.  I realize many have no clue as to the difference betweem facts and opinions,  present company included,  but there really is a significant difference.

But the fact checkers say..  "There is no record of Trump making this request" so in their opinion, it must not have happened.  

And lets ignore the fact that there were other documented requests made, all refused.   But since no one made a record of Trump asking, and the people he asked made a mistake in refusing are refusing to coraborate, then it must be false.  <GUFFAW>

Here's one of many examples.

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

By metmike - Jan. 8, 2022, 2:17 p.m.
Like Reply


Even your proof...........proves your fact is wrong. Thanks

 "He asked for the national gaurd to be available in advance."

Where in your article does it say that Donald Trump asked for the national guard to send 10,000+ troops to come to this event.....as FOX has you believing?

Where does it say that Nancy Pelosi was the one that rebuked the request as FOX has been insisting?

You ignore this in the article of course:

"Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it"

Again, you rely on the words..........of one person that lost his job for botching the security(because this is what FOX told you and this is what you want to believe). If he's right, where's his evidence of this request? Wheres the data?

 Certainly people making a huge request like this have to submit request forms. They don't just call up somebody on the phone and tell them:

"Hey Joe,  I'd like 10,000 National Guard troops sent to the Capital on January 6th"

 There would always have to be a written or formal request form or official request/communication on this to follow protocol that WOULD BE IN THE RECORDS! ALWAYS!

Where is it Tim?

You are so strongly against the current investigation but if this REALLY did happen, then they would be able to uncover records like that............because those records would be there.

They might be...........so let's find out.

Regarding this. There actually must have been some internal discussions about this because no way would all these top level security people be so oblivious about the obvious threat and decide not to bring in the national guard. Something that we don't know was taking place.

One thing that we can be certain of based on Trump's call to action for his people is that he did not want his protesting/rioting people to be neutered. His observing the event in real time for hours and doing absolutely nothing, while many dozens of his closest advisors pleaded with him to do something is proof of that.

We recently uncovered even more evidence of that from numerous sources:


By TimNew - Jan. 9, 2022, 6:55 a.m.
Like Reply

Oh,  this continues to be fun.  Thanks MM.

Even your proof...........proves your fact is wrong. Thanks

 "He asked for the national gaurd to be available in advance."

Where in your article does it say that Donald Trump asked for the national guard to send 10,000+ troops to come to this event.....as FOX has you believing?

See if you can follow me as I explain in more detail.

Trump claims he asked for troops. The people he asked say he did not.  The "Fact Checkers" call it false based on a "he said-she said" exchange. If they were objective,  they would have called it unsubstantiated instead of false.   But as we know from Stossell v Facebook,  "Fact Checkers" are anything but objective.  If you are unfamiliar with the case so far, I suggect you familiarize yourself.   You also may want to be very cautious in the future when relying on "fact Checkers" to support your arguments.  They are relying on the people who would be indicted for refusing the protection to substantiate Trump's claim.  

Now, if you dig further into the available data, you'll find that Trump didn't ask for the national gaurd to protect the capitol, he asked for them to protect the people attending his rally. In view of the leftist  army wing of the dem party (BLM,ANTIFA), that was a prudent move, Having the national gaurd available would have been a good thing.

Next point I made. Several documented requests for the national gaurd were made and also refused.  So, we know that it's very possible that if/when Trump made this request, he likely would have been refused as well.  But it appears the leftist powers that be, from congress to the mayor of DC, did not want a bunch of mean guys with guns standing around spoiling the mood of "coronation day". 

Now, on to your claim that I am opposed to the investigation.

I would very much like to know why it was so easy for the capitol to be breached on such an important day. With all the kings horses and all the kings men available to protect it, how was a disorganized group of rag tag hoodlums able to apparenly take control of the nerve center of our republic? 

But that's not what this "investigation" is about.  This "investigation" is another witch hunt where the objective is to make sure that Trump never runs for office again. And that makes it a true assault on democracy, much like all the other assaults we've seen from the left over the last 5 years, and actually more.   That is what I oppose.

On to a new point.    

People keep trying to pin the entire blame for the "Insurection", "Attempted Coup" "Riot" of Jan 6th on Trump. I can entertain some arguments that his inflamatory words contributed.   But there is no way he could have angered so many were it not for the continuous witch hunt of the last 5 years.  It's not difficult to convince people that the left will use any means necassary, that the ends justify any means, when the left has used any means necassary, that the ends justify any means, for the last 5 years. They were already angry long before the 6th, long before the election. I can understand the anger even if I'll never condone the actions of that group at the capitol on Jan 6th. And the current "investigation" perpetuates that anger.

By metmike - Jan. 9, 2022, 3:02 p.m.
Like Reply

This is why the National Guard didn’t respond to the attack on the Capitol


MAGA leaders call for the troops to keep Trump in office

A growing call to invoke the Insurrection Act shows how hard-edged MAGA ideology has become in the wake of Trump’s election 


Trump boasted of crowd size at Jan. 6 riot, new book says

New book details Trump's efforts to steal the election.


Crisis of Command: The Pentagon, The President, and January 6


"According to a report released last month, Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of the Defense on Jan. 6, told the Department’s inspector general that he feared “if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.” In congressional testimony, he said he was also cognizant of “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner” and that “factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification.”

Miller does not specify who held the fears that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, and he wasn’t asked by Congress. However, it’s now clear that such concerns were shared by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as former CIA Director and at the time Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Before Nov. 3, Milley and Pompeo confided in one another that they had a persistent worry Trump would try to use the military in an attempt to hold onto power if he lost the election, the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker reported. “This military’s not going to be used,” Milley assured Pompeo.

After Trump issued a Dec. 19, 2020 call to action to his supporters to come to DC to protest the certification of the electoral college vote on Jan. 6 (“Be there, will be wild!”), “Milley told his staff that he believed Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military,” and that he sought to stay ahead of any effort by the President to use the military in a bid to stay in office, Leonnig and Rucker write."

metmike: Exactly why we need further investigation to get to the bottom of this!

By TimNew - Jan. 9, 2022, 8:15 p.m.
Like Reply


By metmike - Jan. 9, 2022, 8:24 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim!

By TimNew - Jan. 10, 2022, 7:03 a.m.
Like Reply

you're welcome.

By metmike - Jan. 10, 2022, 3:18 p.m.
Like Reply

Jan. 6 panel fires back at Jordan over refusal to cooperate


"Beyond his communications with the president, other texts from Jordan have also surfaced during the committee investigation. Texts from Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows show Jordan forwarded him a text message calling for former Vice President Mike Pence to buck his ceremonial duty to certify election results.

And another text from Meadows’s trove shows that Fox News host Sean Hannity also communicated with Jordan, apparently raising new possible options ahead of the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Jordan is one of three people from whom the committee has sought voluntary cooperation. Similar letters have been sent to Hannity and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.)."

metmike: He has an opportunity to make his case and clarify facts, if they are not represented accurately. We know that the investigation is biased because it has more democrats on the committee but now would be the time for Jordan to reveal everything that happened with facts and defend himself........not stonewall. 

He's an extremely gifted communicator...........but is not taking advantage of that. An objective mind can only assume that there must be incriminating facts more powerful than his gifted ability to  communicate/defend and spin his way out of. 

With that being the case, this would be a smart decision for him PERSONALLY.

However, I would like to understand the truth and have all the objective facts.......that ALL Americans deserve to know, regardless of what they THINK the truth is and whether they are positive they know all of it already. 

Clearly, Jordan has some explaining to do and doesn't want to go there anymore, like he previously committed to with his misleading public statement that he doesn't have anything to hide.  

Spare me the "democrats are trying to frame him" excuse/justification. When you are being framed for something, that is exactly the time to come out like gangbusters with all the facts and testimony to defend yourself........but he's made the exact opposite decision. 

This is the response that people who have something to hide make. Is there actually something incriminating to hide? Nobody can say with certainty..........and that's exactly they way he wants it. Exactly why he's making this choice.

  Nobody with a lick of sense incriminates themselves and a bright guy like Jordan knows what the best path is for him politically. 

Instead of being cooperative and forth coming as promised, vilify the investigation committee and make THEM the ones at fault. This plays well to everybody on the right and thats all he cares about. Smart choice politically for Jordan. Not very honest.........but that's where interpretations from non political people like me come in that nobody pays attention to because they only care about/believe in  what their political party tells them to think/believe. 

By metmike - Jan. 10, 2022, 5:20 p.m.
Like Reply

Judge questions Trump's claim of 'absolute immunity' in Jan. 6 lawsuits


"The lawmakers argue that Trump and the other defendants "conspired to prevent, by force, intimidation and threats" Congress's certification of the Electoral College vote that delivered the White House to President Biden.

The plaintiffs point to the Jan. 6 "Stop the Steal" rally just before the attack on the Capitol, in which Trump and others exhorted the former president's supporters to "fight" Congress's certification of the 2020 election, citing baseless claims of widespread fraud that corrupted the results."

"But the plaintiffs argue that Trump's alleged incitement of his supporters was delivered as a candidate making a campaign speech and thus falls outside of the immunity afforded to a president's official duties.

"Those are actions that have to fall outside the scope of the presidency," Joseph Sellers, an attorney for Thompson, said during Monday's hearing. "The president could promote treason in a public forum, and by Mr. Binnall's argument, the court would be powerless to assess whether his conduct ... is immune."

Sellers argued that the law makes plenty of distinctions between official duties and campaign activities, and that Trump's remarks fall far outside of the bounds of legitimate presidential speech that should be protected.

"What's been attributed to Mr. Trump is fomenting an insurrection directed at a co-equal branch of government that was either [intended to] or at least had the effect of disrupting the lawful function of the government, of the Congress," he said."