Discuss.
Jan. 6th committee results
Discuss.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/polit...day/index.html
Former Attorney General William Barr said that Trump's claims of voter fraud were "bullshit."
Ivanka Trump said that she respected Barr and "accepted what he was saying" about the election.
Trump spokesman Jason Miller said the campaign data person told Trump in "pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose."
And the committee cited testimony from Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon, who testified he told Meadows by "mid-to-late November" that the campaign had come up empty trying to find widespread fraud in key states that Trump lost. Cannon said Meadows responded to his assessment by saying, "So there's no there there."
I wonder how her creepy, paedophilic dad is going to feel about Ivanka's betrayal.
My guess, from having lived with a narcissistic LSE mother, is that he will publicly ignore Ivanka's statements and will attack his accusers and everyone else who doesn't buy into his lies.Originally Posted by xerx
Ivanka is the only person whom he even marginally cares about, but even that could change if his dementia gets worse. Narcissists don't have friends and they hate themselves, so how do you think they feel about other people?
If you agree with a narcissist's gaslighting, or indicate that you like the narcissist, or even if you just suck up to them for personal gain, they conclude that you are sucking up to a person who is despicable (themselves, that is) and you, by your actions, are also despicable and contemptible.
I've said this before. I discovered at a very young age that my narcissist mother didn't love me. She simply tolerated my existence as long as I provided her with her narcissistic supply, and she made it clear that I was disposable if I didn't toe the line. Ivanka is in the same position. Jared might also be in that boat, but he is just a spineless weasel.
God, that's just sad.
I said MARGINALLY.
Sort of like the way you feel about that old sweater of yours, but you might like the sweater more than he likes Ivanka. Because you aren't as sick as he is.
You know, my father hated war, because he got to experience two of them up close and personal.
I hate narcissists for the same reason. Narcissists destroy everyone and everything they touch.
Does anyone honestly believe the committee will be fair and nonpartisan?
This is the same as Russiagate: some conspiracy theory based on absolutely nothing, and transparently just a partisan attack.
It sounds ridiculous if you actually say what you mean: the Republican (or Russian lol) plan to overthrow the government of the US was sending a relatively small group of unarmed obese herd animals to be allowed by police into one of the most surveilled and guarded places on earth. Fascism was then only narrowly averted on account of the police shooting a 35-year-old woman.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-10-2022 at 11:05 PM.
Maybe the committee's actions will lead to the hanging for treason of the conspirators and instigators. This would certainly seem, to the condemned, to be unfair to the condemned, but it happens.
The conspirators of the great conspiracy to shit on Nancy Pelosi's desk?
Fair? I don't know. But non-partisan? Sure, why not. Both Bill Barr and Ivanka were appointed by Trump.
Neither of them are on the committee, which is comprised of 2 Republicans and 7 Democrats. The "charge" is ridiculous in the first place, and Russiagate is another reason not to believe this will have anything to do with historical reality.
It's not as if the committee is censoring their (Bill and Ivanka's) opinions.
All I've seen is their being asked about their opinion re. election fraud, and their responses to those questions are politically useful to amplify, not to censor.
If those two are using the opportunity to condemn the show trial, I haven't seen it, but it A) it wouldn't mean anything -- about half the country already thinks it's a farce, and nothing is going to change that; B) the mainstream media here would devote 10x the coverage to le epic "betrayal" of Trump (as if those two aren't sociopaths and are acting from some deep-felt sense of propriety) to any criticism, however justified, of the committee.
LIVE: Footage played in Thursday’s hearing showed a meeting between Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right Proud Boys, and Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the anti-government Oathkeepers militia on the eve of Jan 6.
"Well, it's inevitable what's gonna happen. We just gotta do it as a team, together, strong, hard, fast."
https://twitter.com/malachybrowne/st...DRmaup1s0qAAAA
"And one of us has to take that dump on Pelosi's desk."
.
Well if that one clip of a few sentences with no context isn't irrefutable proof of a shadowy conspiracy to overthrow the US government by means of overweight unarmed morons I don't know what is.
By the way, did you know that before January 6th, the FBI had at least 4 top-level informants in the Proud Boys?
Did you know that Enrique Tarrio has a history of being an informant for law enforcement?
No one said these guys were smart.
Who, the FBI?
Edit:
So it's strange how the "stupidity" of intelligence agencies has a strange way of always working in their favor. The FBI "failed" to stop a group of people from co-ordinating to enter the Capitol on Jan. 6th. These people, despite supposedly being violent extremists who managed to outsmart the FBI, accomplished nothing and hurt no one in power, and the only political result of the event was that the same political group which had previously been the greatest protesters of police brutality and were saying things like "all cops are bastards" suddenly came to support the FBI and fetishize the political process they'd been beginning to question.
You might notice similar results from other "failures" of intelligence in recent decades.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-11-2022 at 01:12 AM.
If half the country (i.e. Trump supporters) is immovably unwilling to see it as anything but a farce, doesn't that tell you more about the lack of non-partisanship of Trump supporters?
I didn't mean necessarily Trump supporters, but generally more conservative types, sure. And you could say the same thing about Democrats. Conservatives are right in this case. This committee is a farce, yet everyone who watches CNN won't admit it; everyone who watches Fox will see it.
According to which committee? Is it non-partisan?
According to anyone who's willing to be honest about the fact that sending unarmed middle-aged idiots into the Capitol is a ludicrous way to attempt at a "coup," and wringing your hands about it representing some "assault on democracy" or whatever is pathetic.
But many of the rioters weren't unarmed, infirm, or middle-aged (the Proud Boys were there, for one thing). It's very conceivable that the rioters could have strong-armed Pence to ratify a different result.
Would it have been constitutional? No.
Could it have nevertheless been exploited for some tangible or intangible electoral gain? Possibly. According to a federal judge, Trump did try to rig the election in several ways (https://abcn.ws/3xkhFZ6). Using Mike Pence to ratify a different result is one of them.
Yeah, a few protestors who didn't enter the Capitol had guns. And by "a few" I mean enough to count them on one hand.
If they had any such plan, they would not have shown up with no guns.It's very conceivable that the rioters could have strong-armed Pence to ratify a different result.
Oh yes, an FBI honeypot was there. That is the function of the Proud Boys. They are not a group of dangerous white supremacists; they are a group controlled by the FBI and dangerous because they are intelligence assets.(the Proud Boys were there, for one thing)
Why do you specifically need guns to threaten someone?
Evidence?Oh yes, an FBI honeypot was there. That is the function of the Proud Boys. They are not a group of dangerous white supremacists; they are a group controlled by the FBI and dangerous because they are intelligence assets.
Because if you don't, the people who have guns and are protecting the people you try to threaten will shoot you.
1) I already posted evidence that the Proud Boys' leadership is FBI assets, 2) no one in power was threatened 3) the FBI had everything to gain by this operation and Trumpists and/or white supremacists had nothing to gain by it, 4) intelligence has been using radical groups to further the ends of the security state for decades.Evidence?
If it looks like it's an intelligence operation and it acts exactly like an intelligence operation and the leaders of the movement are intelligence assets then it probably isn't a grassroots protest.
It's perfectly fair to claim that intelligence agencies do exploit radical groups. I'll buy that, and I can even buy the possibility that there were agent provocateurs acting on behalf of some shady political agency. But, having read your sources, I didn't get the impression that the entire riot was astroturfed.
It seems hard to believe that the "Trumpist" element wasn't at least somewhat genuine. I could be wrong. Maybe we should set up a committee to investigate.
That's because you don't have a clear image of what you mean by "element." When operations like this happen, the entire point is that the people who carry out the actions themselves are genuine in their intent. The 9/11 hijackers and Boston Bombers were believing Muslims, the Symbionese Liberation Army had genuine if confused beliefs (they're the exception in that it seems their leadership wasn't controlled tightly enough and they went off-script), the CPUSA had people willing to die for the cause in its lower ranks, even today there are people who aren't cynical about Black Lives Matter after its original leaders were assassinated or disappeared into unmarked vans.
Everyone is under surveillance. This fucking forum is under surveillance. Almost every tech company rolls over to give the NSA anything they please. If you think that a group of stupid rural people nearly pulled off a coup against the US government by Facebook Messenger you are delusional. Every meaningful political movement and quite a few that aren't meaningful is infiltrated and nearly always defused into either performative uselessness or to directly serve intelligence. In the UK there were recently revelations that every even vaguely left-wing group in the country, including vegan and animal rights activist groups filled with nothing but old women, had been infiltrated by police. The US which spends truckloads more on its intelligence is doing something with that money, and it's not sitting back and watching the Capitol get burned to the ground.
Instead, what happens is that the anti-police movement is defused, because people like you are led to believe there are evil uneducated (the horror!) white supremacists on the brink of taking over the state, and thank God the FBI is investigating this threat and speaking of God let's affirm the sanctity of liberal democracy that the Capitol represents.
Last edited by FreelancePoliceman; 06-12-2022 at 05:03 AM.
FreePo, I agree that everyone is probably under some surveillance. I agree that movements can be (and have been) infiltrated. But, from what I remember (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not obsessed with American politics and don't follow everything), the rioters were energized by Trump's speech before the riot. It's not audacious to suggest that the riot was provoked by true believers, not explicitly by shady political operatives; that these same believers wanted to change the election result (and may have triggered a constitutional crisis in attempting to do so); and that other, less resolute rioters got carried along by the momentum.
We'll know for sure when FBI agents start reporting brain aneurysms from being here.This fucking forum is under surveillance.
So do you believe the event was planned by white supremacists or not?
If you believe this had anything to do with the Proud Boys, please read this article and tell me that Enrique Tarrio is not a fed.
That's an uncharitable mischaracterisation of my beliefs.
I don't believe that liberal democracy is the be-all and end-all of political philosophies. The capitol (and its denizens, especially) almost certainly should not be sanctified. I don't care for sappy, sentimental propaganda, and I'm certainly not here to propagandize on behalf of politicians. What I do believe is that mob rule is far worse than the alternative, and that it is mob anonymity that allows provocateurs to flourish in the first place.
As for "defunding the police", I've never agreed with that. Without the police, law enforcement would be taken over by the Boogaloo Boys or other self-appointed vigilantes. And instead of hundreds of Derek Chavins, we'd get thousands of George Zimmermans.
We'd get Christian fundamentalists driving around with gun racks, enforcing arbitrary religious laws. The rich would hire private security to patrol their gated communities, fortified by walls and surrounded with barbed wire. The police are at least under civil control, and their actions can be constrained, monitored and disclosed to the public.
Again, I'm not American, my country's police are less negligent or violent (although definitely not entirely), and maybe I'm not seeing everything.
I read the article. Why is Tarrio the only Proud Boy in a leadership role?
I don't know who planned the riots (or whether they were even planned before Jan. 6th as opposed to happening spontaneously). I wasn't there. But putting immediate blame on the FBI seems a bit bold, especially given the fact that Trump has a gift for rabble rousing, has some rather angry followers (with some legitimate grievances, I'd add), and was already on his way out.
FBI looks down on ppl who get traumatised working for them trying to solve cp cases, if they seek therapy/help
the nature of the agency suggest they are conservatives anyway.
https://linktr.ee/tehhnicus
Jesus is King stops black magic and closes portals
self diagnosed ASD, ADHD, schizotypal/affective
Your face makes your brain and sociotype – how muscle use shapes personality
I want to care
if I was better I’d help you
if I was better you’d be better
Human Design 2/4 projector life path 1
Last year, Senate Republicans blocked the creation of an independent commission for Jan. 6th: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...17_1_00218.htm
So the House established a select committee instead: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-...ution/503/text
Pelosi gave McCarthy the power to nominate 5 Republicans for the committee. His nominations included Jim Jordan and Jim Banks. Jordan and Banks objected to certifying the election results on January 6th. Furthermore, Jordan privately called Trump and spoke with him at length on the morning of the insurrection. He also met with Trump back in Dec. 2020 to discuss plans for overturning the election results on Jan. 6 (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...lection-449787).
Pelosi rejected McCarthy’s nomination for Jordan and Banks for the reasons outlined above, and McCarthy pulled all five Republican nominees in response. https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/72121-2
Having no Republican nominations from McCarthy, Pelosi appoints two Republicans to the panel herself: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-s...ffb4042f9bd5db
So yeah, if you’re wondering why Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney are the only two Republicans on the panel, that’s why.
They went in without any apparently purposeful activity, like a dog that finally caught a car it was chasing.
Damn my dude, you really are getting it from my end. If people truly understood the extent of the surveillance state and how it functioned we'd get one of two outcomes. Either they give into the sin of despair as it literally is everywhere an conceivably capable of fucking you in particular over just because it is truly massive enough to spare resources for such a minor operation...
Or we help the "normies" along and force them to realize that such a thing actually exists. Their gut reactions will do the rest as they then automatically go on what would amount to a justified and actually accurate witch hunt.
I've mentioned it before but, well, protestants really do fuck it all up. No true witch can pass a witch test. They literally cannot, even mockingly, utter a sequence of words that amounts to confessing that Jesus is the Christ and God has risen him from the dead.
It never occurred to the puritan witch hunters to even try that before condemning innocent folks to death. Their faith was, ironically enough, lacking.
The FBI needs literally God-Hating people to fill its ranks at this point. They (those who don't categorically hate God) get traumatized because, well, imagine catching your boss banging an 11-year old, doing what is only right by reporting that to his/her superior, and then nothing happens.
Now imagine you had some form of faith in your own government's institutions. Yeah, that's now been shattered in the worst way. Now imagine a person who didn't break but rather got rather fucking angry about that.
If I have not spelled it out before this post I'll do so now. Terms like "Conservative", "-Istaphobe", "X-supremecist", etc. are in truth simply another term for "Heretic". Those folks are daring to utter a heresy. A heresy against the Globalist "Gospel". A Gospel that is ultimately Satanic.
The devil is real and he rules the world. Too bad for him Christ is king of the universe and while the devil indeed is enjoying his hour to the fullest he cries in agony at the fast approaching dawn of God's full day...
No. I can't deal with this anymore. Every time I open up one of these politics threads I feel physical pain as I read through bad take after bad take. One more and I'm gonna pull a ducki and never come back here again.Discuss.
As a representative of the FBI proud boys deep state liberal establishment, I'm begging you guys, please, stop having opinions. It's hurtful, bad for you health, and makes everyone you talk to not like you.
There is a strong incentive to claim there was no voter fraud.
He could be, even if he doesn't realize it himself. The copy he reads every night isn't entirely written by him, it would be silly to assume that. I'm sure he has some creative control, but I think the extent of his involvement is setting the tone and his team of writers and researchers fill in the blanks, which would leave a lot of room for the insertion of hidden agendas and manipulated information. The mainstream media itself has to be considered compromised, no matter which side of the aisle their reporting falls on. The moment it became ok to politicize every bit of news that comes across the editor's desk was the moment the media was bought and paid for. The moment journalists and anchors were permitted to cast off any illusion of objectivity in their reporting of events was the moment corporate media became tools of the state. I don't know how accurate "deep state" conspiracies are, but it is plausible to me that many of the elements are in place.
To tie all this back in with the events of January 6th and the committee deliberations, I have little faith the committee will find anything close to the truth. They might brush against it, come close to it, but they won't quite hit the mark. I'm also struggling to care or find significance in the January 6th riot. I don't see how it benefited Trump, I think it's easy to see how his words played right into the hands of hindsight analysis and so the media just went with the low hanging fruit. Was it a covert action by government provocateurs? Maybe. I'm not dismissing that idea completely. We've been doing shit like this in other countries for decades, the CIA alone has had a lot of time to perfect and hone the craft (although they are not always successful, as we saw in Venezuela). I'm not saying the CIA is behind this, their focus is international, not domestic. I don't know who is responsible. I, too, however, am suffering from fatigue. I see the footage of the riot, but the weight of the matter fails to land with me. I guess I'm desensitized by the years (at this point) of BLM riot footage, it just doesn't deliver the amount of shock and hype to my system that people are trying to convey.
Tucker knows exactly what he's saying. He's been the person he is for a long, long time.
That was my favorite Jon Stewart moment. I'm not particularly impressed by any of the talking heads on any of the networks.
And that's not the issue. The issue is that we live in a panopticon ruled by people who have a long history of killing dissenters. And that panopticon lets people waltz right into the symbolic seat of government, even moving gates to allow them easier access, despite having plenty of advance warning.
1) anti-police feeling was rising in the liberal left before this point,As for "defunding the police", I've never agreed with that. Without the police, law enforcement would be taken over by the Boogaloo Boys or other self-appointed vigilantes. And instead of hundreds of Derek Chavins, we'd get thousands of George Zimmermans. We'd get Christian fundamentalists driving around with gun racks, enforcing arbitrary religious laws. The rich would hire private security to patrol their gated communities, fortified by walls and surrounded with barbed wire.
2) it's telling that the people you believe the police mainly constrain are white supremacists and evangelicals.
Even if you believe that's true of the police, the FBI, Secret Service, and RCMP for that matter are not constrained by public will, and this is by design. The public doesn't even know most of what they do. They are essentially accountable to no one.The police are at least under civil control, and their actions can be constrained, monitored and disclosed to the public.
Tarrio is the chairman of the Proud Boys and the FBI had at least 4 other informants in top leadership.
If you believe it was a spontaneous uprising you have to wonder why the police let the protesters in, why there was so little security, how the protesters unlocked doors locked with magnetic locks, and why the FBI has refused to answer any questions about its involvement with the event. The involvement of intelligence is the easier explanation; resistance to that comes only from the fact that that has a lot of implications about how politics operates in the developed world.I don't know who planned the riots (or whether they were even planned before Jan. 6th as opposed to happening spontaneously). I wasn't there. But putting immediate blame on the FBI seems a bit bold, especially given the fact that Trump has a gift for rabble rousing, has some rather angry followers (with some legitimate grievances, I'd add), and was already on his way out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
