how many people did the January 6 rioters murder, and how many billions of dollars in damage did they do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so his response is this…

the BLM/antifa riots weren’t that bad. And if they were bad, it’s Trumps fault.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were there 25 million people involved on J6?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trumps political appointees did
Fox amplified their lies
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the actual number was 74,223,369......

No.

I answered your question, why can’t you answer mine?

How many people did the January 6 rioters murder, and how many billions of dollars of damage did they do?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

many, many and much more than the summer of love

and i will see where he got “25 million” from.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Five
And the cost was half a billion dollars
Pretty high for a 8000 person attempted coup

Most of them took public transportation home, and probably picked up take-out from Applebee’s on the way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you including the guy who tazed himself? :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they murdered 5 people? can you back that up please?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man -- some of those protests became violent," Judge Chutkan said in a sentencing hearing. "But to compare the actions of people protesting mostly peacefully for civil rights to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores the very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy."

And there goes Jim carrying the Conservatives Torch trying to compare the 2 riots as some how equal ! All while ignoring Trumps behavior before during and after the election seeding doubt in our elections…. And even as it becomes clear he attempted to get the DOJ involved . The Republicans and Jim and other Trump supporters make excuses

Grassley’s argument ultimately boiled down to this: It wasn’t so bad, because Trump didn’t actually get the Justice Department to do what he wanted it to do. Oh, and when he failed at that, he didn’t actually make good on his threats to start firing people and install a loyalist to lead the DOJ.


So Ya he Tried but he failed so what’s the Big Deal!!!!

Hea Donald can you come to my re-election rallies I need the support of your seditious followers an love autocratic leader like you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dead is dead, if it didn't happen they would not have died.

5 people died.

the capital police officer, who was widely reported to have been beaten to death, had two strikes the next day and his death was ruled natural causes.

two rioters died of natural causes

one rioter died a drug overdose.

and one rioter was a tiny unarmed woman, shot to death by a police officer ( who had a history of recklessness with his gun) without warning.

so how did you conclude that 5 people were murdered by the rioters? 4 of the 5. who died, were rioters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/7128040002

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m not saying the blm riots were the same as january 6th, i’m saying the blm riots were a million times worse.

What did the january 6th riots achieve?? First of all, the majority of republicans condemned what happened. Second, the rioters didn’t kill anybody or do tens of billions in damage. and for sure, while some of them hoped to reinstate trump as president, that was never going to happen, it did absolutely NOTHING to alter our democratic process. Nothing.

Compare that to the BlM riots. Almost nobody influential
on the left condemned the riots, they were billed as peaceful. People were murdered, God knows the property damage from fire. Worst of all, that anti cop furor is absolutely permeating into our way of life. some of the most powerful democrats in washington are calling to defund the police, and many large police forces are seeing officers leave and create openings that can’t be filled because no sane person would want to be a cop in a big city right now. Liberals in the media never give the cop the benefit of the doubt, every single time they declare the white cop guilty before the investigation is done.

There is no comparing the effect of the BLM riots to what happened in January 6th. There is no meaningful number of republicans in DC who want to continue the work
of what those idiots did on January 6. By contrast, there are plenty of powerful elected democrats who fully support the cause of the BLM rioters.

That summer, democrats said you couldn’t go to mass because of covid, but they specifically allowed BLM protests and riots. They denied freedom of assembly ( which is guaranteed in the constitution, nowhere does it say “unless there’s a pandemic”) to those not sympathetic to their agenda, and reserved freedom of assembly to those who are sympathetic to their agenda.

I would love to see you attempt to make that wrong. I would truly love it.


you keep saying that republicans want a dictator for president. it shows how completely ignorant you are. we want a much less powerful federal presence than democrats want. you don’t understand anything. zip. stick to catching tuna.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What happened at BLM protests pales in comparison to January 6th, this is one of your greatest hits in false equivalence. Look at how much destruction and compare it to how many people were involved.

"People gathered all over the country last year to protest the violent murder by the police of an unarmed man -- some of those protests became violent," Judge Chutkan said in a sentencing hearing. "But to compare the actions of people protesting mostly peacefully for civil rights to those of a violent mob seeking to overthrow the lawfully elected government is a false equivalency and ignores the very real danger that the Jan. 6 riot posed to the foundation of our democracy."

you made up the lie that the rioters murdered 5 people. i destroyed that lie.

what did i say about the woman killed by the cop, that was wrong, exactly?

who cares that some judge no one has ever heard of, agrees with you? what does that prove?

how did you get the idea that the rioters murdered 5 people? where did that BS come from? you have zero credibility.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's be clear. There were people in the government trying to directly engineer a coup and then a violent insurrection in the Capitol. No one should be reassured about the state of American democracy.

like when trump explicitly told them to be “peaceful and patriotic”?

how violent was the insurrection, when the only person killed by violence was a tiny woman who was trespassing?

how come these traitors you say planned a coup, haven't been charged by the Biden administration? You know more than they do, is that it?

why are you such a complete coward that you never, ever answer simple questions. you keep asking me questions, i always try to answer directly, and al you do is dodge my questions. what does that say about you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because you act like a teenage girl and I am not required to answer your questions.

On what basis, and why, would anyone assume DOJ 's NOT investigating this & all Trump's 1/6-related crimes? Prosecutors breach ethics rules if they comment on unindicted cases & they jeopardize the case. Only a fool would do this.

Did you forget or were not yet born when Nixon’s Attorney General, John Mitchell, and more than a dozen other Watergate-connected lawyers lost their bar licenses.

The Watergate burglary occurred in 1972, the trial was complete in 1975 a year after Nixon's resignation and pardon.

Hopefully Biden won't make the same mistake as Ford.

so when you said 5 people
were murdered by rioters and i asked you to support that, that’s it exposing a liar for what he is, but rather it’s acting like a teenage girl.

makes lots of sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but before the trial, the country was aware of what had happened.

i don’t know anyone who is aware that there’s an investigation into charging government officials
with treason. I dare say that only exists in your head. Might be time to change the tinfoil wrapped around your head.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, really
It wasn't till the end of July in 1974 that Hogan became the first Republican to publicly go against Nixon.
Nixon resigned two weeks later.

Watergate burglary 1972
Nixon reelected 1972
Nixon Resigns 1974
Lawyers convicted 1975

January 6 2021
Today October 8 2021

But if the Trumplicans again succeed in obstruction, the rule of law will no longer apply at all to the administrative branch.

my point, again, is people
knew well before the convictions.

I looked it up. in August of 1972 the Post reported that a $25k check for the Nixon campaign was deposited into the bank account if one of the burglars. So by then, anyone with a brain had an idea that something fishy had taken place. the date of conviction doesn’t matter. My point, which i made explicitly, is that the public was aware. I have t seen anyone but you suggest there was a coup planned at the highest levels of the government, that’s a tough thing to keep secret.

So either they’re keeping that a secret, or you made it up ( like making up that the rioters murdered 5 people), because it’s your wet dream ending to the trump administration.

Which do you think is more likely.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr.../timeline.html

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's been all over the news Jim.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/polit...emo/index.html

In a normal world, the “Eastman memo” would be infamous by now, the way “Access Hollywood” became the popular shorthand in 2016 for the damning recording of Donald Trump’s bragging about groping women.

But it’s a good bet that most people have never even heard of the Eastman memo.

As the full picture of Jan. 6 begins to come into view, I think we should consider it a kind of revolution or, at least, the very beginning of one. Joe Biden ultimately became president, but Donald Trump’s fight to keep himself in office against the will of the voters has upturned the political order. The plot itself shows us how.

Trump, we know, urged Mike Pence to reject the votes of the Electoral College, with the mob outside as the stick that would compel his obedience. “You can either go down in history as a patriot,” Trump told Pence, as recounted in this newspaper, “or you can go down in history as a pussy.”

When this was first revealed, I assumed that Trump simply wanted Pence to do whatever it would take to keep himself in power. But this week we learned that he had an actual plan in mind, devised by John Eastman, a prominent conservative lawyer who worked with the former president to challenge the election results, a job that included a speaking slot at the rally on the National Mall that preceded the attack on the Capitol.

“We know there was fraud,” Eastman said to the crowd that would become a mob. “We know that dead people voted.”

“All we are demanding of Vice President Pence,” he continued, “is this afternoon at 1 o’clock, he let the legislatures of the states look into this so we get to the bottom of it and the American people know whether we have control of the direction of our government or not!”

These weren’t just the ravings of a partisan. Eastman was essentially summarizing the contents of a memo he had written on Trump’s behalf, describing the steps Pence would take to overturn the election in Trump’s favor.

First, as presiding officer of the joint session in which Congress certifies the election, Pence would open and count the ballots. When he reached Arizona, Pence would then announce that he had “multiple slates of electors” and would defer his decision on those votes until he finished counting the other states. He would make this announcement for six other swing states — including Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — before announcing that “there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States” on account of election disputes and accusations of fraud.

At this point, Eastman explained, Pence could declare Trump re-elected, because — with seven states removed from the count — the president would have a majority of whatever electors were left, and the 12th Amendment states that the “person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”

If, for some reason, this didn’t fly, Eastman went on, Pence could then say that no candidate had won a majority and thus the election must go to the House of Representatives, where each state has a single vote and Republicans controlled a slim majority of state delegations, 26 to 24. If Democratic objections led both houses of Congress to split into their separate chambers to resolve the dispute, then Republicans could obstruct the process in the Senate and create a stalemate that would allow Republican-controlled state legislatures “to formally support the alternate slate of electors.”

As for the courts? Eastman argued that they don’t matter. “The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter.” If Pence has the power, then Pence should act and “let the other side challenge his actions in court.”

Eastman’s confidence throughout this memo (he dismisses potential Democratic objections as “howls”) belies his shoddy legal, political and constitutional thinking. For one, his argument rests on an expansive reading of the Twelfth Amendment for which there is no precedent or justification. The vice president has never directly counted electoral votes. “Beginning in 1793, and in every presidential election since,” the legal scholar Derek Muller notes in a piece debunking key claims in the memo for the website Election Law Blog, “the Senate and the House have appointed ‘tellers’ to count the electoral votes. These tellers actually tally the votes and deliver the totals to the President of the Senate, who reads the totals aloud before the two houses after the tellers, acting on behalf of Congress, have ‘ascertained’ the vote totals.”

The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, codified that practice into the Constitution. Congress would do the counting, and the vice president would simply preside over the process.

Eastman also asserted that the vice president could disregard the procedure specified under the Electoral Count Act because the law itself is unconstitutional. That, Muller notes, is controversial (and something Eastman himself rejected in 2000, in testimony before the Florida Legislature during the dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore). And even if it were true, the 117th Congress, on its first day in operation, Jan. 3, adopted the provisions of the law as its rule for counting electoral votes, which is to say Pence had no choice but to follow them. His hands were tied.

Which gets to the politics of this scheme. If Pence were to disregard the rules and the history and seize control of the counting process, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would presumably have suspended the joint session, which relies on the consent of both chambers of Congress. “With a stalled and incomplete count because of a standoff between Pence and Pelosi,” the legal scholar Ned Foley writes in a separate Election Law Blog post, “the Twentieth Amendment becomes the relevant constitutional provision.” Meaning, in short, that at noon on Jan. 20, Pelosi would become acting president of the United States. Pence would lose authority as vice president (and president of the Senate) and the joint session would resume, with Congress putting its stamp of approval on Biden’s victory.

And let’s not forget that a series of moves of the sort envisioned by Eastman would spark national outrage. The “howls” would not just come from congressional Democrats; they would come from the 81 million voters who Pence would have summarily disenfranchised. It is conceivable that Trump and his allies would have prevailed over mass protests and civil disobedience. But that would depend on the support of the military, which, if the actions of Gen. Mark Milley were any indication, would not have been forthcoming.

None of this should make you feel good or cause you to breathe a sigh of relief. Consider what we know. A prominent, respected member in good standing of the conservative legal establishment — Eastman is enrolled in the Federalist Society and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — schemed with the president and his allies in the Republican Party to overturn the election and overthrow American democracy under the Constitution. Yes, they failed to keep Trump in office, but they successfully turned the pro forma electoral counting process into an occasion for real political struggle.

It was always possible, theoretically, to manipulate the rules to seize power from the voters. Now, it’s a live option. And with the right pieces in place, Trump could succeed. All he needs is a rival slate of electoral votes from contested states, state officials and state legislatures willing to intervene on his behalf, a supportive Republican majority in either house of Congress, and a sufficiently pliant Supreme Court majority.

As it happens, Trump may well run for president in 2024 (he is already amassing a sizable war chest) with exactly that board in play. Republican state legislatures in states like Georgia and Arizona have, for example, used claims of fraud to seize control of key areas of election administration. Likewise, according to Reuters, 10 of the 15 declared Republican candidates for secretary of state in five swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada — have either declared the 2020 election stolen or demanded that authorities invalidate the results in their states. It is also not unlikely that a Republican Party with pro-Trump zealots at its helm wins Congress in November of next year and holds it through the presidential election and into 2025.

If Trump is, once again, on the ballot, then the election might turn on the manipulation of a ceremony that was, until now, a mere formality.

Here, I’ll return to where I started. If this happens, it would be a revolutionary change. In this world, the voters, as filtered through the Electoral College, no longer choose the president. It becomes less a question of the rule of law and more one of power, of who holds the right positions at the right time, and especially, of who can bring the military to their side.

Not his news, that's busy with "The evils of the left" Haitians have AIDS

:rtfm:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...8-eastman-memo

Five ways Trump tried to push a coup
1. Trump tried to pressure secretaries of state to not certify.
2. Trump tried to pressure state legislatures to overturn the results.
3. Trump tried to get the courts to overturn the results.
4. Trump tried to pressure Mike Pence to overturn the results.
5. When all else failed, Trump tried to get a mob to overturn the results.

Fox and the NY Post don't even mention it :smokin:

so who are they investigating for treason? that was my question, and interestingly, i don’t see that in your link.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doesn't fit the definition of treason.

Actually DOJ just asked the J6 committee to limit their scope.
Usually that means they’re concerned that it would interfere in an active investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you forgetting the officer who died a few days later after being slammed in the head with a fire extinguisher? Or the four officers who committed suicide just after the violent insurrection? I think another three protesters died during the violence as well.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Eastman is being looked at for solicitation to commit election fraud by asking for Pence to falsify the count.

The White House has informed the National Archives they are not asserting executive privilege on behalf of former President Donald Trump.