╌>

J6 Committee failed to preserve records, has no data on Capitol Hill security failures, GOP charges

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  10 months ago  •  112 comments

By:   Andrew Miller (Fox News)

J6 Committee failed to preserve records, has no data on Capitol Hill security failures, GOP charges
The GOP head of the committee investigating the security failures of January 6 says the Nancy Pelosi-created committee did not preserve the documents as it was required.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


FIRST ON FOX: The House select committee that investigated the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021 failed to adequately preserve documents, data and video depositions - including communications it had with the Biden White House that are still missing - according to the Republican lawmaker overseeing the GOP investigation into the committee's work.

The now-disbanded "J6" committee, which was run by Democrats and included only two GOP members, has also failed to provide any evidence that it looked into Capitol Hill security failures on the day of the riot, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the Committee on House Administration, told Fox News Digital.

Loudermilk said his staff has had difficulty gathering all the information it needs to investigate Rep. Bennie Thompson's handling of the J6 investigation.

"Part of our task as this oversight subcommittee is to actually address the security failures, look into how did it happen… how were these folks able to get into the Capitol," Loudermilk said. He said the documents they obtained came over in boxes and was completely unorganized.

"Nothing was indexed. There was no table of contents index. Usually when you conduct this level of investigation, you use a database system and everything is digitized, indexed. We got nothing like that. We just got raw data," he said. "So it took us a long time going through it and one thing I started realizing is we don't have anything much at all from the Blue Team."

j6.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), left, chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, delivers remarks alongside Vice Chairwoman Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) during a hearing on the January 6th investigation.(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The "Blue Team," as described by Loudermilk, represents the group within the J6 committee that was directed to investigate security failures at the Capitol. Loudermilk explained that sources have told him the Blue Team was essentially "shut down" by the committee in order to focus on placing the blame on former President Trump.

" We've got lots of depositions, we've got lots of subpoenas, we've got video and other documents provided through subpoenas by individuals. But we're not seeing anything from the Blue Team as far as reports on the investigation they did looking into the actual breach itself," he said.

" What we also realized we didn't have was the videos of all the depositions," Loudermilk added.

Loudermilk said he has been contacted by a defense attorney that needed access to key information in one of the video depositions, and the committee realized it did not have the videos he was seeking.

Fox News Digital obtained correspondence letters between Loudermilk and Thompson's offices in which the two disagreed on whether the J6 committee preserved what it was required to under House rules.

Loudermilk says Thompson's committee was required by law and House rules to preserve and turn over all data related to their investigation at the end of the congressional term in December, and Loudermilk said as much to Thompson in a letter on June 26.

In response, Thompson wrote a letter saying that Loudermilk's letter had many "factual errors" and claimed his committee had followed the rules and turned over "4 terabytes" of data.

Loudermilk told Fox News Digital that his committee has only received 2.5 terabytes of data and said the first footnote in Thompson's letter to him on July 7 acknowledged they did not keep what they were supposed to.

In that footnote, Thompson wrote, "Consistent with guidance from the Office of the Clerk and other authorities, the Select Committee did not archive temporary committee records that were not elevated by the Committee's actions, such as use in hearings or official publications, or those that did not further its investigative activities. Accordingly, and contrary to your letter's implication, the Select Committee was not obligated to archive all video recordings of transcribed interviews or depositions. Based on guidance from House authorities, the Select Committee determined that the written transcripts provided by nonpartisan, professional official reporters, which the witnesses and Select Committee staff had the opportunity to review for errata, were the official, permanent records of transcribed interviews and depositions for the purposes of rule VII."

" He's saying they decided they didn't have to," Loudermilk told Fox News Digital. "It was clear in law they had to especially and, I mean, if there was any question, the fact that they used the videos in the hearings would dictate that it had to be preserved. The more we go in the more we're realizing that there's things that we don't have. We don't have anything about security failures at the Capitol, we don't have the videos of the depositions ."

Republicans have long maintained that many security warnings were ignored leading up to the Capitol Hill riot which was supported by Steven A. Sund, former chief of the Capitol Police, who wrote in his book that several government agencies had intelligence of a brewing threat but failed to communicate that with Capitol Police.

"Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021," a Republican led investigation concluded last year . "The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day."

Additionally, Loudermilk said he came across a letter that was not turned over to his committee from Thompson to White House special counsel Richard Sauber and DHS discussing an "agreement" made between the J6 committee and the executive branch to interview personnel whose names were later redacted.

"No version of the letter to Mr. Sauber — either redacted or unredacted — or the letter to the DHS General Counsel was archived by the Select Committee or provided to this Committee," Loudermilk wrote to Thompson. "Additionally, there is no explanation of what transcripts these letters are referring to or why you — in coordination with then Speaker Pelosi — did not immediately archive the records with the Clerk."

" Why didn't they preserve this?" Loudermilk said to Fox News Digital. "Did they not want us to know that there were documents that they had sent back to the executive branch?"

On the communication it had with the White House, Thompson wrote in his letter to Loudermilk that the "Select Committee did not have the opportunity to properly archive that material with the rest of its records with the benefit of the Executive Branch's guidance to ensure witness safety, our national security, and law enforcement sensitive information."

In a letter to both the White House counsel and DHS counsel sent Tuesday, Loudermilk asked to "arrange for the return of all original documents and records related to the events of January 6, 2021" that the White House and DHS posses "that originated from the Select Committee."

"The heavily redacted letter memorializing the 'loan' of documents to the White House was published as part of the Government Publishing Office's public release of documents from the Select Committee," Loudermilk wrote. "However, the original, unredacted letter from the Select Committee to you, as well as the records referenced in the letter, were not provided to the Committee on House Administration as required by House Rules."

Loudermilk asked the White House to provide "All documents that were transmitted or transferred to the White House by the Select Committee at any time in complete, original, and unredacted form" along with the unredacted communications between Thompson's committee and the White House at the end of the last Congress.

Loudermilk told Fox News Digital it has been a struggle to not only find all the documents, but to figure out what they are even missing in the first place.

"We're looking at the security failure at the Capitol and we're looking at how the January 6 committee operated itself and right now we're having so much trouble with the January 6 committee and how it operated that It's really impending our ability to investigate thoroughly the security failures at the Capitol," Loudermilk said.

"We've got enough to know that there was a huge intelligence failure," Loudermilk said. "I think Chairman Thompson's response to me is indicting of him. It's almost like saying, okay, yeah, we decided not to give you stuff. And I'm reading it as, Oh, you decided not to give us the things that you didn't want us to see. I mean, that's kind of the way you have to look at this."

Fox News Digital reached out to Rep. Thompson's office and the White House but did not receive a response.

"DHS responds to Congressional correspondence directly via official channels, and the Department will continue to respond appropriately to Congressional oversight," a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told Fox News Digital.

Loudermilk told Fox News Digital his committee is "aggressively" continuing to gather all the records it can to clear up "factual errors" in the previous committee's final report, including the security failures.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    10 months ago

The democrats can't seem do anything in an honest manner. It is unheard of for a committee to not preserve its records. The Jan 6th Committee is basically refusing to let Republicans see what went on.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago
The Jan 6th Committee is basically refusing to let Republicans see what went on.

It's all about the narrative.  We have to remember, this is a Democrat partisan shit show committee that hand picked it members and altered evidence .  And for what?  Well, we all know that reason.  

Now it appears they are trying to cover their asses.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1    10 months ago

That's right and at a time when the Trump defense team as well as the new House Committee wants to see those records.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    10 months ago

Without those records and the make up and history of the committee could reverse a lot of convictions and an impeachment.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.2    10 months ago

They all learned from Hillary.

Maybe it will be a good thing.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    10 months ago

If Trump's defense team plays things right, they could get a lot reversed without having to go down to Democrat level.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.4    10 months ago

Normally you would be right, but American justice has been upended.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.6  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.2    10 months ago
Without those records and the make up and history of the committee could reverse a lot of convictions and an impeachment.  

How so? The convictions and impeachment weren't predicated on committee records.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.7  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.4    10 months ago
If Trump's defense team plays things right, they could get a lot reversed

The prosecution has a high bar to reach, but the few arguments like First Amendment rights won't help Trump since he's not being charged solely on what he's said. It will be interesting to see it play out though.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @1.1.6    10 months ago
The convictions and impeachment weren't predicated on committee records.

You mean the records that the committee failed to preserve?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.9  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @1.1.7    10 months ago
The prosecution has a high bar to reach, but the few arguments like First Amendment rights won't help Trump since he's not being charged solely on what he's said.

And that's supposed to change my statement somehow?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.10  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.8    10 months ago
You mean the records that the committee failed to preserve?  

Yes. Records that have no bearing on J6 convictions. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.11  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.9    10 months ago
And that's supposed to change my statement somehow?

No. It's commentary on the issue to elicit a conversation. Not everything needs to confrontational. 

The prosecution has to prove intent which is a very high bar to meet. It's certainly not a given. The defense is throwing out shit to see what sticks with the court of public opinion. Their argument about First Amendment rights doesn't even address the charges.  I personally wouldn't make any bets on what either side can accomplish at trial at this time. I'm certainly hoping they don't try the First Amendment argument in court or that Trump can declassify information with his mind in a courtroom. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @1.1.11    10 months ago

In terms of legal procedures, Trump's intent may be hard to prove. 

In real world terms it isnt hard at all. Trumps intentions scream at us, if we listen. 

In both 2016 and 2020 Trump said, before the elections, that the only way he could lose was if the election was stolen from him by the Democrats. Just as importantly, in neither case did Trump promise to accept the result of the elections if he lost. Because he didnt lose in 2016 we never got to find out what he might have tried that time. He lost in 2020 and we did see what his intentions were. He immediately , on election night, started to claim the election was being stolen from him. 

No, his own words condemn him. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.13  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  evilone @1.1.11    10 months ago

The guy who runs into a crowded theater and screams “fire”, or fires a cap gun repeatedly, with the intention of flushing out his cheating girlfriend should still be guilty of manslaughter for the people who get trampled to death due to his actions.  Donald Trump had every reason to believe he was precipitating an insurrection.  There is ample evidence on the internet and in Bannon’s podcasts to back that up.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.13    10 months ago

Speech cannot be a crime.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.14    10 months ago

The law disagrees.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.16  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.15    10 months ago

Not the Constitution.

CCP law?

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.17  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.16    10 months ago

If you disagree, then test it for yourself.  Use your presumed unlimited freedom of speech to state an intention to harm the President.  See where that gets you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.17    10 months ago

See how well that worked out for Babbit and whoever that RWNJ was who just got what he deserved for saying he was going to assassinate the President and the VP???????

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.19  JohnRussell  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.13    10 months ago

The NEXT DAY after Justice Dept officials told trump they wouldnt play along with his schemes, Trump issued the call on twitter for his "army" to assemble on Jan 6. This was the next level, and his hope was that enough chaos would be caused to cancel or delay the electoral vote count. That is all he was interested in, damage to the Capitol or injuries to police officers were insignificant to him.  Nor did he care about a "protest". What good would a mere "protest" do him? He wanted action and he got it. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.20  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.17    10 months ago

The Constitution says otherwise.... despite what leftist judges & prosecutors do.


 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    10 months ago
He wanted action and he got it. 

 The President did say that the crowd was going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. 


For someone who hung onto his every word, how do you or your fucking politicized prosecutors overcome that?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    10 months ago

When exactly did the former 'president' say that?

You need to provide the proof.

You have never done so.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.5    10 months ago

The day the former 'president' waddled into the White House.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  evilone @1.1.10    10 months ago

How cute.  You think I take anything you say at face value.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.25  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.22    10 months ago
When exactly did the former 'president' say that?

Immediately before the Jan 6th protest


You need to provide the proof.

Here:

Transcript Of Trump's Speech At Rally Before Capitol Riot : NPR

Are you the only one on the planet that doesn't know he said that?  Btw: Why am I the only one on here that has to constantly provide links? You people never do it! [ deleted ]


You have never done so.

And we know you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.26  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    10 months ago

Trump is a known and proven pathological liar. His plea for "peaceful" was totally insincere. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.27  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.26    10 months ago

So, in other words, no matter what he says it merits a prosecution.  That is FASCISM!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
1.1.28  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    10 months ago
That is all he was interested in

You should really reach out to Jack Smith.  You know what Trump was thinking, you can be a big help to the prosecution in showing/proving the intent that Trump held.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.29  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.22    10 months ago

I think what you meant to say is you have never read the dozens of times he has provided proof to his statements.

You have stated dozens of times you don't read links supplied to you.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.30  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.19    10 months ago

And don’t forget his call to “take down the mags, they’re not here to hurt ME!”

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.31  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    10 months ago

Do you seriously believe that Trump would have been happy with a "protest" on the grounds outside the Capitol Building? A protest that would have accomplished nothing for him?

I know you are not that naive. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.32  evilone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.12    10 months ago
In real world terms it isnt hard at all. Trumps intentions scream at us, if we listen. 

I'm only interested in what can be proved in court.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.33  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.31    10 months ago
Do you seriously believe that Trump would have been happy with a "protest" on the grounds outside the Capitol Building?

Let me put it to you this way John: You know I loved his policies. On that day after he made that speech, I shut off the TV and said to myself, well, that is the end of that. It was only when my son-in-law texted me about the protestors entering the Capitol building that I learned that something else happened. Here is the problem with trying to tie in what happened with Trump's speech:

A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and “war,” according to an internal document reviewed by The Washington Post that contradicts a senior official’s declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone at last week’s demonstrations in support of President Trump planned to do harm.

FBI report warned of 'war' at Capitol, contradicting claims there was no indication of looming violence - The Washington Post


That means A DAY BEFORE TRUMP EVEN GAVE THAT SPEECH.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.34  evilone  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.24    10 months ago
How cute.  You think I take anything you say at face value.

Okay...  I find it interesting you can't have a civil conversation. Bye.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.35  JohnRussell  replied to  evilone @1.1.32    10 months ago

Thats fine , but his acceptability as a candidate for office needs to reflect more than just what occurs in court. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.36  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.20    10 months ago

In 1969, the Supreme Court’s Brandenburg v Ohio decision overturned Schenk v United States, ruling that inflammatory speech, even speech advocating violence by the Ku Klux Klan, is still protected speech unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

So, while it is legal to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, if such a hoax lead to injuries or death the perpetrator could be charged with Disorderly Conduct, Inciting a Riot, or other serious charges.

Your argument is woefully inadequate on the legal front.  Perhaps there is a position for you on Trump’s legal team?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.1.37  Greg Jones  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.1.36    10 months ago

Trump never told then to riot and storm the Capitol. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    10 months ago

I've read the many many many many many many many many many many many many many many lies (and listened) he told during that rambling incoherent 'speech' that day and he told them allegedly to march peacefully and patriotically' and then told them to fight like hell or we wouldn't have a country anymore.

YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES DO NOT KNOW ME - BUT I DO KNOW WHO YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES ARE.

I always provide the truth and facts

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.1.39  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1.37    10 months ago

He screamed for the mags to be taken down because “the rioters were not there to hurt ME.”  He wanted deadly weapons to be shuttled into a riot as it was happening.  Stop trolling.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.25    10 months ago

P.S. That was not a 'protest' - it was a failed coup/insurrection.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.41  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.38    10 months ago
then told them to fight like hell or we wouldn't have a country anymore.

Nice out of context point. If you actually read and could comprehend the speech, he was talking about the Repubs in Congress first and foremost.

Start here.............

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

And this..............

And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to. We're going to let you know who they are. I can already tell you, frankly.

Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It's like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we're going to have to fight much harder.

The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight.

But our fight against the big donors, big media, big tech, and others is just getting started. This is the greatest in history. There's never been a movement like that.

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Guess you needed a refresher.................You're welcome

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.42  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.41    10 months ago

No need.  I take no advice nor read any 'teachings' from those who I have no respect for.

You're welcome.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.43  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.41    10 months ago

I just got that - if you could comprehend that rambling lie fest, what does that say about you?

LOL!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.44  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.43    10 months ago
if you could comprehend that rambling lie fest, what does that say about you?

I have a great sense of comprehension. That you didn't comprehend says a lot about you. Sorry not Sorry

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.45  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    10 months ago
The President did say that the crowd was going to march peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol. 

Once.

For someone who hung onto his every word, how do you or your fucking politicized prosecutors overcome that?

By counting and comparing the number of times that peaceful means were advocated for versus the number of times violent methods were espoused over the preceding months. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.46  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.1.45    10 months ago

How many times do you require?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.47  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.46    10 months ago
How many times do you require?

I don't have requirements on that aspect. I know that he is guilty of treasonous dereliction of duty. He violated his oath to Uphold the CotUS and attempted to contravene the same in both spirit and letter when he sent his mass of supporters to the Capitol after getting them all fired up with lies about the election.

He should be in prison for the rest of his life.  The fact that he most likely will not be I lay at the feet of politicians and pundits who further this dereliction of duty with the continued promulgation of false narratives around and about him. People like that suck the life out of this country in the pursuit of money and power for the sake of money and power, with little or no thought given to the effect on the country as a whole.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.48  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.1.47    10 months ago
I know that he is guilty

I see. You just know it in your heart. I think that is what motivated Comey and Weissmann too.

On the other hand, we have to find a bank receipt marked "a bribe" somewhere in Joe Biden's bank account.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.1.49  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.42    10 months ago
I take no advice nor read any 'teachings' from those who I have no respect for.

Then why do you keep asking for links?

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.1.50  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.48    10 months ago

I watched it on tv just like the rest of the world. Only stupid people and liars think that what he did is acceptable and moral.

As for the Biden thing, I don't care. It is not of the same scope and caliber, even if it is true, of which I have my doubts. Not even close.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.51  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.1.50    10 months ago
As for the Biden thing, I don't care.

Thank you for your honesty.

I only wish others could have done the same,

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
1.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    10 months ago

I was actually looking forward too the Jan 6th investigation when I thought they were actually going to investigate all the things that contributed to the Jan 6th "peaceful demonstration".  What happened was obviously an afront to the Capital.  That quickly changed at the opening statement when the name Trump was uttered no less than 60 times and it seemed Trump was going to be the main, if not only, focus of the investigation.  At that point I realized the true intent of the committee.  Between that and the knowledge the committee would be carefully orchestrating what the public saw I did something more constructive with my time, I watched Big Bang Theory reruns.  It seems the committee making it harder to look at the investigation means  I made the better choice. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Right Down the Center @1.2    10 months ago
I made the better choice. 

Your wisdom has now been confirmed

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2  Ronin2    10 months ago

No need to wonder what the J6 committee is hiding; and why they shut down the investigation into the causes behind the security breach. 

They need to protect Pelosi, McCarthy, and Bowser from being shown as woefully negligent at best; or criminally culpable at worst; undermining the security on Jan 6th. Adequate security present and Jan 6th doesn't happen.

They are also protecting any FBI plants, or operatives, that were present during Jan 6th. Ones that may have been directly involved in inciting the riot. 

SSDD in Democrat land.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    10 months ago

More right wing nut job conspiracy theories. 

There may never be an end to this. 

The cause of the Jan 6 insurrection exists in plain sight and the truth is found in the indictments and convictions of hundreds of rioters, and the indictment and forthcoming conviction of their supreme leader. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3    10 months ago
More right wing nut job conspiracy theories. 

Coming the lead leftist conspiracy theorist- that means nothing. 

There may never be an end to this. 

There will be; but you won't like it- or ever believe it. Sooner or later the truth will come out. Which is the reason Democrats are covering their asses by hiding the evidence.

The cause of the Jan 6 insurrection exists in plain sight and the truth is found in the indictments and convictions of hundreds of rioters

You wouldn't know an insurrection if you were in the middle of one. Insurrectionists come fully armed. Insurrectionists have an organized plan. Insurrectionists take hostages, kill people, and hold territory/assets- they don't get bored and leave for happy hour. The only person killed on Jan 6th was an unarmed rioter- shot by Barney Fife with a gun (who should have been removed from the force after leaving his weapon in a restroom.

A U.S. Capitol Police lieutenant left his service weapon in a bathroom Monday night and the unattended gun was discovered later by another Capitol Police officer.

After the House adjourned on Monday, Lt. Mike Byrd left his Glock 22 in a bathroom in the Capitol Visitor Center complex, according to sources familiar with the incident. Byrd is the commander of the House Chambers section of the Capitol Police and was on the job Tuesday and Wednesday.

Byrd addressed the incident at Tuesday morning’s officer roll call and, according to sources, told fellow officers that he “will be treated differently” because of his rank as a lieutenant. It was not clear what exactly the lieutenant meant by the comment. 

Unlike a gun with a traditional safety, a Glock will fire if the trigger is pulled — making the discovery of an unattended gun in the Capitol complex particularly concerning.

Capitol Police said a service weapon was discovered “during a routine security sweep” Monday. Once the weapon was secured, the department began an immediate investigation into the matter, according to Capitol Police spokeswoman Eva Malecki.

“The Department takes these matters very seriously, and has a very thorough process to investigate and review incidents such as these, and holds personnel accountable for their actions,” Malecki said in a statement. “Following the investigation’s conclusion, appropriate actions will be taken in accordance with the Department’s official policies and procedures.”

This is not the first time that a case like this has come to light and under investigation in recent years. In 2015, there were a rash of Capitol Police service weapons left behind in inappropriate places.

If Barney wasn't there Babbitt would still be alive.

and the indictment and forthcoming conviction of their supreme leader. 

More fantasy. The FBI already investigated Trump's involvement with Jan 6th. They turned up nothing. Tell me the FBI is pro Trump.

The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.

Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then- President Donald Trump , according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.

"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."

Stone, a veteran Republican operative and self-described "dirty trickster", and Jones, founder of a conspiracy-driven radio show and webcast, are both allies of Trump and had been involved in pro-Trump events in Washington on Jan. 5, the day before the riot.

FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys groups, had aimed to break into the Capitol. But they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said.

Prosecutors have filed conspiracy charges against 40 of those defendants, alleging that they engaged in some degree of planning before the attack.

There is only one thing for certain- there is no cure for rampant TDS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    10 months ago
More right wing nut job conspiracy theories. 
Coming the lead leftist conspiracy theorist- that means nothing. 

You are imagining things. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    10 months ago

Trump is not being indicted for "centrally-coordinating" the riot and insurrection. He is being indicted for leading a conspiracy to overthrow the election process of the United States government. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    10 months ago
Insurrectionists take hostages, kill people, and hold territory/assets- they don't get bored and leave for happy hour. The only person killed on Jan 6th was an unarmed rioter- shot by Barney Fife with a gun (who should have been removed from the force after leaving his weapon in a restroom.

The insurrectionists had one thing in mind - disrupting or stopping the electoral vote count.  Their intention was to do whatever they could along those lines. 

Its interesting you bring up Ashley Babbitt and hostages. Babbitt was shot and killed while she was violently attempting to breach the Speaker's Lobby, a hall way that directly leads, in a matter of a few steps , into the chamber of the House Of Representatives. Do you think Ashley Babbitt was interested in breaking into the House only to find it empty? Or did she intend to confront the members getting ready to vote on the electoral count issue? She wanted come into direct confrontation with US Representatives. What exactly would have happened then we dont know, but since she was already violent and had broken a door and window to enter a forbidden area, we can assume she had extremely questionable intentions. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.4  JBB  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    10 months ago

original

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    10 months ago

This is a screen shot of the House Sergeant At Arms announcing the entrance of President Obama into the House chamber for a State Of The Union address. In the back we see a doorway that Obama and other officials are standing in, waiting be announced. On the other side of that doorway is the area Ashley Babbitt was trying to break into. 

800

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    10 months ago

Too bad for you the Congress critters were already gone; so you have no point.

A heavily armed swat team was moving up the hall to clear it. Shame that Barney Fife didn't get shot for not lowering his weapon- he was motioned to do so twice.

Notice the 3 security members blocking the doors leaving. They didn't want to get in the way of the SWAT team. Barney had his gun drawn the whole time. He was already predetermined to shoot someone.

Notice the nice clear hallway? Congress critters long gone. Barney hyperventilating in a corning nervously fingering the trigger of his gun which had been drawn for the entire time. 

When it comes to facts- you are severely lacking.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    10 months ago

Smith and a Georgia Democrat DA stretching laws hoping to get something to stick. The TDS driven "Get Trump at any costs crowd" doesn't give a shit about the Constitution, laws, or ethics. What will they do when their actions render all 3 meaningless? Will they be willing to live with the consequences? 

If Trump is guilty then so is Hillary- where are her charges?

Don't forget it was her campaign that paid for the bogus Steele Dossier and presented it to the FBI as evidence against Trump. The same dossier that was used for illegal wire taps of the Trump campaign.

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle a Federal Election Commission investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.

That’s according to documents sent Tuesday to the Coolidge Reagan Foundation, which had filed an administrative complaint in 2018 accusing the Democrats of misreporting payments made to a law firm during the 2016 campaign to obscure the spending.

The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, which then hired Fusion GPS, a research and intelligence firm, to conduct opposition research on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. But on FEC forms, the Clinton campaign classified the spending as legal services.

“By intentionally obscuring their payments through Perkins Coie and failing to publicly disclose the true purpose of those payments,” the campaign and DNC “were able to avoid publicly reporting on their statutorily required FEC disclosure forms the fact that they were paying Fusion GPS to perform opposition research on Trump with the intent of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election,” the initial complaint had read.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.8  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.6    10 months ago
Too bad for you the Congress critters were already gone; so you have no point.

Ashley Babbitt SAW congresspeople at the other end of that hallway. It may be why she was so frantic to enter. But your nonsense is easily disprovable. If Ashley Babbitt and the other traitor morons bashing a locked and barricaded door in were aware the representatives had already left, why were they trying to get in there so badly? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.8    10 months ago

Videos not clear enough?

Congress critters were long gone.

They didn't break through until the 3 security guards were pulled from in front of the doors. Notice the guards didn't have guns drawn- they took no action other than to stand there. None of the rioters attacked them. In fact outside of 3 or 4 violent ones most of them were streaming the event. Guess they wanted to make sure they had evidence ready to use against themselves for prosecution. Not exactly the brightest bunch. Which is why they were rioting in the first place.

Any more stupid questions?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.10  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.9    10 months ago
Congress critters were long gone.

Not true. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.10    10 months ago

Don't believe your lying eyes John. jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.6    10 months ago
800
This is from video looking down the speakers lobby hallway. Notice the numerous congresspeople in the back of the hallway.
See on the video time stamp where it reads 0:13 ?
This was THREE SECONDS before the first fist was punched through the door window which the rioters soon bashed in enough for the traitor Ashley Babbitt to climb through.
800
The idea that the rioters did not see the congresspeople down the hall is ridiculous. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.12    10 months ago

oooooo boy am I scared / S

Here is what scares us John:

OIP.QqaBgyRULmTOwQ3mAbyMmwHaD7?w=320&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.13    10 months ago

As arguments your efforts are utterly bankrupt. Whenever you are proven wrong about something you fall back on images of black people committing crimes. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.14    10 months ago

I think I made a fair comparison.

A federal building being vandalized vs a real riot.

YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.15    10 months ago

No, no comparison whatsoever.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.10    10 months ago

It's like they just make it up as they go jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.14    10 months ago

It's absolutely deplorable.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.19  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.17    10 months ago

I didn't make up the LA riots or the 2020 riots.

That is when the cops should have had the right to shoot to kill!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    10 months ago

I wasn't referring to that - I was referring to Ronin's lies.

You deflected with that photo from the LA Riots.  There is no comparison, NONE WHATSOEVER.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    10 months ago

The '2020 riots' shoot to kill then too?

Kyle Rittenhouse thought he had that 'right' along with a lot of other RWNJs.

I know of no 2020 'rioters' who weren't RWNJ plants.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.23  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.20    10 months ago

No, one was far worse than the other

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.24  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.22    10 months ago

And you don't know of any that were either.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.25  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.12    10 months ago
This was THREE SECONDS before the first fist was punched through the door window

Three seconds on the video. Pretty clear shot down the hall and no rioters in sight. They moved fast.............

Look at this one. Gives a better view down the hall with very few people. I saw one guard at the end of the hall and another guy came out of his office. And was a HELL of a lot more than three seconds for the glass to break.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.26  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.25    10 months ago

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.27  Greg Jones  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    10 months ago
"Babbitt was shot and killed while she was violently attempting to breach the Speaker's Lobby"
Yet another lie. She was unarmed and was shot attempting to climb through an already broken window.

You know absolutely nothing about Ashley Babbitt and what really happened.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.24    10 months ago

Yeah, I do.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.29  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.27    10 months ago

LOL. How did the window get broken? Through violence. Bashing in a door and window to get past a locked , barricaded entrance is VIOLENCE Greg, no matter what nonsense you have convinced yourself of. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.30  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.28    10 months ago

Name them.........and Rittenhouse wasn't one.. he wasn't rioting. GO

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.1.30    10 months ago

I didn't say that turd Rittenhouse was rioting - he was allegedly protecting property when he shot and killed protesters in cold blood.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.31    10 months ago

Okay so he's out. Who are some of the others if you don't mind.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.33  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.19    10 months ago
I didn't make up the LA riots or the 2020 riots.

That is when the cops should have had the right to shoot to kill!

Vs the melee/insurrection at the Capitol Building and the "Patriot" Ashley Babbit?  Right. We all know where the cards lie.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.34  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @3.1.33    10 months ago
We all know where the cards lie.

We found that out when the Hatfield Federal Courthouse was surrounded and firebombed with people trapped inside.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.35  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.34    10 months ago

Wrong cards

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.36  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @3.1.35    10 months ago

Let me turn them over

OIP.4Nyze1rFIkLUEEUdJxRDTQHaE8?w=247&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.37  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @3.1.4    10 months ago

366703811_10232076139831062_547236978512447143_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&cb=99be929b-59f725be&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=0f5592&_nc_ohc=1tNCKD-e7vIAX_7Iq2u&_nc_ht=scontent-bos5-1.xx&oh=00_AfAGIBZqpjKk669qGUdhMw0ez7x5ABXXblxom-lCmkFvTA&oe=64DAF79F

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
3.1.38  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.31    10 months ago
he was allegedly

Allegedly doesn't mean shit in the real world.  Being found not guilty does.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.39  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.36    10 months ago

256

Sorry! You Lose. And where did you get the extra Ace?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.40  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @3.1.39    10 months ago

That hand even gets a bonus payment at Foxwoods.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    10 months ago

Where are the records that EVERY committee archives ???

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2    10 months ago

Every committee run by Republicans you must mean.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.1    10 months ago

Thus far the Jan 6th Committee stands alone for not preserving their documents.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.2.2    10 months ago

I am not surprised any longer by nasty Democratic tactics.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.3    10 months ago

There is no bottom for them.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    10 months ago
More right wing nut job conspiracy theories. 

Isn't it odd how many things the left claims to "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be actual truth.  But then here we have you and your dozens of "smoking gun" conspiracy theories that turned out to be 100% fiction. 

The cause of the Jan 6 insurrection exists in plain sight and the truth is found in the indictments and convictions of hundreds of rioters, and the indictment and forthcoming conviction of their supreme leader. 

You mean the protest at the Capital?  The fact the J6 Partisan shit show didn't maintain any records could overturn all those indictments and convictions and even negate another partisan shit show "impeachment".  Hell, the fact the J6  Partisan shit show withheld and altered evidence could be enough to do all that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    10 months ago
You mean the protest at the Capital? 

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.2    10 months ago

And there it is.  Your go to action (personal attack) when you can't dispute something and have lost credibility.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.3.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    10 months ago

As compared to leftists.

"Mostly peaceful protests"

When it comes to definitions trust anyone but a leftist.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4  George    10 months ago

Is this one of those instances where democrats were for destroying evidence before they were against it?

 
 

Who is online