dajo9 said:

---

What I would like information on is the delay in getting the national guard there

---

ICYMI: Trump's call for 10,000 extra troops on Jan 6th was 1st reported by the fringey far-right @VanityFair https://t.co/GBz5L9C49M

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) August 22, 2021

Trump Confirms He Called For 10,000 National Guard Which Pelosi Refused. https://t.co/4nH4NJYO31

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 1, 2021

dajo9 said:

---

What I would like information on is the delay in getting the national guard there

---

Hopefully the info will come out.

I think it's been shown that Trump was aware that his call to action would work and that thousands of cops would be needed to keep the seditious morons acting on his behalf in check.

Of course the right will say that there was no "organization", that it was completely unplanned and spontaneous and that no one knew this was going to happen while somehow also claiming that Trump knew we needed a massive unprecedented police presence. Sure that makes sense. It was just a few tourists giving out hugs but we need 10k riot police.

The one force tRump can't con is Mother Nature. At 5'11, 300 lbs+, he is a dead man walking. When he blows it will like throwing a sack of pudding into a ceiling fan.

concordtom said:

---

Wife
I read the headline and opening paragraph. I'll be glad to read more, but by my eyes and ears, this is complete rubbish.

Do I really need the FBI to explain things such as "today is the day we start taking names and kicking ass!"
Or, "so, we're going to match up to the Capitol, and I'll be with you... stop the steal."
Or...

There are times I respect you, and there are times you aide in my losing faith in mankind. This would be one of those latter moments.

Tell me, what would you have done if you were out for a nice Sunday drive, and then you came to a railroad crossing and saw a train full of people stacked inside cattle cars, with a banner attached which reads, "sanctioned by your leader." ???
Hmmm?
Would you put that Cal education to use and compute what 2+2 is??

Sure, there are technicalities involved. And you know, OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole - he was found not guilty!
Do you agree???

---

I agree your a ranting and providing nothing meaningful to the comvresation.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've covered this ground before. Wiaf is the same guy that doesn't believe lynchings happened in America because there were no prosecutions.

---

Defection by Mr. Dajo. I guess there must have been investigations that also said no lynching. Must have been a vast right wing conspiracy involving the FBI and Justice Dept said there were no lynchings.

What happened to Mr. there are ongoing investigations that will show it was a insurrection? Were not you the same guy that said that? Update: the investigations are in and you are now called on it. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

---

Can you provide a source where I said that?

---

How about Bear Insider Growls, to wit:

"Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).

Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days"

Limiting your posts to the usual reposting tweets from some nimrod might be a safer play.

---

Wife, you coward. Why didn't include my whole quote? After what you quoted above I also said. . .

"Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened."

So here you are with an anonymous leak from the FBI (part of the Department of Justice) spiking the football again. What a dope. The only thing you got right was your headline saying I was vindicated. Link to my quote is below.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101552/replies/1872733

---

Ads anyone reading what you posted can read, you said that I spiked the football and was out of bounds (to mix metaphors) because there were more investigations coming that will find the truth as you, the omnipotent, already knew with your superior (insider?) knowledge. Well thousands of hour and a ton of money later they are the investigators are saying no conspiracy, no coup and non of the rest of the bullshyte your selling as the 'truth." .

Then you say that the Democrats are too timid to act on the findings you say are coming. Not even the most partisan of Departments of Justice can move when they didn't have any evidence supporting your wild eyed assertions. Nice deflection. Didn't think I needed to add that. But yes, your last paragraph is irrelevant because the Department of Justice did not move forward since there is no evidence to support your made-up assertions.

Perhaps Pelosi can investigate Tom's mysterious Glock that never materailzed. Do you want the spellled out as well. You have a history of making up things and then trying to deflect when called on on your fiction, by saying something somewhere else you said "nevermind". Not this time.

I also think it is worthwhile, understanding how easily events with large groups of people acting on emotion can lead to disastrous results. I recently watched a documentary on the Malice at Auburns Hills, and the whole event probably doesn't happen if one dude in the crowd doesn't throw a red plastic cup with a little bit of beer. That small and seemingly innocuous act triggered all the mayhem after. And if people are thinking its not relevant as this is a political event. Remember the Berlin Wall fell because a government spokesperson misread some notes at a press conference, that small and seemingly innocuous mistake triggered the fall of the wall and the widespread fall of communism,

Point being, don't trivialize an angry group of people, killing police, forcing their way into the capital building, shouting for the death of members of the government, while trying to prevent the certification of an election and therefore the transfer of power.

golden sloth said:

---

I also think it is worthwhile, understanding how easily events with large groups of people acting on emotion can lead to disastrous results. I recently watched a documentary on the Malice at Auburns Hills, and the whole event probably doesn't happen if one dude in the crowd doesn't throw a red plastic cup with a little bit of beer. That small and seemingly innocuous act triggered all the mayhem after. And if people are thinking its not relevant as this is a political event. Remember the Berlin Wall fell because a government spokesperson misread some notes at a press conference, that small and seemingly innocuous mistake triggered the fall of the wall and the widespread fall of communism,

Point being, don't trivialize an angry group of people, killing police, forcing their way into the capital building, shouting for the death of members of the government, while trying to prevent the certification of an election and therefore the transfer of power.

---

Jan 6 should not be trivialized. Full stop.

But to your point about the Malice at AH. I think you need to look at events prior to Jan 6. When did destroying property, invading government buildings, and disrupting legislative action become normalized (or at least tolerated)? What made the people on Jan 6 think what they were doing was in any way ok? The answers are fairly obvious.

When one side attacks a federal building in Seattle for literally months (and burns down several police stations in various places), all without serious police intervention or prosecutions, the people on the other political side with grievances have thoughts. When one side disrupts the legislative process with protests and other antics (Kavanaugh hearing being but one example), the other side sees that too. When there are mostly peaceful protests where massive property damage and looting are tolerated (at least to some extent) and public property (statues) are destroyed, the other side has more thoughts.

I am not defending or excusing Jan 6. It was more serious because it disrupted and sought to prevent the lawful transition of power. But if you want to understand why "normal people" felt what they did was ok, you have to look at prior events and what has been normalized (or at least rationalized). Jan 6 was an escalation - but it wasn't the start.

And the scary thing is that the Jan 6 events involved unarmed individuals (for the most part). No guns were used except by law enforcement. But that might not be the case next time.

The lesson here is that all political violence, disruption of the political process by force, and political property damage should be condemned - you can't condemn it only when the other side does it. If we don't have a bipartisan agreement on that, then things will get much worse.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've covered this ground before. Wiaf is the same guy that doesn't believe lynchings happened in America because there were no prosecutions.

---

Defection by Mr. Dajo. I guess there must have been investigations that also said no lynching. Must have been a vast right wing conspiracy involving the FBI and Justice Dept said there were no lynchings.

What happened to Mr. there are ongoing investigations that will show it was a insurrection? Were not you the same guy that said that? Update: the investigations are in and you are now called on it. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

---

Can you provide a source where I said that?

---

How about Bear Insider Growls, to wit:

"Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).

Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days"

Limiting your posts to the usual reposting tweets from some nimrod might be a safer play.

---

Wife, you coward. Why didn't include my whole quote? After what you quoted above I also said. . .

"Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened."

So here you are with an anonymous leak from the FBI (part of the Department of Justice) spiking the football again. What a dope. The only thing you got right was your headline saying I was vindicated. Link to my quote is below.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101552/replies/1872733

---

Ads anyone reading what you posted can read, you said that I spiked the football and was out of bounds (to mix metaphors) because there were more investigations coming that will find the truth as you, the omnipotent, already knew with your superior (insider?) knowledge. Well thousands of hour and a ton of money later they are the investigators are saying no conspiracy, no coup and non of the rest of the bullshyte your selling as the 'truth." .

Then you say that the Democrats are too timid to act on the findings you say are coming. Not even the most partisan of Departments of Justice can move when they didn't have any evidence supporting your wild eyed assertions. Nice deflection. Didn't think I needed to add that. But yes, your last paragraph is irrelevant because the Department of Justice did not move forward since there is no evidence to support your made-up assertions.

Perhaps Pelosi can investigate Tom's mysterious Glock that never materailzed. Do you want the spellled out as well. You have a history of making up things and then trying to deflect when called on on your fiction, by saying something somewhere else you said "nevermind". Not this time.

---

Lol, I said I don't expect much from the Department of Justice in the very post you quoted from me. You can strut around all you like but you can't change what I said in that very same post.

Fans of the FBI, like yourself, apparently don't believe anything can be without the acknowledgement of the FBI. The FBI has always been on the side of the conservative white power structure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh in regards to the "investigation" of him.

What's happening here is a case of framing the narrative that the usual Trump supporters like Wife and Yogi are jumping all over. A Congressional investigation is happening. Media (some) continue to dig into details of the 1/6 coup attempt. So, some FBI leakers put some cold water over everything to put out the Trump-friendly narrative that Wife is pushing before the People's business in the House is concluded.

No different from Bill Barr's phony summary of the Mueller investigation. No different from all the bs that was put out about Iraq and WMD's by people Wife fully supported.

They are establishing the narrative before the facts come out. They'll now stick with their narrative no matter what facts come out. Just like the "no collusion" silliness, and the election is rigged silliness, and the Covid is a hoax silliness. It's all cut from the same gaslighting cloth.

Unarmed for the most part ? Are you serious?

Take the L.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've covered this ground before. Wiaf is the same guy that doesn't believe lynchings happened in America because there were no prosecutions.

---

Defection by Mr. Dajo. I guess there must have been investigations that also said no lynching. Must have been a vast right wing conspiracy involving the FBI and Justice Dept said there were no lynchings.

What happened to Mr. there are ongoing investigations that will show it was a insurrection? Were not you the same guy that said that? Update: the investigations are in and you are now called on it. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

---

Can you provide a source where I said that?

---

How about Bear Insider Growls, to wit:

"Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).

Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days"

Limiting your posts to the usual reposting tweets from some nimrod might be a safer play.

---

Wife, you coward. Why didn't include my whole quote? After what you quoted above I also said. . .

"Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened."

So here you are with an anonymous leak from the FBI (part of the Department of Justice) spiking the football again. What a dope. The only thing you got right was your headline saying I was vindicated. Link to my quote is below.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101552/replies/1872733

---

Ads anyone reading what you posted can read, you said that I spiked the football and was out of bounds (to mix metaphors) because there were more investigations coming that will find the truth as you, the omnipotent, already knew with your superior (insider?) knowledge. Well thousands of hour and a ton of money later they are the investigators are saying no conspiracy, no coup and non of the rest of the bullshyte your selling as the 'truth." .

Then you say that the Democrats are too timid to act on the findings you say are coming. Not even the most partisan of Departments of Justice can move when they didn't have any evidence supporting your wild eyed assertions. Nice deflection. Didn't think I needed to add that. But yes, your last paragraph is irrelevant because the Department of Justice did not move forward since there is no evidence to support your made-up assertions.

Perhaps Pelosi can investigate Tom's mysterious Glock that never materailzed. Do you want the spellled out as well. You have a history of making up things and then trying to deflect when called on on your fiction, by saying something somewhere else you said "nevermind". Not this time.

---

Lol, I said I don't expect much from the Department of Justice in the very post you quoted from me. You can strut around all you like but you can't change what I said in that very same post.

Fans of the FBI, like yourself, apparently don't believe anything can be without the acknowledgement of the FBI. The FBI has always been on the side of the conservative white power structure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh in regards to the "investigation" of him.

What's happening here is a case of framing the narrative that the usual Trump supporters like Wife and Yogi are jumping all over. A Congressional investigation is happening. Media (some) continue to dig into details of the 1/6 coup attempt. So, some FBI leakers put some cold water over everything to put out the Trump-friendly narrative that Wife is pushing before the People's business in the House is concluded.

No different from Bill Barr's phony summary of the Mueller investigation. No different from all the bs that was put out about Iraq and WMD's by people Wife fully supported.

They are establishing the narrative before the facts come out. They'll now stick with their narrative no matter what facts come out. Just like the "no collusion" silliness, and the election is rigged silliness, and the Covid is a hoax silliness. It's all cut from the same gaslighting cloth.

---

Lest you forget your post, you noted the Democrats were barely in office and further investigations were coming from the Department of Justice, which would show your truth. They came, and the reports said nothing there. I'm not seeing your twitter head friends saying its wrong, premature, or whatever else. I'm looking for the indictments - oh wait a coup against the US really isn't a crime. I'm sure if the report had come up with your truth, the coup would have been all over the New York Times from sources. Isn't Rueters a left wing organization that wouldn't know a reliable source? And the rest of the right wing media that is running with the report as accurate like well, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, etc.


So let's defect. Throw in the Kavanaugh, Bill Barr, Mueller, WMD's. COVID is hoax. Maybe I can say WIAF denies lynching. Didn't WIAF support people who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? Perhaps a reference to Hitler might help?

It is interesting that a guy that says only he knows the truth seems to be so loose with it. But wait, let's deflect beyond your post - there are congressional investigations that will must come up with the truth that the Democratic run Department of Justice didn't find. The Select House Committee has been going on since the beginning of July, with essentially no Republican cooperation; thus, run by the same Democratic weanies who you say are to weak to act when they find "the truth"? They did interview several of the thousands of armed police officers that allowed a few hundred demonstrators to take over the government with their pepper spray and other major armaments. Where was the national guard? If the national guard had showed sooner the demonstrators clearly would have had a different motive that would support a narrative about a coup. The question is whether you can have an insurrection without anyone actually insurrecting, as opposed to milling around the Capital destroying property and taking selfies?


After six months of dragnet arrests nationwide, that no one was actually charged with insurrection or sedition. The vast majority of people face charges such as simple trespass. Some not even that. Yet the characterization of the "insurrection" has continued as a virtual article of faith for those reporting on or writing about Jan. 6. There remains a striking contrast in how other riots are characterized or prosecuted. Most of those arrested for violent protests after the death of George Floyd saw their charges dropped. For months, rioters sought to burn federal buildings or occupy state capitals and in some cases seized police stations and sections of cities or even
city hall. They were not declared insurrectionists; they were rioters before being set free on trespass charges after brief arrests. Note: last paragraph from a not very right wing source

going4roses said:

---

Unarmed for the most part ? Are you serious?

Take the L.

---

He claims not to be defending it so just consider his few hundred word lecture to be an expository justification.

If you ignore the weapons, they were unarmed. He also wants you to ignore the fact that much of his justification is based on false narratives propagated by right wing media which the enablers and promoters used to foment the sort of crazed actors who perpetrated Jan 6.

BG blames bad people he doesn't agree with and ignores the bad people he tends to agree with. The reality is that Jan 6 happened because the Big Lie and the right wing echo chamber radicalized a bunch of radical whitist morons. Not because protests against police brutality happened last summer. You have to be pretty dense to ignore the actual predicate to Jan 6 in order to invent a reason to blame people who BG and other conservatives disagree with. But here we are.

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've covered this ground before. Wiaf is the same guy that doesn't believe lynchings happened in America because there were no prosecutions.

---

Defection by Mr. Dajo. I guess there must have been investigations that also said no lynching. Must have been a vast right wing conspiracy involving the FBI and Justice Dept said there were no lynchings.

What happened to Mr. there are ongoing investigations that will show it was a insurrection? Were not you the same guy that said that? Update: the investigations are in and you are now called on it. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

---

Can you provide a source where I said that?

---

How about Bear Insider Growls, to wit:

"Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).

Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days"

Limiting your posts to the usual reposting tweets from some nimrod might be a safer play.

---

Wife, you coward. Why didn't include my whole quote? After what you quoted above I also said. . .

"Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened."

So here you are with an anonymous leak from the FBI (part of the Department of Justice) spiking the football again. What a dope. The only thing you got right was your headline saying I was vindicated. Link to my quote is below.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101552/replies/1872733

---

Ads anyone reading what you posted can read, you said that I spiked the football and was out of bounds (to mix metaphors) because there were more investigations coming that will find the truth as you, the omnipotent, already knew with your superior (insider?) knowledge. Well thousands of hour and a ton of money later they are the investigators are saying no conspiracy, no coup and non of the rest of the bullshyte your selling as the 'truth." .

Then you say that the Democrats are too timid to act on the findings you say are coming. Not even the most partisan of Departments of Justice can move when they didn't have any evidence supporting your wild eyed assertions. Nice deflection. Didn't think I needed to add that. But yes, your last paragraph is irrelevant because the Department of Justice did not move forward since there is no evidence to support your made-up assertions.

Perhaps Pelosi can investigate Tom's mysterious Glock that never materailzed. Do you want the spellled out as well. You have a history of making up things and then trying to deflect when called on on your fiction, by saying something somewhere else you said "nevermind". Not this time.

---

Lol, I said I don't expect much from the Department of Justice in the very post you quoted from me. You can strut around all you like but you can't change what I said in that very same post.

Fans of the FBI, like yourself, apparently don't believe anything can be without the acknowledgement of the FBI. The FBI has always been on the side of the conservative white power structure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh in regards to the "investigation" of him.

What's happening here is a case of framing the narrative that the usual Trump supporters like Wife and Yogi are jumping all over. A Congressional investigation is happening. Media (some) continue to dig into details of the 1/6 coup attempt. So, some FBI leakers put some cold water over everything to put out the Trump-friendly narrative that Wife is pushing before the People's business in the House is concluded.

No different from Bill Barr's phony summary of the Mueller investigation. No different from all the bs that was put out about Iraq and WMD's by people Wife fully supported.

They are establishing the narrative before the facts come out. They'll now stick with their narrative no matter what facts come out. Just like the "no collusion" silliness, and the election is rigged silliness, and the Covid is a hoax silliness. It's all cut from the same gaslighting cloth.

---

Lest you forget your post, you noted the Democrats were barely in office and further investigations were coming from the Department of Justice, which would show your truth. They came, and the reports said nothing there. I'm not seeing your twitter head friends saying its wrong, premature, or whatever else. I'm looking for the indictments - oh wait a coup against the US really isn't a crime. I'm sure if the report had come up with your truth, the coup would have been all over the New York Times from sources. Isn't Rueters a left wing organization that wouldn't know a reliable source? And the rest of the right wing media that is running with the report as accurate like well, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, etc.


So let's defect. Throw in the Kavanaugh, Bill Barr, Mueller, WMD's. COVID is hoax. Maybe I can say WIAF denies lynching. Didn't WIAF support people who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? Perhaps a reference to Hitler might help?

It is interesting that a guy that says only he knows the truth seems to be so loose with it. But wait, let's deflect beyond your post - there are congressional investigations that will must come up with the truth that the Democratic run Department of Justice didn't find. The Select House Committee has been going on since the beginning of July, with essentially no Republican cooperation; thus, run by the same Democratic weanies who you say are to weak to act when they find "the truth"? They did interview several of the thousands of armed police officers that allowed a few hundred demonstrators to take over the government with their pepper spray and other major armaments. Where was the national guard? If the national guard had showed sooner the demonstrators clearly would have had a different motive that would support a narrative about a coup. The question is whether you can have an insurrection without anyone actually insurrecting, as opposed to milling around the Capital destroying property and taking selfies?


After six months of dragnet arrests nationwide, that no one was actually charged with insurrection or sedition. The vast majority of people face charges such as simple trespass. Some not even that. Yet the characterization of the "insurrection" has continued as a virtual article of faith for those reporting on or writing about Jan. 6. There remains a striking contrast in how other riots are characterized or prosecuted. Most of those arrested for violent protests after the death of George Floyd saw their charges dropped. For months, rioters sought to burn federal buildings or occupy state capitals and in some cases seized police stations and sections of cities or even
city hall. They were not declared insurrectionists; they were rioters before being set free on trespass charges after brief arrests.

---

You might have a point. If you read half of what I said and ignore the rest of what I said. Which makes all your efforts here a waste of time. Which is why I got bored and stopped reading your post about halfway through the 1st paragraph.

---

Perhaps you could attach a twitter article instead.

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

We've covered this ground before. Wiaf is the same guy that doesn't believe lynchings happened in America because there were no prosecutions.

---

Defection by Mr. Dajo. I guess there must have been investigations that also said no lynching. Must have been a vast right wing conspiracy involving the FBI and Justice Dept said there were no lynchings.

What happened to Mr. there are ongoing investigations that will show it was a insurrection? Were not you the same guy that said that? Update: the investigations are in and you are now called on it. Deflection, deflection, deflection.

---

Can you provide a source where I said that?

---

How about Bear Insider Growls, to wit:

"Wife's response reminds me of Trump claiming "No Collusion!" and then having all his supporters say, "see, nobody has indicted Trump for collusion. Ergo, there is no evidence of collusion". Contrary to what Wife says above, there is tons of evidence of a coup attempt (not a legal term, at least as far as I am using it and most people use it) just as there has always been tons of evidence of collusion (not a legal term).

Furthermore, the investigations into what happened on January 6th are ongoing. Particularly as it pertains to bigger issues, like how to handle government officials, which would be handled at a very high level. Wife is spiking the football at the 5 yard line here. Merrick Garland was only confirmed as Attorney General on March 10th. The Deputy Attorney General has been in position for all of 2 days"

Limiting your posts to the usual reposting tweets from some nimrod might be a safer play.

---

Wife, you coward. Why didn't include my whole quote? After what you quoted above I also said. . .

"Not that I expect much to be legally done to high profile Trumpers related to the January 6th coup attempt. Democrats are timid and it is always easier for your agenda to just move forward. I'm not expecting much from the Department of Justice. But I know what happened."

So here you are with an anonymous leak from the FBI (part of the Department of Justice) spiking the football again. What a dope. The only thing you got right was your headline saying I was vindicated. Link to my quote is below.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/101552/replies/1872733

---

Ads anyone reading what you posted can read, you said that I spiked the football and was out of bounds (to mix metaphors) because there were more investigations coming that will find the truth as you, the omnipotent, already knew with your superior (insider?) knowledge. Well thousands of hour and a ton of money later they are the investigators are saying no conspiracy, no coup and non of the rest of the bullshyte your selling as the 'truth." .

Then you say that the Democrats are too timid to act on the findings you say are coming. Not even the most partisan of Departments of Justice can move when they didn't have any evidence supporting your wild eyed assertions. Nice deflection. Didn't think I needed to add that. But yes, your last paragraph is irrelevant because the Department of Justice did not move forward since there is no evidence to support your made-up assertions.

Perhaps Pelosi can investigate Tom's mysterious Glock that never materailzed. Do you want the spellled out as well. You have a history of making up things and then trying to deflect when called on on your fiction, by saying something somewhere else you said "nevermind". Not this time.

---

Lol, I said I don't expect much from the Department of Justice in the very post you quoted from me. You can strut around all you like but you can't change what I said in that very same post.

Fans of the FBI, like yourself, apparently don't believe anything can be without the acknowledgement of the FBI. The FBI has always been on the side of the conservative white power structure. Just ask Brett Kavanaugh in regards to the "investigation" of him.

What's happening here is a case of framing the narrative that the usual Trump supporters like Wife and Yogi are jumping all over. A Congressional investigation is happening. Media (some) continue to dig into details of the 1/6 coup attempt. So, some FBI leakers put some cold water over everything to put out the Trump-friendly narrative that Wife is pushing before the People's business in the House is concluded.

No different from Bill Barr's phony summary of the Mueller investigation. No different from all the bs that was put out about Iraq and WMD's by people Wife fully supported.

They are establishing the narrative before the facts come out. They'll now stick with their narrative no matter what facts come out. Just like the "no collusion" silliness, and the election is rigged silliness, and the Covid is a hoax silliness. It's all cut from the same gaslighting cloth.

---

Lest you forget your post, you noted the Democrats were barely in office and further investigations were coming from the Department of Justice, which would show your truth. They came, and the reports said nothing there. I'm not seeing your twitter head friends saying its wrong, premature, or whatever else. I'm looking for the indictments - oh wait a coup against the US really isn't a crime. I'm sure if the report had come up with your truth, the coup would have been all over the New York Times from sources. Isn't Rueters a left wing organization that wouldn't know a reliable source? And the rest of the right wing media that is running with the report as accurate like well, MSNBC, Al Jazeera, etc.


So let's defect. Throw in the Kavanaugh, Bill Barr, Mueller, WMD's. COVID is hoax. Maybe I can say WIAF denies lynching. Didn't WIAF support people who dropped the atomic bomb on Japan? Perhaps a reference to Hitler might help?

It is interesting that a guy that says only he knows the truth seems to be so loose with it. But wait, let's deflect beyond your post - there are congressional investigations that will must come up with the truth that the Democratic run Department of Justice didn't find. The Select House Committee has been going on since the beginning of July, with essentially no Republican cooperation; thus, run by the same Democratic weanies who you say are to weak to act when they find "the truth"? They did interview several of the thousands of armed police officers that allowed a few hundred demonstrators to take over the government with their pepper spray and other major armaments. Where was the national guard? If the national guard had showed sooner the demonstrators clearly would have had a different motive that would support a narrative about a coup. The question is whether you can have an insurrection without anyone actually insurrecting, as opposed to milling around the Capital destroying property and taking selfies?


After six months of dragnet arrests nationwide, that no one was actually charged with insurrection or sedition. The vast majority of people face charges such as simple trespass. Some not even that. Yet the characterization of the "insurrection" has continued as a virtual article of faith for those reporting on or writing about Jan. 6. There remains a striking contrast in how other riots are characterized or prosecuted. Most of those arrested for violent protests after the death of George Floyd saw their charges dropped. For months, rioters sought to burn federal buildings or occupy state capitals and in some cases seized police stations and sections of cities or even
city hall. They were not declared insurrectionists; they were rioters before being set free on trespass charges after brief arrests.

---

You might have a point. If you read half of what I said and ignore the rest of what I said. Which makes all your efforts here a waste of time. Which is why I got bored and stopped reading your post about halfway through the 1st paragraph.

---

Perhaps you could attach a twitter article instead.

---

Here's your team framing the narrative before the facts are out, right alongside you. My, the company we keep.

.@SpeakerPelosi you can’t lie about #Jan6 anymore. The FBI is finally telling the truth.@Liz_Cheney and @AdamKinzinger you both knew all along this was witch hunt 2.0, you sold all of your people out.

Shameful.@FBI now do all #Antifa and #BLM riots.https://t.co/40HPtRMmCH

— Marjorie Taylor Greene 🇺🇸 (@mtgreenee) August 20, 2021

That was quick and easy

Aahahahaaha

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

The one thing no one has ever accused Trump of is being organized.

---

Bingo. That wasn't the claim in the first place. It was that he encouraged/incited the attack.

---

You mean dialed back from an armed insurrection to an attack. Tomorrow it is an angry demonstration. The next day just another night in Portland or Seattle?

---

It could still be called an insurrection if you like. Just being disorganized doesn't disqualify it.

---

Sure, the impromptu, unarmed insurrection to shot selfies in the Capita Building in order to take over the federal government. This gets dumber by the moment. At some point every takeover of a pubic building is now an insurrection. But hey, if the FBI and Justice Department can't help you, maybe an investigation by [fill in name] on why the National Guard was late to the party gets you there.

---

It was very, very dumb indeed.

And also an attempt at insurrection.

---

So we've gone from insurrection to attempt at insurrection.

For the sake of this discussion, please provide your definition of insurrection. I think that's important.

---

Okay.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

Quote:

---

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

---

From further down, among the synonyms:

Quote:

---

REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

---

So no, I don't think the insurrection has to be successful for people to call it one. It's entirely reasonable that this word was applied. I added the description of "attempted" because I anticipated that you would try to claim that it couldn't be a "real" insurrection because no one actually managed to overthrow the government. But I see you're going to be a jerk about that too, so I should have just kept calling it an insurrection. A very dumb, disorganized insurrection, but also one clearly intended to disrupt the transition of power to a new elected President.

Not replying to anyone directly, but to the coversation in general.

Some things seem to be lost through political and media lens' here. Reading some of the filings and following the cases a bit would be helpful in understanding the whats and whys.

Of the +500 people charged, 40 are charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Legally that means 40 people are alleged to have planned to commit an offense against the United States in concert with one or more other individuals in an effort to obstruct lawful government function.

These are very serious charges with a high likelihood of successful prosecution. The Proud Boys and Oath Keeper cases are both filled with very solid evidence of this. Off the top of my head, the Proud Boys alleged conspiracy already has evidence submitted that is very much publicly available showing planning and coordination of recruiting other members to come along, encouraging the stockpiling of weapons, splitting into several smaller groups upon entry and then susequently wrapping up the "normies" of the mob to faciltate the end goal. Most of these are slam dunk cases.

The decision to not charge anyone with "seditious conspiracy" or even racketeering is a declination all prosecutors would have to consider and might logically conclude is too high a bar to reach. It is also unnecessary in a lot of instances because domestic terrorism issues can be dealt with as an enhancement recommendation during sentencing.

The most glaring ommission in these recent articles is that they completely ignore the word "obstruction." Obstructing the transfer of power process is precisely what they were there to do. The current charges are accurate and carry up to 20yrs.

If you do not think conspiracy to obstruct the transfer of power is a federal charge that does not point to a coordinated action to attack the Capitol Building while it is in session certifying the electoral vote, your political/media goggles have fogged up to the point you cannot even see the tip of your nose.

Media legal heavy articles are typically scant on legal understanding as they are directed at a non-legal audience are headlined for click bait.

Keep your heads BI peeps. The article is mincing legally loaded words to make it more salacious, sellable, and digestible.

Tedhead94 said:

---

Not replying to anyone directly, but to the coversation in general.

Some things seem to be lost through political and media lens' here. Reading some of the filings and following the cases a bit would be helpful in understanding the whats and whys.

Of the +500 people charged, 40 are charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Legally that means 40 people are alleged to have planned to commit an offense against the United States in concert with one or more other individuals in an effort to obstruct lawful government function.

These are very serious charges with a high likelihood of successful prosecution. The Proud Boys and Oath Keeper cases are both filled with very solid evidence of this. Off the top of my head, the Proud Boys alleged conspiracy already has evidence submitted that is very much publicly available showing planning and coordination of recruiting other members to come along, encouraging the stockpiling of weapons, splitting into several smaller groups upon entry and then susequently wrapping up the "normies" of the mob to faciltate the end goal. Most of these are slam dunk cases.

The decision to not charge anyone with "seditious conspiracy" or even racketeering is a declination all prosecutors would have to consider and might logically conclude is too high a bar to reach. It is also unnecessary in a lot of instances because domestic terrorism issues can be dealt with as an enhancement recommendation during sentencing.

The most glaring ommission in these recent articles is that they completely ignore the word "obstruction." Obstructing the transfer of power process is precisely what they were there to do. The current charges are accurate and carry up to 20yrs.

If you do not think conspiracy to obstruct the transfer of power is a federal charge that does not point to a coordinated action to attack the Capitol Building while it is in session certifying the electoral vote, your political/media goggles have fogged up to the point you cannot even see the tip of your nose.

Media legal heavy articles are typically scant on legal understanding as they are directed at a non-legal audience are headlined for click bait.

Keep your heads BI peeps. The article is mincing legally loaded words to make it more salacious, sellable, and digestible.

---

Tedhead, I don't think you understand how this works. Trumpers will establish a definition - likely nonsensical, and with a narrow meaning. Something like, nobody prosecuted Trump for something called "collusion" so the Russia thing was a hoax.

Anything that doesn't fit that narrow definition means they are right. No other facts matter.

dajo9 said:

---

Tedhead94 said:

---

Not replying to anyone directly, but to the coversation in general.

Some things seem to be lost through political and media lens' here. Reading some of the filings and following the cases a bit would be helpful in understanding the whats and whys.

Of the +500 people charged, 40 are charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States. Legally that means 40 people are alleged to have planned to commit an offense against the United States in concert with one or more other individuals in an effort to obstruct lawful government function.

These are very serious charges with a high likelihood of successful prosecution. The Proud Boys and Oath Keeper cases are both filled with very solid evidence of this. Off the top of my head, the Proud Boys alleged conspiracy already has evidence submitted that is very much publicly available showing planning and coordination of recruiting other members to come along, encouraging the stockpiling of weapons, splitting into several smaller groups upon entry and then susequently wrapping up the "normies" of the mob to faciltate the end goal. Most of these are slam dunk cases.

The decision to not charge anyone with "seditious conspiracy" or even racketeering is a declination all prosecutors would have to consider and might logically conclude is too high a bar to reach. It is also unnecessary in a lot of instances because domestic terrorism issues can be dealt with as an enhancement recommendation during sentencing.

The most glaring ommission in these recent articles is that they completely ignore the word "obstruction." Obstructing the transfer of power process is precisely what they were there to do. The current charges are accurate and carry up to 20yrs.

If you do not think conspiracy to obstruct the transfer of power is a federal charge that does not point to a coordinated action to attack the Capitol Building while it is in session certifying the electoral vote, your political/media goggles have fogged up to the point you cannot even see the tip of your nose.

Media legal heavy articles are typically scant on legal understanding as they are directed at a non-legal audience are headlined for click bait.

Keep your heads BI peeps. The article is mincing legally loaded words to make it more salacious, sellable, and digestible.

---

Unit2, I don't think you understand how this works. Trumpers will establish a definition - likely nonsensical, and with a narrow meaning. Something like, nobody prosecuted Trump for something called "collusion" so the Russia thing was a hoax.

Anything that doesn't fit that narrow definition means they are right. No other facts matter.

---

Please be advised that anybody in disagreement with a BI LWNJs is a Trumper, according to BI LWNJs.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

going4roses said:

---

Unarmed for the most part ? Are you serious?

Take the L.

---

He claims not to be defending it so just consider his few hundred word lecture to be an expository justification.

If you ignore the weapons, they were unarmed. He also wants you to ignore the fact that much of his justification is based on false narratives propagated by right wing media which the enablers and promoters used to foment the sort of crazed actors who perpetrated Jan 6.

BG blames bad people he doesn't agree with and ignores the bad people he tends to agree with. The reality is that Jan 6 happened because the Big Lie and the right wing echo chamber radicalized a bunch of radical whitist morons. Not because protests against police brutality happened last summer. You have to be pretty dense to ignore the actual predicate to Jan 6 in order to invent a reason to blame people who BG and other conservatives disagree with. But here we are.

---

How many people were shot by the Jan 6 protestors? The only gunfire was from the capital police. Was the capital taken by force with weapons brandished? It was not. It was overrun by a mob. A mob far lest geared up than a typical antifa "protestor."

There you go again - mischaracterizing what I actually said and then creating false dichotomies. Everything is either or with you. No consideration on your part that events can have more than one contributing cause.

I specifically said the Jan 6 mob was not justified. Twice. My comments were directed at explaining why people felt their actions were in any way acceptable - not as a justification but an explanation. It is no different than looking at any other crime and asking why the person did what they did. There were plenty of people explaining why progressive protestors resorted to violence/property damage last year. How is that different. An explanation is not a justification or excuse.

The highlighted statement are just absurd. Where did I ignore or excuse the Jan 6 protestors (who as a technical matter, I don't agree with)? I specifically condemn the Jan 6 protestors and stated they were WORSE than the other events/protestors I also found objectionable. In what world is that ignoring? In what world is that a justification for Jan 6? Only in your bizarre world - your personal echo chamber.

And to your false dichotomy, you suggest that the "Big Lie" and an echo chamber radicalized people. Maybe so. Lots of people have radical ideas. Most don't act on them. So we're back to asking why in this case they did. And part of the reason (I never said the entire reason) is what happened with the BLM protests and other events, where the left engaged in similar tactics. Clearly there were other contributing causes, including what you refer to as the big lie.

Why do you assume, without evidence, that I disagree with the cause that BLM was protesting (in fact I don't). What I do disagree with - on both sides - is political violence. And my central point is that political violence leads to more and worse violence. Hence my calling Jan 6 an escalation (i.e., worse).

While you're on your high horse, I'm going to ask you to join me in condemning all political violence, including the property damage caused by rioters and antifa in places like Minnesota, Portland and Seattle. Do you condemn those people and their tactics unconditionally even if you are perhaps sympathetic to their cause?

Yes or no. I'll wait.

BearGoggles said:

---

The only gunfire was from the capital police. Was the capital taken by force with weapons brandished? It was not.

---

Yes, it was.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-weapons-deadly-dangerous/

Quote:

---

A small number of Capitol riot defendants at least three charged in the federal criminal investigation have been accused of carrying firearms. But guns weren't the only threat. According to court documents reviewed by CBS News, 39 defendants have been accused of wielding "deadly or dangerous" weapons that weren't firearms, including Tasers, tomahawk axes, crowbars, flagpoles, a knife, an ice axe, a firecracker, a stun gun, baseball bats, fire extinguishers, a wooden club and chemical spray.

---

January 6 was a violent attack.

Also, non- violent coups are not unprecented. The First French Republic was overthrown by Napoleon's "bloodless coup" in 1799.