 |
I'll give you the EXACT quote from his speech and not a slanted fact check
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
There can't be incitement when you are telling people to go peacefully
Then, after whipping them up for hours before that (as I noted in bold in my post), when advised to do so, he grudgingly threw out the word "peacefully" ONCE. I quoted that plea (???) for peace in my post before yours. Please read!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Perhaps you can show us in this quote where there was a call for violence or insurrection?Quote:
“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period.”
Even the biased people writing that article know a metaphor when they see one.Quote:
He continued with the fighting metaphors:
I guess this means we cannot count you among those who are waiting for the evidence to make up their minds?Quote:
I guess we'll see as the investigation proceeds and if repubs can keep protecting this lying cheating out of control bully yet again.
Too little too late. The insurrection had already begun.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
We teachers know they weren't metaphors; they were similes.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good that you're waiting for evidence to make up your mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
In other words, you can't.Quote:
Too little too late. The insurrection had already begun.
Wrong. Didn't you read your own post? "He continued with the fighting metaphors."Quote:
We teachers know they weren't metaphors; they were similes.
Trump was trying to calm down the mob. He was too late. He'd already whipped them into a frenzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was quoting the writer (Amy Sherman) and didn't change anything SO I WOULDN'T BE ACCUSED OF NOT POSTING CORRECTLY. The writer incorrectly used the word metaphor instead of simile.Quote:
Wrong. Didn't you read your own post? "He continued with the fighting metaphors."
Says you.Quote:
He'd already whipped them into a frenzy.
Are you confused? So was I!! And metaphor is the correct term. In the quote you posted there were both similes and metaphors.Quote:
I was quoting the writer
He isn't blind but still cannot see.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Please list them.Quote:
Are you confused? So was I!! And metaphor is the correct term. In the quote you posted there were both similes and metaphors.
Sez the woman who has no evidence.Quote:
He isn't blind but still cannot see.
List them? As the author of the piece noted, the use of "fight" was clearly metaphorical. For instance, this quote " and you have to get your people to fight. If they don’t fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight," was plainly a reference to republican congressmen who wouldn't "fight" for Trump. It obviously is not referring to physically fighting. Understand?
Might add that, as I have said many times, I am no supporter of Trump, but fair is fair. You cannot place any great blame on Trump for 1/6.
You have no idea what metaphorical means, do you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
He was lying as he always does and you cannot discount his glee at watching the mob storm the capital according to his own people in sworn testimony before the 1/6 committee.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I know that quote and knew it before you referenced it . That is all well and good and I agree came too late after the riot began. It shows poor leadership on his part and nothing else. The fact is that he in no way directed them to storm the Capitol . There were other agitators from outside organizations ,and I suspect inside the FBI .Quote:
I quoted that plea (???) for peace in my post before yours. Please read!!!
I wont bother wasting my time to document all the times that the Democrats have used words like "fight " . One of my favorites was when Schmucky thretened a whirlwind would be released on SCOTUS justices . Or the time Maxine Waters tried inciting a mob to violence .
Rep. Waters on Trump administration: 'Tell them they’re not welcome' - YouTube
Schumer accused of threatening Kavanaugh and Gorsuch during rally - YouTube
So you tell me where the line is between inflammatory political rhetoric and inciting violence .
A very good point and in this case rather moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The crowd on the day were certainly under the direct influence of Trump and could almost be described as zealots or fanatics.
They were on the fringes on civil society and took everything that was said as gospel.
While Trump may not have directly instructed them to storm the Capitol, the language was certainly inflammatory to the assembly.
Context really is everything.
One mans Freedom Fighter is another mans domestic terrorist or insurrectionist.
Ben at best there were a small minority of the crowd that could be described as zealots or fanatics.I would concede to the word partisans for the rest .
Here are the numbers .Over 80,000 people attended the rally . Of those about 1,700 rioted .(other reports has the number as high as 2,500) So far there have been 700 arrests .
1,700 of 80,000, sounds like the minority that we're discussing here.
After all doesn't take a large number to produce such results.
When the Dems supported the BLM demonstrators and a significant number of them peeled off and rioted were the Dems who supported the BLM inciting riots ?
Who benefits ? Here are remarks by Madam Mim on the anniversary of the riot .
I highlight this comment :
"It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th"
Speaker Pelosi Remarks at Moderated Conversation with Historians Event on January 6th | Speaker Nancy Pelosi
The narrative she speaks of is that this was not a riot but an “insurrection,” an actual “rebellion” against our country. Insurrection ,sedition are the legal terms . The numbers ....700+ arrested .Zero charged with insurrection, sedition,or terrorism. Most of those charged have been on trespassing and property damage . Few have had any charges about violent acts or weapons possession.. Had there been proper security at the Capitol there would not have been a breach.
When BLM protests turned violent in DC there were a phalanx of heavily armed national guard protecting the Capitol. Why were they not there on Jan 6 ? Because Madam Mim and the DC mayor refused their presence.
Not as directly or blatantly as standing in front of 80,000 people and telling them to fight like hell and that the democratic election had been stolen from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Context yet again.
context is political rhetoric . I could bury this post of similar examples when politicians urged their followers to "fight " . What does the word mean politically ? It could be a violent event .It could be a heated argument .It could be involved in the struggle . It could be to make a determined effort .To oppose an effort from the other side .To endure . Even to avoid a situation . Your narrow defining is presupposing context .
Once again we will see if facts have any impact on opinions here. No one charged with acts of terror and the FBI reporting no prior organization to the riot. Virtually no one had a firearm, and yet we are to believe this was some sort of insurrection for which Trump was responsible? It's nonsense.Quote:
The numbers ....700+ arrested .Zero charged with insurrection, sedition,or terrorism. Most of those charged have been on trespassing and property damage .
You were wrong. I know it's hard for you to admit that, but you were wrong.Quote:
You have no idea what metaphorical means, do you.
However, considering the nature of a minority of the assembled crowd, such nuances or semantics would be lost.
To be incitement the person charged with incitement must intend others to act in a violent manner . American law is clear about that (that pesky 1st Amendment ) From the beginning of this posting I have argued that the one sure way for Trump to end his election challenged was what happened at the Capitol. His supporters in Congress went into CYA mode and became passive sheeple . To this day Sen Ted Cruz falsely called the rioters terrorists;and there was no more a vocal supporter of Trump's election challenges than Cruz.
Just shows were their loyalties really lay...
A person can accuse Trump of being sometimes foolish and have a good point, but to think he was actually encouraging an insurrection is several bridges too far. But prior to Covid, he had it going in the right direction. His mouth and tweets caught up with him in the end.Quote:
From the beginning of this posting I have argued that the one sure way for Trump to end his election challenged was what happened at the Capitol.
I have no doubt the dufus and his sycophants KNEW some of his supporters would get rowdy and cause trouble, which is why he watched the event with glee and no remorse to this day. Common sense is that it only takes one terrorist to create chaos and confusion and we certainly had more than one present and willing on 1/6.......!
In addition the dufus has shown he is capable of bad intentions before as his charity and university scams are perfect examples how low he will go to feed his own interest. There are more examples that certainly cannot be ignored as conservatives keep insisting he get the benefit of a doubt. That's my evidence he should not.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but I don't know of any evidence to support that.Quote:
I have no doubt the dufus and his sycophants KNEW some of his supporters would get rowdy and cause trouble, which is why he watched the event with glee and no remorse to this day.
How many were present at Ferguson, or at Portland, or in Kenosha? If there was a terrorist present on 1/6, why hasn't he been charged with that crime?Quote:
Common sense is that it only takes one terrorist to create chaos and confusion and we certainly had more than one present and willing on 1/6.......!
Carnage...glee...no remorse. Enough evidence for me to form my opinion, as well as the FACTS of past behavior. Don't know what you need but a PREPONDERANCE of those facts should be sufficient for an opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The investigation continues even as some have already made up there minds that there is none.Quote:
How many were present at Ferguson, or at Portland, or in Kenosha? If there was a terrorist present on 1/6, why hasn't he been charged with that crime?
Don't know how many terrorist were at those other locations you cited, but I am on record as being for their apprehension, and conviction, and bringing them to justice under the law.
Kam the Sham ; the VP , raised bail money for them so they could go back to the streets and do more arson ,and violent physical destruction.Quote:
Don't know how many terrorist were at those other locations you cited, but I am on record as being for their apprehension, and conviction, and bringing them to justice under the law.
Ted Cruz questions FBI about agent participation and inciting violence before and during the Jan 6 riot
Senator Cruz Questions FBI Official About Ray Epps Role in January 6 | C-SPAN.org
Her evasiveness was astonishing, and especially her refusal to answer the question about FBI agents inciting in the criminal activity. That's amazing.
At the end, when pressed again, she finally said, "Not to my knowledge, sir." Kind of leaves the door open, don't you think?
You two are amazing. Epps was a member of a far-right fringe militia group. When he was removed from the FBI list of wanted insurrectionists, the right-wing went into a frenzy declaring he was an agent provocateur working with the FBI. It was a piece of nonsense believed only by the likes of Ted Cruz who had been chastened by the new leader Tucker Carlson - a classic case of weird theories to get as much of the limelight as possible. It gets stranger and stranger day by day. Google for the details.
you treat Google as some kind of secular bible. Google;s algorisms bury search results that are inconvenient to the swamp narrative. They have gone from the mission of “organizing the world’s information,” to one that decides which information should be prominent ., Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites and information from surfacing. These moves are separate from those that block sites required by U.S. or foreign law, Anti trust regulators of both parties have Google in their cross hairs along with the other Big tech monopolies .
Thank you for the compliment!!Quote:
You two are amazing.
I never said a word about Epps.
If what you say is true, then why wouldn't the lady have simply said that? If you know it, then I'm pretty sure a lot of people know it. Why not simply answer the question and make Cruz look stupid in the process? Why the evasiveness?
You are missing the point. tomder. A bit of deflection?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Seek (google) and you shall find. It's all there for the searching. Cruz can't be made to look any more stupid than he already is.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Why was Epps removed from the FBI wanted list when there is video of him egging on rioters ;including suggesting to one that he should remove a barrier to the Capitol building ?
The January 6 committee : Ray were you working for the FBI ?
Epps No
The January 6 committee .... ok then you are absolved.
It is your responsibility to fact check everybody, for a reasonable discussion. Otherwise you come across as a dismissive arrogant hypocrite hiding behind a call for evidence that could well destroy any credibility on whatever point you make. Maybe a good way to hide ones agenda or intentions but a lousy way to foster healthy debate based on facts and not just feelings. Conservatives can't own the libs in such a climate, but it's fun to watch your heads explode from the confusion of your own ideology which appears to be supporting a lying cheating loser who was booted from the WH by the people after repubs failed to act twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Fact check that.
Cruz asked specific questions to Jill Sanborn that she refused to answer .
How many FBI assets actively participated in the protest ? She cited protocol.
Did any FBI assets participate in violent acts or do anything unlawful ? She refused to answer . After showing evidence of Epps inciting the attack on the Capitol he asked if she knew him . She dodged.“I’m aware of the individual, sir, I don’t have the specific background to him,”
She would not respond to the question if he was a Fed .She declined to answer.
We know from a Newsweek investigation that the Justice Department stationed elite FBI forces at the FBI training academy in Quantico the weekend beforeJanuary 6; hundreds of agents were deployed to the Capitol grounds that morning.
They had the authority to shoot to kill
Exclusive: Secret Commandos with Shoot-to-Kill Authority Were at the Capitol (newsweek.com)
The Slimes already reported that FBI assets infiltrated groups like Proud Boys and participated in the initial breach of the Capitol.
An FBI Informant Marched Into the Capitol on Jan. 6 Riot - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
It is reasonable that these denials and obfuscations are covering up a larger participation than they admit . What ? The FBI doing something to undermine Trump and tie him to an attempt to overthrow the government ? <sarc> Hard to believe </sarc>
Meanwhile Robert Byrd ;the Capitol police officer who executed Ashli Babbett with a point blank shot as she entered the Capitol was cleared in what amounted to a 'white wash' investigation .
Cop Who Killed Ashli Babbitt Was Cleared of Criminal Wrongdoing Without Interview | RealClearInvestigationsQuote:
After Byrd declined to cooperate with D.C MPD Internal Affairs Division’s investigation, which was led by Det. John Hendrick, his case eventually was turned over to the USCP for a final administrative review of whether or not his actions conformed with department policies and training.
Still, USCP concluded in August that “the officer’s conduct was lawful and within department policy.” The agency launched its administrative investigation after the criminal investigation was closed.
In April, within four months of the shooting, Byrd was cleared of criminal wrongdoing by the Justice Department, which declined to impanel a grand jury to hear evidence in a departure from other lethal police-shooting cases involving unarmed citizens.Justice ruled there “was not enough evidence” to conclude Byrd violated Babbitt’s civil rights or willfully acted recklessly in shooting her.
Byrd remains the commander in charge of security for the House of Representatives.
Neither the FBI nor the Justice Department would comment on whether they pressed Byrd after he insisted on remaining silent.
Gotta love the way you spun one informant into hundreds of shoot to kill FBI agents breaking windows to frame the dufus. Your good.
Now you want to investigate a cop shooting a civilian? Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think all cops shootings need investigation . That most are justified does not change that . Cases where use of force is unjustified like Eric DeValkenaere's murder of Cameron Lamb or Kim Potter's killing of Daunte Wright should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Other cases where the shooting was justified, the decision should be respected.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 AM. |