[jlisenbe]

So a statement from you is supposed to be accepted as documentation??? No thanks to that one. Too much past history.

[Athos]

So a statement from you is supposed to be accepted as documentation??? No thanks to that one. Too much past history.

It's a statement from Stephanie Grisham, Trumps press secretary. What is wrong with you? It's not MY statement. It's hers!
Good Lord!

[jlisenbe]

This is the statement in question. It is NOT from Grisham.

As far as supporting my claims, the videos of the insurrection have been all over media all over the friggin' world. Are you saying you haven't seen them? Even Fox played them at the time.

[Wondergirl]

Former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham said on Thursday that former President Trump was “gleeful” as he watched as his supporters descend on the Capitol last Jan. 6. “He was in the dining room gleefully watching on his TV as he often did. ‘Look at all those people fighting for me.’ Hitting rewind. Watching it again. That’s what I know,” she told CNN’s New Day.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...jan-6-1280113/

[Athos]

This is the statement in question. It is NOT from Grisham.

As far as supporting my claims, the videos of the insurrection have been all over media all over the friggin' world. Are you saying you haven't seen them? Even Fox played them at the time.

Oh stop with your BS, will you.

The documentation query was about Trump gleefully watching TV during the insurrection. Now you're changing it to the actual events at the Capitol. Have you no shame???

The Capitol events which you now claim lack documentation ignores the F-A-C-T that the events have been broadcast ALL-OVER-THE-WORLD and are still being done so.

You're just digging your pit of dopiness deeper and deeper. What do you get out of doing this, anyway? You can tell me. I won't say anything.

[jlisenbe]

My post 21 was a response to your post 20 which contained nothing about Grisham. It did contain the quote I put above.

And again, your own statements provide nothing of substance. No one has been charged with attempting to kill the VP. No one has been charged with killing a cop. As far as I know, precisely two people have been charged with assault on a police officer, which could scarcely account for you claim of 200 police officers injured. So if you want your material to be believed, it will take more than your own claims.

[Athos]

And again, your own statements provide nothing of substance.

Let me get this straight- are you saying the events of Jan 6 at the Capitol as I described them are NOT actual events? Please answer that without equivocation. No diversion/deflection BS. Yes or no. If no, how would you describe them?

No one has been charged with attempting to kill the VP. No one has been charged with killing a cop. As far as I know, precisely two people have been charged with assault on a police officer,

I-NEVER-SAID-ANYONE-WAS-CHARGED!! Why do you keep bringing that up if I never said it?

which could scarcely account for you claim of 200 police officers injured.

NEARLY 200 - I think the actual number is 170.

So if you want your material to be believed, it will take more than your own claims.

I don't give a good god-damn if you believe my claims. Your beliefs are of no concern to me - you can take that to the bank. What I am interested in is the truth - a word you are clearly unfamiliar with.

I never made claims on my own say-so. Unless you are totally ignorant or stupid, you have been advised of the media coverage world-wide of the disaster of Jan 6. If you can't believe the testimony of your own eyes and ears, you should not be let out of the home on your own.

I just figured out you're enjoying this. You thrive (feed) on getting people to pay attention to you. You do this by diverting the discussion elsewhere, sometimes into absurdity. Do you have a life outside of your keyboard?

It's suddenly getting a lot sadder communicating with you. At least, you are a foil for the truth to be displayed so it's not a total waste of time.

[jlisenbe]

I'm saying your original description was a fantasy. If all that had happened, then there would be dozens charged with those crimes.

Other than what one person said about Trump laughing, all of it has been your own statements.

[Athos]

I'm saying your original description was a fantasy. If all that had happened, then there would be dozens charged with those crimes.

So, if I understand you, the events as I described them did not happen because, if they did, the perps would have been charged with crimes. Ok, fair enough for your reason. Then, how would YOU describe the events as broadcast on the tv all over the world? Were you able to see them on TV?

Other than what one person said about Trump laughing, all of it has been your own statements.

By all of it, you are referring to the Trump part? Not the Capitol events? Ok. None of what I said about Trump in the White House watching TV for hours before doing a damn thing to quiet the insurrectionists down was my own statement. It was documented by several eyewitnesses, the most notable being Stephanie Grisham, the press secretary for Trump. She documented this on TV and in a book she wrote. This was fairly recently so if you haven't heard about her, she can be easily found by searching "Stephanie Grisham".

[jlisenbe]

I did. It was an unruly mob behaving despicably. Those guilty should have already been prosecuted.

I meant all of it.

[Athos]

I did. It was an unruly mob behaving despicably. Those guilty should have already been prosecuted.

I meant all of it.

So you are NOT now saying the events were a fantasy? Or - are you saying my description was a fantasy? If the latter, please detail the fantasy parts.

[jlisenbe]

Your description. I’ve already pointed out the parts. Post 13.

[Athos]

Your description. I’ve already pointed out the parts. Post 13.

Here is your post 13:

Who has been charged with attempted murder of the Vice President? Who has been charged with the murders of five policemen?

Who has been charged with the assaults of police resulting in 200 injuries?

How do you know Trump was laughing?

1. I never said anyone was charged. No fantasy there.
2. I never said 5 policemen were murdered.
3. I never said people were charged with assaulting policemen.
4. I documented how I knew Trump was laughing which, (I think) you agreed that I documented.

A note on the disagreement.

You are saying 4 points (above) were the fantasy. The rest I assume was NOT fantasy?

The difference is in the word "charged". You are saying (I think) since they were not charged in those instances, they are therefore not responsible for attempted murder. I disagree. Breaking into the building with the intention of killing Mike Pence (not disputed) is attempted murder. It may be something else according to the criminal justice system, but I am not quoting that system. In any case, we may disagree on the murder charge but not that they wanted to kill Pence - according to their own words. Were they excited? Sure, but I don't think that's a valid excuse for trying to kill someone.

As far as assaulting the police, 700 rioters were charged with various crimes from misdemeanors to felonies. Many were for assaulting the police. Some have been convicted and sentenced. If you downgrade the day because of few convictions and minor charges, know that the prosecution always works its way from the lowest to the most serious. This gives them leverage when getting to the most serious. Standard police practice.

I hope that is sufficient to discard the Fantasy accusation.

[jlisenbe]

1. I never said anyone was charged. No fantasy there.

They tried to kill the VP but no one is charged?

They killed five cops but no one is charged?

They injured two hundred cops but only two people are charged?

Does that really sound reasonable to you?

2. I never said 5 policemen were murdered.

" cause the death of 5 policemen (3 by suicide)"

3. I never said people were charged with assaulting policemen.

Exactly the point. You said the assaults happened, and yet only two people charged?

4. I documented how I knew Trump was laughing which, (I think) you agreed that I documented.

I don't agree at all. One person does not make a case, and especially a person who is clearly opposed to Trump. So far as I can find, she is the lone person alleging this happened.

[Athos]

They tried to kill the VP but no one is charged?

Are you denying they yelled "Hang Mike Pence, hang Mike Pence" and erected a gallows on the grounds? Being charged or not being charged does NOT change that FACT.

They killed five cops but no one is charged?

The police that died were from suicide (4) due to emotional or physical trauma including one who had been struck in the head by a metal flagpole. One died from injuries sustained from the mob. The families of the suicides believe they died in the line of duty. I agree. Suicide can't be charged against someone even if they had precipitated the suicide.

They injured two hundred cops but only two people are charged?

Of the 700+ charged, 140 have been charged with assaulting the police.

Does that really sound reasonable to you?

No, it doesn't. In my opinion, reasonable would be all charged with sedition with varying sentences depending on the circumstances.

" cause the death of 5 policemen (3 by suicide)"

Note I did NOT say "murder". In my opinion, the mob definitely CAUSED the deaths. See above.

You said the assaults happened, and yet only two people charged?

As already stated above, 140 have been charged with assaulting the police.

I don't agree at all. One person does not make a case, and especially a person who is clearly opposed to Trump. So far as I can find, she is the lone person alleging this happened.

You asked for documentation. You got what you asked for. Now you're talking about "making a case" and complaining that the person is "clearly opposed to Trump". As a matter of fact, Grisham stated that she totally supported Trump's policies as president. If I provide another documentation, you'll find a reason to not accept that either.

This is par for the course for you, Jl - changing the parameters when you don't like it when they meet your requirements. That's why it's so damn difficult to discuss anything with you. You keep changing horses mid-stream, as someone here has so accurately and eloquently put it.

Your original dismissal of what I wrote was because, according to you, my statements were a "fantasy". Knowing now that what you meant by that "fantasy" was simply nit-picking, I now believe that was your intention all along. It was obvious to everyone what I meant by my original post. You must learn to lose, it builds character.

[jlisenbe]

140 have been charged with assaulting the police.

You'll need to document that because, well...you know.

Note I did NOT say "murder".

You're playing a silly game of semantics. "Cause the deaths" was your wording.

The police that died were from suicide (4) due to emotional or physical trauma including one who had been struck in the head by a metal flagpole. One died from injuries sustained from the mob.

This is why I usually ask you for documentation. You like to play fast and loose with the truth.

"Diaz told The Washington Post that the autopsy found no evidence that Sicknick experienced an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. He also said there was no evidence of either external or internal injuries." It goes on to say he died of natural causes. It took all of about one minute to find that out. Why didn't you do so?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...-riot-n1264562

The only documentation you provided (ONE) was of Grisham. You failed, of course, to mention that she has a grudge against Trump and so is an unreliable witness who wants to destroy Trump, sell books, and make money. One person said of her ‘Grisham knows where all the bodies are buried because she buried a lot of them herself." You'll have to do much better than that since that is laughable.

I'm certainly not saying Trump did not laugh. I have no idea, but it doesn't really pass the smell test for me. I'd have to have some good sources to believe that one.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/polit...ntv/index.html