Jan 6th: Riot only or, Attempted Insurrection?

[Lethargic Aptitude]

None of your business.

You're nicer than me. I just write them off without an explanation.

Nice little show that you guys are trying to put on. If only someone took you serious.

 

[Overitall]

Nice little show that you guys are trying to put on. If only someone took you serious.

You must care if people take you seriously. I don't.

 

[AZRWinger]

I picked the most applicable sub-definition, and the rest did not counter the point, it has not been a stable, unchanging measure. In fact, being nearly vertical up and down, it could hardly be less variable.
Choose your werdz better.

You picked the most applicable definition then insist we all must abide by your choice no matter how absurd.
You chose part of the definition that suited you and misrepresented that it was the entire definition.

You are modeling the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.
"Words mean what I say they mean when I use them" .
Political satire come to life.

It did. You did not show that inflation was not dramatically changing, the opposite of what you claimed. This is like everything else your lot argues, it is weak revisionism...in the face of facts. You cannot deny inflation is dropping like a rock....but yet....you do. I was going to complain again about this being off topic.....but it is another example of how far you guys will go to deny reality.

The chart you posted shows persistent inflation under Biden. You're trying to deflect from the fact that what the Biden regime tried to dismiss as transitory inflation is still plaguing the economy. The rate of inflation growth has slowed but the price increases it caused are still eroding Americans paychecks.

Who cares if inflation counters Biden’s bottom up, middle out economic goal when you can whine and deny the fact Americans are working for less buying power.

You claimed he (you) was "lynched", show me on the doll where mean Nancy hurt you.

 

[AZRWinger]

Of course not. What they did was present all of the efforts taken by the former president to overturn the election results, including the riot which ensued on 1/6. My question was specifically about that piece of evidence on what role partisanship had in its veracity.


I mentioned that only in the context of partisanship's relationship to the evidence that's been produced. The implication seems to be that because the HSC did not include Trump aligned Republicans, that the entire investigation is suspect. Am I correctly in that being a take away in your position?


Sure, you'll have all sorts of sore losers. The main distinction here, is how many went to the lengths the former president went to, and that is unprecedented. There have been no other candidates that have held on to election fraud narratives either. Trump has made this a feature of his rallies and speeches.


With help from the GOP when McCarthy took his ball and went home. It wouldn't have made sense to stop everything because McCarthy couldn't come up with two replacement candidates; that was a choice he made.


The trust is based on the veracity of the evidence produced. Had all of it been hearsay and circumstantial, then that would have been a harder pill to swallow, however they provided a lot of evidence that was from communications within the former president's team and things he himself stated through phone conversations. While much in DC will have a political motive, I don't see how one does not also see the need to hold a president accountable for the actions he took to disrupt election proceedings, and to change the outcome by trying to strongarm officials to have results go his way. That the GOP lacked the courage and motivation to do this for purely political reasons should be factored into the calculation of which group was doing what for political reasons as well.

After rigging the HSC to include only devout Orange Man Bad cultists the so-called investigation of what went on January 6th was turned into a show trial targeting President Trump. It was another bite at banning Trump from running again. Democrats believe in free and fair elections only if they can rig the ballot. See Obama's Senate race.

Frustrated job seeker Hope Hicks telling lurid tales she supposedly heard from a Secret Service agent who passed on a rumor to her. A continous loop of a Republican Senator running down a hallway falsely pretending he was the only one. Omitting video of the Capitol police acting as tour guides to Jacob Chansley. Adding a sound track to a Capitol security video to increase dramatic impact. No wonder Democrats insisted on limiting committee membership to only those who wouldn't ask too many questions.

Naturally President Trump looking into legal options to overturn a corrupted election is horrifying. Of course Al Gore conceding then withdrawing then conducting a month long lawfare campaign to overturn the 2000 election is defending democracy.

Enough with the preposterous notion Republican leadership is to blame for Pelosi's blatantly partisan insistence on selecting Republican members for the HSC. She made sure no embarrassing questions would be posed at the show trial by picking only dupes, fringe Republicans. Voters in their home districts roundly rejected Pelosi's crash test dummies.

 

[AZRWinger]

All pure BS. Spoken like a true Fox soldier. The election was not stolen. Get over it. Do better next time. Who knows, you may even win. I doubt it though.

Not a word attempting to refute the facts presented just denial. How impressive. Not.

 

[ElChupacabra]

After rigging the HSC to include only devout Orange Man Bad cultists the so-called investigation of what went on January 6th was turned into a show trial targeting President Trump. It was another bite at banning Trump from running again. Democrats believe in free and fair elections only if they can rig the ballot. See Obama's Senate race.

Well, there is the problem of Trump doing the things that have been revealed both in the background actions he was taking to change results in his favor, and his inaction in trying to diffuse the riot, where he waited for hours before saying anything to the crowd. In a world where those things are ok, I guess you can argue that Trump was targeted.

Frustrated job seeker Hope Hicks telling lurid tales she supposedly heard from a Secret Service agent who passed on a rumor to her. A continous loop of a Republican Senator running down a hallway falsely pretending he was the only one. Omitting video of the Capitol police acting as tour guides to Jacob Chansley. Adding a sound track to a Capitol security video to increase dramatic impact. No wonder Democrats insisted on limiting committee membership to only those who wouldn't ask too many questions.

There were suspensions of officers and investigations into that, because from the onset there was the question of who was complicit in letting people in versus officers who were clearly out numbered and trying to herd people. The bigger issues are the ones surrounding the evidence that exists around Trump's own calls and communications to alter the outcome, because none of the points you make address that or have any substantial bearing. There certainly is some evidence that's hearsay, but that which isn't is far more damning than memes of Josh Hawley running.

Naturally President Trump looking into legal options to overturn a corrupted election is horrifying. Of course Al Gore conceding then withdrawing then conducting a month long lawfare campaign to overturn the 2000 election is defending democracy.

Ah, the good old apples to cucumbers comparison. The number of lawsuits filed in the 2000 election were no where near the amount in the 2020 election, and were filed for a very different reason. Every president has the right to use the legal options available to them in this regard, and Trump filed many lawsuits, which almost all failed. Him attempting to supplant the legal electors with fake ones is not the way the electoral process is supposed to work, and that is a direct attack on the democratic process.

Enough with the preposterous notion Republican leadership is to blame for Pelosi's blatantly partisan insistence on selecting Republican members for the HSC. She made sure no embarrassing questions would be posed at the show trial by picking only dupes, fringe Republicans. Voters in their home districts roundly rejected Pelosi's crash test dummies.

It's not preposterous at all. Her objections were focused on two members, which McCarthy could have replaced. Even with those two replacements, he had 3 others who could have asked the questions they wanted. If you decide to rescind a meeting invitation, you don't have much credibility complaining about the outcome since you chose not to be part of the decision making process.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The rate of inflation growth has slowed

LOL....admits the inflation rate that is dropping like a stone ("slowed") and is not "remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time".

Remind me, what does this have to do with January 6th?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Democrats went on an unrelenting campaign to overturn his election.

This is absurd, Dems never stormed the Capital in an insurrection. Dems used the legal process.

oh..and;

"During the Democratic-controlled 117th United States Congress, Republican members submitted nine resolutions to impeach Biden."

That's how you attempt to remove a POTUS, not by criminal means. Stop defending criminals.

 

[AZRWinger]

LOL....admits the inflation rate that is dropping like a stone ("slowed") and is not "remaining in the same state for an indefinitely long time".

Remind me, what does this have to do with January 6th?

You're the one who posted a graph showing inflation and a dishonestly edited "definition" of persistent. Like a cat burying its waste now you run away.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You're the one who posted a graph showing inflation and a dishonestly edited "definition" of persistent. Like a cat burying its waste now you run away.

I'm right here. Your argument was a failure...and it has nothing to do with Jan 6th. If you want to debate US inflation, find an appropriate thread.

 

[AZRWinger]

This is absurd, Dems never stormed the Capital in an insurrection. Dems used the legal process.

oh..and;

"During the Democratic-controlled 117th United States Congress, Republican members submitted nine resolutions to impeach Biden."

That's how you attempt to remove a POTUS, not by criminal means. Stop defending criminals.

Immediately after Trump's victory was announced Democrat led riots broke out resulting in hundreds of arrests.

What legal process did the Democrat supported mob use when they tried to storm the WH during the summer of 2020? They came close enough to breaching the perimeter the President was evacuated to the emergency shelter. Oh, that doesn't count.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Immediately after Trump's victory was announced Democrat led riots broke out resulting in hundreds of arrests.

There was an insurrection at the Capitol @ Nov, Dec 2016, January 2017?

What legal process did the Democrat supported mob use when they tried to storm the WH during the summer of 2020?

Um, the George Floyd/BLM protests were not an insurrection against the federal govt.

Apple, Orange. The topic is "insurrection". Do you need another definition?

They came close enough to breaching the perimeter the President was evacuated to the emergency shelter. Oh, that doesn't count.

Apple, Orange.

 

[eohrnberger]

Of course not. What they did was present all of the efforts taken by the former president to overturn the election results, including the riot which ensued on 1/6. My question was specifically about that piece of evidence on what role partisanship had in its veracity.


I mentioned that only in the context of partisanship's relationship to the evidence that's been produced. The implication seems to be that because the HSC did not include Trump aligned Republicans, that the entire investigation is suspect. Am I correctly in that being a take away in your position?


Sure, you'll have all sorts of sore losers. The main distinction here, is how many went to the lengths the former president went to, and that is unprecedented. There have been no other candidates that have held on to election fraud narratives either. Trump has made this a feature of his rallies and speeches.

With help from the GOP when McCarthy took his ball and went home. It wouldn't have made sense to stop everything because McCarthy couldn't come up with two replacement candidates; that was a choice he made.

It doesn't make sense to participate, support, endorse or validate with your participation in your own one sided political hanging.

The trust is based on the veracity of the evidence produced.

Even if the 'evidence produced' was all one sided?
The skeptical me sees this suspicious one sided 'evidence produced' and only makes me more skeptical of this 'evidence produced'.
Rather surprised (or perhaps not) that it wouldn't peek your skepticism as well. Oh well.

That lack of skepticism is on par with the lamestream media's disinterest in so many questions surrounding the Biden administration and teh rest of government, which investigative journalists would have previously dug into and spoke truth to power, holding them accountable, but no more of this important function of journalism.

Had all of it been hearsay and circumstantial, then that would have been a harder pill to swallow, however they provided a lot of evidence that was from communications within the former president's team and things he himself stated through phone conversations. While much in DC will have a political motive, I don't see how one does not also see the need to hold a president accountable for the actions he took to disrupt election proceedings, and to change the outcome by trying to strongarm officials to have results go his way.

That the GOP lacked the courage and motivation to do this for purely political reasons should be factored into the calculation of which group was doing what for political reasons as well.

We've already covered this several times already. It doesn't make sense to participate, support, endorse or validate with your participation in your own one sided political hanging.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It doesn't make sense to participate, support, endorse or validate with your participation in your own one sided political hanging.

Except you make it one sided if you refuse to seat members to a committee. Which brings me back to the core dilemma here. How do you envision accountability for a president's actions when they potentially break the law if the first reaction is to claim it is all a political witch hunt?

Even if the 'evidence produced' was all one sided?
The skeptical me sees this suspicious one sided 'evidence produced' and only makes me more skeptical of this 'evidence produced'.
Rather surprised (or perhaps not) that it wouldn't peek your skepticism as well. Oh well.

What would make one skeptical about the specific examples I cited? If one clearly hears a president asking a states SoS to find one more vote so he can be declared the winner, what is the doubt it creates in your mind? The same goes for communications to send fake electors. I certainly understand skepticism about circumstantial evidence, or hearsay, but this is not that. If you've noticed, much of the GOP pushback hasn't been to the evidence, but trying to broaden the scope to include whatever actions Democratic members may have played in regards to the necessary security.

That lack of skepticism is on par with the lamestream media's disinterest in so many questions surrounding the Biden administration and teh rest of government, which investigative journalists would have previously dug into and spoke truth to power, holding them accountable, but no more of this important function of journalism.

If there's clear evidence like the communications I referenced, where does skepticism fit?

We've already covered this several times already. It doesn't make sense to participate, support, endorse or validate with your participation in your own one sided political hanging.

So then you seem to advocate for no accountability for presidential malfeasance by Congress, because no matter what it is, it can be deemed a political hanging, correct? If so, then I guess the GOP is wasting its time with its current investigations, because we can just say it's all a witch hunt and call it a day.

 

[AZRWinger]

Except you make it one sided if you refuse to seat members to a committee. Which brings me back to the core dilemma here. How do you envision accountability for a president's actions when they potentially break the law if the first reaction is to claim it is all a political witch hunt?

Oh I agree, Nancy Pelosi made it one-sided when she refused to seat Republican members assigned using the standard process.

The root problem is how many failed Democrat witchhunts are to be indulged before admitting they are remaking the US into a banana republic? Failed impeachments, a special council investigation without any American indicted for conspiring or cooperating with the Russians, numerous indictments for process crimes and unrelated offenses as retaliation for supporting Trump, stripping lawyer/client privilege for the Bad Orange Man's lawyers and a zealot prosecutor unemcumbered by legal ethics or law.

What would make one skeptical about the specific examples I cited? If one clearly hears a president asking a states SoS to find one more vote so he can be declared the winner, what is the doubt it creates in your mind? The same goes for communications to send fake electors. I certainly understand skepticism about circumstantial evidence, or hearsay, but this is not that. If you've noticed, much of the GOP pushback hasn't been to the evidence, but trying to broaden the scope to include whatever actions Democratic members may have played in regards to the necessary security.

Asking to "find" votes is a common request in election conversations. It's not a command to manufacture fake votes. Just as "fight like h$//" is a figure of speech. Alternate electors are not the same as fake. Of course if you knew US history you'd know alternate electors have been sent to the electoral college previously.

If there's clear evidence like the communications I referenced, where does skepticism fit?


So then you seem to advocate for no accountability for presidential malfeasance by Congress, because no matter what it is, it can be deemed a political hanging, correct? If so, then I guess the GOP is wasting its time with its current investigations, because we can just say it's all a witch hunt and call it a day.

No accountability? Where is the accountability for selective prosecution targeting political opponents?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Oh I agree, Nancy Pelosi made it one-sided when she refused to seat Republican members assigned using the standard process.

The root problem is how many failed Democrat witchhunts are to be indulged before admitting they are remaking the US into a banana republic? Failed impeachments, a special council investigation without any American indicted for conspiring or cooperating with the Russians, numerous indictments for process crimes and unrelated offenses as retaliation for supporting Trump, stripping lawyer/client privilege for the Bad Orange Man's lawyers and a zealot prosecutor unemcumbered by legal ethics or law.

There were no "witch hunts" this statement is a lie created by Trump to evade being held accountable for criminal activity. Faux lied to you and they admitted they lied to you. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Russia DID interfere in the 2016 election and this was proven by the Mueller report. The Russians also admitted to it.

Nobody is retaliating against Trump. He is being held accountable for his criminal behaviors. The right hates this but it is necessary. The KKK didn't like the FBI arresting them either, but it was necessary because the State of Mississippi was completely corrupt in those days and still is today.

Asking to "find" votes is a common request in election conversations. It's not a command to manufacture fake votes. Just as "fight like h$//" is a figure of speech. Alternate electors are not the same as fake. Of course if you knew US history you'd know alternate electors have been sent to the electoral college previously.

No. It most certainly is not. Candidates have no business making contact with local officials during an election.

No accountability? Where is the accountability for selective prosecution targeting political opponents?

This more bullshit being spewed by Trump. There is no target prosecution or political targeting. Trump started these lies to avoid accountability and Faux and the other propaganda rags continued to publish them despite the fact they KNEW FOR A FACT that Trump was lying.

Just stop.

 

[eohrnberger]

Oh I agree, Nancy Pelosi made it one-sided when she refused to seat Republican members assigned using the standard process.

Agreed. But that was only the start of her doing so, she kept right on going.

The root problem is how many failed Democrat witchhunts are to be indulged before admitting they are remaking the US into a banana republic? Failed impeachments, a special council investigation without any American indicted for conspiring or cooperating with the Russians, numerous indictments for process crimes and unrelated offenses as retaliation for supporting Trump, stripping lawyer/client privilege for the Bad Orange Man's lawyers and a zealot prosecutor unemcumbered by legal ethics or law.

Asking to "find" votes is a common request in election conversations. It's not a command to manufacture fake votes. Just as "fight like h$//" is a figure of speech. Alternate electors are not the same as fake. Of course if you knew US history you'd know alternate electors have been sent to the electoral college previously.

No accountability? Where is the accountability for selective prosecution targeting political opponents?

It's not just the selective prosecution along political affiliations, as if that wasn't bad enough, it's also manipulating and influencing elections as well.

From my recollection, this cabal of Democrats (to include the left's political propagandist media branch of the DNC) have influenced at least 2, and going for 3 election results:

1. 2016 with the Russian Collusion / Trump Russian Asset / Moscow pee tape lie
   
   
2. 2020 with the of the suppression / censorship Hunter laptop story media and of social media, with leftist media branch of the DNC falsely lying, crowing nothing but 'Russian Disinformation' 24/7
   
   

   New Polling Shows That Almost 1/4 of DEMOCRAT Voters Believe Biden Would Not Be President Today if The Media Had Fully Reported About Hunter's 'Laptop from Hell' | The Gateway Pundit | by Julian Conradson

   Following the New York Times’ recent acknowledgment that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop is actually 100% legit, new polling released this week by Rasmussen Reports shows that a growing number of Democrat voters are waking up to the fact that the 2020 election was, at the very least, rigged, if...

   www.thegatewaypundit.com
   
   Following the New York Times’ recent acknowledgment that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop is actually 100% legit, new polling released this week by Rasmussen Reports shows that a growing number of Democrat voters are waking up to the fact that the 2020 election was, at the very least, rigged, if not outright stolen.
   
   
3. And the Democrats are now going it a third time:
   IRS cans investigative team from Hunter Biden probe in move ...
   WASHINGTON — The IRS on Monday removed the "entire investigative team" from its long-running tax fraud probe of first son Hunter Biden in alleged retaliation against the whistleblower who...
   
   IRS removes 'entire investigative team' in Hunter Biden probe ...
   TodayThe IRS has removed the "entire investigative team" from its multi-year tax fraud investigation of Hunter Biden, and a whistleblower who raised concerns about the handling of the case is...
   
   REPORT: DOJ Removes Investigative Team From Hunter Biden Probe ...
   TodayThe Criminal Supervisory Special Agent who has supervised the Hunter Biden probe since 2020 and served as a whistleblower on the investigation, was reportedly informed that he and his entire investigative team were being removed from the case, the agent's attorney's revealed, according to the New York Post. Alleging that the move was "clearly retaliatory," the attorneys reportedly ...
   
   IRS removes 'entire investigative team' from Hunter Biden tax-fraud ...
   TodayThe IRS has removed the "entire investigative team" from the Hunter Biden tax-fraud probe, The New York Post reported Monday evening. Attorneys for a whistleblower within the tax agency told

I think it's pretty clear who is a clear and present danger to the US Democratic Republic than just selective prosecution along political affiliations.

 

[trixare4kids]

And you thought it was yoYep.

And your canned hyper partisan,

Nice little show that you guys are trying to put on. If only someone took you serious.

You asked if a poster was going to give Trump money. Tell me why this is your business?
You received the answer you deserved. It's really NOYB if he is or isn't. It's his money to do with what he wishes.

 

[beefheart]

Oh I agree, Nancy Pelosi made it one-sided when she refused to seat Republican members assigned using the standard process.

The root problem is how many failed Democrat witchhunts are to be indulged before admitting they are remaking the US into a banana republic? Failed impeachments, a special council investigation without any American indicted for conspiring or cooperating with the Russians, numerous indictments for process crimes and unrelated offenses as retaliation for supporting Trump, stripping lawyer/client privilege for the Bad Orange Man's lawyers and a zealot prosecutor unemcumbered by legal ethics or law.

Asking to "find" votes is a common request in election conversations. It's not a command to manufacture fake votes. Just as "fight like h$//" is a figure of speech. Alternate electors are not the same as fake. Of course if you knew US history you'd know alternate electors have been sent to the electoral college previously.

No accountability? Where is the accountability for selective prosecution targeting political opponents?

 

[neo publius]

They were instigated by Donald Trump and supported by GQP traitors.

They were instigated by an individual at the capitol, which is caught on video and is identified as an anti fa member.

John Sullivan, the Antifa and BLM activist who stormed the Capitol on January 6 while disguised in Trump 2020 gear and captured video of the Capitol Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt has had $90,000 – ostensibly the funds he was paid by mainstream media outlets for his viral footage from the day – seized by the federal government.​

Sullivan, who posted videos watermarked with Jayden X on social media, claims he stormed the U.S. Capitol – disguised as a supporter of President Donald Trump – in an effort to “document” the civil unrest. “I wanted to be able to tell a part of history,” Sullivan claimed in January. Speaking to the media, he seemingly acknowledged that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were present during the civil unrest, but claimed that “It’s just recording, solely, and not being active in it.” It was later reported that Sullivan sold his footage of the civil unrest to both CNN and NBC for $35,000 apiece.

Antifa Activist Who Sold Footage Of January 6 To CNN, NBC, Had $90,000 Seized By Feds - National File

John Sullivan, the Antifa activist who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and sold footage to CNN, had $90,000 seized by authorities.

nationalfile.com

 

[SkyFox76]

They were instigated by an individual at the capitol, which is caught on video and is identified as an anti fa member.

John Sullivan, the Antifa and BLM activist who stormed the Capitol on January 6 while disguised in Trump 2020 gear and captured video of the Capitol Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt has had $90,000 – ostensibly the funds he was paid by mainstream media outlets for his viral footage from the day – seized by the federal government.​

Sullivan, who posted videos watermarked with Jayden X on social media, claims he stormed the U.S. Capitol – disguised as a supporter of President Donald Trump – in an effort to “document” the civil unrest. “I wanted to be able to tell a part of history,” Sullivan claimed in January. Speaking to the media, he seemingly acknowledged that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were present during the civil unrest, but claimed that “It’s just recording, solely, and not being active in it.” It was later reported that Sullivan sold his footage of the civil unrest to both CNN and NBC for $35,000 apiece.

Antifa Activist Who Sold Footage Of January 6 To CNN, NBC, Had $90,000 Seized By Feds - National File

John Sullivan, the Antifa activist who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and sold footage to CNN, had $90,000 seized by authorities.

nationalfile.com

Many of the J6er's are finding the money they've raised on GSG matching the fines set by the courts. So

 

[neo publius]

Many of the J6er's are finding the money they've raised on GSG matching the fines set by the courts. So

That particular J6er is an admitted BLM and Anti Fa supporter who sold videos to CNN and NBC and had the proceeds confiscated.

 

[upsideguy]

They were instigated by an individual at the capitol, which is caught on video and is identified as an anti fa member.

John Sullivan, the Antifa and BLM activist who stormed the Capitol on January 6 while disguised in Trump 2020 gear and captured video of the Capitol Police shooting of Ashli Babbitt has had $90,000 – ostensibly the funds he was paid by mainstream media outlets for his viral footage from the day – seized by the federal government.​

Sullivan, who posted videos watermarked with Jayden X on social media, claims he stormed the U.S. Capitol – disguised as a supporter of President Donald Trump – in an effort to “document” the civil unrest. “I wanted to be able to tell a part of history,” Sullivan claimed in January. Speaking to the media, he seemingly acknowledged that Black Lives Matter and Antifa were present during the civil unrest, but claimed that “It’s just recording, solely, and not being active in it.” It was later reported that Sullivan sold his footage of the civil unrest to both CNN and NBC for $35,000 apiece.

Antifa Activist Who Sold Footage Of January 6 To CNN, NBC, Had $90,000 Seized By Feds - National File

John Sullivan, the Antifa activist who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 and sold footage to CNN, had $90,000 seized by authorities.

nationalfile.com

You post something from a known conspiracy generator and think we should take your post seriously? Think again, or just think. Please upgrade your sourcing and stopping wasting your time and the time people spend shifting your smut.

National File - Bias and Credibility

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[SkyFox76]

That particular J6er is an admitted BLM and Anti Fa supporter who sold videos to CNN and NBC and had the proceeds confiscated.

So iow's he was not able to profit off the events on J6. Just like the others there that day.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Oh I agree, Nancy Pelosi made it one-sided when she refused to seat Republican members assigned using the standard process.

Except it wouldn't have been one sided because she only wanted two of the members replaced out of the five, and McCarthy chose to pull all five.

The root problem is how many failed Democrat witchhunts are to be indulged before admitting they are remaking the US into a banana republic? Failed impeachments, a special council investigation without any American indicted for conspiring or cooperating with the Russians, numerous indictments for process crimes and unrelated offenses as retaliation for supporting Trump, stripping lawyer/client privilege for the Bad Orange Man's lawyers and a zealot prosecutor unemcumbered by legal ethics or law.

This is a lot of words to avoid the evidence provided by the Jan 6 HSC.

Asking to "find" votes is a common request in election conversations. It's not a command to manufacture fake votes. Just as "fight like h$//" is a figure of speech. Alternate electors are not the same as fake. Of course if you knew US history you'd know alternate electors have been sent to the electoral college previously.

Is it? That seems like a weird request after the earlier part of the conversation was Raffemsperger telling Trump the claims of issues in the Georgia elections were not found in their data. Trump then says all he needs is that extra vote to be found; which in the context of the conversation, means he just wanted the numbers to win regardless. As for the alternate electors, and in each case it's been an issue.

No accountability? Where is the accountability for selective prosecution targeting political opponents?

Well, that would depend on the evidence that turns up justifying claims made against someone. In this case we'll have to wait and see if there is an indictment and the charges, but based on the other case brewing in GA, it might be more a question of how many indictments. I can't help but notice how much of your answer is whinging about investigations rather than what they've turned up.