Two Jan. 6 Organizers Are Coming Forward and Naming Names: ‘We’re Turning It All Over’

[Hughinn]

You're part right, part wrong. They did have permits. (I appreciate the link, I hadn't seen the permits myself).

But to the bolded... One of the permits specifically asked the question, "Will this area be used as a staging area or dispersal location for a March or will it be solely used for demonstration purposes?" The permit holders replied, "DEMO Only"

Assuming they didn't lie, they certainly overreached the permissions granted by their permits even if it was done by interlopers to their protest.

Other permits had the following qualifier for the protests. "In the event an official function is scheduled that would conflict with this demonstration, the demonstrators will clear the respective area prior to said function and return after said function has departed the Capitol Grounds."

They had permits for peaceful demonstrations to be held in specific areas of the Capitol Grounds designated on their permits. They didn't have permits for what ensued and in fact had instructions to avoid just what they did.

I'm not in any way disputing the rioting that took place inside the capital building was unlawful.

But saying protests at the capital did not have permits is not accurate.

 

[less right]

I'm not in any way disputing the rioting that took place inside the capital building was unlawful.

But saying protests at the capital did not have permits is not accurate.

Neither is saying, "...there's nothing unlawful about marching to the capital, or anywhere else to protest" accurate when those permits specifically say differently.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Cheney has mentioned, several times, obstruction of a official duties , in that the EC was prevented from doing its constitutional duty, and negligence (allowing the riot to continue ) If the select committee decides to, they will refer the evidence to DOJ, that is to say , DOJ hasn't even started on the referall because it hasn't been made yet.

It is my hope that although the DOJ has not received a referral, they are working on this. They have probable cause.

 

[Superfly]

Translation: "I get my "news" from wingnut sources on Facebook and via other social media sources, so....don't count on seeing me ever admit to the truth".


I'll take that deal.


No need, I can take your deal right now.

Now, it is your responsibility to produce the "direct, irrefutable evidence that shows (that Hillary, Steele, the DOJ and the FBI conspired to take down" Trump.

Please provide verifiable facts, stats, data and/or links to back up whatever "evidence" you provide.

I'm looking forward to examining your "evidence". but I suspect you've realized the trap you've set for yourself, and will (instead) try your best to weasel away.

 

[Superfly]

On another site, whenever a tRump supporter tries to co-opt the phrase "Big Lie" everyone has to drink.

Coffee in my case.

That sounds like fun, and I'd be down for it, but I'm not interested in dying of alcohol poisoning just by visiting here.

 

[Rexedgar]

Anyone watch this? All I want to know is are they still betrothed? Neither MSNBC nor the couple came out sweet-smelling in this mess! What a pair of clowns!

 

[itstony]

So...you think everyone should HELP the dog and pony show create nothingburgers for their useful idiots?

That's kind of like expecting a robbery victim to hand his gun over to the criminal.

Doesn't sound like they need anyone's help at this point.

 

[Buckeyes85]

Anyone watch this? All I want to know is are they still betrothed? Neither MSNBC nor the couple came out sweet-smelling in this mess! What a pair of clowns!

Two great Trump supporters there. Or at least former supporters.
What a pair. He looks like a serial killer and she, well ...... I don't know how to describe that makeup but I'm sure she's really nice.

 

[itstony]

Translation: "I get my "news" from wingnut sources on Facebook and via other social media sources, so....don't count on seeing me ever admit to the truth".


I'll take that deal.


No need, I can take your deal right now.

Now, it is your responsibility to produce the "direct, irrefutable evidence that shows (that Hillary, Steele, the DOJ and the FBI conspired to take down" Trump.

Please provide verifiable facts, stats, data and/or links to back up whatever "evidence" you provide.

I'm looking forward to examining your "evidence". but I suspect you've realized the trap you've set for yourself, and will (instead) try your best to weasel away.

Checkmate.

 

[itstony]

What people like Mycroft fail to understand is this is NOT all about getting a conviction, it's a form of early campaigning. It's about turning 2024 votes against Trump which given his recent favorability numbers seems to be working by making him more and more unelectable.

 

[ultmd]

And....just like that, @Mycroft cowers from another direct challenge.

Hey, my friend, it's been about (what?) 5 pages now since I challenged you to back up your moronic claims of "the direct, irrefutable evidence that shows that....Hillary, Steele, the DOJ, the FBI, et al conspired to take down the President of the United States". Remember that ignorant argument?

I accepted your challenge, way back in post #24 of this thread. Can't you present ANY of the so-called "direct, irrefutable evidence" you were talking about....before you tucked tail and ran a way from me?

Isn't it "ironic" how you so often quietly run away from your own (moronic) lies, once challenged to back them up?

I know why you do it. You know why you do it. Heck, EVERYONE can see why you do it.

The only question is: Why do you expose yourself to such (rhetorical) beatings? Surely you understand how people reading threads like this one and see your attempts to "dismiss" others as jokes of the "self-pwning" variety, don't you? You've been attempting to "dismiss" people throughout this thread....without offering a single objective fact or reference in support of your point of view....and even as you get pwned by the facts they slap you with.

But hey, it's not too late for you to redeem yourself.

You can start by presenting some of that "direct, irrefutable evidence" of that "conspiracy" you were talking about.

The floor is yours, my friend.....

 

[Man0in3Black]

Two great Trump supporters there. Or at least former supporters.
What a pair. He looks like a serial killer and she, well ...... I don't know how to describe that makeup but I'm sure she's really nice.

Yeah - that caught my eye right from the start and then watching her laugh and smirk through the whole thing was just off putting. And did I hear her say she's been friends with Trump over 10 years?? How is that possible, I wonder

 

[The AntiDonald]

I saw them on TV last night and they answered a question I had wondered about. Did they have a permit to march to the Capitol? They did not. Trump sent them in direct violation of the law. That is a big reason why the violence broke out. The city was unprepared for it. Trump took advantage of it.

So now we have even more direct evidence that Trump incited the insurrection. What I still wonder about is why were so many of the rioters dressed up in battle gear with bear spray, tasers and zip ties?

Trump and the organizers may not have had a permit, but it sure seems the rioters were prepared to storm the capitol and were all too happy to do it.

This is one of the thousands of reasons we need a thorough investigation in order to out the coup plotters. There were a lot of them.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Anyone watch this? All I want to know is are they still betrothed? Neither MSNBC nor the couple came out sweet-smelling in this mess! What a pair of clowns!

Yea, I saw it. Chris Hayes sure didn't look impressed. The first think the guy did was pull the whataboutism about Russia collusion. That was not the intended discussion.

 

[RedFishBlueFish]

Yeah - that caught my eye right from the start and then watching her laugh and smirk through the whole thing was just off putting. And did I hear her say she's been friends with Trump over 10 years?? How is that possible, I wonder

She said their relationship went back to when he was considering running for governor. That was 2013-14.

Who knows, she might have looked alive rather than dead at that time.

 

[cpwill]

Signal? WTF are you talking about?

INNOCENT PEOPLE DON'T HIDE.

So, what's self-evident is this: those that hide are guilty.

Plenty of people use Signal for a variety of reasons, and the "if you weren't guilty, you wouldn't want us rooting through your data" is the antithesis of the 4th Amendment.

 

[cpwill]

Do members of the presidents staff have to comply with the Presidential Records Act?

That is a good question, and, I'll admit, I couldn't tell you where the boundaries lay beyond those that are generally applicable to all government employees.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[cpwill]

The presidential records act requires all communications with WH officials be on the record and preserved. Meadows was clearly violating that by using encrypted comms on a separate phone. He was clearly trying to hide something.

Encrypted Communications =/= Not Preserved. I have Signal, and those texts are as preserved as my Google Chat, or as my regular SMS, or (pick an app).

Worth noting - IMO, government employees who are likely to be targets of foreign intelligence services should be using encrypted text apps and other basic digital protections. Use of an encryption app such as WhatsApp or Signal or Telegram does not involve the destruction of a record any more than encrypting an email does.

 

[BlueTex]

That is a good question, and, I'll admit, I couldn't tell you where the boundaries lay beyond those that are generally applicable to all government employees.

I'll answer the question... Yes...

 

[Michael Cole]

Plenty of people use Signal for a variety of reasons, and the "if you weren't guilty, you wouldn't want us rooting through your data" is the antithesis of the 4th Amendment.

Signal is irrelevant. I'm talking about common sense and basic tenets of law.

Pleading The Fifth Amendment And Adverse Inferences In Civil Litigation

Updated, June 12, 2019 Ken over at Popehat has been chronicling the implosion of Prenda Law, a law firm that, on paper, represented copyright holders

www.litigationandtrial.com

...although in a criminal procedure, the court must instruct the jury that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), in civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

So, again, for a third time, what's self-evident (through common sense) and tenets of law (in civil cases) is this: Those that hide are guilty.

 

[justabubba]

Signal is irrelevant. I'm talking about common sense and basic tenets of law.

Pleading The Fifth Amendment And Adverse Inferences In Civil Litigation

Updated, June 12, 2019 Ken over at Popehat has been chronicling the implosion of Prenda Law, a law firm that, on paper, represented copyright holders

www.litigationandtrial.com

...although in a criminal procedure, the court must instruct the jury that it cannot draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), in civil cases, “the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976).

So, again, for a third time, what's self-evident (through common sense) and tenets of law (in civil cases) is this: Those that hide are guilty.

let me make sure i understand your position

someone is sworn to testify, which testimony, if untrue, could subject them to penalty of perjury. that person then relies on the provisions of the fifth amendment, asserting that they choose not to incriminate themself and become "a witness against himself". and you think that avoidance of testimony is indicative of someone who has engaged in criminal action they want to conceal from the judge and jury? how would a reasonable person possibly come to such an absurd conclusion? [/s]

 

[Parrish]

That is a good question, and, I'll admit, I couldn't tell you where the boundaries lay beyond those that are generally applicable to all government employees.

The question was "Do members of the presidents staff have to comply with the Presidential Records Act?"

The answer is yes.

 

[cpwill]

The question was "Do members of the presidents staff have to comply with the Presidential Records Act?"

The answer is yes.

They do - what I don't know is what the boundaries of those particular requirements are, beyond the boundaries that apply to all government employees.

Do you think, for example, that a White House intern's use of a gmail chat to tell his wife that he loves her, and will be late for dinner, but is looking forward to seeing her in that new negligee she got is a Presidential Record that he is provided to turn over?

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The American government is in turmoil. Republicans vs. Democrats. Republicans vs. Republicans. Former Republican President Trump vs, Republican Senate Minority Leader McConnell.

Vladimir Putin is enormously proud of his protégé, Donald Trump.

No doubt Republicans will remain silent.

The forum's Republicans remained quiet.