Well that was entertaining!
- Thread starter Retired_Can_Soldier
- Start date
Can this be seen as a call to incite a riot?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the possibility exists that Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, who narrowly defeated Democrat candidate Rita Hart, could be unseated.
According to the speaker, the Democratic-led House Administration Committee “is following the law” in reviewing the election, which Miller-Meeks won with just six votes.
The election results were certified by Iowa state officials and Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn into Congress in January.
"Could you see a scenario? We don't do press conferences on 'can you see a scenario.' Of course! Of course!" Pelosi told reporters during a press conference on Thursday, referring to the possibility the Republican congresswoman could be forced out. "I respect the work of the committee. ... We'll see where that takes us. There could be a scenario to that extent."
“At least twenty-two Iowans’ legally-cast ballots still have not been counted due to a string of errors. We are glad to see the House Committee on Administration taking the next step towards ensuring that every legally-cast vote is counted in this race and that all Iowans’ voices are heard. Every legal voter in this country has a right to have their ballot counted and the remedy here is clear — count the ballots,” Hart said in a statement after the vote.
Amazing 22 ballots show up for the Dem.
I say open the investigation up to a full forensic audit and let the chips fall where they may
Pelosi: 'Of Course' Republican Who Won Tight Race Could Be Removed
Posted: Mar 12, 2021 5:55 AMHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the possibility exists that Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, who narrowly defeated Democrat candidate Rita Hart, could be unseated.
According to the speaker, the Democratic-led House Administration Committee “is following the law” in reviewing the election, which Miller-Meeks won with just six votes.
The election results were certified by Iowa state officials and Miller-Meeks was provisionally sworn into Congress in January.
"Could you see a scenario? We don't do press conferences on 'can you see a scenario.' Of course! Of course!" Pelosi told reporters during a press conference on Thursday, referring to the possibility the Republican congresswoman could be forced out. "I respect the work of the committee. ... We'll see where that takes us. There could be a scenario to that extent."
Hart has said she has evidence 22 legally cast votes were left out of the counting process, 18 of which are for her.
“At least twenty-two Iowans’ legally-cast ballots still have not been counted due to a string of errors. We are glad to see the House Committee on Administration taking the next step towards ensuring that every legally-cast vote is counted in this race and that all Iowans’ voices are heard. Every legal voter in this country has a right to have their ballot counted and the remedy here is clear — count the ballots,” Hart said in a statement after the vote.
Amazing 22 ballots show up for the Dem.
I say open the investigation up to a full forensic audit and let the chips fall where they may
What Was In Ashli Babbitt’s Backpack When She Was Shot Dead by a Capitol Hill Police Officer Will Shock You
The Officer who shot Ashli Babbit reportedly said Ashli’s backpack factored into him killing her.
But what was actually inside Ashli’s backpack?
So does wearing a backpack give an officer an excuse to shoot you dead now?
In a public statement made by the Police Officers’ Attorney, Mark Schamel, he states the backpack Ashli was wearing compounded the Officers fears.
In the same statement, he directly contradicts himself by saying he could not see the three uniformed officers, only a hallway full of people. He also couldn’t see how far the hallway extended. If he could see Ashli Babbitt was wearing a backpack, he could see the three uniformed officers within the direct vicinity of her.
So what is the truth?
The Officer clearly states Ashli’s backpack compounded his fears and led to his decision to shoot and kill Ashli Babbitt. Due to the slight chance that there might be a bomb or a weapon of some sort, he chose to be the judge, jury, and executioner based upon a what-if scenario.So what did Ashli Babbitt have in her backpack?
Was it a bomb or a weapon of mass destruction? Maybe a chemical weapon or high-capacity firearm?
It was a wool sweater and a scarf.
Ashli Babbitt was killed for carrying a wool sweater and a scarf.
You know he is going to get thrown under the bus now that his usefulness is a liability
Wow accept responsibility of the insurrection before getting the evidence to defend yourself just wow
Kangaroo court anyone
Kangaroo court anyone
“You’re going to need 10,000 people… You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do,” Trump told his Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller.
Miller rightly pointed out, “…you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.”
Now we know Miller tried his best, despite no D.C. request for Guard troops. He obeyed The Commander-in-Chief’s orders and attempted to ensure a Guard deployment in the face of an obstructionist Pentagon.
Under Pressure.
According to the latest information: “The Army ultimately relented after facing pressure from acting defense secretary Christopher C. Miller and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, and realizing that District officials weren’t going to turn to the Justice Department for help instead, as the Army had wanted.”In other words, the Army resisted demands from senior Trump administration officials including the Defense Secretary. Until they caved, at least.
Not only does this raise questions over people who tried to ignore the chain of command, but over the entire official narrative and ongoing rationale (or lack-thereof) for the fortifications around the Capitol.
Intelligence.
Numerous reports now assert the Capitol attack was pre-planned by fringe groups who intended to disrupt the objections to the election results in the U.S. Congress. Simply put: the objections being made by Trump-friendly Congressmen and Senators were actually thwarted by the events of January 6th.Despite evidence of this pre-planning – including threats found by an FBI office in Virginia – both police and the U.S. army appeared unprepared and unwilling to repel the violent entryists, some of whom falsely dressed as Trump supporters.
The Washington Post report now calls it “one of the biggest national security failures since the 9/11 attacks.”
The new information also puts paid to the Pentagon’s excuses, a number of which have been proffered since Jan 6th:
More in the article
A long article but a pretty good read dissecting the case on 1/6 on Sicknick death
"We had to combine it with these editorial comments about the January 6 sequence of events, and then we had to log roll it with this exhibit at the Smithsonian, and … that was a little much for me," Gaetz said after the vote, according to Politico.
The resolution states: “On January 6, 2021, a mob of insurrectionists forced its way into the U.S. Capitol building and congressional office buildings and engaged in acts of vandalism, looting, and violently attacked Capitol Police officers.”
It also reads: "The desecration of the U.S. Capitol, which is the temple of our American Democracy, and the violence targeting Congress are horrors that will forever stain our Nation’s history.”
Massie objected to the use of the word "temple," saying it was "a little too sacrilegious for me," Politico also reports.
Gohmert is attempting to garner support for a different resolution honoring the Capitol Police.
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said the vote Wednesday by the dozen Republicans was an "attempt to erase the events of January 6 and deny the responsibility of a far-right, insurrectionist mob incited by former President Trump."
House Republicans signaled their opposition to the bill last week, when several of the conference's most conservative members demand a roll-call vote on more than a dozen bills that would typically pass quickly by voice vote, including one on awarding the medals.
As recapped by the Court’s Opinion, Munchel and Eisenhart were vocal advocates at the Capitol on January 6, but they were not among the group of individuals who used force or violence to enter the Capitol. They entered the Capitol along with a crowd of others — through an open door that Capitol Police were standing next to and allowing the crowd to come inside. Munchel was “armed” with a taser he was wearing on his hip. Inside they came across some plastic zip ties, which they picked up and carried with them — they did not bring zip ties with them to the Capitol.
Munchel recorded some of the events on his iPhone affixed to his vest, and the Court describes the recording as follows:
They remained inside for 12 minutes, and while they were recorded making inflammatory statements, neither committed any act of violence while inside the Capitol. They mostly just watched others.
Both were interviewed by the media and made reference to the actions of Americans at the time of the Revolution in describing their views.
The FBI identified Munchel and Eisenhart, and four days after the protest they executed a search warrant at Munchel’s apartment where they found firearms and loaded magazines. Munchel was properly licensed to possess those items. Munchel was not home at the time, and when he learned of the search he turned himself in to the local FBI office. He arranged for his attorney to deliver his iPhone to the FBI. Eisenhart also turned herself in when she learned there was a warrant for her arrest.
At their initial court appearance, the government sought an order of detention, seeking to hold both in custody until the time of their trial, in part on a claim that their release pending trial would create a danger to the community. The Magistrate in Tennessee where they first appeared ordered that they be released on standard terms and conditions of release and ordered them to appear in Washington DC District Court on the date and time directed.
DC District Court Judge Beryl Howell stayed that Magistrate’s Release Order, and ordered that both be transported in the custody of the US Marshall to the DC Court for a review of the Release Order — an action taken at the request of the Government.
At that hearing, Judge Howell ordered that Munchel and Eisenhart be held pending trial as a flight risk and a danger to the community.
That Order was reversed in the decision in today’s ruling. The Appeals Court held:
Those two quoted paragraphs do not appear back to back in the opinion but they go together for purposes of coherence. I have excised references to prior court decisions simply to make them easier to read. The principles stated are pretty much standard practice if you are experienced in this area of the law. The Court’s comments break no new ground legally. The Court noted that Munchel had a limited criminal history, and Eisenhart had none — she has been employed as a nurse for more than 30 years.
The Appeals Court then went over the authorized legal basis upon which a “danger to the community” finding is supposed to be made under the Bail Reform Act:
What the Court said next is of utmost importance because the Court is recognizing how the government’s propagandizing against the views of the protesters, and the acceptance of the Judiciary about those propagandized views, has subverted the rights of defendants in Jan. 6 protest cases to have fair bail determinations made in their cases.
The DOJ has gone to great effort over the past 60 days to brand anyone present in the Capitol on January 6 as an “insurrectionist.” The effort began with the overly dramatic and extra-legal descriptions of the macro-events of January 6 when those events had nothing to do with the factual charges on which people were being arrested. The DOJ approach would deprive thousands who were present of their right to “peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The fact that thousands happened to do so on the date Congress was meeting to receive the vote of the Electoral College doesn’t eliminate those First Amendment rights......More
The insurrection narrative is starting to fall apart
If the Oath keepers are all ex military plans would have been made and carried out just like in a military operation, not woulda, coulda, maybe, see what happens here, etc.
BOSTON (AP) — There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?
Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.
“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote ... and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said.
Authorities are still combing through a sea of evidence in what they say is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Justice Department. More than 300 people are facing federal charges and more are expected. The most serious charges have been brought against 10 people described as members and associates of the Oath Keepers and several members of another far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.
But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.
“The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weeks long plan to invade the Capitol,” an attorney for one of the Oath Keepers, Jessica Watkins, wrote in a recent court filing. “There was no such plan.”
In one case, prosecutors declared in court documents in January there was “strong evidence” the pro-Trump mob aimed to “capture and assassinate elected officials.” The Justice Department quickly clarified it had no such evidence, blaming it on a miscommunication between prosecutors.
After she was pressed by a judge in a recent hearing, Rakoczy conceded authorities “do not have at this point someone explicitly saying, ‘our plan is to force entry into the Capitol in order to stop the certification,’” but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing......More in the link
If the Oath keepers are all ex military plans would have been made and carried out just like in a military operation, not woulda, coulda, maybe, see what happens here, etc.
Prosecutors struggle with consistent story in Jan. 6 cases
BOSTON (AP) — There’s little doubt the Oath Keepers were planning for something on Jan. 6. The question at the heart of the criminal case against its members and associates in the attack on the U.S. Capitol is: What, exactly, did they intend to do?
Authorities suggested for weeks in court hearings and papers that members of the far-right militia group plotted their attack in advance in an effort to block the peaceful transition of power. But prosecutors have since said it is not clear whether the group was targeting the Capitol before Jan. 6.
“The plan was to unlawfully stop the certification of the Electoral College vote ... and the plan was to be prepared to use violence if necessary,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathryn Rakoczy said during a hearing this month. But the Oath Keepers “did not know precisely the way in which force and violence might be needed to support this plan,” she said.
Authorities are still combing through a sea of evidence in what they say is likely the most complex investigation ever prosecuted by the Justice Department. More than 300 people are facing federal charges and more are expected. The most serious charges have been brought against 10 people described as members and associates of the Oath Keepers and several members of another far-right extremist group, the Proud Boys.
But as the sprawling investigation has unfolded, prosecutors have sometimes struggled to maintain a consistent narrative and had to walk back statements made in court hearings or in papers. It has created an opening for defense attorneys to try to sow doubt in the case.
“The government presented a theory (without evidence) that there was a weeks long plan to invade the Capitol,” an attorney for one of the Oath Keepers, Jessica Watkins, wrote in a recent court filing. “There was no such plan.”
In one case, prosecutors declared in court documents in January there was “strong evidence” the pro-Trump mob aimed to “capture and assassinate elected officials.” The Justice Department quickly clarified it had no such evidence, blaming it on a miscommunication between prosecutors.
After she was pressed by a judge in a recent hearing, Rakoczy conceded authorities “do not have at this point someone explicitly saying, ‘our plan is to force entry into the Capitol in order to stop the certification,’” but cautioned that the investigation is ongoing......More in the link
U.S. Capitol Police
@CapitolPolice
CRITICAL INCIDENT: USCP is responding to the North Barricade vehicle access point along Independence Avenue for reports someone rammed a vehicle into two USCP officers. A suspect is in custody. Both officers are injured. All three have been transported to the hospital.
11:26 PM · Apr 2, 2021·Twitter Web App
6,480
Retweets
1,567
Quote Tweets
6,422
Likes