The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Douglas Caddy]

Time out for something different:

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/man-says-owl-led-him-through-blizzard-to-campsite/article_d73ad7d1-12ac-577f-81ce-d76b40a0d7dd.html?fbclid=IwAR3tivFsI5C-J

 

[Ty Carpenter]

Surprised I haven't seen anything pop up here about the Kazakhstan situation. Pretty hard core stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/06/world/kazakhstan-protests

[Matt Allison]

WHAT. THE. F***.      WTF is the deal with the Secret Service????

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/06/harris-was-inside-dnc-on-jan-6-when-pipe-bomb-was-discovered-outside-526695

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

WHAT. THE. F***.      WTF is the deal with the Secret Service????

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/06/harris-was-inside-dnc-on-jan-6-when-pipe-bomb-was-discovered-outside-526695

"Uncertainty about Harris’ whereabouts as a mob breached the Capitol building briefly bubbled up in a handful of criminal cases connected to the Jan. 6 insurrection. In dozens of indictments, the Justice Department had erroneously described Harris as being present inside the Capitol during the attack, and only recently discovered the error. DOJ has since issued numerous superseding indictments to correct the mistake."--Politico

Really? The US Justice Department and the M$M said the Vice President of the U.S., Harris, was inside the Capitol during the 1/6 scrum, but now (a year later?) say she was elsewhere?  

How is this possible? 

And the pipe bombs---they were "viable."  What does that mean? Were they attached to triggering devices and timer? 

And who placed the bombs?  

It would be nice if the media asked some trenchant questions about 1/6. 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Harris describes Jan. 6 alongside Pearl Harbor, 9/11 as dates that 'echo throughout history'

I am mildly disappointed Harris did not include the sacking of our nation's Capital in the War of 1812 (sacking actually happened in 1814). 

Snide aside: There are members of this forum who believe that both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were somewhat manufactured events. FDR knew PH was coming and that 9/11 was done by Bush-Cheney & Co.

What is undeniably true, is that PH and 9/11 became PR platforms. (In my view, PH for good reason). 

And 1/6? 

 

[Matt Allison]

Ben- I'm not sure how seriously we can take you when you're obviously deliberately limiting what information you avail yourself to.

Watch the movie I linked to and discuss that. As for the other stuff you're posting? No one here in America buys any of the pro-fascist/Trump talking points... except for, of course, the fascist Trumpers.

[W. Niederhut]

       I can't be the only member of the forum who feels discouraged by the refusal of so many Republicans to acknowledge the truth about January 6th, and to denounce Trump for his historic mob attack on our democracy.

      I doubt that any of us were surprised by the deranged comments by Trump and Matt Gaetz today, but it was particularly disgraceful to see all of the Congressional Republicans (other than LIz Cheney) boycotting the memorial service at the Capitol!   Profiles in cowardice.

     One year ago the Republicans in Congress were barricading themselves in their offices and begging Trump to call off his attack on the Capitol.

     Now they're pretending that nothing happened.

     Of course, they don't want to get "primaried" by one of Trump's stooge candidates, but they may be most afraid of being murdered by one of Trump's MAGA bombers in their districts.

     Trump is holding the country hostage.  Biden's metaphor of the "dagger at the throat" was apt.

     

Edited January 7, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Matt Allison]

I am proud of the fact that starting in June of 2020, on my FB page I publicly called each one of Trump's moves, anywhere from 1-6 months in advance. Nailed every one of them.

Here's the bottom line: it isn't difficult to see that when it comes to American politics, one party is interested in helping people and enjoying power, and the other party is only interested in enjoying power. We all know this and know who I'm referring to. The Republican Party realized some time ago that the limited amount of value they added to the country was starting to cause problems with the number of people that would actually vote for them. That problem has progressively gotten worse for them to the point that they didn't even have a platform at their 2020 convention; it was just "Own the Libs and Vote For Us!". The walls have been closing in demographically for them for years via age and diversity, and they have reached the point where they are so desperate for power, that they will do whatever it takes to hold onto it.

And that includes burning down the United States and its Constitution.

[Benjamin Cole]

Well, lots of different viewpoints here.

I do not subscribe to national security-state narratives, whether on JFKA, 9/11, or 1/6. I think such narratives are always self-serving first. 

This is from the excellent program "Breaking Points." 

I do not really take my cues from anyone, but if I did, I would choose Greenwald over M$M. 

Interesting that the Cheneys--yes, Dick and Liz Cheney---are the new WaPo-Donk heroes. 

The same WaPo that has spent 60 years ridiculing anyone who thought Warren Commission was a cover-up, not an investigation. The same WaPo-Donk stronghold that prints Max Boot--yes, Max Boot!--as an authority on the JFKA to ridicule Stone and JFK:Revisited. 

I am skeptical of the M$M narrative on 1/6, and see gigantic holes in what is being pursued. Much like after the JFKA. 

To me, this looks like another national-security state snow job. 

I understand others have other points of view, which appear to me to be partisan-based, but which I respect. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Well, lots of different viewpoints here.

I do not subscribe to national security-state narratives, whether on JFKA, 9/11, or 1/6. I think such narratives are always self-serving first. 

This is from the excellent program "Breaking Points." 

I do not really take my cues from anyone, but if I did, I would choose Greenwald over M$M. 

Interesting that the Cheneys--yes, Dick and Liz Cheney---are the new WaPo-Donk heroes. 

The same WaPo that has spent 60 years ridiculing anyone who thought Warren Commission was a cover-up, not an investigation. The same WaPo-Donk stronghold that prints Max Boot--yes, Max Boot!--as an authority on the JFKA to ridicule Stone and JFK:Revisited. 

I am skeptical of the M$M narrative on 1/6, and see gigantic holes in what is being pursued. Much like after the JFKA. 

To me, this looks like another national-security state snow job. 

I understand others have other points of view, which appear to me to be partisan-based, but which I respect. 

Benjamin--that there was an objective to stop the certification of the electors' vote making Biden president is pretty clear, also that that benefitted Trump and was wanted by Trump, also that security was breached and the personal safety of members of Congress was threatened. I don't think you dispute any of these points as to fact. I also doubt you dispute that Biden won the election. What I hear you are saying is elements of the armed forces, police and the agencies may have been party to this too, that is, you are saying elements of the "deep state", not just the rioters, were complicit in the Trump agenda of blocking Biden's electoral victory from being implemented.

Of course to the extent that the Jan 6 attempt to prevent Biden from becoming president involved agencies, police and military, that should be investigated and brought to light. I agree with you there. But my question is: do you have any theory on why elements of the deep state would want to push to have Trump in power instead of Biden on Jan 6? You have been speculating that this is the case for a long time, and I am wondering if you have an explanation of motive as to why that might be (if so). 

What would cause elements of the military or the agencies, to act in favor of maintaining Trump in power even after Trump lost the election? (If your suspicion is right.)

And if that is indeed what happened (if the deep state was acting in support of Trump's agenda on Jan 6 and opposed to Biden taking power even though Biden won the election) what do you think the appropriate response should be on the part of Congress? 

When you evoke spectres of elements of state apparatus involved in attempting to prevent a Biden presidential election victory from being certified by Congress, are you seeing this as some kind of "Seven Days of May" coup scenario in favor of Trump? Is that what you think is not being sufficiently investigated with respect to Jan 6? A suspicion that Trump may have had deep armed forces, or intelligence agencies', covert support in attempting to block the electors from certifying Biden as president-elect?

If one party wants to investigate this and the other party (of Trump) does not want to investigate the deep state for supporting a coup on behalf of Trump, do you have any good suggestions on how a congressional investigation could get to the bottom of this and bring criminal charges if warranted without appearing partisan? 

A final note is I personally think the term "the deep state" has outlived its usefulness--it started out as I recall as a non-conspiratorial connotation term simply referring to the workings of the bureaucracy and power dynamics, not necessarily hidden or conspiratorial, just sociology of power description. I believe a 2016 book by Mike Lofgren put the term into mainstream currency, there defining what was meant by "deep state" as the sectors which have the real power. Nothing mystical or magical or monolithic per se. Ralph Nader used to talk about an ideal of "deep democracy". I like that term better.

[Benjamin Cole]

26 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin--that there was an objective to stop the certification of the electors' vote making Biden president is pretty clear, also that that benefitted Trump and was wanted by Trump, also that security was breached and the personal safety of members of Congress was threatened. I don't think you dispute any of these points as to fact. I also doubt you dispute that Biden won the election. What I hear you are saying is elements of the armed forces, police and the agencies may have been party to this too, that is, you are saying elements of the "deep state", not just the rioters, were complicit in the Trump agenda of blocking Biden's electoral victory from being implemented.

Of course to the extent that the Jan 6 attempt to prevent Biden from becoming president involved agencies, police and military, that should be investigated and brought to light. I agree with you there. But my question is: do you have any theory on why elements of the deep state would want to push to have Trump in power instead of Biden on Jan 6? You have been speculating that this is the case for a long time, and I am wondering if you have an explanation of motive as to why that might be (if so). 

What would cause elements of the military or the agencies, to act in favor of maintaining Trump in power even after Trump lost the election? (If your suspicion is right.)

And if that is indeed what happened (if the deep state was acting in support of Trump's agenda on Jan 6 and opposed to Biden taking power even though Biden won the election) what do you think the appropriate response should be on the part of Congress? 

When you evoke spectres of elements of state apparatus involved in attempting to prevent a Biden presidential election victory from being certified by Congress, are you seeing this as some kind of "Seven Days of May" coup scenario in favor of Trump? Is that what you think is not being sufficiently investigated with respect to Jan 6? A suspicion that Trump may have had deep armed forces, or intelligence agencies', covert support in attempting to block the electors from certifying Biden as president-elect?

If one party wants to investigate this and the other party (of Trump) does not want to investigate the deep state for supporting a coup on behalf of Trump, do you have any good suggestions on how a congressional investigation could get to the bottom of this and bring criminal charges if warranted without appearing partisan? 

A final note is I personally think the term "the deep state" has outlived its usefulness--it started out as I recall as a non-conspiratorial connotation term simply referring to the workings of the bureaucracy and power dynamics, not necessarily hidden or conspiratorial, just sociology of power description. I believe a 2016 book by Mike Lofgren put the term into mainstream currency, there defining what was meant by "deep state" as the sectors which have the real power. Nothing mystical or magical or monolithic per se. Ralph Nader used to talk about an ideal of "deep democracy". I like that term better.

Greg D-

Thank you for your comments.

My suspicion---not a conviction, as there has been no investigation yet---is that certain elements, outside of the Trump inner clique or administration, likely triggered the actual scrum at the Capitol.

As we have come to learn about the Whitmer kidnapping and Michigan Capitol occupation "plot," there were more federal assets and agents involved, than earnest halfwits and useful idiots.  

I have posted here numerous times the evidence of federal instigators or provocateurs on 1/6. The curiously light---extremely light---security at the Capitol on 1/6. The clunky response.  There are 3,500 Capitol Police officers and 2,500 District of Columbia officers, and hundreds more federal police in DC, all in close quarters and a phone call away. 

In addition, we are now told that highly lethal federal assets had been moved into position on 1/6, and "everyone" knew trouble was pending (see Newsweek story earlier in this thread).

But 700 halfwits were able to rather easily enter the Capitol. 

This all strongly suggests a manufactured event, ala the Whitmer kidnapping. 

------

"The group accused of plotting to kidnap ... - Yahoo News

https://news.yahoo.com › group-accused-plotting-kidna...

Jul 21, 2564 BE — At least 12 confidential FBI informants assisted the investigation into the extremist group accused in the plot, BuzzFeed News reported."

---30---

None of this makes Trump a nice guy, and I would prefer he leave the national scene, and become a radio talk-show host, or whatever. 

But there can be prosecutorial abuse against unlikeable people, and the national security state can manufacture events, and manipulate subsequent media coverage through any presidency. 

For me, it is akin to free speech rights. There are plenty of people I disagree with, but I prefer free speech for all. 

There are presidents I disagree with, but I prefer no prosecutorial abuses and state-manufactured events against them. 

PS I really liked Mike Lofgren's book, and I am on board with 95% of it. 

The final 5% is what we saw in the JFKA or the Whitmer kidnapping, or the Bay of Pigs, the Indonesian catastrophe--Lofgren steered clear to the dark  stuff. I suspect Lofgren did not want to look like a nut, and who can blame him. 

One mention of the JFKA and the WaPo would have 86'ed his book. 

The Deep State...it is something real. During any presidency. 

[Benjamin Cole]

Add on (sorry):

Greenwald's larger point is also worth considering:

Whatever people believe about 9/11 or 1/6, the national security state, and allied political parties and media, developed a subsequent narrative to expand the police powers of the state. 

Believe me, Trump will pass from the scene. But Trump is about 1% the threat to your personal liberties, or the democratic processes, than the national security state. 

If you are a reader of this forum, most likely you believe the national security state rearranged who was in the White House in Nov. 22. I think that is close to a probability.

If the "Deep State" was willing to do that in 1963, and today has vasty expanded budget and technology...and a much more compliant media....really, pursuing Trump seems like barking up a bonsai tree in redwood forest.

 

[Steve Thomas]

Conspiracy against the United States, or conspiracy to defraud the United States,[1] is a federal offense in the United States of America under 18 U.S.C. § 371. The crime is that of two or more persons who conspire to commit an offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_against_the_United_States

Statute

18 U.S.C. § 371 provides that:

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.[2]

History and interpretation

In the 1924 case Hammerschmidt v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion authored by Chief Justice William Howard Taft, held that "To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest."[3]

The U.S. Department of Justice's United States Attorneys' Manual, summarizing case law on the statute, states that "In summary, those activities which courts have held defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 affect the government in at least one of three ways: (1) They cheat the government out of money or property; (2) They interfere or obstruct legitimate Government activity; or (3) They make wrongful use of a governmental instrumentality."[1] The "intent required for a conspiracy to defraud the government is that the defendant possessed the intent (a) to defraud, (b) to make false statements or representations to the government or its agencies in order to obtain property of the government, or that the defendant performed acts or made statements that he/she knew to be false, fraudulent or deceitful to a government agency, which disrupted the functions of the agency or of the government."[1] The federal courts have held that an "actual loss to the government of any property or funds" is not an element of the offense; to secure a conviction, the government must prove "only that the defendant's activities impeded or interfered with legitimate governmental functions."[1] For example, a businessman who used a front company to gain federal subcontracts for bridge construction meant for disadvantaged businesses was convicted under this section.[4][5]

The statute has been used in a wide variety of contexts; it is "a common federal charge, mainly because it can target a wide range of conduct and can be tacked on to other charges."[6] Charges of conspiracy against the United States have been brought against al-Qaeda terrorist attack plotters as well as against various Volkswagen AG executives who were charged under the statute in connection with the Volkswagen emissions cheating scandal.[6] Notable persons who have been convicted of conspiracy against the United States include former Enron chief executive officer Jeff Skilling.[7]

The statute received renewed attention after Donald Trump's campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and Manafort's associate Rick Gates,[8] were indicted and pleaded guilty to this crime."

 

Steve Thomas

[Steve Thomas]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy!

I can't wait!

They're going to emerge soon!

Hundreds of years!

Right Wing Watch

 

@RightWingWatch

https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1479150403015127052

"QAnon Shaman Jake Angeli tells fellow QAnon conspiracy theorist Ann Vandersteel that there is "a breakaway civilization" deep underground where military bases are using technology hundreds of years more advanced than anything available on the surface."

Steve Thomas

 

 

Edited January 7, 2022 by Steve Thomas

[Joe Bauer]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

But 700 halfwits were able to rather easily enter the Capitol. 

Calling them "halfwits" is a weak downplaying of their actions and intent.

Like saying they were mentally challenged or disturbed?

Most were employed. Some firefighters, police, even military.

Brainwashed and inspired by Trump's obsessive rants of a stolen election and to march down to the Capital building and fight like hell?  Yes.

Trump's own words to his stop the steal crowd just before sending them on their whooping, yelling riled up way to the Capital bldg.

"Now it is up to Congress to confront this egregious assault on our democracy. And after this, we're going to walk down and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down--

We're going to walk down. Anyone you want, but I think right here, we're going to walk down to the Capitol--

And we're going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women and we're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.

Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong."

 

Yesterday I heard a Jan 6th insurrection documentarian say the huge majority of the Capital march crowd were peaceful.

That only 700 of 5,000 broke through the barriers and went on a rampage through the Capital Bldg.

Did anyone ever catch on video or audio "anyone" in that larger so-called peace minded Trump incited Capital building march crowd calling back the front line stormers? Calling for them to stop the rampage?

Or physically trying to stop or even slow them down once they saw the real bad physical violence beginning? The assaults on the Capital police? The smashing of doors and windows?

They had 3 hours time to do so.

I sure never saw anyone in the larger crowd doing anything or saying/yelling to their fellow storm troopers "STOP" or "THIS VIOLENCE IS WRONG."

What I saw was even the larger crowd yelling Trump slogans and wildly waving their Trump flags and posters both before and during the assault.

If the larger crowd was peaceful in intent, they sure didn't express this or show disagreement with the brutal actions of their fellow charging violent posse members.

And when interviewed during and after the violent attack, I have never seen on video any comments from the larger crowd members condemning the attack and violence. Most of those interviewed seemed okay with the violence and some even expressed it hadn't gone far enough!

That entire Capital building march crowd is culpable in the attack imo.

None of them made any effort verbally or physically to stop, slow down or call back their fellow non-peaceful attackers.

And I have yet to see anyone interviewed in that Trump worked up crowd after or during the attack express remorse over it's occurrence.

 

Edited January 8, 2022 by Joe Bauer