The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Leslie Sharp]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

You seem to have left out the part about the FBI informants in the group (Including the leader of the Proud Boys), but that makes sense since all you seem to be able to do is copy and paste other people works.. 

No comment regarding the plethora of information that confirms these organizations are made up of neo-fascists if not avowed N-azis?

[John Cotter]

13 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

The comparison eludes you?  I admit it requires a bit of thought, or perhaps you're not all that familiar with the plot to assassination the president in Dallas that included the perfect patsy. Chansley is the diversion from what was taking place over at the Willard Hotel, from John Eastman, Roger Stone, & Co.

Instead of rebutting what I said in my original post - the withholding of evidence exculpating Chansley, the security stripping etc - you've gone off on a tangent, effectively a red herring.

Thanks for the validation.

Edited March 10, 2023 by John Cotter

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Instead of rebutting what I said in my original post - the withholding of evidence exculpating Chansley, the security stripping etc - you've gone off on a tangent, effectively a red herring.

Thanks for the validation.

Au contraire, John.  I attempted to elevated the conversation so that it has some relevance. Your observation is an alt-right soundbite with no substance.

[John Cotter]

1 minute ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Au contraire, John.  I attempted to elevated the conversation so that it has some relevance. Your observation is an alt-right soundbite with no substance.

Still no logical rebuttal.

Thanks again for the validation.

[Leslie Sharp]

13 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Still no logical rebuttal.

Thanks again for the validation.

Rebuttal is in the eye of the beholder.  But to satisfy your frustration, I refute your contention that some footage of Chansley being escorted around the capitol is evidence that he shouldn't be charged as an insurrectionist when he stood at the Speaker's podium knowing that he was there because mayhem was disrupting the peaceful transfer of leadership under the terms set forth in OUR Constitution.  Do you think Chansley's defense would effectively persuade a judge and or jury with this new footage?  And if his attorneys were entitled to the footage, so are we, and all media outlets unless of course a judge ruled otherwise in which instance, the case should have made it's way through the courts before Carlson aired a single clip.  Something rotten in Denmark for sure.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

Paul,

There’s been a lot of diversionary verbiage spewed on this thread apparently designed to obfuscate the significance of the newly released J6 footage.

As I see it, one “lie” Carlson refers to is the withholding of exculpatory evidence regarding Jacob Chansley, the Horned Viking as you refer to him. This evidence was withheld from Chansley, his lawyer and the public by the J6 Committee.

That’s not only a perversion of the course of justice. It’s also clearly designed to misrepresent the nature of the J6 event as being more violent than it really was.

It’s also of a piece with other evidence pointing to J6 as a set up, whereby essentially there was “security stripping” (where have we seen that before?) to facilitate violent behaviour by a minority of protestors or provocateurs.

The security stripping alone is clearcut evidence of such a set up. The whole thing is a lie.

JC---

Ditto on sentiments, through facts about 1/6 are still emerging. 

BTW, I am not saying, as a fact, there was a manufactured event on 1/6. 

I am saying there are mountains of evidence to make one skeptical of the M$M narrative of 1/6, and the 1/6 committee Cheney-crat TV show. 

The new video of Mr Buffalo Horns is inexplicable, and entirely inconsistent with the 1/6 committee/M$M narrative of 1/6. Add on the martyrization of the unfortunate Brian Sicknick (laid in state in the US Congress for having a stroke, after 1/6). 

In this very forum, there has been a great deal of skepticism regarding Secret Service lapses during the JFKA, and suppression of evidence thereafter. I think that skepticism is entirely justified, and should be followed, although I suspect a much smaller circle of plotters. 

Accepting any official Washington investigation at face value---in this case, the 1/6 Cheney-crat TV show---is always a mug's game. 

Stay skeptical, don't drink the kool-aid, red or blue. 

[Paul Rigby]

Jimmy Dore having fun with the wider Bidenescu plunge protection team:

 

[Paul Rigby]

22 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

...Chansley...stood at the Speaker's podium...

Outraged at the Shaman's heinous crime of, well, wandering round under police escort, silent on Bidenescu's minor offence of blowing up Nord Streams 1 & 2 and causing an ecological catastrophe. 

Modern Democrats in a nutshell.

[Leslie Sharp]

5 minutes ago, Paul Rigby said:

Outraged at the Shaman's heinous crime of, well, wandering round under police escort, silent on Bidenescu's minor offence of blowing up Nord Streams 1 & 2 and causing an ecological catastrophe. 

Modern Democrats in a nutshell.

A video Tucker doesn't want MAGA to see ... again.

Edited March 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[John Cotter]

35 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Rebuttal is in the eye of the beholder.  But to satisfy your frustration, I refute your contention that some footage of Chansley being escorted around the capitol is evidence that he shouldn't be charged as an insurrectionist when he stood at the Speaker's podium knowing that he was there because mayhem was disrupting the peaceful transfer of leadership under the terms set forth in OUR Constitution.  Do you think Chansley's defense would effectively persuade a judge and or jury with this new footage?  And if his attorneys were entitled to the footage, so are we, and all media outlets unless of course a judge ruled otherwise in which instance, the case should have made it's way through the courts before Carlson aired a single clip.  Something rotten in Denmark for sure.

Thanks for conceding that your previous responses were not rebuttals and were instead diversionary nonsense.

But true to form, you’ve again dodged the substantive points of my post and posted more nonsense. Contrary to what you claim, (a) you don’t know what was in Chansley’s mind and (b) you don’t know how a judge would view the withheld footage. Not that it matters, because these are strawman arguments, in other words, nonsense.

As I said, the withholding of the exculpatory footage (it had to be exculpatory if the police were accompanying him – otherwise the police should be charged also) was a perversion of the course of justice. You haven’t addressed this point, probably because it’s irrefutable.

Likewise, you haven’t addressed what I said about the security stripping. It’s understandable that you would ignore that, because you can’t “rebut” a fact. You’ve similarly ignored the logical implication of that fact, namely, as I said, that J6 it was a set up.

Please stop cluttering the thread and wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant gibberish.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

10 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for conceding that your previous responses were not rebuttals and were instead diversionary nonsense.

But true to form, you’ve again dodged the substantive points of my post and posted more nonsense. Contrary to what you claim, (a) you don’t know what was in Chansley’s mind and (b) you don’t know how a judge would view the withheld footage. Not that it matters, because these are strawman arguments, in other words, nonsense.

As I said, the withholding of the exculpatory footage (it had to be exculpatory if the police were accompanying him – otherwise the police should be charged also) was a perversion of the course of justice. You haven’t addressed this point, probably because it’s irrefutable.

Likewise, you haven’t addressed what I said about the security stripping. It’s understandable that you would ignore that, because you can’t “rebut” a fact. You’ve similarly ignored the logical implication of that fact, namely, as I said, that J6 it was a set up.

Please stop cluttering the thread and wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant gibberish.

 

I suspect an appellate judge would be compelled to weigh this footage.  Perhaps you've forgotten about it?

Keep in mind, while events were unfolding inside the chamber, violent hand to hand confrontation was taking place outside.  

Keep in mind, these insurrectionists were occupying the proscribed venue for the peaceful transfer of leadership as set forth in OUR Constitution.  

Edited March 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Paul Brancato]

Ok, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that he whole thing was a deep state fed set-up to discredit the Right, that proud boys etc were instigated by provocateurs. 
in the interest of an honest debate, I think it is necessary to ask where you, Matthew, John, Paul R and others here are coming from. And for me and others too. If confirmation bias is real and I am unaware of its effect on me, let me say that I supported the old Jew from Brooklyn Bernie Sanders, as the best of the candidates in both primaries in which he ran. I was brought up by parents who took me and some of my friends to the 1963 March on Washington, to the Rosenbergs vigil at Madison Square Garden the night they were executed, to hear Pete Seeger many times. They named me after Paul Robeson. I am unashamed of my background. I am as far removed from white supremacy as one could get. My dear mother wouldn’t buy Aunt Jemimah pancake mix or spic-n-span. She was an anti nuke activist who was called to testify to HUAC because she had once belonged to the Communist Party. 
This thread has several posters defending White Nationalists. They have not stated their personal beliefs, only that the Jan 6th crowd were peaceful. I’ll talk with racists any time, but only if they come right out and unashamedly own it, like my recently departed father-in-law, who was a really decent human being in all other respects. I’ll talk with folks who agree with overturning Roe, even the ones who think women should be punished if they transgress laws against abortions, which is surely coming in some states. I’ll talk to neocons. I’ll talk to anyone. But I will NOT take part in an online trolling session. Either you all say what you believe in your hearts or I will delete your posts from my feed.

 

[Leslie Sharp]

19 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Thanks for conceding that your previous responses were not rebuttals and were instead diversionary nonsense.

But true to form, you’ve again dodged the substantive points of my post and posted more nonsense. Contrary to what you claim, (a) you don’t know what was in Chansley’s mind and (b) you don’t know how a judge would view the withheld footage. Not that it matters, because these are strawman arguments, in other words, nonsense.

As I said, the withholding of the exculpatory footage (it had to be exculpatory if the police were accompanying him – otherwise the police should be charged also) was a perversion of the course of justice. You haven’t addressed this point, probably because it’s irrefutable.

Likewise, you haven’t addressed what I said about the security stripping. It’s understandable that you would ignore that, because you can’t “rebut” a fact. You’ve similarly ignored the logical implication of that fact, namely, as I said, that J6 it was a set up.

Please stop cluttering the thread and wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant gibberish.

 

Please stop cluttering the thread and wasting everyone’s time with irrelevant gibberish.

This coming from a purported defender of the First Amendment?

The more you push Carlson and his agenda, the longer I'll be on this thread.  Your choice.  And as far as I know, you don't own this tree house, and I am certain it's not a boys only club. By the way, where ARE the women on this thread, started by a competent researcher who by the way is female.  Did you and your ilk intimidate them?

Edited March 11, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[W. Niederhut]

44 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Rebuttal is in the eye of the beholder.  But to satisfy your frustration, I refute your contention that some footage of Chansley being escorted around the capitol is evidence that he shouldn't be charged as an insurrectionist when he stood at the Speaker's podium knowing that he was there because mayhem was disrupting the peaceful transfer of leadership under the terms set forth in OUR Constitution.  Do you think Chansley's defense would effectively persuade a judge and or jury with this new footage?  And if his attorneys were entitled to the footage, so are we, and all media outlets unless of course a judge ruled otherwise in which instance, the case should have made it's way through the courts before Carlson aired a single clip.  Something rotten in Denmark for sure.

Leslie,

    Excellent refutations of John Cotter and our Coalition of the Clueless.

    You may not know that these guys-- including Mathew Koch and Ben Cole-- adamantly refused to watch the Congressional J6 hearings last year, which is one reason why they have been so easily suckered by Tucker Carlson's false revisionist history of J6.

    John Cotter doesn't seem to know that the Congressional J6 investigation focused mainly on Donald Trump and his Willard Hotel cabal.  The Committee did question one Capitol attacker in detail-- the young cabinet maker from Ohio who greatly regretted the fact that Fox News and Trump had lied to him about their Stop the Steal scam. 

      Chansley is, at most, a right wing coup denier's straw man-- a logical subject for Tucker Carlson's (and Benjamin Cole's) false revisionist history of J6. 

      I should also warn you that John Cotter's modus operandi in debates is to misquote and misrepresent what people have written, then claim that he has "refuted" them.  When all else fails, he ignores the rebuttals of his poorly informed arguments.

      You go, girl!

[Benjamin Cole]

5 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ok, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that he whole thing was a deep state fed set-up to discredit the Right, that proud boys etc were instigated by provocateurs. 
in the interest of an honest debate, I think it is necessary to ask where you, Matthew, John, Paul R and others here are coming from. And for me and others too. If confirmation bias is real and I am unaware of its effect on me, let me say that I supported the old Jew from Brooklyn Bernie Sanders, as the best of the candidates in both primaries in which he ran. I was brought up by parents who took me and some of my friends to the 1963 March on Washington, to the Rosenbergs vigil at Madison Square Garden the night they were executed, to hear Pete Seeger many times. They named me after Paul Robeson. I am unashamed of my background. I am as far removed from white supremacy as one could get. My dear mother wouldn’t buy Aunt Jemimah pancake mix or spic-n-span. She was an anti nuke activist who was called to testify to HUAC because she had once belonged to the Communist Party. 
This thread has several posters defending White Nationalists. They have not stated their personal beliefs, only that the Jan 6th crowd were peaceful. I’ll talk with racists any time, but only if they come right out and unashamedly own it, like my recently departed father-in-law, who was a really decent human being in all other respects. I’ll talk with folks who agree with overturning Roe, even the ones who think women should be punished if they transgress laws against abortions, which is surely coming in some states. I’ll talk to neocons. I’ll talk to anyone. But I will NOT take part in an online trolling session. Either you all say what you believe in your hearts or I will delete your posts from my feed.

 

Paul--

I had similar parents, and the Peter Seeger records in the house (vinyl, still the best!). 

I deplore ID politics of any kind, from dog whistles to self-righteous denunciations of the white male patriarchy. 

I am very skeptical of the M$M-Donk 1/6 narrative. 

When people want to suppress evidence...they are in the wrong.