Matt Allison Posted January 11, 2022 Share Posted January 11, 2022 J6 Committee member Rep. Adam Kinzinger explains for the masses what I explained here a week or two back: https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1481024966468460547?s=20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 12 hours ago, Paul Bacon said: Don't forget to take into account the great possibility that this coming mid-term will see a republican sweep of congress. Imagine what will happen in the U.S. And then see how likely civil war may be. Paul B- I only know what I read anymore on America, though I try to read across the board from alt-l to M$M to alt-r. And some niche sites, like the one we are on now. My guess is the 'Phants will take back the Congress in 2022, especially if they can field some charismatic candidates who are not nuts. The Donks seem adrift, attached only to their DC-bubble allies. One small example: From what I read (but confirmed in conversations with people who live in the US) there are "labor shortages" in America. This is great news for the bottom one-third of the labor force, those people largely in the services. The Donks never talk about the positive aspects of "labor shortages." Indeed, they rhapsodize about open borders for illegal immigrants, that is a great surge in new labor supply. You don't have to be a Marxist to wonder what the hell is wrong with the Donks. Instead of talking about labor markets, the Donks talk incessantly about...1/6. Which outside of certain literati, no one cares about. Candlelight ceremonies! In short, political theater, but aimed inside the bubble. But...if the 'Phants do win control of the Congress, I do not see how that will lead to a Civil War. Seems to me the bona fide right-wing agitators (although not the federal assets) will become somewhat complacent, biding their time until 2024. But hey, that is my view from afar. You are "our man in America" so to speak. Probably you have a better grip on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Matt Allison said: J6 Committee member Rep. Adam Kinzinger explains for the masses what I explained here a week or two back: https://twitter.com/AdamKinzinger/status/1481024966468460547?s=20 This is referred to by another poster near the bottom of Kinzinger's tweets. Georgia prosecutor says decision on Trump election interference case likely coming soon (msn.com) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Ron- I expected the NY AG to be first, but this changes things up... who will it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said: 'I hate to use this language:' Marjorie Taylor Greene suggests it's time to use 'Second Amendment' on Democrats by Brad Reed January 11, 2022 https://www.rawstory.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-2656376515/ “Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) on Tuesday floated resorting to using the "Second Amendment" to deal with Democrats who are imposing what she described as a "tyrannical" government. While speaking with right-wing media personality Sebastian Gorka, Greene slammed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams for her policies regarding both vaccines and gun rights. Greene then pivoted to talking about how Americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms to resist such supposed tyranny. "Ultimately the truth is it’s our Second Amendment rights, our right to bear arms, that protects Americans and give us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government," she said. "And I hate to use this language but Democrats, they’re exactly -- they’re doing exactly what our Founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.”” Steve Thomas Let's put Greene's disturbing "Second Amendment" threat to Stacey Abrams in historical context. Charleston was the main slave port on the East Coast when the Bill of Rights was written, and South Carolina was a state that had a majority black (slave) population prior to the Civil War. The slave colonies/states in the South maintained well-armed militias (aka "slave patrols") to police their slave populations. Some historians have made the case that the Second Amendment was drafted, partly, to protect the legal right of slave states to maintain "well-armed militias" -- i.e., slave patrols-- from Federal interference. So much for preventing tyranny. After the Civil War, the policing functions of the old Antebellum slave patrols morphed into white vigilante "rifle clubs" and police forces focused on "keeping the (freed blacks) down." It's a phenomenon that can be traced right down to the present in the U.S. So, in a perverse sense, it's not surprising that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-South Carolina) is evoking the old "slave patrol" Second Amendment today as a threat against a black woman who has been actively working to enforce and protect the 15th Amendment right of black citizens to vote. IMO, it's not really about standing up to tyranny. It's about white supremacists like Greene tyrannizing black people and "libs" who support Civil Rights and Voting Rights. Edited January 12, 2022 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Price Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 34 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said: So, in a perverse sense, it's not surprising that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-South Carolina) is evoking the old "slave patrol" Second Amendment today as a threat against a black woman who has been actively working to enforce and protect the 15th Amendment right of black citizens to vote. It is a minor error on your part, W., but Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Republican member from extreme (excuse the pun), north Georgia at the Tennessee state line. Steve correctly referred to her in his post. It's not that I want to claim her, (I'm from GA) but just to correct the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Top FBI official dodges when Cruz asks if agents participated in Jan. 6 riot Senior FBI official Jill Sanborn replied to Cruz questioning, 'I can't answer that' By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News "Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, grilled a senior FBI official on whether or not FBI agents or confidential informants played a role in the Capitol protest on Jan. 6, 2001, but she would not confirm nor deny anything. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled, "The Domestic Terrorism Threat One Year After January 6," Cruz asked Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director for the FBI's national security branch, about suspicions held by some that government officials encouraged lawless behavior during the protest. "How many FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the events of Jan. 6?" Cruz asked. Sanborn said in response that she could not discuss "the specifics of sources and methods" of the FBI. Cruz then broadened his question by asking if any FBI agents or confidential informants actively participated in the riot. "Sir, I can’t answer that," she said. Cruz then asked if any agents or confidential informants committed crimes of violence on Jan. 6. When he received the same answer, he asked if any agents or confidential informants "actively encouraged" crimes of violence on Jan. 6. "Sir, I can’t answer that." Cruz then brought up Ray Epps, who was seen on video the day before the riot, telling a crowd, "Tomorrow, we need to get into the Capitol! Into the Capitol!" The crowd responded by shouting, "Fed! Fed! Fed!" at him. Epps, later claimed that he was not encouraging wrongdoing. "The only thing that meant is we would go in the doors like everyone else. It was totally, totally wrong the way they went in," he told the Arizona Republic. "Miss Sanborn, was Ray Epps a fed?" Cruz asked. "Sir, I cannot answer that question," Sanborn replied. Cruz asked more questions about Epps' actions, and Sanborn said she could not answer." ---30--- It is too bad that partisan politics will determine the reaction of people to the above exchange--not lessons learned in the JFKA assassination. An elected member of Congress asked a top FBI official if there were federal assets that acted as provocateurs on 1/6, and she declined to answer. The 1/6 event is getting fishier and fishier, and I smell a rat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 4 hours ago, Matt Allison said: MTG will be in prison soon. Bobert too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 Ron- there's a lot of scuttlebutt about the tours Boebert gave in the days prior to 1/6; that some of those people later participated in the coup. But that's all it is so far. The rumors about MTG are far more serious... and seem more than possible. If true, she will go to prison for quite a long time. Ben- as I pointed out here before, Ray Epps can not be charged for what he said about people going to the Capitol; it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. I also pointed out the reason why he wasn't otherwise charged: the only people being charged are those that went *inside* the Capitol. Just charging those people alone has already been an enormous job for DOJ, due to the huge amounts of people that went inside. And I pointed out that the FBI would not put one of their own employees on their "Most Wanted List." And today Republican Congressman Kinzinger tweeted the same. You do yourself no favors by spreading such obvious disinformation and propaganda here. Statement from the 1/6 Committee today: “The select committee has interviewed Mr. Epps. Mr. Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said: Let's put Greene's disturbing "Second Amendment" threat to Stacey Abrams in historical context. Charleston was the main slave port on the East Coast when the Bill of Rights was written, and South Carolina was a state that had a majority black (slave) population prior to the Civil War. The slave colonies/states in the South maintained well-armed militias (aka "slave patrols") to police their slave populations. Some historians have made the case that the Second Amendment was drafted, partly, to protect the legal right of slave states to maintain "well-armed militias" -- i.e., slave patrols-- from Federal interference. So much for preventing tyranny. After the Civil War, the policing functions of the old Antebellum slave patrols morphed into white vigilante "rifle clubs" and police forces focused on "keeping the (freed blacks) down." It's a phenomenon that can be traced right down to the present in the U.S. So, in a perverse sense, it's not surprising that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-South Carolina) is evoking the old "slave patrol" Second Amendment today as a threat against a black woman who has been actively working to enforce and protect the 15th Amendment right of black citizens to vote. IMO, it's not really about standing up to tyranny. It's about white supremacists like Greene tyrannizing black people and "libs" who support Civil Rights and Voting Rights. The way relevant posts get buried on this thread by more lengthy and egregious ones this one is worth a bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Ron- there's a lot of scuttlebutt about the tours Boebert gave in the days prior to 1/6; that some of those people later participated in the coup. But that's all it is so far. The rumors about MTG are far more serious... and seem more than possible. If true, she will go to prison for quite a long time. Ben- as I pointed out here before, Ray Epps can not be charged for what he said about people going to the Capitol; it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. I also pointed out the reason why he wasn't otherwise charged: the only people being charged are those that went *inside* the Capitol. Just charging those people alone has already been an enormous job for DOJ, due to the huge amounts of people that went inside. And I pointed out that the FBI would not put one of their own employees on their "Most Wanted List." And today Republican Congressman Kinzinger tweeted the same. You do yourself no favors by spreading such obvious disinformation and propaganda here. Statement from the 1/6 Committee today: “The select committee has interviewed Mr. Epps. Mr. Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency” Matt A-. But we know from our study of the JFKA, that federal assets routinely deny their employment by an intel agency. If Ray Epps was an employee of a US intel agency, would he admit as much, possibly even when under oath, let alone when "asked' by a congressional committee? If Epps was not an intel asset, why did not Jill Sanborn, FBI official, merely answer Cruz, "We normally do not reveal sources and methods, but since Epps is not a source or an asset, I can affirm he is not an FBI asset, or informant, in any any manner or shape. He may be an asset of another federal agency, but not ours." Unfortunately, the historical track record is strewn with lies, deception and disinformation from congressional committees and federal investigative agencies. For me, skepticism regarding federal intel programs and agitators, and allied media narratives trumps partisan politics. BTW, I think Ted Cruz is the very picture of a hypocritical pompous ass. If BLM'ers had occupied the Capitol, Cruz would be all onboard with intel agencies and their manipulations. But his questions are questions, and there they are out in public and unanswered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 22 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: Ron- there's a lot of scuttlebutt about the tours Boebert gave in the days prior to 1/6; that some of those people later participated in the coup. But that's all it is so far. The rumors about MTG are far more serious... and seem more than possible. If true, she will go to prison for quite a long time. Ben- as I pointed out here before, Ray Epps can not be charged for what he said about people going to the Capitol; it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. I also pointed out the reason why he wasn't otherwise charged: the only people being charged are those that went *inside* the Capitol. Just charging those people alone has already been an enormous job for DOJ, due to the huge amounts of people that went inside. And I pointed out that the FBI would not put one of their own employees on their "Most Wanted List." And today Republican Congressman Kinzinger tweeted the same. You do yourself no favors by spreading such obvious disinformation and propaganda here. Statement from the 1/6 Committee today: “The select committee has interviewed Mr. Epps. Mr. Epps informed us that he was not employed by, working with, or acting at the direction of any law enforcement agency on January 5th or 6th or at any other time, and that he has never been an informant for the FBI or any other law enforcement agency” In other words, if Epps was inciting a riot, it was not on behalf of the FBI. Per the committee investigating the subject and questioning him. Thanks for the George Jones, haven't heard him in a while as they don't play him on the radio anymore. Just pulled a CD. Yabba dabba do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 7 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said: If Epps was not an intel asset, why did not Jill Sanborn, FBI official, merely answer Cruz, "We normally do not reveal sources and methods, but since Epps is not a source or an asset, I can affirm he is not an FBI asset, or informant, in any any manner or shape. He may be an asset of another federal agency, but not ours." You already know the standard answer for that is "we neither confirm or deny" or something similar. But in Sanborn's case, why do you expect her to know. Sanborn, specifically? Why should *she* know? Not surprisingly, the website of the infamous Fox Propaganda Network left out the most important part of the entire exchange, at the 5:57 mark: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 I would add, most of the real Patriots around here can see the irony of Ted Cruz accusing someone else of encouraging violence at the Capitol that day lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, Matt Allison said: I would add, most of the real Patriots around here can see the irony of Ted Cruz accusing someone else of encouraging violence at the Capitol that day lol Matt A--- In the DC bubble, where skillful hypocrisy is regarded as a virtue, Cruz manages to elevate the bar with his fakeness. That said, I find Jill Sanborn's "answer" just another bit of DC dodginess. Likely Sanborn and Cruz are boxing for who can dissemble and mislead with the most skill.... After being a JFKA student...you trust an FBI official? Or a Congressional committee? I don't trust Cruz.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts