Jump to content
The Education Forum

Secret Service participation in 1/6 coup attempt


Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

OK, you have final word, on the strength of your convictions, if not arguments. 

 

Ben,

     Honestly, I have seen little evidence on this thread that you have even understood my arguments.

     I began by referring you to the court testimony of the attackers-- who have clearly attributed their actions on January 6th to Trump's directives, and to the goal of disrupting the certification of Biden's election.

    More recently, I pointed out that Trump was the beneficiary regardless of whether Christopher Wray warned him or did not warn him about any FBI intelligence of the impending attack on Congress.

    Perhaps you could explain why you believe that any advance FBI intel about the attacks was part of a "Deep State" op to undermine Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Ben,

     Honestly, I have seen little evidence on this thread that you have even understood my arguments.

     I began by referring you to the court testimony of the attackers-- who have clearly attributed their actions on January 6th to Trump's directives, and to the goal of disrupting the certification of Biden's election.

    More recently, I pointed out that Trump was the beneficiary regardless of whether Christopher Wray warned him or did not warn him about any FBI intelligence of the impending attack on Congress.

    Perhaps you could explain why you believe that any advance FBI intel about the attacks was part of a "Deep State" op to undermine Trump.

W.-

Some attackers, under their tin-foil hats, or Buffalo-Horned headdress, heard directives from Trump?  And are kept in solitary confinement for six months and counting? 

Meanwhile, guys who breached the Capitol, wearing body armor, packing 24 rounds of ammo and a pistol, and a gas mask...are let go immediately without posting bail? 

You realize the first actions of the Biden Administration Justice Department were to---

1) Let Christopher Alberts go free immediately (the body-armored, gun toter, Capitol breacher) 

2) Put Mr Buffalo Horns behind bars permanently.

Huh?  

Here is another curiosity: 

Enrique Tarrio, the Afro-Cuban chairman of the Proud Boys (and evidently a lifelong hood and FBI informant), was arrested in Jan. 4. in DC.

"Tarrio was also charged with two felony counts of possession of a high capacity feeding device after two high-capacity firearms magazines were found on Tarrio when he was arrested....

As a condition of his release on bail on January 5, 2021, (Enrique) Tarrio was banned from entering Washington except for trial or meeting with his lawyers.[41][42][43] The FBI later said they had arrested Tarrio in an attempt to prevent the storming of the United States Capitol.[34]. WIKI

---30---

Huh? They released Tarrio on Jan. 5, because they wanted to prevent him from "storming the United States Capitol?"  And he had been arrested with some sort of devices intended to enable automatic weapons fire? 

Frankly, none of this makes any sense to me. 

It was not the Trump Administration that let the heavily-armed Christopher Alberts go free immediately, but but put Mr. Buffalo Horns into prison for good. 

And why did the FBI release Tarrio the day before Jan. 6?

Trump and Bannon organized this? Roger Stone? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may neither here nor there, but it worth pondering. 

I was thinking about Governor Cuomo, who I know nothing about, and he could be even worse than pictured.
 
On the other hand, the media has totally embraced the idea that an investigation and accusations  are the equivalent of "guilty as charged."  
 
Some op-ed'er in the Los Angeles Times even wrote that the accusers would have no reason to make up their stories.
 
Really?
 
They might be jilted lovers, or women who take extreme offense at the most minor of indiscretions. They might be bribed. They might have a record of making accusations. They might have spite as someone else got promoted and not them. They might think they can get a cash settlement of some sort. They may be lime-light seekers. They may be vulnerable to a suggestive line of questioning, and seek approval from the inquisitors.  They may be women who acted flirtatiously with Cuomo, then became indignant when he followed the cues. 
 
Until there is a vigorous defense, heard before a jury of peers, what we see could be a glorified witch-hunt. 
 
Cuomo (yes, even Cuomo) is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Well, that used to be the standard. 
 
This is why I contend there should be a vigorous legal defense for Mr Buffalo Horns (if he is ever allowed to have a jury trial). He appears to have been mentally challenged, given to delusions, but non-violent. What if someone induced the penniless Mr. Buffalo Horns to travel to DC, and gave him $500 to enable the travel? (Someone evidently gave him $500, we don't know who.) Suppose then then another confident advised him to enter the Capitol after the building was already breached.
 
In other words, Mr. Buffalo Horns was a theater-prop, more than a criminal. 
 
The legal system and jury-trial system, as we all know, can be gamed. Armed with inferior counsel, and facing a hostile judiciary and media, Mr. Buffalo Horns might get slaughtered in court, and publicly. But at least there would be a jury. 
 
But even more easily gamed  are investigations made up of accusations, but zero opportunity to hear out the case on context, or for the accuser to face his/her accusers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This may neither here nor there, but it worth pondering. 

I was thinking about Governor Cuomo, who I know nothing about, and he could be even worse than pictured.
 
On the other hand, the media has totally embraced the idea that an investigation and accusations  are the equivalent of "guilty as charged."  
 
Some op-ed'er in the Los Angeles Times even wrote that the accusers would have no reason to make up their stories.
 
Really?
 
They might be jilted lovers, or women who take extreme offense at the most minor of indiscretions. They might be bribed. They might have a record of making accusations. They might have spite as someone else got promoted and not them. They might think they can get a cash settlement of some sort. They may be lime-light seekers. They may be vulnerable to a suggestive line of questioning, and seek approval from the inquisitors.  They may be women who acted flirtatiously with Cuomo, then became indignant when he followed the cues. 
 
Until there is a vigorous defense, heard before a jury of peers, what we see could be a glorified witch-hunt. 
 
Cuomo (yes, even Cuomo) is entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Well, that used to be the standard. 
 
This is why I contend there should be a vigorous legal defense for Mr Buffalo Horns (if he is ever allowed to have a jury trial). He appears to have been mentally challenged, given to delusions, but non-violent. What if someone induced the penniless Mr. Buffalo Horns to travel to DC, and gave him $500 to enable the travel? (Someone evidently gave him $500, we don't know who.) Suppose then then another confident advised him to enter the Capitol after the building was already breached.
 
In other words, Mr. Buffalo Horns was a theater-prop, more than a criminal. 
 
The legal system and jury-trial system, as we all know, can be gamed. Armed with inferior counsel, and facing a hostile judiciary and media, Mr. Buffalo Horns might get slaughtered in court, and publicly. But at least there would be a jury. 
 
But even more easily gamed  are investigations made up of accusations, but zero opportunity to hear out the case on context, or for the accuser to face his/her accusers. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Speaking generally, as I haven’t looked at Cuomo or the accusations, this is a phenomena that is on the rise and a very worrying one. Trial by public opinion is overshadowing the legal framework and justice system. Journalism is most saleable by selling sensationalism, lies, insinuations and anything that rouses emotion in the public consciousness. It is not synonymous with justice, honesty or truth. You end up with media inciting angry, emotional reactions, regardless of the truth and at worst the justice system is corrupted by the powerful Impact of the all time encompassing media, the person doesn’t get a fair trial. At best, the accused has their reputation ruined in a way that is completely irretrievable, even if they are found not guilty, they are still the punished and the hatchet job is done on them, there is no way back to their status before being accused. 
 

For anyone wondering how the media and blogging works behind the scenes in the modern era, I have just finished Ryan Holiday’s “Trust me, i’m lying”. There is no incentive to find truth or be an honest writer.

 

Accepting such a system and trial by public opinion allowing the media to influence proceedings, we take another incremental step toward the horrors of the 20th century. 
 

“Innocent until proven guilty”. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Cuomo is facing this current crisis because the NY attorney general did an investigation and found that the many accusations of sexual harassment were true. He can now endure an impeachment trial, or resign. His choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Governor Cuomo is facing this current crisis because the NY attorney general did an investigation and found that the many accusations of sexual harassment were true. He can now endure an impeachment trial, or resign. His choice.

Well...the NY AG conducted an investigation, and said accusers said Cuomo abused them. Cuomo has not yet faced his accusers, and has not been found guilty in a court of law in a jury trial.  

Even Cuomo is innocent until proven guilty. 

I am not a New Yorker, have no dog in this fight. 

Government investigations...remember HUAC? 

How about that mother of all investigations, the Warren Commission? They found LHO guilty, and no one prepared a defense. 

The HSCA answered the call? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More oddities regarding the 1/6 scrum at the Capitol. This is what a woman named Pauline Bauer posted on her Facebook page, by smartphone on Jan. 6. This is from the Capitol Breach official website (see link below). 

1045165757_ScreenShot2564-08-05at19_00_00.thumb.jpg.e44bc731df4493fbf099f0a38902b24e.jpg

 

This woman, correctly or otherwise, believed the protestors were "let in" to the Capitol. Now this is a raw observation, this is not a view filtered by the media. But this sentiment is echoed by many.

 

1425775251_ScreenShot2564-08-05at19_08_08.jpg.e45b120dcf57341ec4cbf9f16a09dc27.jpg

Like many others on Jan. 6, Pauline may have some mental challenges, for she posted her excursion on Facebook for the world to see, and then was arrested. 

Pauline believes what happened on Jan. 6 was political theater.  Sometimes the gadflies are right. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Ben- there's video of people smashing doors and windows to get into the Capitol.

AND... the Biden administration was NOT sworn in before January 20th. So under WHOSE administration was Enrique Tarrio's January 5th release allowed? [HINT: NOT Joe Biden's.] And under whose administration was Christopher Alberts IMMEDIATELY released on his own recognizance? Remember, Joe Biden wasn't President before noon on January 20th. NONE of his cabinet officers were sworn in prior to January 20th.

Based upon those FACTS, Mr. Cole, I believe your allegations are false ON THEIR FACE. Prior to noon on January 20th, 2021, a "Biden Justice Department" simply DID NOT EXIST. You are ignoring that simple FACT, which makes your entire argument weak to the point of being ridiculous..

I cannot believe no one has challenged your "Biden Justice Department" comments before now. Was there a "Trump Justice Department" prior to noon on January 20, 2017, too? If so, PLEASE explain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

AND... the Biden administration was NOT sworn in before January 20th. So under WHOSE administration was Enrique Tarrio's January 5th release allowed? [HINT: NOT Joe Biden's.] And under whose administration was Christopher Alberts IMMEDIATELY released on his own recognizance? Remember, Joe Biden wasn't President before noon on January 20th. NONE of his cabinet officers were sworn in prior to January 20th.

Based upon those FACTS, Mr. Cole, I believe your allegations are false ON THEIR FACE. Prior to noon on January 20th, 2021, a "Biden Justice Department" simply DID NOT EXIST. You are ignoring that simple FACT, which makes your entire argument weak to the point of being ridiculous..

I cannot believe no one has challenged your "Biden Justice Department" comments before now. Was there a "Trump Justice Department" prior to noon on January 20, 2017, too? If so, PLEASE explain.

 

You are correct. Biden was sworn in on Jan. 20. I stand corrected on that point. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Ben- there's video of people smashing doors and windows to get into the Capitol.

Verily. And then...mysteriously, the protestors/agitators start walking unmolested into the Capitol, in other videos. 

Actual participants in the scrum----not reporters, not CNN blabbermouths, not Fox foggers----believed they had been let in as part of political theater. 

That is Pauline Bauer's assessment. She was there, she breached the Capitol, she believed they had been let inside. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These violent terrorists were shouting hang Mike Pence and had built a gallow to do just that.  This was a serious attempt at overthrowing the American Democracy.  People who think this is theatre are covering up the truth. Trump is backed by very rich right wing fascists who want to overthrow the American Democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Speaking generally, as I haven’t looked at Cuomo or the accusations, this is a phenomena that is on the rise and a very worrying one. Trial by public opinion is overshadowing the legal framework and justice system. Journalism is most saleable by selling sensationalism, lies, insinuations and anything that rouses emotion in the public consciousness. It is not synonymous with justice, honesty or truth. You end up with media inciting angry, emotional reactions, regardless of the truth and at worst the justice system is corrupted by the powerful Impact of the all time encompassing media, the person doesn’t get a fair trial. At best, the accused has their reputation ruined in a way that is completely irretrievable, even if they are found not guilty, they are still the punished and the hatchet job is done on them, there is no way back to their status before being accused. 
 

For anyone wondering how the media and blogging works behind the scenes in the modern era, I have just finished Ryan Holiday’s “Trust me, i’m lying”. There is no incentive to find truth or be an honest writer.

 

Accepting such a system and trial by public opinion allowing the media to influence proceedings, we take another incremental step toward the horrors of the 20th century. 
 

“Innocent until proven guilty”. 

A coworker at the airport that I work at was accused of inappropriately touching a customer after he felt sympathy for her because she was crying. He bought her a soft drink and followed her into one of the few places in the airport that doesn't have camera coverage. She accused him of groping her and the next thing he knew he was chained to a chair in the sheriffs office. His face was splashed across every news channel that evening and in all of the local newspapers in the morning. He was fired immediately. It turned out that the woman who had accused him was lying and had made false accusations in the past. His innocence was never mentioned by the media. 

Innocent until proven guilty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...