Jump to content
The Education Forum

Secret Service participation in 1/6 coup attempt


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 221
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

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?

Right.

Your real-world example is why I stick to the standard, "Innocent until proven guilty in an open court of law, jury-trial by peers, and provided with intelligent aggressive defense counsel."

Remember, a government investigation (the WC) found LHO guilty. 

LHO was never represented in open court, by a skillful lawyer aggressively challenging the evidence, and providing broader context. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

I hope so. The wheels of justice, and all that.

Not sure.

Would you say the House Select Committee on Assassinations got to the bottom of the JFKA? 

Was the role of the CIA or national security state obscured, or illuminated?

What makes the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack better, or worse, than the HSCA? 

Less political? More political? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for fun, here are two House Select Committees, that appeared in alphabetical order in a list of Select Committees (which is interesting reading, btw)

Select Committee on the House Restaurant (1969-1975)

Select Committee on Hunger (1984-1993)

Well, I guess it took six years to find out what was really, really happening in the House restaurant. I am pleased to note that the topic of hunger in general was afforded a longer study period. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

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?

That sounds terrible, though not unique. There needs to he a protection or anonymity whilst crimes of this nature are being investigated and the justice system is doing its thing. Press also need to be held to account if they are misleading the public or misrepresenting facts. Serious reparations should be paid if they are found guilty of unfairly characterising the accused or the alleged victim. We need a much better standard. Of course in reality it’s a difficult thing to police and achieve a desirable outcome that is fair. As the state could push things the other way with D-notices and censorship of inconvenient news directed at them or their acolytes. I do think we do this slightly better in the UK, it at least prevents months of a newspaper chastising or berating the accused before trial (though law suits and payouts still exist against the news networks for defamation). Perhaps a moral code of ethics should be introduced with people being barred for breaking it, after all its a serious thing with serious consequences. Press need to be impartial, at the moment that act like a crowd throwing rotten fruit at a condemned man. The very real danger is that with the present standard it gives people who own or control the news, the very real power to character assassinate a public figure, in a way they can never come back into the public domain, with no crime committed.  You ruin someones life. 
 

I realise this needs a massive overhaul and finding the right balance is not easy, we must avoid censorship at all costs, at the same time as stopping the press being a weapon for the powers that be. Excuse the crude quote from the book I have just read: “Every generation of the press has a different C*** in its mouth”. 
We need to stop the press making things up, or latching onto the slightest detail and making it something it is not. Its completely immoral. Its a farce right now and its to do with the way bloggers are incentivised, which usually starts this toxic process. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

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.

Ben, we've already seen video of "protesters" being let in.  It was on the opposite side of the Capitol.  It wasn't filtered by the media.

I think I remember reporting that said it was a republican congressman who held the door open for the protesters in the back.

I didn't pay much attention to it as it was one of those items of interest that were oh so common during our last 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's obvious most of the Capital police really were committed to stopping the rioters and truly did risk their lives in this effort.

However, I could also believe that at least some if even a few of the police on duty that day ( "a date that will live in infamy" ) were sympathetic to the Trump inspired mob and their cause.

And in the least, "pretending" to be fully confronting the lynch mob but not seriously so?

Its a fact that many in the Trump mob were retired and even active duty police and fire and military people. 

Who tend to be much more right wing in their political views than most other profession people. I am sure at least some of those Capital police personnel ( of the same profession ) had the same political leanings.

And to think that some of these police people who may have been sympathetic to the Trump madness hoard, might be awarded one of those highest honor "Medals Of Bravery" by Biden?

Cringe.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

It's obvious most of the Capital police really were committed to stopping the rioters and truly did risk their lives in this effort.

However, I could also believe that at least some if even a few of the police on duty that day ( "a date that will live in infamy" ) were sympathetic to the Trump inspired mob and their cause.

And in the least, "pretending" to be fully confronting the lynch mob but not seriously so?

Its a fact that many in the Trump mob were retired and even active duty police and fire and military people. 

Who tend to be much more right wing in their political views than most other profession people. I am sure at least some of those Capital police personnel ( of the same profession ) had the same political leanings.

And to think that some of these police people who may have been sympathetic to the Trump madness hoard, might be awarded one of those highest honor "Medals Of Bravery" by Biden?

Cringe.

Joe B.---

If the House select committee wants to "get to the bottom" of how the scrum ended up inside the Capitol...why are they leading with highly emotional presentations by US Capitol Police officers?

This strikes me as theater, not investigation. 

No intelligence reports? No word from informants inside various terrorist groups?  No confessions by agitators that they planned, say, simultaneous assaults on multiple entrance to the Capitol---although that still begs the question, why such lightly defended entrances?

The FBI says they arrested Enrique Tarrio, the Afro-Cubano chairman of the Proud Boys (and FBI informant) on Jan. 4 to prevent him "from storming the Capitol." Curiously, the FBI released Tarrio on Jan. 5. Who knows why. But obviously, the FBI thought a scrum at the Capitol on Jan, 6 was a live possibility. 

OK, so the US Capitol Police, who report ultimately to Senators Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar and Jack Reed, and Congressperson Zoe Lofgren, decide to do what on Jan. 6? This is a legislative police force, and reports only to Congress. It is not an executive branch agency. 

The US Capitol Police have 2,300 officers.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where were they?" 

Of all 600+ rioters arrested who breached the Capitol, only one (and possibly one more, to be explained later) had a firearm. The lone individual was "Christopher Alberts," and he was released immediately on no bail. He was also wearing body armor and carrying a gas mask. Huh?

There was another sicko arrested that day who had firearms and molotov cocktails, named Lonnie Leroy Coffman, but he was arrested in the District of Columbia, not inside the Capitol. He had not breached the Capitol.

I had the impression that many people entering the Capitol were armed with actual firearms, but that turns out not to be true. Just one (and maybe one more). 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=coffman

You can run a search term for "pistol," "rifle," "revolver," "gun" etc and see what you come up with. Remember, check to see if the suspects had actually breached the Capitol, or where arrested elsewhere.

However! And this gets mysterious my friends. 

There was a DEA agent inside the Capitol, who (it is charged) flashed his badge and was carrying a firearm, and he was arrested! Mark Sami Ibrahim, is his name. 

Well, when you look at history closely...it tends not to follow the approved narratives....

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Joe B.---

If the House select committee wants to "get to the bottom" of how the scrum ended up inside the Capitol...why are they leading with highly emotional presentations by US Capitol Police officers?

This strikes me as theater, not investigation. 

No intelligence reports? No word from informants inside various terrorist groups?  No confessions by agitators that they planned, say, simultaneous assaults on multiple entrance to the Capitol---although that still begs the question, why such lightly defended entrances?

The FBI says they arrested Enrique Tarrio, the Afro-Cubano chairman of the Proud Boys (and FBI informant) on Jan. 4 to prevent him "from storming the Capitol." Curiously, the FBI released Tarrio on Jan. 5. Who knows why. But obviously, the FBI thought a scrum at the Capitol on Jan, 6 was a live possibility. 

OK, so the US Capitol Police, who report ultimately to Senators Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar and Jack Reed, and Congressperson Zoe Lofgren, decide to do what on Jan. 6? This is a legislative police force, and reports only to Congress. It is not an executive branch agency. 

The US Capitol Police have 2,300 officers.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where were they?" 

Of all 600+ rioters arrested who breached the Capitol, only one (and possibly one more, to be explained later) had a firearm. The lone individual was "Christopher Alberts," and he was released immediately on no bail. He was also wearing body armor and carrying a gas mask. Huh?

There was another sicko arrested that day who had firearms and molotov cocktails, named Lonnie Leroy Coffman, but he was arrested in the District of Columbia, not inside the Capitol. He had not breached the Capitol.

I had the impression that many people entering the Capitol were armed with actual firearms, but that turns out not to be true. Just one (and maybe one more). 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases?combine=coffman

You can run a search term for "pistol," "rifle," "revolver," "gun" etc and see what you come up with. Remember, check to see if the suspects had actually breached the Capitol, or where arrested elsewhere.

However! And this gets mysterious my friends. 

There was a DEA agent inside the Capitol, who (it is charged) flashed his badge and was carrying a firearm, and he was arrested! Mark Sami Ibrahim, is his name. 

Well, when you look at history closely...it tends not to follow the approved narratives....

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly why the House Committee should look closely at this historical attempt to replace (perceived) Democracy with fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ron Bulman said:

Exactly why the House Committee should look closely at this historical attempt to replace (perceived) Democracy with fascism.

I would prefer an independent, non-government committee, but given special powers of subpoena, investigate the Jan. 6 scrum. 

 

"OK, so the US Capitol Police, who report ultimately to Senators Tim Ryan, Amy Klobuchar and Jack Reed, and Congressperson Zoe Lofgren, decide to do what on Jan. 6? This is a legislative police force, and reports only to Congress. It is not an executive branch agency. 

The US Capitol Police have 2,300 officers.  In the vernacular of the street, "Man, where were they?" 

---30---

Do you think a Congressional committee is going to conclude that Congress itself, and Amy Klobuchar et al, are to blame for not putting 2,300 officers on the lines Jan. 6? 

Many (most?) of the Capitol police who were on duty Jan. 6 did not even have billy-clubs or shields.

Remember, Capitol Police report to Congressional leadership.  When was the last time elected officials blamed themselves for failure? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, even if it's themselves someone needs to investigate the insurrection and attempted fascist coup.

Not to belabor a point, but innocent until proven guilty. 

How about "someone needs to investigate if there were plans for an insurrection and attempted fascist coup." 

We should not assume guilt, and then launch an investigation confirm what we believe.

A scrum in the Capitol may just a scrum involving loonies...

...or it may have been triggered by some agent provocateurs to make a propaganda event, by some who took advantage of the scrum...

or it may have been the spearpoint of a deluded and sick group seeking to overthrow the election---an attempted insurrection. Maybe Trump was in on it. 

If an unknown group or Trump planned an insurrection, they sent exactly one man with firearms into the Capitol. (I assume the DEA agent was not part of an insurrection).

This strikes me underpowered. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I vote for this option..or it may have been the spearpoint of a deluded and sick group seeking to overthrow the election---an attempted insurrection. Trump was the leader. In my opinion, this is the truth. I am still waiting for a decent governmental investigation into who killed JFK.  In my opinion,  JFK was killed by right wing fascists who believed in the Domino theory {if Vietmam goes communist, all of Asia will go communist). Anti - Castro Cubans may have been involved and certain mafia figures may have played a role. 

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...