Ron Paul on the day "there was a coup, and we lost our government."

[Ron Ecker]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for your comment.

I cannot explain the actions of the Capitol Hill officers, who certainly appear to easily outnumber Chansley (Mr Buffalo Horns), and do not take the flag pole from him (Chansley was convicted in court of bringing his flag pole, a weapon, into the Capitol), but instead usher him into the Senate chambers.  There appear to be few other protestors around in that particular hallway.

So on Jan. 6, Capitol Police ushered a very strange-looking man with a weapon into the Senate chambers, when no civilian was even supposed to be inside the Capitol at all. The group of Capitol Police officers do not react much when Chansley approaches them. They do not appear to regard him as a threat, despite his appearance. And then they guide him in. One might say it looks as if they were expecting him. 

My only guess---and all of us today must guess---is Capitol Police officers were assured that Capitol security-camera footage would not  become public. And indeed, the government successfully argued it would not release Capitol security camera footage due to national security concerns. The House Select Jan. 6 committee was indeed select in footage it deemed safe for the public to see. 

This previously censored Capitol security-camera footage of Chansely being ushered around the Capitol came out later when the other major party got control of the House. 

Certainly, DPD officers (if they were involved in the JFKA) were secretive in their actions back in 1963. 

Of course, unknown to us, many Capitol Police officers on Jan. 6 could have also been secretive in their actions. So we know not. It is early in the game to conclude much about Jan. 6. 

 

When Chansley was tried in court, I'm sure that he must have had his defense argue as a mitigating circumstance the courtesy and accommodation provided to him by the Capitol Police in perpetrating his crime. Surely he would have so testified in his own defense. If not, either Chansley is certainly an idiot or he had an idiot for a lawyer.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

Just now, Ron Ecker said:

When Chansley was tried in court, I'm sure that he must have had his defense argue as a mitigating circumstance the courtesy and accommodation provided to him by the Capitol Police in perpetrating his crime. Surely he would have so testified in his own defense. If not, either Chansley is certainly an idiot or he had an idiot for a lawyer.

 

You ask the right questions. 

The video of Chansley was censored, and not released to the public, or Chansley's lawyer, at the time of trial. 

Chansley, to put it kindly, does not appear to be a man totally in command of faculties. He was a homeless man in Phoenix before traveling to DC for Jan. 6 events. 

"Prosecutors have alleged that Chansley believes he is an alien or higher being and is destined to ascend to another reality."--Wikipedia 

Any criminal defendant, including Chansley, often faces a decision: Fight the charges, in which case the federal prosecutors promise to throw the book at you and seek maximum jail terms (and the jury outcome unknowable), or plead guilty and accept a deal with known terms. Most plead. 

I do not know the calibre of Chansley's lawyers. Public defenders are considered the ambulance chasers of the profession, but that does not mean Chansley's lawyer was no good. He may have done what was best for his client, and gave lesser thought to grand principles. 

From Wikipedia: "Chansley's attorney claimed to have no prior knowledge of the footage, noting that the government is obligated to disclose all evidence—especially exculpatory evidence—and that here the government failed to do so. Because Chansley pleaded guilty, it remains unclear whether this error could cause court proceedings to be affected. The prosecution at the time he pleaded guilty had said they were still reviewing evidence."

---30---

So there it stands. 

[W. Niederhut]

Do I need to point out the irony in Ben Cole's selective parsing of the January 6th evidence?

Ben refused to listen to the damning Congressional J6 testimony of Trump's own staff and associates.

Then, later, he focused obsessively on the selective MAGA media footage of Chansley and the "peaceful" patriots who attacked the Capitol.

It's a classic example of starting with a conclusion, then selecting evidence to support the conclusion-- while assiduously ignoring the evidence that debunks it.

Edited March 24 by W. Niederhut

[Ron Ecker]

It seems odd to me that the Deep State would go to any trouble to try to depose Trump beginning on January 6 when he had already been deposed on Election Day in November. Was the Deep State that afraid that Trump’s efforts to overthrow the government would succeed before the end of his term?

One thing at least stands out. It was not the Deep State that stood before that partially armed Mob on January 6, fired it up and told it to march to Capitol Hill. It was Donald Trump and (the two whom I recall) his consigliere Rudy Giuliani and another Trump stooge lawyer whose name escapes me. So was Trump himself, along with the fellow traitors in his inner circle, the Deep State? There is nothing deep about Trump. Has there ever been a more hollow man?

 

Edited March 24 by Ron Ecker

[Bill Fite]

I seem to remember that there was a JFKA conference in the last year where Ron Paul was going to present who he believed was responsible.

Am I misremembering that?  or does someone know what he said?

[Ron Ecker]

Ron Paul should have raised a son who would know better than to get himself beaten up by a neighbor over yard work. (Or do we know that it was actually a neighbor who beat him up? It could have been the Deep State.)

 

 

 

 

Edited March 25 by Ron Ecker

[Robert Morrow]

57 minutes ago, Bill Fite said:

I seem to remember that there was a JFKA conference in the last year where Ron Paul was going to present who he believed was responsible.

Am I misremembering that?  or does someone know what he said?

I don't think so. Ron Paul in Austin, TX in 2009 told me, he guessed, that Fidel Castro was behind the JFK assassination.

I think Ron Paul got "red pilled" over the next 15 years by reading Lew Rockwell's web page and the numerous JFK assassination articles that have been posted there.

He is now a full blown believer in a high level domestic conspiracy to murder John Kennedy.

 

[Ron Ecker]

53 minutes ago, Robert Morrow said:

He is now a full blown believer in a high level domestic conspiracy to murder John Kennedy.

 

I agree with Ron Paul that Allen Dulles on the WC is pretty good hint of such a conspiracy. Whenever Paul got around to noticing it.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The video above defies explanation---unless some Capitol Police officers were part of a plan to admit Mr Buffalo Horns to the Senate chambers. 

 

The policemen walking around with Chansley would check doors for him to see if the were locked. If unlocked, they would let him enter the room.

What they were really doing was making him think they were on his side. They weren't. Had a door led to some important area, the police would inform Chansley that the door was locked, regardless of whether it was or not.

There's your explanation, Ben.

Of course, I know you will reject this highly plausible explanation so that you can continue to believe that the insurrectionists were incited by deep state boogeymen who are out to get Trump.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

The policemen walking around with Chansley would check doors for him to see if the were locked. If unlocked, they would let him enter the room.

What they were really doing was making him think they were on his side. They weren't. Had a door led to some important area, the police would inform Chansley that the door was locked, regardless of whether it was or not.

There's your explanation, Ben.

Of course, I know you will reject this highly plausible explanation so that you can continue to believe that the insurrectionists were incited by deep state boogeymen who are out to get Trump.

 

Sandy Larsen--

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, I respectfully disagree with your assessment. 

However, I do not denigrate your point of view. 

For me, the actions of a few members of the Capitol Police, in ushering Mr Buffalo Horns, armed with a flag pole that had a sharp point on it (and was defined by federal prosecutors as a weapon, allowing heavier charges), into the Senate Chambers, possibly even unlocking doors for him...well, defies explanation. 

In the Capitol hallways, the Capita Police officers easily outnumbered the diminutive and apparently compliant Chansley. It seems to me they should have ushered Chansley outside. 

For me, the actions of Capitol Police are inexplicable, to the point of raising suspicions. 

I am keeping an open mind on the Jan. 6 events, as I have on the JFKA.

JFKA, Watergate...the truth tends to come out very slowly. 

Was it wise to make up one's mind that LHO was guilty after the WC report came out? 

 

 

Edited March 24 by Benjamin Cole

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Was it wise to make up one's mind that LHO was guilty after the WC report came out? 

Is it wise for those of us who actually watched what happened at and in Our capitol live on J-6 to ignore or dismiss the insurrection and attempted coup?  Or the additional film and testimony brought out by the J-6 congressional committee.

[Benjamin Cole]

36 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Is it wise for those of us who actually watched what happened at and in Our capitol live on J-6 to ignore or dismiss the insurrection and attempted coup?  Or the additional film and testimony brought out by the J-6 congressional committee.

Ron B.--

Thanks for your comments.

I guess we are on different pages on this one, and that is fine, that is what a forum is for. 

I have a different take on the Jan. 6, but mostly my point of view is that the Jan 6. tale, like the JFKA and Watergate stories, will evolve as more facts come out, or alternative narratives are fleshed out. 

IMHO, the Jan 6 committee hearings presented a political narrative of that day and context.  Given the make-up of the Jan 6 committee, this seems a defensible statement.

I prefer adversarial processes to get at the truth, and even that may fail, but is better than government investigations or prosecutions in which there is no "counsel for the defense."  The WC lacked a counsel for the defense. 

I watched Ruby shoot LHO on TV, back in the day, 1963. 

I have no doubt Ruby shot LHO and is guilty. Many of us are witness to that history. Is that the full story of the Ruby-LHO homicide?

Keep an open mind. 

[W. Niederhut]

1 minute ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Ron B.--

Thanks for your comments.

I guess we are on different pages on this one, and that is fine, that is what a forum is for. 

I have a different take on the Jan. 6, but mostly my point of view is that the Jan 6. tale, like the JFKA and Watergate stories, will evolve as more facts come out, or alternative narratives are fleshed out. 

IMHO, the Jan 6 committee hearings presented a political narrative of that day and context.  Given the make-up of the Jan 6 committee, this seems a defensible statement.

I prefer adversarial processes to get at the truth, and even that may fail, but is better than government investigations or prosecutions in which there is no "counsel for the defense."  The WC lacked a counsel for the defense. 

I watched Ruby shoot LHO on TV, back in the day, 1963. 

I have no doubt Ruby shot LHO and is guilty. Many of us are witness to that history. Is that the full story of the Ruby-LHO homicide?

Keep an open mind. 

LOL.

Speaking of "keeping an open mind," Ben, are you open to acknowledging that most of the key witnesses in the Congressional J6 investigation were Republicans-- including staff and close associates of Donald Trump?

Some, like Michael Flynn, repeatedly pled the 5th and refused to answer questions about Trump's J6 plot -- but many gave damning firsthand testimony about events that occurred prior to and during Trump's mob attack on the Congress.

Try to open your mind, and keep it open, instead of blocking out all of the damning evidence about the efforts of Trump and his associates to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

[Ron Bulman]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:01 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

Operation Mockingbird lives? 

I've read this thread as it develops but wondered tonight, how did we get from Ron Paul thinks the CIA killed JFK/Tucker Carlson thinks it's funny Dulles was on the Warren Commission to what it's become?  I think this may have been the start of the hijacking.  Thankfully nobody bit on Russiagate here.  Please don't.

To be continued shortly/see my next post.  

[Ron Bulman]

On 3/23/2024 at 12:18 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

Jim D-

Well, let me ask this--

1. Suppose an old b/w film emerged, showing Dallas Police Department officers leading LHO to TSBD/6 shortly before the JFKA?

What would you conclude about at least some members of the DPD? I think at a minimum, you would conclude the DPD'ers had been made into unwitting participants in the JFKA, and possibly worse. 

2. Videos have emerged, that were suppressed by the Jan. 6 committee, of Jacob Chensley, aka Mr Buffalo Horns, QAnon Shaman, being led into the Senate chambers by Capitol Police officers, who even unlocked doors for him. Mr. Buffalo Horns is then copiously photographed in the Senate chamber, and he then somehow gets up to the Senate Gallery (viewing balcony for citizens and others) and is again copiously photographed screaming down upon the Senate Chambers. 

So Capital Police themselves aided an "insurrectionist" to gain entry to the Senate chambers, and possibly the gallery. This is on video, this is not debatable. 

Chensley, sadly enough, fits the profile of an easily manipulated mentally troubled individual---the Sirhan Sirhan, the Richard Case Nagell, the Chicogaon Thomas Vallee type--who was put into action. 

Why did the Jan. 6 committee, which included Deep State champion Liz Cheney, suppress the video of Chensley being led into the Capitol? 

I am keeping an open mind. 

Add on, here is the Columbia Journalism Review review of the media-Russiagate follies: 

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

Like I say, I am keeping an open mind on how many times the Deep State has deposed a President in the postwar era. 

This is part two of my previous post.  Here Ben brings up Jacob Chansley three times.  That's what did it.