The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[TH3]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

You can keep playing the role of the disinterested observer Goose. And you have to know that I generally appreciate your take on things…and quite often agree. But it’s okay to give in on a small point once in a while. She was in the wrong that day, but she definitely should not have been killed. 

LOL - Beeatch died doing what she loved - SS and Cap Police should have opened up the gatling guns on those armed traitors....any other situation and you MAGA traitors would have been in full agreement

Edited July 22, 2022 by TH3

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Now do Chuck.

 

Where Chuck implores people to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard at the private homes of SCOTUS justices.

Edited July 22, 2022 by DRsGhost

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Now do Chuck.

Nope, only the law breaker Trump 

 

You are a POS 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Nope, only the law breaker Trump 

 

You are a POS 

Keep it civil Tibs. This is a message board….not a street fight. 

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Keep it civil Tibs. This is a message board….not a street fight. 

Be nice to fascists? 

 

No quarter FU 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

You can keep playing the role of the disinterested observer Goose. And you have to know that I generally appreciate your take on things…and quite often agree. But it’s okay to give in on a small point once in a while. She was in the wrong that day, but she definitely should not have been killed. 

 

I think at best you can make it a gray area, but for what it's worth, it was investigated and the officer's actions were found to be justified.

 

Some things that lead me to believe the shooting was likely justified:

• There had been reports that day that some of the rioters had weapons. 
• The rioters had broken through the outer barricades and through the doors and windows in the capitol
• The rioters were in the process of breaking down the makeshift barrier constructed to protect the members of Congress and their staff behind it
• The rioters ignored orders from an officer with his gun drawn to stand down
• The rioters broke through the glass on the door
• One of the rioters was actively climbing through the opening when the officer fired at them

I think it is reasonable for the officer in that situation to be afraid for the life or safety of themself or the people they are protecting.

 

If you want to argue that the officer should have somehow arrested that singular person without endangering themselves by putting them in a compromised position, sure. Obviously the preference would be that nobody is shot or killed.

 

But there's no guarantee that the officer could safely de-escalate the situation. At this point, the rioters have ransacked the Capitol and the officer was standing between them and innocent people. .When one of the rioters starts climbing through the barrier, I think it's reasonable to be concerned that they have malicious intent and/or they will be just the first  of many getting through the barricade.

 

 

[BillStime]

On 6/28/2022 at 3:41 PM, BillStime said:

 

Can you provide the actual memo or WH documentation where Trump authorized 20,000 National Guard troops?

@B-Man - did you forget about this request?

[Westside]

On 7/14/2022 at 3:27 PM, Gene Frenkle said:

 

No, the Insurrectionists have stormed the pizza place from Pizzagate. They are currently looking for the basement. Trump is running the show from this newly-captured territory. Viva La Revolucion!

 

BTW, DR, this is you. This is the crap you idiots bought in to. 👆

Ahhhh……the lemming speaks. Go back to the cult of the Democratic Party.

[All_Pro_Bills]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think at best you can make it a gray area, but for what it's worth, it was investigated and the officer's actions were found to be justified.

 

Some things that lead me to believe the shooting was likely justified:

• There had been reports that day that some of the rioters had weapons. 
• The rioters had broken through the outer barricades and through the doors and windows in the capitol
• The rioters were in the process of breaking down the makeshift barrier constructed to protect the members of Congress and their staff behind it
• The rioters ignored orders from an officer with his gun drawn to stand down
• The rioters broke through the glass on the door
• One of the rioters was actively climbing through the opening when the officer fired at them

I think it is reasonable for the officer in that situation to be afraid for the life or safety of themself or the people they are protecting.

 

If you want to argue that the officer should have somehow arrested that singular person without endangering themselves by putting them in a compromised position, sure. Obviously the preference would be that nobody is shot or killed.

 

But there's no guarantee that the officer could safely de-escalate the situation. At this point, the rioters have ransacked the Capitol and the officer was standing between them and innocent people. .When one of the rioters starts climbing through the barrier, I think it's reasonable to be concerned that they have malicious intent and/or they will be just the first  of many getting through the barricade.

 

 

What needs to be explained is why did one specific officer decide opening fire was justified because of imminent danger while the other officers on the scene did not?  We've heard the explanation from the officer that fired his weapon but what explanation did the others provide for holding fire?  Was their assessment that they were in no immediate danger?  If the officer firing the weapon acted responsibility than what does that say about those that choose to hold fire?

 

What drives me crazy about all the point made about the "rioters" here and elsewhere is what stopped them from going on and taking over the building, burning it to the ground, and killing or injuring anyone that got in their way?  Not a single question or answer.  Other than "divine intervention" interceding and instructing the rioters to leave the building and go home what was it?  It wasn't the police on the scene, there was no military or national guard.  My gut says a group of some 100K protesters encountering token resistance from an under-staffed Capitol Police detail assigned that day that were intent on destruction would have caused a lot more damage and most likely would not have been stopped if they had that in mind. 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

2 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What needs to be explained is why did one specific officer decide opening fire was justified because of imminent danger while the other officers on the scene did not?  We've heard the explanation from the officer that fired his weapon but what explanation did the others provide for holding fire?  Was their assessment that they were in no immediate danger?  If the officer firing the weapon acted responsibility than what does that say about those that choose to hold fire?

 

 

 

 

 

My best guess is that if you watch the video, the officer who fired was right next to the barricade that Babbitt was breaching while the other officers were at a distance. They may not have though their lives were in immediate danger due to the distance.

 

Quote

What drives me crazy about all the point made about the "rioters" here and elsewhere is what stopped them from going on and taking over the building, burning it to the ground, and killing or injuring anyone that got in their way?  Not a single question or answer.  Other than "divine intervention" interceding and instructing the rioters to leave the building and go home what was it?  It wasn't the police on the scene, there was no military or national guard.  My gut says a group of some 100K protesters encountering token resistance from an under-staffed Capitol Police detail assigned that day that were intent on destruction would have caused a lot more damage and most likely would not have been stopped if they had that in mind. 

 

We actually know the answer to this. Trump tweeted out the video for them to go home, so they did. There are videos from the rioters seeing that message and deciding to leave.

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

My best guess is that if you watch the video, the officer who fired was right next to the barricade that Babbitt was breaching while the other officers were at a distance. They may not have though their lives were in immediate danger due to the distance.

 

 

We actually know the answer to this. Trump tweeted out the video for them to go home, so they did. There are videos from the rioters seeing that message and deciding to leave.

 

What about the speech where he asked everyone to be peaceful and the two previous tweets where he asked for no violence and obey law enforcement?

 

Those were ineffective, and only the last one worked, right?

 

Otherwise this marauding band of unarmed tourists would have successfully finished the coup!

[cle23]

3 hours ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Nope.

 

But there's a surefire way to resolve any debate here.  Release ALL 14k hours of Capitol surveillance tape from J6. It seems to me that a committee wanting to get to the truth about J6 would do exactly that, right?

 

Curious why they haven't. It makes one wonder if they want the truth or a narrative here? Nah let's just trust the least trustworthy group known to man to spoonfeed us "the truth."

 

Why were all four bodies and Sicknick's cremated without asking their families permission?

 

 

 

#1.   This Julie Kelly is as biased as it gets.  I opened her profile from one of your other posts last night, and 95% of what she posts is conspiracy theory crap.  Some may even end up being true, but that happens when you throw enough crap at the wall.  Eventually some sticks.  It doesn't make you right.  Literally everything she posts is how corrupt Democrats are and how perfect Republicans are.  How every investigation is a coverup for something else.  All of her links are just right back to her own website.

 

#2.  Ashli Babbitt was seen on video climbing through the broken window of a barricaded door, while the Capitol police ordered her to stop and had his gun drawn.

 

And she wasn't cremated against her families' wishes:

 

After her death [on January 6 2021], Ashli Babbitt’s body remained in Washington for weeks while law enforcement completed investigations. Then she was cremated, in keeping with her wishes, and her remains were flown back to San Diego in February [2021], her mother said.

 

Now, her mother maintains that she was "murdered" but she was not cremated against her or her families wishes.

 

3.  Why are Capitol police suddenly corrupt?  People fight tooth and nail to cover for police officers who shoot unarmed people all over because they "could" have a weapon, but suddenly when a group of thousands of people are storming the Capitol, we should just ignore that and treat them peacefully?  Investigate the incidents for sure, but it's amazing how the narrative on police flips when they shoot someone you agree with.

[BillStime]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

My best guess is that if you watch the video, the officer who fired was right next to the barricade that Babbitt was breaching while the other officers were at a distance. They may not have though their lives were in immediate danger due to the distance.

 

 

We actually know the answer to this. Trump tweeted out the video for them to go home, so they did. There are videos from the rioters seeing that message and deciding to leave.

 

What's sad is none of these people had any issue with Derek Chauvin kneeling/killing George Floyd... but they are bending over backwards trying to defend the actions of little Miss American Taliban and NOT holding Donald Trump (and themselves) for the lies they spew.

 

[SoCal Deek]

20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

My best guess is that if you watch the video, the officer who fired was right next to the barricade that Babbitt was breaching while the other officers were at a distance. They may not have though their lives were in immediate danger due to the distance.

 

 

We actually know the answer to this. Trump tweeted out the video for them to go home, so they did. There are videos from the rioters seeing that message and deciding to leave.

Come on Goose

 

There's tons of video showing evidence to the contrary. If this officer was actually on trial the victim’s family would have a great case for wrongful use of force, and I believe you know it. (That doesn’t make the victim innocent of any wrong doing.)

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

#1.   This Julie Kelly is as biased as it gets.  I opened her profile from one of your other posts last night, and 95% of what she posts is conspiracy theory crap.  Some may even end up being true, but that happens when you throw enough crap at the wall.  Eventually some sticks.  It doesn't make you right.  Literally everything she posts is how corrupt Democrats are and how perfect Republicans are.  How every investigation is a coverup for something else.  All of her links are just right back to her own website.

 

#2.  Ashli Babbitt was seen on video climbing through the broken window of a barricaded door, while the Capitol police ordered her to stop and had his gun drawn.

 

And she wasn't cremated against her families' wishes:

 

After her death [on January 6 2021], Ashli Babbitt’s body remained in Washington for weeks while law enforcement completed investigations. Then she was cremated, in keeping with her wishes, and her remains were flown back to San Diego in February [2021], her mother said.

 

Now, her mother maintains that she was "murdered" but she was not cremated against her or her families wishes.

 

3.  Why are Capitol police suddenly corrupt?  People fight tooth and nail to cover for police officers who shoot unarmed people all over because they "could" have a weapon, but suddenly when a group of thousands of people are storming the Capitol, we should just ignore that and treat them peacefully?  Investigate the incidents for sure, but it's amazing how the narrative on police flips when they shoot someone you agree with.

 

Attack the source. How predictable. 

 

You know what Julie Kelly serves as? The other side of the story about J6 that's verboten by a corrupt one sided partisan committee.

 

That ALONE makes her reporting based on actual videos, court documents etc. worth paying attention to. Actual primary source evidence aren't "conspiracy theories" unless you want to use it as an excuse to ignore it.

 

We all know the official version of J6 events, the question is whether you and others choose to consider evidence from the other side, or just keep swallowing committee spoonfed propaganda.

 

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by DRsGhost

[Doc]

We’ll then, I guess it’s open season on violent protestors/people.

[ChiGoose]

15 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

What about the speech where he asked everyone to be peaceful and the two previous tweets where he asked for no violence and obey law enforcement?

 

Those were ineffective, and only the last one worked, right?

 

Otherwise this marauding band of unarmed tourists would have successfully finished the coup!

 

I normally don't feed the trolls, but I wanted to clarify this in case anyone thinks this is a good point.

 

For the purposes of this post alone, I will concede that Trump saying peacefully means he didn't incite anything and that this was all on the mob or the FBI or whatever.

 

We have video, from the rioters themselves, checking Trump's posts during the riot. At one point, he tweeted about the Capitol Police being good and that they shouldn't harm them. The reaction to this from one of the rioters was "well, he didn't say not to harm the members of Congress"

 

Then, later, when Trump finally releases the video calling for everyone to go home (after getting them to omit the word "yesterday" because it was too hard), the rioters see that and believe that they are being ordered by Trump to leave, so they do so.

 

6 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Come on Goose

 

There's tons of video showing evidence to the contrary. If this officer was actually on trial the victim’s family would have a great case for wrongful use of force, and I believe you know it. (That doesn’t make the victim innocent of any wrong doing.)

 

Here is the video of the shooting:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

 

You can see the officer's gun on the left, and you can see Babbitt climbing through the door on the right.

 

The family would have *a* case, but I don't think it would be a slam dunk. They could definitely win it, but given the facts of the case and how cases about police shootings have gone, I would think the officer would be more likely to be acquitted than convicted.

Edited July 22, 2022 by ChiGoose

[BillStime]

6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

Attack the source. How predictable. 

 

You know what Julie Kelly serves as? The other side of the story about J6 that's verboten by a corrupt one sided partisan committee.

 

That ALONE makes her reporting based on actual videos, court documents etc. worth paying attention to. Actual primary source evidence aren't "conspiracy theories" unless you want to use it as an excuse to ignore it.

 

We all know the official version of J6 events, the question is whether you and others choose to consider evidence from the other side, or just keep swallowing committee spoonfed propaganda.

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

15 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

#1.   This Julie Kelly is as biased as it gets.  I opened her profile from one of your other posts last night, and 95% of what she posts is conspiracy theory crap.  Some may even end up being true, but that happens when you throw enough crap at the wall.  Eventually some sticks.  It doesn't make you right.  Literally everything she posts is how corrupt Democrats are and how perfect Republicans are.  How every investigation is a coverup for something else.  All of her links are just right back to her own website.

 

#2.  Ashli Babbitt was seen on video climbing through the broken window of a barricaded door, while the Capitol police ordered her to stop and had his gun drawn.

 

And she wasn't cremated against her families' wishes:

 

After her death [on January 6 2021], Ashli Babbitt’s body remained in Washington for weeks while law enforcement completed investigations. Then she was cremated, in keeping with her wishes, and her remains were flown back to San Diego in February [2021], her mother said.

 

Now, her mother maintains that she was "murdered" but she was not cremated against her or her families wishes.

 

3.  Why are Capitol police suddenly corrupt?  People fight tooth and nail to cover for police officers who shoot unarmed people all over because they "could" have a weapon, but suddenly when a group of thousands of people are storming the Capitol, we should just ignore that and treat them peacefully?  Investigate the incidents for sure, but it's amazing how the narrative on police flips when they shoot someone you agree with.

 

DC medical examiner requested her body be cremated according to official documents. 

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/just-the-news-babbitt/

 

The Washington D.C. Offices of the Chief Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Jan. 6 Capitol protester Ashli Babbitt two days after gaining custody of the body, according to documents obtained and released Tuesday by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.

 

[Doc]

Just now, DRsGhost said:

 

DC medical examiner requested her body be cremated according to official documents. 

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/just-the-news-babbitt/

 

The Washington D.C. Offices of the Chief Medical Examiner submitted a request to cremate Jan. 6 Capitol protester Ashli Babbitt two days after gaining custody of the body, according to documents obtained and released Tuesday by conservative watchdog Judicial Watch.

 

Wait, what?