The January 6th Commission To Investigate The Insurrection

[Doc]

8 hours ago, daz28 said:

No, I'm not suggesting anything.  I'm clearly saying and repeating exactly what Mike Johnson himself said, that he's waiting to release the tapes until after he can conceal the faces, so that the public watching the videos can't identify and report to the DOJ the people that the FBI has been unable to identify/locate. 

 

If the FBI couldn't identify them before...

[BillsFanNC]

13 hours ago, daz28 said:

This has already been covered.  There are security concerns, much akin to why we don't give guided tours of Fort Knox.  So let's again ask why their faces are being concealed, and the answer was already plainly and clearly cited, "to protect them(the insurrectionist) from the DOJ".  This poses a new question for those who actually read and follow the Constitution, does this disqualify Mike Johnson(et al involved).  Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office:  No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or GIVEN AID OR COMFORT to the enemies thereof.       

 

If you have no argument against this, a simple laughing emoji will suffice.   

 

I'll give one of these 

 

And then ask you to give everyone the list of all the J6 "insurrectionists" who have been charged with or convicted of rebellion or insurrection.

 

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

 

Once we have those names, then we can talk about which ones Mike Johnson has given aid or comfort to.

[daz28]

18 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Which gets me back to what I said originally: the FBI/law enforcement has had these tapes, uncensored, for the past almost 3 years.  Are you actually suggesting that this is the first time they've seen them?

I'm not going to run in circles with you, but I'll try one more time.  I haven't seen anything anywhere stating that the DOJ/FBI has identified everyone that was involved, and neither has Mike Johnson, which is why he's blurring the faces.  What you're saying about the FBI having access is irrelevant to what MJ did or is doing.  He LITERALLY said he's doing it to protect people who haven't YET BEEN IDENTIFIED, and charged.  

9 hours ago, Doc said:

 

If the FBI couldn't identify them before...

Hmmm, do you think maybe they could if the tapes were public, and someone watching recognized someone who's face wasn't blurred out???  I'm pretty sure Mike Johnson and the rest of the sane people that don't make silly arguments do, too.  

[daz28]

8 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'll give one of these 

 

And then ask you to give everyone the list of all the J6 "insurrectionists" who have been charged with or convicted of rebellion or insurrection.

 

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

 

Once we have those names, then we can talk about which ones Mike Johnson has given aid or comfort to.

What we are discussing here is the 14th Amendment, Section 3, not a codified US law.  They are two completely different things.  If you don't believe me, then ask the guy who got arrested for having a handgun even after he showed the officer, the prosecutor, and the judge the 2nd Amendment.  I know there's a lot of people who still want to claim that an insurrection never happened, but those with their eyes and dictionaries open disagree.  If you absolutely require a legal statute, I already gave you seditious conspiracy, which clearly overlaps with insurrection.  Here's the actual charge: The particular charge against these defendants is that two or more of them knowingly conspired to use violence to prevent or hinder the execution of federal law-Again, only a blind person watched the videos, and didn't see any "violence to prevent or hinder the execution of federal law".  I'm not claiming Mike Johnson committed any crimes, I'm claiming he violated the Constitution, which would bar him from holding office.  I'd also note that the penal code you listed is actually undefined.  If you'd like another chance to show the actual defined statute, I'd love to see it.  

[Doc]

4 hours ago, daz28 said:

I'm not going to run in circles with you, but I'll try one more time.  I haven't seen anything anywhere stating that the DOJ/FBI has identified everyone that was involved, and neither has Mike Johnson, which is why he's blurring the faces.  What you're saying about the FBI having access is irrelevant to what MJ did or is doing.  He LITERALLY said he's doing it to protect people who haven't YET BEEN IDENTIFIED, and charged.  

Hmmm, do you think maybe they could if the tapes were public, and someone watching recognized someone who's face wasn't blurred out???  I'm pretty sure Mike Johnson and the rest of the sane people that don't make silly arguments do, too.  

 

You realize the FBI can release the tapes on their own, right?  Why don't they?  Why has it taken this long to do it?  Hmmm...

[daz28]

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

You realize the FBI can release the tapes on their own, right?  Why don't they?  Why has it taken this long to do it?  Hmmm...

I'm believe I mentioned this like 3x already: security.  Why don't we reveal all of the security cameras/footage from schools and banks while we're already out doing incredibly dumb things.  

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, daz28 said:

I'm believe I mentioned this like 3x already: security.  Why don't we reveal all of the security cameras/footage from schools and banks while we're already out doing incredibly dumb things.  

 

So they can blur faces but not other things.  Interesting theory...

[daz28]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So they can blur faces but not other things.  Interesting theory...

You do realize half of what helps identify grainy/distant video is things like gait and demeanor.  If you're suggesting they block out everything, except those distant, grainy faces, then you'd be investigating every guy calling saying, "I dunno that kinda looks like Bill down the street" on his Facebook page.  Anyways, like I've already said(again again), this is about what Mike Johnson is doing, not how the FBI is finding suspects. You may as well be asking me why some people like sprinkles

Edited December 8, 2023 by daz28

[Doc]

19 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You do realize half of what helps identify grainy/distant video is things like gait and demeanor.  If you're suggesting they block out everything, except those distant, grainy faces, then you'd be investigating every guy calling saying, "I dunno that kinda looks like Bill down the street" on his Facebook page.  Anyways, like I've already said(again again), this is about what Mike Johnson is doing, not how the FBI is finding suspects. You may as well be asking me why some people like sprinkles

 

Sorry but "every guy" can't tell gait and demeanor on grainy/distant video and is exactly how you get frivolous tips.  And if they truly think that can help, they can avoid blocking those out.

Edited December 8, 2023 by Doc

[daz28]

15 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Sorry but "every guy" can't tell gait and demeanor on grainy/distant video and is exactly how you get frivolous tips.  And if they truly think that can help, they can avoid blocking those out.

This has truly ran across several tracks, and has run its course.  

[Doc]

10 minutes ago, daz28 said:

This has truly ran across several tracks, and has run its course.  

 

Yes it has.  The FBI can release the video with faces, gait and demeanor unblurred for the general population to pore over and provide them solid tips without compromising national security.  After almost 3 years, they haven't done so.  You would think you would wonder why...

[daz28]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Yes it has.  The FBI can release the video with faces, gait and demeanor unblurred for the general population to pore over and provide them solid tips without compromising national security.  After almost 3 years, they haven't done so.  You would think you would wonder why...

Again, again, again, again, which has nothing to do(is unrelated) with what Mike Johnson is doing.  

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Again, again, again, again, which has nothing to do(is unrelated) with what Mike Johnson is doing.  

 

He not doing anything.  The FBI has had the ability all along to release the video unblurred.  This whole "aid and comfort" is a joke, but it sure plays politically!

Edited December 8, 2023 by Doc

[BillsFanNC]

13 hours ago, daz28 said:

What we are discussing here is the 14th Amendment, Section 3, not a codified US law.  They are two completely different things.  If you don't believe me, then ask the guy who got arrested for having a handgun even after he showed the officer, the prosecutor, and the judge the 2nd Amendment.  I know there's a lot of people who still want to claim that an insurrection never happened, but those with their eyes and dictionaries open disagree.  If you absolutely require a legal statute, I already gave you seditious conspiracy, which clearly overlaps with insurrection.  Here's the actual charge: The particular charge against these defendants is that two or more of them knowingly conspired to use violence to prevent or hinder the execution of federal law-Again, only a blind person watched the videos, and didn't see any "violence to prevent or hinder the execution of federal law".  I'm not claiming Mike Johnson committed any crimes, I'm claiming he violated the Constitution, which would bar him from holding office.  I'd also note that the penal code you listed is actually undefined.  If you'd like another chance to show the actual defined statute, I'd love to see it.  

 

Oh you mean the 14th ammendment argument they're attempting to use to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado that one liberal judge at least, denied already?

 

I know there's a lot of people claiming an insurrection happened,and despite it being such a slam dunk case, not even a corrupt politicized DOJ has brought a single charge for it.

 

As far as the guy with the gun, you're going to need to show me that one.  I can show you a guy with gun right on the Capitol steps on J6. You might be surprised to learn that this particular 'insurrectionist' remains uncharged and free as a bird to this very day.

Edited December 8, 2023 by BillsFanNC

[Doc]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

Oh you mean the 14th ammendment argument they're attempting to use to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado that one liberal judge at least, denied already?

 

I know there's a lot of people claiming an insurrection happened,and despite it being such a slam dunk case, not even a corrupt politicized DOJ has brought a single charge for it.

 

As far as the guy with the gun, you're going to need to show me that one.  I can show you a guy with gun right on the Capitol steps on J6. You might be surprised to learn that this particular 'insurrectionist' remains uncharged and free as a bird to this very day.

 

It's just a matter of the FBI not being able to identify him unless they show his picture to the masses...  

[daz28]

11 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Oh you mean the 14th ammendment argument they're attempting to use to keep Trump off the ballot in Colorado that one liberal judge at least, denied already?

 

I know there's a lot of people claiming an insurrection happened,and despite it being such a slam dunk case, not even a corrupt politicized DOJ has brought a single charge for it.

 

As far as the guy with the gun, you're going to need to show me that one.  I can show you a guy with gun right on the Capitol steps on J6. You might be surprised to learn that this particular 'insurrectionist' remains uncharged and free as a bird to this very day.

No, this is not even close to the same thing as Colorado.

 

I already covered that, the code you showed is an undefined code.

 

I'm not even trying to make the claim of armed insurrection.

 

Any other dodges, besides the ones the GOP put out?  

10 hours ago, Doc said:

 

It's just a matter of the FBI not being able to identify him unless they show his picture to the masses...  

Let someone else pull the railway switches for once

Edited December 9, 2023 by daz28

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

No, this is not even close to the same thing as Colorado.

 

I already covered that, the code you showed is an undefined code.

 

I'm not even trying to make the claim of armed insurrection.

 

Any other dodges, besides the ones the GOP put out?  

 

So you'll just keep calling it an insurrection despite NOBODY charged with it?

 

Any other dodges other than the dem talking points you parrot?

[daz28]

Just now, BillsFanNC said:

 

So you'll just keep calling it an insurrection despite NOBODY charged with it?

 

Any other dodges other than the dem talking points you parrot?

I'm calling it what the dictionary calls it.  How many times do I have to repeat the US code is undefined.  Maybe you don't understand what that means?  Believe it or not, I formulate my own ideas.  You and Doc are just repeating the rollback/reeling in that the GOP put out to the incredibly stupid gaffe MJ made.  I'm pretty sure that you guys were mad Dems were donating to funds for the defense of rioters, and 1000% sure that if Nancy Pelosi was blurring out the faces of rioters, you wouldn't be singing this same tune.  Ok, now your turn to once again try to paint me as a Dem apologist, because I'm exposing your bias/hypocrisy.  

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours ago, daz28 said:

I'm calling it what the dictionary calls it.  How many times do I have to repeat the US code is undefined.  Maybe you don't understand what that means?  Believe it or not, I formulate my own ideas.  You and Doc are just repeating the rollback/reeling in that the GOP put out to the incredibly stupid gaffe MJ made.  I'm pretty sure that you guys were mad Dems were donating to funds for the defense of rioters, and 1000% sure that if Nancy Pelosi was blurring out the faces of rioters, you wouldn't be singing this same tune.  Ok, now your turn to once again try to paint me as a Dem apologist, because I'm exposing your bias/hypocrisy.  

 

It's undefined, but you"re ok defining it based on swalliwing dem/media loads of crap you've been fed. Got it.

 

If you characterize the events of J6 as an insurrection, as you have, and not a riot with most people simply wandering inside the capitol and then leaving of their own accord, then Im sorry to confirm for you that you're a complete moron exposing your own ridiculous bias.

[daz28]

13 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

It's undefined, but you"re ok defining it based on swalliwing dem/media loads of crap you've been fed. Got it.

 

If you characterize the events of J6 as an insurrection, as you have, and not a riot with most people simply wandering inside the capitol and then leaving of their own accord, then Im sorry to confirm for you that you're a complete moron exposing your own ridiculous bias.

LOL.  I defined it using a dictionary(like most people define things by), not "dem media" as you claim.  Why were they wandering inside the Capital, and who invited them in?  Was violence involved? Hopefully you're past the delusion that the police, Antifa, and FBI did.  You know that Colorado case(I believe you brought up), where the judge said he never took a Constitutional oath, but instead a presidential oath, and that's why he can't be disqualified?  That judge said not only was there an insurrection, but affirmed the petitioners' claims that Trump had incited and engaged in it.  That judge was appointed by a guy who was on the House Liberty Caucus(the rightest of the right).  Outside of 2 or 3 whacko commentaries from The Washington examiner and the likes, you're hard pressed to find anyone claiming it wasn't.  I'll guess the world will just have to ignore dictionaries, and take your word for it.  Takes a big man to call someone a complete moron on the internet.  

Edited December 9, 2023 by daz28

[BillsFanNC]

14 hours ago, daz28 said:

LOL.  I defined it using a dictionary(like most people define things by), not "dem media" as you claim.  Why were they wandering inside the Capital, and who invited them in?  Was violence involved? Hopefully you're past the delusion that the police, Antifa, and FBI did.  You know that Colorado case(I believe you brought up), where the judge said he never took a Constitutional oath, but instead a presidential oath, and that's why he can't be disqualified?  That judge said not only was there an insurrection, but affirmed the petitioners' claims that Trump had incited and engaged in it.  That judge was appointed by a guy who was on the House Liberty Caucus(the rightest of the right).  Outside of 2 or 3 whacko commentaries from The Washington examiner and the likes, you're hard pressed to find anyone claiming it wasn't.  I'll guess the world will just have to ignore dictionaries, and take your word for it.  Takes a big man to call someone a complete moron on the internet.  

 

I'd call you a moron to your face. That's because you clearly are when it comes to J6.

 

Any person on J6  whether they committed violence (some)  or acted as trespassing tourists (most) should be held accountable. Nobody here has ever said otherwise.

 

However, more and more video is coming out that clearly shows people being allowed inside by Capitol police, doors being unlocked from the inside, Capitol police escorting the qanon shaman into the senate chamber , people walking in orderly fashion inside the velvet ropes, testimony that not a single firearm was confiscated at the Capitol and on and on.

 

There's 14k hours of video, and we've seen only a tiny fraction of it. Even from what we've seen already you again have to be a moron to characterize it as an insurrection / rebellion. You seem disinterested in having any further transparency because you've bought the security reasons nsrrative.

 

Let's go storm the Capitol (as per Ray Epps),to overthrow the government with a bunch of middle aged unarmed morons, then against alll odds successfully breach the Capitol of the most powerful nation the world has ever known. It was all so easy!

 

Then simply leave and go home.

 

That carefully planned insurrection and coup we worked so hard for? Meh...nevermind.

 

 

Yes indeed, you're a moron.

[BillsFanNC]

Insurrection daz28 or nah?  Even if you decide to be consistent and condemn this as insurrection, why do you never hear it characterized as such by the legacy media or elected officials I wonder?

 

 

Insurrection or nah?  Again I'm assuming that you'll stick to your highly principled view here and condemn this as insurrection as well since you're only concerned with  definitions.  These attacks on a federal court house went on for weeks.  But again, why do you think that the rest of the principled media and government officials lack consistency when it comes to insurrection narratives?  

 

The very same people who constantly trumpet the J6 as an insurrection, would never dare do the same with these two examples.  Why is that?

 

 

 

[Doc]

If (prior to J6) you were to tell a lib "I'm going to overthrow the Government with 1,000 unarmed people," they'd have laughed in your face.  Now it's "insurrection."

[daz28]

5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

I'd call you a moron to your face. That's because you clearly are when it comes to J6.

 

 

Sure you would.  

 

If you want to argue with the Mirriam brothers and Webster(or Oxford or Cambridge) be my guest.  

[BillsFanNC]

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

Sure you would.  

 

If you insist on spewing the same nonsense in person that you do here?

 

Then I absolutely would.

 

Because you absolutely are being a moron on this issue.

 

 

7 minutes ago, daz28 said:

 

If you want to argue with the Mirriam brothers and Webster(or Oxford or Cambridge) be my guest.  

 

Why don't you argue with the dictionary on the White House or Portland federal court house "insurrections."

 

Do you believe in the dictionary definition of words when an orange President says:

 

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

 

Or do the definition of those words, taken together really mean go do an insurrection?

 

You're a clown.

[daz28]

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

If you insist on spewing the same nonsense in person that you do here?

 

Then I absolutely would.

 

Because you absolutely are being a moron on this issue.

 

 

 

Why don't you argue with the dictionary on the White House or Portland federal court house "insurrections."

 

Do you believe in the dictionary definition of words when an orange President says:

 

"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"

 

Or do the definition of those words, taken together really mean go do an insurrection?

 

You're a clown.

You can call me that to my face, too.  I ain't gonna do my bullying online.  He also said this:  "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."    This is exactly the same thing as saying fire is what happens when you throw a match on gasoline, even though I suggested not to.  Now you know why we have warnings on Tide pods, because we all know what stupid people will do.  

[BillsFanNC]

36 minutes ago, daz28 said:

You can call me that to my face, too.  I ain't gonna do my bullying online.  He also said this:  "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long."    This is exactly the same thing as saying fire is what happens when you throw a match on gasoline, even though I suggested not to.  Now you know why we have warnings on Tide pods, because we all know what stupid people will do.  

 

Bullying? 

 

When you have moronic takes, expect to be called a moron. 

 

Quit whining.

 

And it's exactly the same thing is it?

 

Does that meet the definition of the term exactly in Websters?

 

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists stormed the white house, attacking and injuring members of the secret service?  

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists attacked a federal courthouse in Portland for a month?

 

Or nah?

 

Quit dodging.

 

 

[daz28]

45 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Bullying? 

 

When you have moronic takes, expect to be called a moron. 

 

Quit whining.

 

And it's exactly the same thing is it?

 

Does that meet the definition of the term exactly in Websters?

 

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists stormed the white house, attacking and injuring members of the secret service?  

 

Was it an insurrection when leftists attacked a federal courthouse in Portland for a month?

 

Or nah?

 

Quit dodging.

 

 

What exactly am I whining about?  Definitions from the dictionary?  I was pointing out you do your bullying online, because it don't work out so well irl.  Call me a moron/clown there, and you'll get a different result. I don't remember the actual rioters trying to steal a presidency, so no.  

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, daz28 said:

What exactly am I whining about?  Definitions from the dictionary?  I was pointing out you do your bullying online, because it don't work out so well irl.  Call me a moron/clown there, and you'll get a different result. I don't remember the actual rioters trying to steal a presidency, so no.  

 

So the Websters definition of an insurrection requires an attempt to 'steal' a Presidency?

 

Is that the Websters edition  published exclusively for 1/6/2021?

 

 

Keep digging moron.

 

And sure it would end differently in person. Internet tough guy.

[daz28]

3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So the Websters definition of an insurrection requires an attempt to 'steal' a Presidency?

 

Is that the Websters edition  published exclusively for 1/6/2021?

 

 

Keep digging moron.

 

And sure it would end differently in person. Internet tough guy.

It probably wouldn't even take a tough guy to get you to be respectable to other irl.  Seeing the dictionary doesn't work in the echo chamber, let's look at history.  The American idea of insurrection is based mostly on slave revolt.  ie: an attempt to capture power.  No one in the 'riots' were doing that. 

[BillsFanNC]

11 minutes ago, daz28 said:

It probably wouldn't even take a tough guy to get you to be respectable to other irl.  Seeing the dictionary doesn't work in the echo chamber, let's look at history.  The American idea of insurrection is based mostly on slave revolt.  ie: an attempt to capture power.  No one in the 'riots' were doing that. 

 

So it's the dictionary come hell or high water with J6...until it's not when leftist violent uprisings against the government are pointed out.

 

Got it.

 

Then it's time eschew the dictionary in favor of the 'American idea of insurrection.'

 

 

Clown world dude.

[Doc]

5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

So it's the dictionary come hell or high water with J6...until it's not when leftist violent uprisings against the government are pointed out.

 

Got it.

 

Then it's time eschew the dictionary in favor of the 'American Democrats' idea of insurrection.'

 

 

Clown world dude.

 

FIFY

[BillsFanNC]

The 12/11/23 insurrection.

 

Straight to the DC gulag with them.

 

Leave them there until trial 2+ years from now.

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

jack seems a bit desperate

 

"This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former President is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin," reads the filing.

In his Supreme Court brief, Mr. Smith conceded that the trial would most likely have to be paused because of the appeal of the immunity issue. That position reversed the one his prosecutors took over the weekend in court papers, in which they argued that Judge Chutkan should not have to stay the case pending appeal.

Winning the appeal of the immunity decision was only one of Mr. Trump’s goals in challenging the decision. All along, he and his lawyers have had an alterative strategy: to delay the election interference trial for as long as possible. -NY Times

The filing comes after Judge Tanya S. Chutkan - who worked at the law firm which repped Fusion GPS, the company that helped orchestrate the Russia collusion hoax - rejected Trump's sweeping claims of "absolute immunity" from an election interference indictment because it was based on actions taken while in office.

 

 

[BillStime]

 

 

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

7 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

Maybe they can re-investigate Pearl Harbor and say we weren't prepared because the Japanese didn't tell us about their secret attack plan.  I mean seriously, didn't they get a hint of things to come from those 100's of government assets and informants embedded in the groups organizing and participating in the protest?  It screams of an intelligence failure rather than some paperwork problem.  Or more likely they knew what was going to happen, let it happen, and afterward they could make a big deal out of it for 3 or 4 years into the next election cycle which is what we've got.  

[BillStime]

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Maybe they can re-investigate Pearl Harbor and say we weren't prepared because the Japanese didn't tell us about their secret attack plan.  I mean seriously, didn't they get a hint of things to come from those 100's of government assets and informants embedded in the groups organizing and participating in the protest?  It screams of an intelligence failure rather than some paperwork problem.  Or more likely they knew what was going to happen, let it happen, and afterward they could make a big deal out of it for 3 or 4 years into the next election cycle which is what we've got.  

You try so hard.