The Oath Keepers: What the Indictment Says and Does Not Say About the January 6 Riot

The indictment of eleven individuals associated with the “Oath Keepers” produced an immediate deluge of the postings that an insurrection had finally been established on the January 6th attack at the Capitol. The charges do not establish an insurrection. It does reveal how extremist groups show the protest as an opportunity and hoped that it might trigger greater unrest. However, the indictment does not offer the long-sought proof of an insurrection to fulfill the narrative of many commentators and politicians. While I would not be surprised by additional charges against other co-conspirators and more details could emerge, the indictment does not support the prior allegations of a coordination or collusion with the Trump campaign. Here is a first take on what the indictment says and does not say.

Is this the Insurrection?

Before addressing the details of the indictment, it is important to state the obvious about this indictment and how it is already being spun as proof of an insurrection. It is not.  These are charges of seditious conspiracy based on efforts to disrupt the proceedings. There was discussion among some of the defendants about the prospects of civil war, particularly after January 6th. However, the charge itself is much broader.

The provision in 18 U.S.C. 2384 has long been controversial because it is so sweeping and includes any effort “by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law”:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

When most of us discussed the riot previously, we noted that there were people who clearly came to the Hill that day to commit violent acts and interrupt the legislative process. Indeed, most of us predicted that a small group of people would receive the more serious charges.

I have never had much sympathy for those who rioted or those who recklessly fueled such anger. Saying that this was not an insurrection does not mean that this was not a desecration of our constitutional process and values. I publicly condemned Trump’s speech while it was being given and I called for a bipartisan vote of censure over his responsibility in the riots.

The charging of a relatively small number of extremists in this large protest belies rather than supports the broader allegations of an actual insurrection. This remains a protest that became a riot — a view shared by the vast majority of the public. Over seven hundred people have been charged and most face relatively minor charges of trespass and unlawful entry. The fact that there were a small number of people intent on violence does not convert the intent or actions of the thousands in the protest into an insurrection.

FBI sources previously told the media that, despite months of intense investigation, they could find “scant evidence” of any “organized plot” and instead found that virtually all of the cases are “one-offs.” One agent explained: ”Ninety to 95 percent of these are one-off cases. Then you have 5 percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.”

This is clearly part of that five percent that the FBI and most of us have been discussing. Their views or intentions do not convert hundreds of defendants from trespassers into insurrectionists.

The same is true for rioters in prior summers. We have seen anarchist and extremist groups like Antifa come to protests to fuel violence. This small number of individuals often discuss (as did these defendants) a desire to see an overthrow of the government. They tried to further such objectives by burning police stations and trying repeatedly to burn down a federal courthouse. However, their intentions did not convert the thousands of other protesters into rioters or insurrectionists. Even these extremist groups have not been called domestic terrorists or seditionists by the media or Democratic politicians.

The Indictment and Likely Trial Issues

The indictment itself details the same extremist rhetoric and calls that we have seen from extremist groups on both the left and right in past years. It is an unsettling part of this age of rage. The defendants adopted pseudo military jargon and beat their chests about the coming civil war. It is important not to dismiss the danger that such groups pose. They come across at points as clowns but this is why clowns can be so scary. They are clowns who openly discussed storing weapons and fostering a civil war. The indictment details evidence that most of these men entered the Capitol and encouraged the rioting. Most of the charges are similar to those in other cases in that respect and seem well-based.

It is really the first charge that has drawn the most attention and is likely to draw the most litigation.  However, as discussed above, keep in mind that a conspiracy requires only two people to conspire by force to hinder the execution of any law.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department works hard to reinforce the view of this group as launching a military attack, using their own military jargon. It divides the group into “stacks” that “marched” on the Capitol.

Thus, Stack 2 (composed of just three people) is described as not walking but marching around the crowded grounds: “[Stack Two] breached the Capitol grounds, marching from the west side to the east side of the Capitol building and up the east stairs.”

The defense is likely to question these characterizations in pre-trial motions. Each “stack” was composed of a handful of people. Stack 1 was composed of Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, Jospeh Hasckett, and David Moerschel. Stack 2 was composed of just Joshua James and Robero Minuta. Then there is the ominous sounding “Quick Reaction Force,” which the indictment said was composed of only Thomas Caldwell and Edward Vallejo.

The indictment is strong on detailing the alleged violent rhetoric and machinations of the defendants. It shows men who speak of civil war and actively acquire weapons in the anticipation that they might be used.

However, as a criminal defense attorney, there are some gaps and disconnects that I expect could cause difficulties at trial on the sedition conspiracy charge. (The rest of the charges will be more difficult to contest on things like obstructing an official proceeding).

These are eleven people who were not armed with guns and some apparently never entered the Capitol. While the Justice Department discussed plans for river landings and arsenals of weapons and forces held in reserve, the individuals in Stack 2 were equipped with:

“battle apparel and gear, including hard-knuckle tactical gloves, tactical vests, ballistic goggles, radios, chemical sprays, a paracord attachment, fatigues, goggles, scissors, a large stick, and one of the Stack Two member’s 82-pound German Shepherd named ‘Warrior.’”

That is undistinguishable (and in some cases less lethal) than material seized from Antifa, Proud Boys, and other rioters in prior summers.  Despite buying and storing weapons, they did not bring them to the Hill, did not use them, and left the Hill with many others. Only one, Joshua James, is charged with the broad offense of “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers.” (Count 8). The rest are charged with the common crimes of trespass, obstruction, and unlawful entry.

The indictment details discussions of a civil war after the riot. On January 12, 2021, James messages “after this, … if nothing happens, its war … Civil War 2.0.” There was no apparent follow through after January 6th with an actual attack or rebellion against the government.

 The indictment also does not allege the broader conspiracy often raised by politicians and pundits. The defendants themselves appeared to acknowledge that they were acting without coordination with the Administration or President Trump. Rhodes messages “All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the Patriots are taking it into their own hands. They’ve had enough.”

There may be more charges coming given the references to unnamed “co-conspirators.” For example, on page 18, Watkins is quoted in discussions with someone who is only referenced as a “co-conspirator.” It is not clear if that person is a cooperating witness or a soon-to-be-charged defendant.

There are other glaring issues for defense counsel, including the possibility that a couple of the defendants did not even participate in the actual riot at the Capitol building. That does not mean that they cannot be guilty of a conspiracy but it contradicts earlier published accounts.

The government, for example, previously held Caldwell as a key organizer of the attack and claimed that he entered the Capitol with his co-conspirators.  The indictment, however, omits that allegation and now lists Caldwell with the two-man “Quick Reaction Force.” A federal judge ultimately refused to continue to hold Caldwell over the objections of the Justice Department.

Those issues will have to be hashed out in the forthcoming criminal indictments. After such charges are brought, defendants are under overwhelming pressure to cooperate and reach a plea deal. We will have to see if that proves the case here or with any additional indictments.

Conversely, these defendants will be able to demand exculpatory evidence from the government. Indictments always look more ominous before they are subject to adversarial challenge. However, it will be difficult to rebut some of these charges on obstructing the process or damaging government property. It will be the seditious conspiracy count that will produce the greatest factual and legal challenges in the months to come.

Here is the indictment: Rhodes et al indictment

 

272 thoughts on “The Oath Keepers: What the Indictment Says and Does Not Say About the January 6 Riot”

  1. 5%? That’s insane. There were probably close to 700,000 people at the capital that day to protest – that’s 0.1%, not 5%.

    And, there’s the problem of the FBI organizers / instigators….

    1. 700,000??? What’re can I get some of those ‘shrooms?

      More like 10-20,000, incited by their Commander-in-Thief. The insurrection was the larger plot. The riot was Plan D-minus.

  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384
    Given the hockey stick vote tabulations after delayed election site processing, numerous affadavits attesting to ballot fraud, election site misconduct, questionable ballot arbitration, foreign interference through internet connections to voting machines, and manipulated vote tabulations, and the refusal of officials to investigate an obvious troubled 2020 election, it is obvious our state and federal officials conspired to violate US Code 28 – 2384. Their duty is to insure election integrity and they were obviously derelict in their duty on Jan. 6th by not granting more time to verify that the election process had not been tampered with. They voted to sweep election fraud under the rug and conspired to overthrow our government and allow fraudulent election results to count.
    No good has resulted from their dereliction of duty.
    It is becoming clear that government operatives incited and organized violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6th to undermine a significant segment of the American public’s concern that the 2020 election had been compromised by a conspiracy of groups (See Molly Ball’s Time piece) and dereliction of duty by officials sworn to maintain election integrity.

  3. If a honest judge hears this case against these men charge with sedition first, he should laugh at the DOJ throw them out of court and dismiss the case against these men

  4. Anonymous the Stupid. Your comment was deleted and took down mine. I want to make sure you see my reply.copied below.
    —–

    “No commenters can harm others on the blog.”

    You are too ignorant. If someone rightfully places an invitation to a right to life meeting on a university bulletin board, and another wrongfully removes it, those involved in the meeting are being harmed.

    That is the same when their responses are removed from the blog, but at least you recognize your misanthropic deed.

    1. You’re the true ATS here.

      My 12:46 comment is still there, and so is your reply to it, and so is my reply to your reply.

      Do you need new glasses?

      1. You are right. Both comments are still there. My computer must not have linked to that one. How about the other comments that I predicted would disappear? They aren’t there, and a whole slew of your comments likewise disappeared, taking down the comments of other people. I didn’t predict this one would disappear, but when I checked, my computer failed to link.

        1. I didn’t write that one. You simply can’t get it through your thick head that every day you call multiple people ATS. As I said, you’re the true ATS here.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, keep deflecting. We know you have many pretend friends that you believe aren’t you. The vast majority are, but you can think what you wish. You need a place to hide, which is understandable, especially with your personality disorder.

            You have a simple solution. Separate yourself by selecting an identifiable icon along with a name. Then at least we can separate the anonymous one from the pretend friends.

            1. I consider you a troll. You insult and lie about people you disagree with regardless of whether they post anonymously or under a fixed name, like Jeff S. If you think I’m going to do anything on behalf of a troll, you only underscore that you’re the true ATS.

              1. You have proven yourself to be deceptive and a liar. You have multiple icons and names caring little for others. This is confirmed by your tantrums that cause others to have their postings disappear along with yours. You are like a suicide bomber and just as dumb.

                Jeff insults every person that supports Trump. He is offensive to our host. Need I say more?

                I don’t expect you to do anything, nor do I care. Do you know why? Because you are Anonymous the Stupid. I am enjoying the way things are.

  5. More proof that ATS lies. His comment was again deleted as I predicted in the email shown below. Everyone that loses an email for no reason at all can blame Anonymous the Stupid.
    ——–
    commented on The Oath Keepers: What the Indictment Says and Does Not Say About the January 6 Riot.

    in response to :

    Allanonymous the Stupid rears his ugly head, yet again.

    Anonymous the Stupid, you have written numerous comments like this that were deleted. This comment will be deleted as well. I’ll check back to see if I was right. So can others.

  6. OT: Professor Turley often writes of off-beat judicial cases, and we have been discussing American Indians. For those interested, here is another.

    Seattle Power Company Sued for Violating the Rights of Fish

    ‘I have been warning the green warriors that “nature rights” will someday come back to bite reneweable energy projects. For example, electricity-generating windmills kill millions of birds and bats. If these animals have the “inalienable right to exist,flourish, regenerate, and evolve,” and if anyone can sue to enforce the rights of nature as nature-rights laws tend to provide, then lawsuits to shut down the windmills for violating birds’ rights is only a matter of time.

    Seattle City Light is now under that very threat because of the electricity-generating dams it operates. Only instead of birds suing, it is fish — salmon to be specific. In a case brought by Native Americans, a court is being asked to declare that the rights of the fish are being violated under a nature rights legal theory. From the KUOW story:”

    The article and rest of the story, along with a pithy lesson at:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/seattle-power-company-sued-for-violating-the-rights-of-fish/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=right-rail&utm_content=corner&utm_term=fourth

  7. Marcy Wheeler is much more informative about this investigation than JT.

    New from her today, noting the poor reporting from the Post:
    “… WaPo does break news in the thirtieth paragraph of the story. It reveals that Rob Jenkins, a lawyer representing a bunch of militia defendants, keeps getting asked about Roger Stone and Rudy Giuliani‘s ties to militia members. …
    “One might think it newsworthy that an attorney for the Proud Boys revealed that prosecutors are, in fact, investigating Rudy’s militia ties. But the WaPo took from that, instead, that DOJ is not investigating Trump or anyone who might have been coordinating with the militias from the Willard Hotel.”
    https://www.emptywheel.net/2022/01/15/breaking-prosecutors-are-asking-about-rudy-giulianis-ties-to-militias/

    Will JT eventually criticize the Post’s weak reporting? Time will tell.

    1. “Marcy Wheeler is much more informative about this investigation than JT.”

      Anonymous the Stupid, if your head grows much bigger it will pop.

      1. Do you ever get tired of talking about anonymous commenters? Your ad hom is so repetitive, don’t you get bored?

        I guess you have nothing to say about the news about Giuliani.

        By the way, if posting opinions is a sign of a big head, you might want to post fewer opinions yourself.

  8. I see that Turley has partially corrected his initial statement about “any effort ‘to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law,'” so that it now reads “any effort ‘by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law.'” His partial quote still omits that people have to conspire for the law to apply (yes, I’m well aware that he also includes a full quote with that element, but some readers clearly don’t read the full quote — see the exchange with Brian Anonymous below).

    1. ATS thinks he is smarter than most readers on the blog, but in previous posts he has proven he isn’t. His arrogance is astounding.

      1. You insult all the anonymous commenters you disagree with. Seems that you’ve got them all living in your head rent free.

        1. “You insult all the anonymous commenters you disagree with.”

          That is inherently correct with a very few exceptions I won’t mention here. All anonymous commenters include, Anonymous the Stupid, his pretend friends and other anonymous posters that are all the same person–YOU.

  9. ReJan 6 commission: I’m open to correction, but I believe certain commenters on this blog are engaging in selective facts here. They keep bringing up that Republicans rejected a “national commission” modeled after the 9/11 commission. In truth, the initialJan.6 commission was proposed as a 7-3 Democrat-majority commission, thus exposing and tainting its political objective. Even though it was later amended to propose a 5-5 split, the smell remained, and McConnell further pointed out that it was an expensive redundancy-since there already existed 2Senate committees, 1 House panel, PLUS A full DOJ investigstion and pending arrests. Pelosi then established a House panel and rejected McCarthy’s named panel members. Isn’t that what really happened?

      1. My mind isn’t “fevered.” It clearly distinguishes better than lin’s between fact and opinion.

        1. Your mind is worse than “fevered”. Sam was being polite. He could have called you what you are, a liar and one that acts to harm others on the blog.

          1. “. . . one that acts to harm others on the blog.”

            I’m just noticing what you pointed out some time ago. My comments, based on Anon’s comments, are being wiped out. It’s a bit annoying.

            *How* do you tell whether it’s safe to comment or not?

            1. Sam, in my opinion, Anonymous the Stupid knows when his comments are likely to be deleted. I think he uses more than one IP address, and one of them is on the banned list.

              To show predictability as to which Anonymous posting would be deleted, I previously predicted two comments that would be deleted. Some time later, they were deleted. You could see the before and after only if you read the postings before the deletions.

              My prediction was here:
              https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023

              One can never be sure when he will be deleted because a third entity is involved. Posts are also deleted because of inappropriate content. He has some control over which of his postings will likely be deleted.

              If you look closely, you will see that most of the posts he likely wants deleted, are deleted and those he wants to remain, mostly remain.

              However, things get confusing on the blog because a thread can be responded to many times. If he had one of his potentially deleted links high above, even he might screw up and cause his own to be deleted along with everyone else’s, even if it wasn’t his intention.

              You can see that after he was confronted and his wings were clipped, there was a rise in posts disappearing all over the blog involving many people. Anonymous the Stupid was throwing a temper tantrum. This is the type of person he is. He lies to cause harm to others and does so with a smirk.

              He is a nasty person. He also has gone under multiple names and icons that seem to disappear after discovery. Take Sammy. That icon was used for Edison and Molly G. I posted an address telling where he wrote as Molly G, so now I will post an address where he posts as Edison under the same icon.

              https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/03/tick-tick-tick-the-supreme-court-readies-an-explosive-docket-for-2022/comment-page-1/#comment-2148119

              I don’t intentionally remember most of these things, but the patterns seem to pop up without my effort.

              Anonymous the Stupid is a born liar.

              1. You’re deluding yourself to assume that they all come from a single person. You’re also showing that you don’t even know what you’re talking about: if an IP address is banned, then a comment posted from that address shouln’t even show up, so there’s nothing for a moderator to delete.

                You’d apparently rather believe something false that enables you to comfortably fool yourself than believe something true that’s contrary to your preferred explanation.

          2. No commenters can harm others on the blog. It’s a purely verbal interaction. If you think words do harm, look to your own comments first, as you post more insults than anyone else, and yours are often nastier insults.

            If you dislike comments being removed, take it up with Turley and Darren, as they’re the only ones who control that.

            1. “No commenters can harm others on the blog.”

              You are too ignorant. If someone rightfully places an invitation to a right to life meeting on a university bulletin board, and another wrongfully removes it, those involved in the meeting are being harmed.

              That is the same when their responses are removed from the blog, but at least you recognize your misanthropic deed.

              1. Turley and Darren are the only ones who remove comments. You think they’re “wrongfully removing” comments?

    1. Actually, lin, what I’ve noted several times is the *fact* that Senate Republicans filibustered the bill that was actually sent to me Senate: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3233

      Your personal opinion that there was a “smell” to that bill is not a fact.

      McConnell’s personal opinion that a National Commission would have been redundant is not a fact either. Note that he didn’t argue that a National Commission to investigate 9/11 was redundant, even though there were Senate and House committees plus a full DOJ investigstion and arrests there too.

      Had Senate Republicans not filibustered HR 3233, the House Select Committee never would have been created.

        1. To Anonymous: Actually, I took you up on it and checked “lin” out. My conclusion: lin is 100% correct on her facts. As to her two opinions (regarding exposing the taint and “smell), I would guess that the vast majority if not all of the Senate Republicans agree with her.

          1. Anyone citing facts is 100% correct on the facts, including me. If it’s not correct, then it wasn’t a fact to begin with.

            No one should be surprised when conservatives have similar opinions, or when liberals have similar opinions, or when any other group based on having similar values has similar opinions. Opinions still aren’t facts.

      1. Actions speak louder than words. When Pelosi refused to seat Republican members on the committee in the House, it demonstrated her intentions. That is all that matters. This is all political. It will become apolitical when Pelosi is required to release all communications she had regarding Jan 6 (along with others) and is placed under questioning.

        ATS is deflecting. Again, actions speak louder than words. ATS’s actions show what type of guy he is and what his words mean… Not much.

          1. Actually the words, “actions speak louder than words” is well accepted by normal people. You have a problem with that because your rhetoric is goofy, falsifies facts and lacks understanding of human nature. That is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

  10. Well said. I truly believe this was a for-show indictment made in response to you Mr. Turley and others pointing out there were no sedition charges being made to support the Democrats’ “insurrection” narrative. So they went ahead and charged someone to shut you up. Which makes this a sickening abuse of the DOJ’s powers.

  11. Let’s think about the house Jan 6 committee. Imagine that you go into a casino and sit down at a blackjack table. The dealer looks you straight in the eye deals your hand and tells you that the deck is stacked. Even having this information you continue to holler “Hit me again! Hit me again! There are some strange people who get off on the abuse. Some reside on this forum.

  12. Pfizer and its CEO Albert Bourla, Moderna and its CEO French Billionaire Stéphane Bancel, Tony Fauci, Biden family, Nancy Pelosi, and Hollywood elites have done exceedingly well financially due to the Wuhan virus. Rest of Americans? chumps

    Matt Taibbi:

    “Vaccine Aristocrats Strike Again”

    As yokel-bashing reaches impressive new heights, reports of yet another year of record profits and a widening wealth gap go unnoticed

    The spectacle of posh celebs sneering at hicks who won’t take the jab has been compelling theater for a while now, especially since the smartypants act has often come packaged in outrageous errors. Whether it’s MSNBC’s Joy Ann Reid suggesting horse paste eaters clogging emergency rooms in Oklahoma be stuck at the back of the line for leaving “gunshot victims” untreated (there were no gunshot victims, the story turned out to be bunk), or Goldman analyst-turned-CNN-anchor Erin Burnett joining imperious colleagues Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, Bakari Sellers, Jim Acosta, and industry mascot Brian Stelter in blasting Joe Rogan for taking a drug “intended for livestock” (Rogan’s human ivermectin dose was prescribed by a doctor), or even Joe Biden announcing he was mandating vaccines for health care workers so you can have “certainty” they can’t “spread it to you” (they can still spread it to you), the endless campaign of maladroit scolding almost seems designed to make fence-sitters refuse the shot out of spite, confusion, or both.

    While the shame campaign has been a catastrophe as public health strategy, it has been effective as aristocratic misdirection, a way to keep the public’s eyes off the vault. Maybe that’s what it’s for.

    https://zero-sum.org/jimmy-kimmel-vaccine-aristocrats-strike-again/

  13. Jonathan: I doubt the average American could distinguish between a “riot” and a “insurrection”. But to see how seriously Americans treated Jan. 6 there is another poll you have not cited. In a ABC/Ipsos poll conducted last month 72% of Americans said the people involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol were “threatening democracy”. Democrats believe Trump bears either “a great deal” or “a good amount” of responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. 78% of Republicans believe just the opposite. These poll results haven’t changed much over time since they were conducted in the aftermath of the insurrection. Apparently the DOJ doesn’t follow your poll because they have just charged Stewart Rhodes and other Oathkeepers with “seditious conspiracy”. Prior to Jan 6 Rhodes told his group tp prepare for a “bloody and desperate fight”. It is quite clear what Rhodes and other right-wing militia wanted. To use force to prevent the lawful and peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 elections. It is also clear, from testimony before the select House Committee, that Trump supported the violence. But Trump and his supporters want to rewrite history. In an interview with Fox News (one of your employers) last month Trump said his incendiary speech prior to the attack on the Capitol was “extremely calming” and it was not an insurrection but a “protest”. While you have criticized Trump for his speech you have spent a lot of column speech vainly trying to make the case Jan.6 was just a peaceful protest that turned into a “riot”. The DOJ doesn’t agree.

    As you point out “conspiracy” only requires 2 people. So now Rhodes and his merry band face really serious charges of crimes against our Democracy. They were the shock troops, the “Brown shirts” who carried out the dirty work for Trump–to keep him in power. Hitler did the same thing in his rise to power. You now want to blame the victims for the assault on the Capitol. You blame the Capitol police and DC for not anticipating what happened and providing adequate security. Who could have predicted the President of the United States would actually encourage an insurrection to overturn the government to keep him in power? The last time such violence occurred in the Capitol was in 1812. Despite your disclaimers it is quite clear you and most Republicans also want to re-write history. It won’t work and when the House select committee holds public hearings and releases its report we will all know what really happened on Jan. 6.

    1. “[W]hen the House select committee . . . releases its report we will all know what really happened on Jan. 6.”

      Sure we will.

      About like what we will all know, after the CCP releases its report of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

      1. How nice that you equate a bipartisan House committee of non-Trumpists with the CCP and are so certain about the contents of a report that has yet to be written.

        Republicans could have supported H.R.3233, the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act, which would have created a bipartisan bicameral Commission where the Republicans in both chambers would have had as much control over the membership as Democrats. But the Senate Republicans filibustered it.
        https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3233

        If you don’t like the membership of the House Select Committee, blame the Senate Republicans for filibustering that National Commission, whose membership you might have preferred.

        1. “How nice that you equate a bipartisan House committee of non-Trumpists ”

          Anonymous the Stupid once again is lying and acting Stupid. How can the committee be non-partisan if Republican supporters of Trump are excluded? You can’t answer that because you are either too Stupid or ignorant. Pick your poison.

          The Blame goes to Pelosi, who excluded the vast number of Republicans that disagree with her.

        2. If you don’t like the membership of the House Select Committee, blame the Senate Republicans

          Senate Republicans have no influence on matters of the House of Representatives.

          Take a remedial civics class

          1. When you have to cut off relevant text that undermines your argument, that should tell you that you’re not being honest.

            I said:
            If you don’t like the membership of the House Select Committee, blame the Senate Republicans for filibustering that National Commission, whose membership you might have preferred.

            You cut off the part in bold. Apparently it’s too hard for you to deal with.

            The sole reason the House Select Committee exists is because the Senate Republicans filibustered the creation of a bipartisan bicameral National Commission where the Republicans in both chambers would have had as much control over the membership as Democrats.

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, that is not true. The Republicans filibustered in the Senate for a good reason, but Nancy Pelosi determined the membership when the committee was set up in the house. The Senate had nothing to do with it. You lie too much and seem unable to get things right.

              Iowan is correct. You need a remedial civics class. You actually need more than that, but Iowan was being nice.

              1. Here’s the bill, giving Republicans in both chambers total control over selecting half the members of the Commission, and Democrats in both chambers selecting the other half:
                https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/3233

                There was no “good reason” to filibuster it. They could have placed Jim Jordan on it if they’d wanted, and Democrats would have been powerless to prevent it. I doubt you’ve even read the bill’s text.

                1. Anonymous the Stupid, if you intelligently listened to what is coming out from that committee, you would see why the committee wasn’t desirable. The committee was a political move. If Pelosi were honest, she would have immediately released all her discussions with all parties involving Jan 6. The investigation of the murder of Ashley Babbitt would have been properly performed. We would have transparency.

                  You doubt I have read the bill’s text, but we have continuously seen how you link to things you never read, how you have lied and how you have been wrong on most major issues. Why don’t we discuss your love of the way Cuomo killed NY seniors. You bragged about that when that was the topic.

                  1. You keep attempting to focus on the House Select Committee. The National Commission described in the bill is NOT a House Committee. It’s amazing that you call others stupid when you apparently can’t keep hold of the difference between the bicameral National Commission and the House Select Committee. Their names aren’t the same, their composition isn’t the same, the people controlling the membership isn’t the same, … What does it take for you to understand the difference?

                    There was no good reason for the Senate Republicans to filibuster the creation of a National Commission to investigate the events on Jan. 6, which is why you don’t give one. We had a National Commission for 9/11.

                    1. You are not an honest person, nor are you defending an honest position. This is all politics. You like cheating everywhere, including in elections. I’d be thrilled to have a commission to investigate Jan 6, the Kavanaugh hearings and the attack on federal buildings. They are all connected in many ways. You and the Democrats don’t want such an investigation. All they want to do is investigate Trump and his supporters.

                      Look at the abuse of power from the Jan 6 committee. Look at how Pelosi will not release her communications. We have not had an appropriate investigation of the murder of Ashley Babbitt. You are too Stupid to focus on the problems that would not exist if you and people like you understood what we are dealing with.

                      As far as your delusions, I understand what is happening. You do not. I don’t expect much from you, especially since you only know what you have been force-fed by the left-wing media. You are not worthwhile to debate because we can only deal with the Stupidity you bring to the table. Play with your Cuomo doll.

        3. “. . . so certain about the contents of a report that has yet to be written.”

          When I see an arsonist carrying a can of gas and a lighter, I don’t need to wait for him to torch a building to conclude: This is not going to end well.

          “If you don’t like the membership of the House Select Committee, blame” Nancy Pelosi, for kicking off the republicans she doesn’t like.

          There. Made it honest for you.

          1. Nope, you demonstrated your own dishonesty by pretending that my original statement wasn’t honest. Nothing I said was false or misleading.

            If Senate Republicans hadn’t filibustered the bill creating a National Commission, the House Select Committee never would have been created, and Republicans would have had as much control over the Commission’s membership as Democrats.

            For someone who claims to have taught logic, you should avoid analogies that beg the question (your premise that the person with the gas is an arsonist). You resort to a bad analogy because you can’t make a good argument about the actual report.

            1. “Nope, you demonstrated your own dishonesty by pretending that my original statement wasn’t honest. “

              Sam was correct. Your arguments weren’t honest. They were meant to deceive or you don’t understand the relationship between cause and effect.

    2. when the House select committee holds public hearings and releases its report we will all know what really happened on Jan. 6.

      We already know how the lie of the final report will look.
      We have had previews of the committee releasing carefully “editied” (changed/ommited evidence.) We also know the only constitutional power congress has is investigation to aid rule/law making. Knowing what the constituional limits are, we find it corrupt that the Speaker of the House will not be interviewed. Will not be required to make public all of the Speakers communications. As the Speaker is the ONLY elected official that had the power to direct security in the lead up to and the day of January 6th, and days after.

      1. No, we don’t “already know how the lie of the final report will look,” or even that it will be a lie. You assume this. You imagine it. But your assumptions are not knowledge

        1. No assumptions from me.
          The committee got caught editing text messages that change to meaning of the Text. The committee passed it off as some paperwork snafu.

          The committee is releasing selective bits of documents and testimony that furthers the narrative. Leaked, altered information to smear President Trump Pelosi stated out loud it was important to keep the narrative going.

          No fact finding going on. Schiff said the goal was to prevent President Trump from running again. Not a lot of fact finding noted in the comments of the committee.

          1. Until the report is written and released, you can only guess the contents.

            There’s plenty of fact-finding in the hearings where people are testifying under oath.

            1. There’s plenty of fact-finding in the hearings where people are testifying under oath.

              There is ample evidence to believe exculpatory testimony will never see public light. What does get used is subject to editing, and simple changing of content. Shiff has already done that with text messages. They were edited to change the meaning. There is still testimony from Schiffs basement star chamber interviews on impeachment 1.0 that are not public.

              1. Now you’re admitting that your earlier claim, “No fact finding going on,” is false, and you instead think there’s fact-finding that won’t become public.

                You insist “There is ample evidence to believe exculpatory testimony will never see public light,” but you don’t present any evidence. You don’t even say: exculpatory of whom and about what.

          2. ATS has a worthless answer for everything. If one wants a committee to investigate what happened, it starts at the top. The investigation is a new investigation of Trump et al. that is one of many where none of the investigations could find anything noteworthy. It’s time to investigate Pelosi and the FBI along with all the characters involved in the rioting that the left refuses to investigate. Further, they need a special prosecutor to investigate the murder of Ashley Babbitt.

            Along with a bad memory, ATS is dishonest.

    3. “Dennis McIntyre says:
      Jonathan: I doubt the average American could distinguish between a “riot” and a “insurrection”.”

      Perhaps not, but we can spot a pretentious assclown from 1000 miles.

      A riot only happens according to DOJ when there are more than 15 non-liberal white folks near a democrat, (pay no attention to the summer of love in democrat cities).

      Had this been an insurrection (a true one) I think that there would have been 500+ elected traitors hanging from light posts all around WDC, also there might have been weapons there in such a number that the marginal police presence (by design) would have been overwhelmed. As it stands the FBI (an utter shitshow) for a law (no facts in evidence) enforcement agency is an abysmal failure.

      Seditious conspiracy? You mean like when Obama held up ACA for months?

      “You blame the Capitol police and DC for not anticipating what happened and providing adequate security.”
      Hey rocket surgeon that’s their job, (pay no attention to the request from President Trump for Troops on the street, (and after the fact, how the troops were treated by the democrats, like serf’s,)

      And now we have you.

  14. Damaging, Damning, Disheartening. I was not aware that the Senator whom Fauci called a moron is also a physician, an OB/GYN and has delivered over 5,000 babies. Dr Roger Marshall is now pursuing Fauci with a ferocity that will not end well.

    How Fauci has profited from the pandemic: Senator he called ‘moron’ leaks his unredacted financial disclosures that show he raked in $5,000 from one virtual event and he and his wife are worth at least $10 million
    Yes or no, would you be willing to submit to Congress and the public a financial disclosure that includes your past and current investments?’ Marshall asked. ‘Our office cannot find them.’
    Fauci replied: ‘I don’t understand why you’re asking me that question.
    ‘My financial disclosure is public knowledge and has been so for the last 37 years or so.’
    The Center for Public Integrity reported that Fauci’s financial statements were indeed public available, but noted obtaining them was a lengthy procedure: they requested the document in May 2020 and not receive it until three months later.

    – Daily Mail

    Fauci’s “public” financial records have finally been “released” to the public:

    https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Anthony-Fauci-Financial-Disclosures-for-2020-and-2019.pdf

    1. Sickening. Medicine has become a cesspool and everyone suffers equally

      January 15, 2022

      BREAKING: SEN. MARSHALL PROVES FAUCI LIED BY OBTAINING PREVIOUSLY UNPUBLISHED FINANCIAL RECORDS
      https://www.marshall.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/breaking-sen-marshall-proves-fauci-lied-by-obtaining-previously-unpublished-financial-records/

      Cf:

      No, Fauci’s Records Aren’t Available Online. Why Won’t NIH Immediately Release Them?
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2022/01/12/no-faucis-records-arent-available-online-why-wont-nih-immediately-release-them/

    2. No doubt you’re as concerned about Trump lying on his financial disclosure form, declaring it to be true, complete, and correct, despite omitting his payments to Michael Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels. Surely Sen. Marshall wants all members of Congress, President and VP, … to be required to disclose everything he wants from Fauci.

      And Fauci didn’t lie. He said they’re public, which the CPI confirmed is true, not that they’d been published.

      But don’t let that get in the way of your desire to twist the truth.

      1. It’s hard because, some of them live in alternative reality. They see and hear what they want to see and hear.

      2. , despite omitting his payments to Michael Cohen

        What line of the form would you make that specific entry?

        Only an Idiot would believe the financial disclosure is just a copy of your check register. Line item entries are not the purpose of the form.

        1. No one claimed that it’s just a check register, so drop the straw man argument.

          If you had bothered to look at the form, you’d know that he could and should have put the debt on any line he wished in Section 8.

          Have you even looked at the form to see the sections with line item entries in each section?

            1. Trump’s debt to Cohen, which Trump was required to list as a liability until he paid it off. Sounds like you never read the details of this widely-reported story or looked at his financial disclosure forms. If you need to know more, look it up.

              1. “Sounds like you never read the details of this widely-reported story or looked at his financial disclosure forms. ”

                Anonymous the Stupid always has difficulty with facts, so he frequently relies on demeaning the person rather than his argument. Here, ATS demonstrates that he hasn’t researched the subject and is ignorant of what disclosures are and what they mean. In the end, he arrogantly states, “look it up,” but the one that needs to look things up is himself.

          1. Anonymous:

            A debit is not a debt.

            He didn’t have a loan from Michael Cohen. Payments to strippers would not be on a financial disclosure form. Financial disclosures reveal sources of income, assets, and loans. It’s supposed to show your financial picture.

            It would not show your dry cleaner bill, either.

            Donald Trump has got to be the most investigated president in history, and they still haven’t found a crime.

            Most people accidentally commit crimes with some regularity. If you were followed around by a million people, sifting through every transaction you ever made in your lifetime, someone would find something. Even the best tax attorney might eventually make a mistake, or disagree with the interpretation of an IRS agent.

            This is an egregious example of “show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

            That’s not justice.

            1. Karen. it was a liability that Trump was legally required to report, as long ago confirmed by the Office of Government Ethics in the Trump Administration. Your personal opinion about it doesn’t matter legally, and the OGE’s opinion does matter legally.

              Your opinion about what financial disclosure forms typically do and don’t include doesn’t matter. There’s a specific form that the President and many other government officials have to complete — OGE Form 278e — and it has a section for Liabilities, and that section is not limited to loans.

              My point was that whatever information Sen. Marshall wants from Fauci should also be required from others in the Executive Branch, including the President and VP, and also required from members of Congress.

              Do you disagree? If so, why? If not, great, glad that you agree.

              1. Karen. it was a liability that Trump was legally required to report,

                I’m Curious. Is that liability legally required to be re-paid? My memory is the entire event went off with no paperwork. Kind of like an IOU, a moral, not legal obligation.

                1. I don’t know how you bound “the entire event,” but there was plenty of paperwork, including the agreement signed by Daniels, the paperwork setting up the fake LLC, the bills from Cohen to Trump, the eventual checks reimbursing Cohen with a bonus, the statement from Trump on a later financial disclosure form, the written statements from the OGE, … Maybe you shouldn’t rely on your memory. Here are some references if you want to learn: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal#References

                  1. “plenty of paperwork, including the agreement signed by Daniels, the paperwork setting up the fake LLC, the bills from Cohen to Trump, the eventual checks reimbursing Cohen with a bonus, ”

                    This is ATS’s big claim against Trump. It is laughable, but if that is the big complaint, Trump must have been squeaky clean and cleaner than any prior President up to George Washington. ATS’s statement has significant inaccuracies, but one can look at Cohen as a service provider if one deals with what ATS says. I wonder if Trump had to also document the services for water and electric bills along with household maintenance costs. They are all service providers. If Cohen did something wrong, Cohen’s action is not Trump’s. Blame Cohen. How does one set up a fake LLC if the LLC is legally created and listed? What is wrong with a legal document between people? What is wrong with ATS and his mind?

                    I think ATS needs to get back to basics. Anything more difficult is far above his abilities.

      3. “And Fauci didn’t lie. He said they’re public, which the CPI confirmed is true, not that they’d been published.”

        “Fauci’s financial statements were indeed public available, but noted obtaining them was a lengthy procedure”

        Remind’s me of Arthur Dent’s retort that the public notice for the demolition of his house was in the cellar of the municipal building.

    3. Estovir, based on your religious inclinations, I want to ask you, not if Fauci will go to Hell, but whether, when doing so, he will become part of its management.

    4. Estovir,

      Good to see you stopped back by.

      Maybe here is a good place for some of us to spit up some of the poison of the world rather then we hold it inside.

      If one can ignore the trolls.

      There were multiple press releases this week that are very important & I hope to track down/save & repost here. I intend to place them in Emails up hill.

      One was from the Pentagon & another from DARPA confirming pieces of info from Fauci’s run NIAID/NIH/ ect., that Fauci/Others were building/did build the mRNA Gene Therapies & the adapting them to Sars-CV-2 Wuhan Hu1 Covid19 virus. (sic). Think Spike Protein spread & turning off Killer Ts & the HCQ & Ivermecin was know to treat their created problem Before they released their Bio-Weapons, plus.

      That means to me there’s at least the 3rd & 4rd set of govt docs confirming Fauci/Bill Gates/others, even before Prez Trump, were running “Gain Of Function” research, building Multiple Bio-Weapons & Releasing them on the world. Thus multiple International Wars Crimes & Local State “attempted Murder Charges” & “Murder Charges” that can & should be filed against them by any local DA or State AG.

      We’ll all soon see one way or the other.

      Hopefully I’ll have what I wanted gathered quickly later, in the mean time here’s Greg Hunters Weekend Update. He goes through some of that info above, like the Project Veritas release about the Grim Reaper Fauci:

      https://usawatchdog.com/cv19-conspiracy-facts-mandate-sunk-inflation-raging-war-w-russia/

      1. Oky1, the news is poison for my soul and mind. Today I spoke on the phone with my elderly uncle in Miami, who can not return to Cuba due to covid lockdown in Cuba, in what was supposed to be a brief visit in Jan 2020 to see his daughter in Miami. Our phone calls follow a predictable pattern: rehashing Cuba, America, Marxism, and how America is more similar to Cuba circa 1959, all very upsetting. He does not understand Cuba now that he has lived in America for 2 years with his daughter, a US Citizen. Yet he does not understand the need for a 4th vaccine, Pfizer, Biden’s ramblings, people divided in America, protests, riots, violent crime, the ease to make money in jobs (he is 75 working 20 hrs/wk, loving it), the US media (he has lived under one communist party news media rule all of his life), and more, all very heady, philosophical discussions in Spanish. As I finished the long call, my mind turned to Virginia getting a new Governor (we watched the wonderful event on the internet), the Marxist leaning Richmond Times Dispatch already publishing visceral snark at our new governor, and its enough for me to break my iPad into pieces and unplug the internet. I see so much good in people whom I meet, but what I see on the internet is just the opposite. I have a life beyond the wifi, all of it wonderful.

        So we pray, on our knees, remain humble, seek to improve our own holiness, rid ourselves of our own sinfulness, and try to not lose our peace. Fauci is a disappointment. But arent we all in God’s eyes, to answer Allan’s question? I’ll close with this funny quip:

        “Name a disastrous American President across the past two centuries, and Biden will match and raise him. Woodrow Wilson banked on authoritarian technocrats to solidify his rule: Biden is right there with him. Herbert Hoover blundered through and worsened the defining crisis of his Presidency: Biden’s pandemic record has achieved the same end. Andrew Johnson’s governing ineptitude and arrogance squandered the confidence of his party: Biden is presiding over a comparable breakup of his own coalition. Jimmy Carter managed to plunge America into simultaneous economic stagnation and inflation: Biden has done in one year what he managed in four.”

        – Brooke L. Rollins

        https://americanmind.org/salvo/failing-as-predicted/

        1. US Govt & old media/big tech have merged into what I heard is now called: Trusted News Intuitive or we can call it AKA 1984.

          Meantime Pfizer head thinks He/They are God. (Good Luck with that, the Pfizer Sicko)

          “Their portal is fading and all that is left will be what we know if them. They don’t know themselves. They literally don’t even exist other than a schizophrenic voice in our heads and that’s coming to an end. ”

          (Watch later if you wish & haven’t already heard him.)

          https://www.banned.video/watch?id=61ddd7e6eb995c694b261fdd

          Up until now most all of us have lived lives better the Kings & Queens of just a 100 or 200 years ago.

          Jesus has given us all freewheel in a test of who we are & what we do with our choices.

          ” So we pray, on our knees, remain humble, seek to improve our own holiness, rid ourselves of our own sinfulness, and try to not lose our peace. Fauci is a disappointment. But arent we all in God’s eyes, to answer Allan’s question? I’ll close with this funny quip:

          So we pray , act & then we have to figure out how to turn off this earthly world at times.

          My red sauce on spaghetti, a bit of drink & some music takes care of that around here when it’s cold.

          Gnite.

  15. No, I need only point out that, AFAIK, none on the political left have been CHARGED with “seditious conspiracy” in any of the instances I’ve indicated. Moreover, it is impossible to prove a negative (that something did not happen) so the burden of proof lies with you to show that there is a meaningful difference between the behaviors of the 1/6 group on the one hand and on the other hand the Handmaidens (who demonstrably hindered the Kavanaugh hearings) and the thugs who injured many police and chased Trump to a bunker..

    If you can prove that any of the (for example) Handmaidens or the thugs whose violence forced the Secret Service to take Trump to a bunker were charged with “seditious conspiracy,” I will accept that I’m wrong. (In passing, a couple of the Kavanaugh protesters cornered a Republican Senator (Thune?) in an elevator and berated him, apparently to encourage him to get his mind right and vote thumbs-down on Kavanaugh.)

    I myself have been unable to find that any of those folks (Handmaidens or the bunker thugs) were charged with “seditious conspiracy” but both groups demonstrably engaged in, and I quote, “an effort to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution” of a law.

    And in all 3 cases, both Democrats and Republicans were affected.

    A legitimate process was weaponized against the right: at least some Handmaidens and some thugs could have been charged but were not.

    The process was used to punish the right, but not the left,

    1. There’s no reason for the DOJ to charge people with crimes they haven’t committed, and it’s unhealthy for the country if they do it anyway. The onus is on you to show that they committed seditious conspiracy because you’re the one alleging that they could have reasonably been charged with it.

      Lots of people claim that “it is impossible to prove a negative,” but that isn’t true. It’s possible and done on a regular basis. It’s easy prove the negative “no woman has ever been elected President of the US,” simply by looking at the sex of all the people who’ve ever been elected President and seeing that they’re all men. We can prove “there is no live lion in the back seat of your car,” by looking on the back seat of your car and seeing that there is no live lion there. We can come up with lots of negatives that are straightforward to prove.

      Yes, people interrupted the Kavanaugh hearings. But they didn’t use force to do so. Unfortunately, Turley chose to omit that part from his first quote, even though he included it in the full quote, He initially said “The provision in 18 U.S.C. 2384 has long been controversial because it is so sweeping and includes any effort to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law,”” which is false, because they law does NOT include “any” effort to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law.” The law very clearly limits it to “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire … by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States…” For someone to be guilty of seditious conspiracy, both elements have to be present: conspiring and force.

      What force did the people who interrupted the Kavanaugh hearings use or plan to use?

      For “the thugs whose violence forced the Secret Service to take Trump,” you’d have to show that they conspired to do it.

      You say “and I quote, “an effort to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution” of a law.” You can’t just cut off the beginning of the text of the law and pretend that it means the same thing. Notice that even though lots of people used violence on Jan. 6, most of them haven’t been charged with seditious conspiracy. Why? Because they didn’t conspire with others to use force.

      The Rhodes indictment outlines a “Plot to Oppose by Force the 2020 Lawful Transfer of Presidential Power,” where that plot was a conspiracy involving several people.

      “at least some Handmaidens and some thugs could have been charged”

      You keep saying that, but you haven’t once proved that BOTH requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2384 have been met: that they conspired to do so by force. In each case you’ve brought up, one of the two elements is missing.

  16. I find it interesting that these indictments came down the day after the Senate Judiciary Cmte hearing where Senator Cruz questioned the FBI representative who could only answer with “I can’t answer that”

    1. They do this so no one can talk succession
      A constitutional option. Instead we must accept there districts
      ..we’re only a fraction can vote……And we’re some ppl get more vote” counts than other people. Depending on birth certs…..what ever happened to affidavits? Birth certs is what we must have so the European greater expansion..now ducks us.like idemia and I’d .me. Wake up….it’s the mark of the beast.

    2. Why has Ray Epps not been arrested, charged, and prosecuted….considering the Video’s of his activities on the 5th and 6th of January?

      Why was he on an FBI Wanted Poster….then not?

      If he was deemed a “Wanted Person” by one part of the FBI…..what caused that to be….and what caused it NOT to be….and no explanation by the FBI?

      Knowing how inept the FBI can be…..as shown by the DOJ IG’s Investigation of the Russia Collusion debacle….could it be one part of the FBI goofed up and tagged a Confidential Source of one of the Field Offices conducting a covert operation?

      In my days as a Federal Investigator….we would oft times arrest our CI along with the Perps…..as a way of protecting his being a CI for us.

      Is Ray Epps in cahoots with the FBI or some other Law Enforcement Agency or not?

      His denying any involvement is not sufficient proof…..especially when the FBI refuses to go on record under Oath confirming his statement.

      What we need is a Special Counsel Investigation of the January 6th Capitol Affair……and not the sham Kangaroo Court set up by Lips Pelosi.

      I would like to see Trey Gowdy be that Special Counsel….as his reputation of never having lost a Case in Federal Court tells me he would follow the evidence where ever it takes the Investigation.

        1. According to the left, he SHOULD be one of the biggest instigators of the whole thing. He did more, than MANY who are rotting in Joe and Nancy DC Gulag have done. NONE of them should be there. He shouldn’t either, but it seems there is more to his story than the authorities are telling us…and it smells like a set up.

        2. ATS is lying. He has been told before why Epps is of interest. He didn’t make the top 20 on the FBI list for nothing.

  17. It seems a constant effort to focus on one particular side to create the impression that it is that side causing all this mayhem. Actually, those making the cases are the guilty and adroitly redirect it 180 degrees using every resource it has. It is Barian in full view, yet no one seems to be fighting it. And so you get a group of people (and y’all think it’s like 10’s of people… LOL), that find themselves having to fight to protect everything decent in our country. ANTIFA, BLM, et al were planted into the J6 crowd and were primarily responsible for lighting all these fires. It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, yet none of them have been hunted down, or treated like stray dogs. The law has, and is failing the country. The natural response is what we saw on J6 – people freely assembling to protest all of the issues — alleged and real — in a mostly peaceable manner. No one was armed like the ANTIFA and BLM scumbags burning, looting and murdering their way through the summer of 2020. Only 1 death occurred on J6 and that was an unarmed white female murdered by a well-known bumbling idiot black man. He has since faced no charges, even when video footage clearly shows his actions were wrong. 100% if he was white, and the victim black it would be a completely different story. By ignoring these facts it doesn’t make them any less real. They’re facts, they have no agenda other than being facts. And when they’re ignored to fulfill a political agenda you can bet your asses that eventually The People will be heard.

    1. Biden comes up with a new police reform law(executive order), and does it in memory of George Floyd. George Floyd was nothing but a street thug junkie, with a long rap sheet. Biden just keeps digging a deeper hole. This guy is unbelievable.

      1. Then after he “honors the memory of George Floyd” the Dems will wonder why their Latino support is at 30%, their Asian-American support is at 35% and their support among Independents is at 30%. Biden keep trying to get more out of the well of black voters and guilty white voters.

  18. To Anonymous at :7:18 (who told me to “grow up” and that I was “disingenuous) and anyone else reading my 3:33 comment:: I really wish not to be rude, but who is talking about George Floyd??? I am comparing the desecration of property and violence on January 6 -protesting the ELECTION–vs. desecration of property and violence all around the country on Trump’s inauguration day. Just in DC alone, some 230-something arrests, and ZERO convictions.(although 22 people entered pleas). WaPo later reported that DC prosecutors were dropping the remaining 188 inauguration protest cases. And you are twisting my words to make it about George Floyd??? I smile again.Thanks anyway.

    1. Lin, I note some comments have been deleted. Blame it on Anonymous the Stupid because he is a nasty fellow and dishonest.

      In the deleted posts, he cried while attempting to blame other anonymous posters. There are other anonymous posters, but one can generally tell which is ATS because he has a particular ‘smell’ to his writing. Since all the posts have disappeared, one can’t show the extent of his dishonesty.

      He bragged about providing an extensive report, but it is gone. That is very convenient for ATS. Then he claims you haven’t answered his question, but all of that is deleted as well. He is a charlatan trying to push his Stupid ideas onto others.

      I don’t know if you were on the blog when ATS told everyone how wonderful Cuomo was in handling Covid. He even cheered when Cuomo got an Emmy, and I think he slept with a Cuomo doll for a couple of weeks. He is a strange type of guy.

Leave a Reply