DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
If they lose it will trigger a failed insurrection, if the win by cheating, it will trigger a civil war. People know what they are dealing with now.
January 6th, 2021
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
Fewer Republicans say it's important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesday.
According to the poll, 57 percent of GOP respondents say it is either “very” or “somewhat” important that federal law enforcement agencies find and prosecute those who stormed the Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent the certification of President Biden's Electoral College victory.
That number is a 22-point drop from March, when 79 percent of Republicans said it was important to prosecute alleged Capitol rioters.
Twenty-seven percent of Republicans now say it is very important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from 50 percent who said the same in March. However, 30 percent said it is somewhat important to prosecute Capitol rioters, slightly up from the 29 percent who said as much in March.
Overall, 78 percent of respondents said it was important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from the 87 percent who said the same six months ago.
thehill.com
"After all, they were just good people like you and me,"
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesday.
According to the poll, 57 percent of GOP respondents say it is either “very” or “somewhat” important that federal law enforcement agencies find and prosecute those who stormed the Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent the certification of President Biden's Electoral College victory.
That number is a 22-point drop from March, when 79 percent of Republicans said it was important to prosecute alleged Capitol rioters.
Twenty-seven percent of Republicans now say it is very important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from 50 percent who said the same in March. However, 30 percent said it is somewhat important to prosecute Capitol rioters, slightly up from the 29 percent who said as much in March.
Overall, 78 percent of respondents said it was important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from the 87 percent who said the same six months ago.
Fewer Republicans say it’s important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesda…
thehill.com
"After all, they were just good people like you and me,"
CatHedral
Well-Known Member
TourorismFewer Republicans say it's important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesday.
According to the poll, 57 percent of GOP respondents say it is either “very” or “somewhat” important that federal law enforcement agencies find and prosecute those who stormed the Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent the certification of President Biden's Electoral College victory.
That number is a 22-point drop from March, when 79 percent of Republicans said it was important to prosecute alleged Capitol rioters.
Twenty-seven percent of Republicans now say it is very important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from 50 percent who said the same in March. However, 30 percent said it is somewhat important to prosecute Capitol rioters, slightly up from the 29 percent who said as much in March.
Overall, 78 percent of respondents said it was important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from the 87 percent who said the same six months ago.
Fewer Republicans say it’s important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesda…
"After all, they were just good people like you and me,"
injinji
Well-Known Member
Those numbers are higher than I would have guessed.Fewer Republicans say it's important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesday.
According to the poll, 57 percent of GOP respondents say it is either “very” or “somewhat” important that federal law enforcement agencies find and prosecute those who stormed the Capitol in a failed attempt to prevent the certification of President Biden's Electoral College victory.
That number is a 22-point drop from March, when 79 percent of Republicans said it was important to prosecute alleged Capitol rioters.
Twenty-seven percent of Republicans now say it is very important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from 50 percent who said the same in March. However, 30 percent said it is somewhat important to prosecute Capitol rioters, slightly up from the 29 percent who said as much in March.
Overall, 78 percent of respondents said it was important to prosecute Capitol rioters, down from the 87 percent who said the same six months ago.
Fewer Republicans say it’s important to prosecute Capitol rioters: poll
Support among Republicans for prosecuting those accused of rioting at the Capitol on Jan. 6 has dropped precipitously in the last six months, according to a Pew Research survey released Tuesda…
"After all, they were just good people like you and me,"
printer
Well-Known Member
After all, they do belong to the party that believes in law and order. Maybe that tells how many RINO's are out there.
printer
Well-Known Member
Jan. 6 panel subpoenas 11, including Pierson, other rally organizers
The committee is seeking documents and testimony from Katrina Pierson, a spokesperson for Trump’s 2016 campaign, as well as Maggie Mulvaney, a niece of former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Each of the 11 individuals is identified by the committee as having been involved with the Women for America First-sponsored rally where Trump spoke on Jan. 6.
“You assisted in organizing the rally held on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, in support of then-President Trump and his allegation of election fraud. President Trump spoke at the January 6th rally shortly before the attack on the Capitol, urging the crowd to ‘fight much harder’ and to ‘stop the steal,’” the committee wrote in letters to each.
The subpoenas seek a range of records that include materials dealing with the planning, funding, and participation in the rally, as well as other events organized by Women for America First, including two “March for Trump” nationwide bus tours.
“According to press reports those working with you and [Women for America First] WFAF to organize the Jan. 6 rally collectively communicated with President Trump, White House officials, including Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and others about the rally and other events planned to coincide with the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results,” each letter states.
The letters, the second set of subpoenas issued by the committee, were sent in the span of a week from those issued to several former Trump aides, including Meadows.
The subpoena to Meadows mentioned his coordination with the group, including its head, Amy Kremer, the founder and chair of Women for America First.
Wednesday's letters, like those from the week prior, highlight the committee’s interest in what Trump was doing on Jan. 6.
While subpoenas to his aides more broadly sought information from those who spent substantial time with the then-president that day, the newest letters indicate a committee zeroing in on how the rally was tied to the attack that followed.
“On the same day that WFAF submitted the original permit application for the Jan. 6 rally on behalf of WFAF, President Trump tweeted, ‘Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild,’” the subpoenas note.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Jan. 6 panel member who led the Democrats’ prosecution during Trump’s impeachment trial after the attack, said the committee is trying to “reconstruct” how pro-Trump rallies morphed into a violent and deadly insurrection.
“A lot of the focus related to this next round of subpoenas revolves around the organizing of the Save America rally on Jan. 6 and the pro-MAGA rally on Jan. 5,” Raskin told reporters on the Capitol steps.
“So we're trying to reconstruct exactly the organizational contours of the rally that became a riot, who paid for it, who organized it, who coordinated it, and what were the relationships between the official rally organizers and the insurrectionist groups that committed the first round of violent acts on that day.”
thehill.com
The committee is seeking documents and testimony from Katrina Pierson, a spokesperson for Trump’s 2016 campaign, as well as Maggie Mulvaney, a niece of former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.
Each of the 11 individuals is identified by the committee as having been involved with the Women for America First-sponsored rally where Trump spoke on Jan. 6.
“You assisted in organizing the rally held on the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021, in support of then-President Trump and his allegation of election fraud. President Trump spoke at the January 6th rally shortly before the attack on the Capitol, urging the crowd to ‘fight much harder’ and to ‘stop the steal,’” the committee wrote in letters to each.
The subpoenas seek a range of records that include materials dealing with the planning, funding, and participation in the rally, as well as other events organized by Women for America First, including two “March for Trump” nationwide bus tours.
“According to press reports those working with you and [Women for America First] WFAF to organize the Jan. 6 rally collectively communicated with President Trump, White House officials, including Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and others about the rally and other events planned to coincide with the certification of the 2020 Electoral College results,” each letter states.
The letters, the second set of subpoenas issued by the committee, were sent in the span of a week from those issued to several former Trump aides, including Meadows.
The subpoena to Meadows mentioned his coordination with the group, including its head, Amy Kremer, the founder and chair of Women for America First.
Wednesday's letters, like those from the week prior, highlight the committee’s interest in what Trump was doing on Jan. 6.
While subpoenas to his aides more broadly sought information from those who spent substantial time with the then-president that day, the newest letters indicate a committee zeroing in on how the rally was tied to the attack that followed.
“On the same day that WFAF submitted the original permit application for the Jan. 6 rally on behalf of WFAF, President Trump tweeted, ‘Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild,’” the subpoenas note.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Jan. 6 panel member who led the Democrats’ prosecution during Trump’s impeachment trial after the attack, said the committee is trying to “reconstruct” how pro-Trump rallies morphed into a violent and deadly insurrection.
“A lot of the focus related to this next round of subpoenas revolves around the organizing of the Save America rally on Jan. 6 and the pro-MAGA rally on Jan. 5,” Raskin told reporters on the Capitol steps.
“So we're trying to reconstruct exactly the organizational contours of the rally that became a riot, who paid for it, who organized it, who coordinated it, and what were the relationships between the official rally organizers and the insurrectionist groups that committed the first round of violent acts on that day.”
Jan. 6 panel subpoenas 11, including Pierson, other rally organizers
The committee investigating the Jan. 6 riot released 11 new subpoenas Wednesday night, targeting the spokesperson for former President Trump’s campaign and a host of other individuals involved in p…
thehill.com
here we go!..cop indicted told a rioter to tamper with evidence.
In mid-January, Riley told the person to "Get off of social media."
"Theyre arresting dozens of people aday. Everyone that was in the building, engaged in violent acts, or destruction of property...and theyre all being charged federally with felonies," Riley allegedly wrote.
www.cnn.com
In mid-January, Riley told the person to "Get off of social media."
"Theyre arresting dozens of people aday. Everyone that was in the building, engaged in violent acts, or destruction of property...and theyre all being charged federally with felonies," Riley allegedly wrote.
US Capitol Police officer indicted on obstruction of justice charges in connection with January 6
A US Capitol Police officer was indicted on obstruction charges in connection to the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.
www.cnn.com
injinji
Well-Known Member
Just friends helping friends. lolhere we go!..cop indicted told a rioter to tamper with evidence.
In mid-January, Riley told the person to "Get off of social media."
"Theyre arresting dozens of people aday. Everyone that was in the building, engaged in violent acts, or destruction of property...and theyre all being charged federally with felonies," Riley allegedly wrote.
US Capitol Police officer indicted on obstruction of justice charges in connection with January 6
A US Capitol Police officer was indicted on obstruction charges in connection to the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
‘Dozens’ of Oregon Cops Have Paid Dues to the Oath Keepers Militia Group: Report
Law enforcement officers across the country are being exposed as having belonged to the far-right, anti-government group thanks to a trove of leaked data
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Reading quotes from these Jan 6 rioters is hilarious. What is especially noteworthy is how similar they sound to the jerks who come here to troll this forum with right wing garbage.
apnews.com
Bauer, who owns a restaurant in rural Kane, Pennsylvania, has repeatedly interrupted the judge during hearings. She also has argued in vain that the court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over her, expressing an ideology that appears to comport with the “sovereign citizens” extremist movement.
During a July 19 hearing, Bauer told McFadden that she doesn’t want “any lawyering from the bench.” When the judge denied her request to dismiss her charges, she asked, “On what terms?”
After U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled last month that Eric Bochene can represent himself, the upstate New York man submitted a “fee schedule” in which he appeared to be attempting to create a structure for him to collect fees for working on his own case.
The filing indicates he wants to charge up to $250,000 for spending two hours in court if he feels he is appearing “under protest and duress” and $50,000 if he is there voluntarily. A “forced giving of bodily fluids” carries a $5 million charge under Bochene’s billing schedule.
The judge denied the request, noting that Bochene hasn’t been ordered to take any actions requiring payment. “Furthermore, to the extent Defendant is seeking payment for appearing in Court, that argument lacks merit,” said the judge’s terse order.
Fellows told McFadden that he used what he described as a “loophole” he had read about online to disqualify a different judge overseeing an unrelated case in New York. Fellows said he listed a phone number for that judge’s wife as his own number in court records to make it appear that he knows the woman.
Fellows said he also asked the public defender who represented him before he rebuffed counsel in the riot case if he should try to get McFadden replaced by contacting the judge’s family, but the lawyer warned him that would get him arrested.
In denying Fellows’ bid for release, McFadden told Fellows that he admitted to likely obstructing justice in the New York case and considering it in his riot case.
Risky business: Some Capitol riot defendants forgo lawyers
At least five people charged in the riot at the U.S. Capitol have chosen to defend themselves in court.
apnews.com
Bauer, who owns a restaurant in rural Kane, Pennsylvania, has repeatedly interrupted the judge during hearings. She also has argued in vain that the court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over her, expressing an ideology that appears to comport with the “sovereign citizens” extremist movement.
During a July 19 hearing, Bauer told McFadden that she doesn’t want “any lawyering from the bench.” When the judge denied her request to dismiss her charges, she asked, “On what terms?”
After U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled last month that Eric Bochene can represent himself, the upstate New York man submitted a “fee schedule” in which he appeared to be attempting to create a structure for him to collect fees for working on his own case.
The filing indicates he wants to charge up to $250,000 for spending two hours in court if he feels he is appearing “under protest and duress” and $50,000 if he is there voluntarily. A “forced giving of bodily fluids” carries a $5 million charge under Bochene’s billing schedule.
The judge denied the request, noting that Bochene hasn’t been ordered to take any actions requiring payment. “Furthermore, to the extent Defendant is seeking payment for appearing in Court, that argument lacks merit,” said the judge’s terse order.
Fellows told McFadden that he used what he described as a “loophole” he had read about online to disqualify a different judge overseeing an unrelated case in New York. Fellows said he listed a phone number for that judge’s wife as his own number in court records to make it appear that he knows the woman.
Fellows said he also asked the public defender who represented him before he rebuffed counsel in the riot case if he should try to get McFadden replaced by contacting the judge’s family, but the lawyer warned him that would get him arrested.
In denying Fellows’ bid for release, McFadden told Fellows that he admitted to likely obstructing justice in the New York case and considering it in his riot case.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Remember they don't like experts, whether they be scientists, doctors or lawyers, they know better than those elites called professionals.Reading quotes from these Jan 6 rioters is hilarious. What is especially noteworthy is how similar they sound to the jerks who come here to troll this forum with right wing garbage.
View attachment 5011525Risky business: Some Capitol riot defendants forgo lawyers
At least five people charged in the riot at the U.S. Capitol have chosen to defend themselves in court.
Bauer, who owns a restaurant in rural Kane, Pennsylvania, has repeatedly interrupted the judge during hearings. She also has argued in vain that the court doesn’t have any jurisdiction over her, expressing an ideology that appears to comport with the “sovereign citizens” extremist movement.
During a July 19 hearing, Bauer told McFadden that she doesn’t want “any lawyering from the bench.” When the judge denied her request to dismiss her charges, she asked, “On what terms?”
View attachment 5011526
After U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss ruled last month that Eric Bochene can represent himself, the upstate New York man submitted a “fee schedule” in which he appeared to be attempting to create a structure for him to collect fees for working on his own case.
The filing indicates he wants to charge up to $250,000 for spending two hours in court if he feels he is appearing “under protest and duress” and $50,000 if he is there voluntarily. A “forced giving of bodily fluids” carries a $5 million charge under Bochene’s billing schedule.
The judge denied the request, noting that Bochene hasn’t been ordered to take any actions requiring payment. “Furthermore, to the extent Defendant is seeking payment for appearing in Court, that argument lacks merit,” said the judge’s terse order.
View attachment 5011527
Fellows told McFadden that he used what he described as a “loophole” he had read about online to disqualify a different judge overseeing an unrelated case in New York. Fellows said he listed a phone number for that judge’s wife as his own number in court records to make it appear that he knows the woman.
Fellows said he also asked the public defender who represented him before he rebuffed counsel in the riot case if he should try to get McFadden replaced by contacting the judge’s family, but the lawyer warned him that would get him arrested.
In denying Fellows’ bid for release, McFadden told Fellows that he admitted to likely obstructing justice in the New York case and considering it in his riot case.
The DOJ should have called back thousands of FBI agents and DOJ officials temporarily from retirement, tracked down every last one and threw the fucking book at the lot of them. One year in prison minimum for being on the grounds looking stupid and 5 years for being inside the building just looking stupid, much more for the violent ones, organizers and leaders. America has a vast federal prison system and there would be plenty of room for 5000 or more racist assholes and traitors. Many might be mentally ill, but America's prisons are full of them anyway. They need to be examples of what happens when you try to overthrow democracy, the constitution and rule of law. There is no real reason to go easy on these idiots either and every reason to throw the book at them. Thousands are doing real hard time everyday for relatively minor crimes in comparison.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Thank you for the advice. I'll pass that on to my Congressmen.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Ya either make them pay for this bullshit or see a repeat. If it was democrats who stormed the capitol they would have been shot and the republicans would be screaming for them to be hung. I see people doing serious federal time and being indicted over minor crimes everyday, Trump and his supporters enjoy a special statues, they are apparently above the law.
printer
Well-Known Member
Jan. 6 panel denies Bannon attempt to delay criminal referral vote
Trump’s suit seeks to block the committee from a sweeping trove of records sought from the National Archives, claiming the move violates executive privilege. President Biden earlier this month waived his executive privilege claims to the documents.
A letter from Bannon’s attorney asks for a weeklong delay “so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this pending legislation.”
Even before Trump formally filed the suit, Bannon had said he would not comply with the committee’s subpoena until the former president's executive privilege case was addressed by the courts.
Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) denied the request, calling the committee’s work “extremely important and urgent for the nation.”
“Further delay in compliance by Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the committee to timely complete its essential responsibilities,” he continued.
Documents released by the committee also include a White House letter to Bannon arguing that Biden as the sitting president has the right to make executive privilege claims.
“As you are aware, Mr. Bannon’s tenure as a White House employee ended in 2017,” deputy counsel Jonathan Su wrote.
“To the extent any privileges could apply to Mr. Bannon’s conversations with the former president or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure, President Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest and therefor not justified.”
The committee will vote Tuesday night on whether to refer Bannon to the Department of Justice for criminal charges, facing the possibility of a fine, jail time or both. The matter will then be forwarded for a full House vote.
thehill.com
Trump’s suit seeks to block the committee from a sweeping trove of records sought from the National Archives, claiming the move violates executive privilege. President Biden earlier this month waived his executive privilege claims to the documents.
A letter from Bannon’s attorney asks for a weeklong delay “so that we might thoughtfully assess the impact of this pending legislation.”
Even before Trump formally filed the suit, Bannon had said he would not comply with the committee’s subpoena until the former president's executive privilege case was addressed by the courts.
Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) denied the request, calling the committee’s work “extremely important and urgent for the nation.”
“Further delay in compliance by Mr. Bannon undermines the ability of the committee to timely complete its essential responsibilities,” he continued.
Documents released by the committee also include a White House letter to Bannon arguing that Biden as the sitting president has the right to make executive privilege claims.
“As you are aware, Mr. Bannon’s tenure as a White House employee ended in 2017,” deputy counsel Jonathan Su wrote.
“To the extent any privileges could apply to Mr. Bannon’s conversations with the former president or White House staff after the conclusion of his tenure, President Biden has already determined that an assertion of executive privilege is not in the public interest and therefor not justified.”
The committee will vote Tuesday night on whether to refer Bannon to the Department of Justice for criminal charges, facing the possibility of a fine, jail time or both. The matter will then be forwarded for a full House vote.
Jan. 6 panel denies Bannon attempt to delay criminal referral vote
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol has shot down a last-minute request from former White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon to delay a scheduled vote to refer him…
thehill.com
