Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

The key difference is that Trump directly incited the events of January 6th, whereas there is no equivelent in Dem leadership who did the same for the George Floyd protests.

And Trump didn't simply fail to concede the results, he actively attempted to overturn them in the months that followed by coordinating with multiple states to submit false slates of electors. Then there's the crime of coercion with the Raffensberger call, multiple instances of obstruction, etc. It's like comparing one driver with a speeding violation to a drunk driver causing a twenty car pile up on the freeway and trying to frame it as both drivers breaking the law.

I'm not so sure about that... Chuck Shumer had some pretty interesting statements directed at sitting Supreme Court justices... 

[quote]SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion right cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

[/quote]

Exactly what is he trying to do here?  Sounds like he's trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and right after this, if I have the timeline correct, there was actually an attempt on the life on Kavanaugh.  

 

Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court and making statements like this could absolutely be matched to the comments made by Donald Trump on January 6.  This speech by Schumer could easily be considered illegal.   And shortly after this speech, there was a coordinated effort to protest outside the homes of Justices.

Quote

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1507

 

Like I said... both sides.

 

Overthrow of the Congress... Overthrow of the Supreme Court.    Tom-ay-toes - Tom-ah-toes.    Both are bad. 

2 hours ago, Bill said:

 

The area the shooter was in was under local LE responsibility. (There’s three tiers: close, medium, and long. Locals get the medium.) The USSS should have briefed them better and there still should have been uniforms on the roof, but coordinating something like this is a tough task, especially for local PD. Counter sniper team did their job well. They’re focused on long range threats, so when the shooting started you can see them depress their barrels towards the threat. In the span of a few seconds they went from looking a few hundred yards out to about 150 and hit a target the size of a cantaloupe. 
 

long story short the local LE messed up, but the USSS should have held their hands a little more. 

My understanding is the secret service has the compounding issue of (1) low resources and (2) high turnover.

Basically their funding is low and so they always rely on other agencies for additional security and they have the highest turnover of all the federal law enforcement agencies because the work sucks and has the highest divorce rates.

That said, to leave an obvious elevated position like that unattended seems grossly negligent to me.

1 hour ago, Toastrel said:

Wow, been back a few hours, and it took until now for to reference your line of work.

OK truckstop. 🤣

3 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Ah so he lost an election, failed an insurrection, managed to position himself through legal political means to take power, and had an avid group of supporters willing to commit violence against their political opponents to maintain power?  Ya know what you're right. Zero similarities.  Trump is just a "sore loser" who did nothing wrong and autocracy only rises through successful coups.

Ffs man again I agree with your premise. But your argument is not rooted in reality. It's like me saying "Biden isn't like Hitler at all! Biden loves dogs!"

Never said Trump did nothing wrong.   Does Trump have an army he commands that is willing to go out and murder a bunch of people?   The mob who rushed the capitol sh-t their pants after 1 bullet got fired at them, so they certainly ain't it.  And as much as Trump's rhetoric inspired their actions, they're not an organized group under anyone's command, let alone Trump's.  

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not so sure about that... Chuck Shumer had some pretty interesting statements directed at sitting Supreme Court justices... 

[quote]SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion right cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

[/quote]

Exactly what is he trying to do here?  Sounds like he's trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and right after this, if I have the timeline correct, there was actually an attempt on the life on Kavanaugh.  

 

Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court and making statements like this could absolutely be matched to the comments made by Donald Trump on January 6.  This speech by Schumer could easily be considered illegal.   And shortly after this speech, there was a coordinated effort to protest outside the homes of Justices.

18 U.S.C. § 1507

 

Like I said... both sides.

 

Overthrow of the Congress... Overthrow of the Supreme Court.    Tom-ay-toes - Tom-ah-toes.    Both are bad. 

You don't see a teensy difference between protesting outside a public figures house vs forcibly breaking into a government building?

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Never said Trump did nothing wrong.   Does Trump have an army he commands that is willing to go out and murder a bunch of people?   The mob who rushed the capitol sh-t their pants after 1 bullet got fired at them, so they certainly ain't it.  And as much as Trump's rhetoric inspired their actions, they're not an organized group under anyone's command, let alone Trump's.  

I do believe that members of his cult would attack if trump told them to

3 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I'm not so sure about that... Chuck Shumer had some pretty interesting statements directed at sitting Supreme Court justices... 

[quote]SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER: Inside the walls of this court, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments, as you know, for the first major abortion right cases since Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch came to the bench. We know what’s at stake. Over the last three years, women’s reproductive rights have come under attack in a way we haven’t seen in modern history. From Louisiana to Missouri to Texas, Republican legislatures are waging a war on women, all women, and they’re taking away fundamental rights. I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

[/quote]

Exactly what is he trying to do here?  Sounds like he's trying to intimidate Supreme Court justices, and right after this, if I have the timeline correct, there was actually an attempt on the life on Kavanaugh.  

 

Standing on the steps of the Supreme Court and making statements like this could absolutely be matched to the comments made by Donald Trump on January 6.  This speech by Schumer could easily be considered illegal.   And shortly after this speech, there was a coordinated effort to protest outside the homes of Justices.

18 U.S.C. § 1507

 

Like I said... both sides.

 

Overthrow of the Congress... Overthrow of the Supreme Court.    Tom-ay-toes - Tom-ah-toes.    Both are bad. 

You have to be joking. Schumer's comments were completely out of line but they happened in May of 2020, and the self-reported attempt on Kavanaugh didn't happen until two years later. To pretend that Trump's direct incitement of the riot which began minutes after his speech is the same as Schumer's comments resulting in an attempt on Kavanaugh two years after the fact is laughable. Mind you, the riot resulted in the death of Ashlee Babbit because she believed the lie Trump had been telling her about the election for months, not in just a single instance. I know you are a reasonable and sharp guy from our interactions in the blog. There's no way you can honestly believe these two situations are even remotely comparable.

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Never said Trump did nothing wrong.   Does Trump have an army he commands that is willing to go out and murder a bunch of people?   The mob who rushed the capitol sh-t their pants after 1 bullet got fired at them, so they certainly ain't it.  And as much as Trump's rhetoric inspired their actions, they're not an organized group under anyone's command, let alone Trump's.  

They raised flags with his name on them. Some wore them as capes. Who exactly do you think they did it for if not him? I'm not arguing they they were an effective force. Hell I think 2 of those gravy seals died of heart attacks during the attack (or something like that). But they undoubtedly were trying to disrupt the democratic process for Trump. That's not really debatable. 

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Ok, let's play this out to its logical conclusion then... Why were they trying to disrupt the tallying of the votes? For funsies because they were cosplaying or was there a particular reason behind it?

Oh because they're useful idiots.   Hence why they left on their own after a few hours.  Didn't even have to be dragged out, surrender, or anything.   

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

They raised flags with his name on them. Some wore them as capes. Who exactly do you think they did it for if not him? I'm not arguing they they were an effective force. Hell I think 2 of those gravy seals died of heart attacks during the attack (or something like that). But they undoubtedly were trying to disrupt the democratic process for Trump. That's not really debatable. 

Oh of course THEY were doing it for him, that doesn't mean they're an actual organized force under his command.  

Just now, DEagle7 said:

You don't see a teensy difference between protesting outside a public figures house vs forcibly breaking into a government building?

I said that the sides have acted differently... but both sides have acted poorly.   Intimidating Supreme Court Justices (life time appointments, by the way) and saying that 'they won't see what's coming'?   And then there's an actual assassination attempt on one of the Justices named here by Schumer.   Coincidence?   Maybe.  But, in the history of this country, has there ever been an attempted assassination on a Supreme Court justice?  Or protests outside their homes?

Here's what I know...

Jan 6 was bad.  Check.   Agree 100%.  110% even if you want.

Supreme Court justices having protesters outside their homes trying to intimidate them is bad.   
An assassination attempt on one of the Supreme Court justices singled out in this political vitriolic political rant given by the Democratic Senate majority leader is bad.

So... which side has the high ground here?   From my vantage point, neither one.

4 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

I do believe that members of his cult would attack if trump told them to

Oh I'm sure there are a few deranged idiots in his cult followers that would attack someone if told to.  That's much different than an organized paramilitary group of 20,000 people. 

20 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

And following the logic of those claiming Trump brought the shooting on himself, this assassination will be completely justified.  Demons walk among us.

Trump is objectively the single biggest cause for the current toxic political climate.  It has nothing to do with Republican, Democrat, Left/Right, Conservative, Liberal -- it's the language he uses with his own words, his actions, his rhetoric, etc.  I don't think anyone should stand and cheer if he's killed, but there's quite a bit of cause and effect going on. 

The people vote in a free and fair election, Trump doesn't like the result, and incites an insurrection after losing 60+ court cases.  People can see a larger and larger portion of the Republican Party have aligned themselves with this election denial crap without a shred of evidence.  Trump gets indicted in 4 separate criminal cases and conservative judges have acted to stonewall every pending case.  One just got dismissed today without any lawful precedent.

People aren't going to stand for Trump taking office again without a valid democratic mandate at the polls to do so.  The US Constitution begins with "We The People".  If the people voting at the ballot box can't get rid of him, and your rule of law and judicial system can't get rid of him, then the people's options become limited and something extreme will happen. 

All of the above ignores the fact there are geopolitical forces who will be very much opposed to Trump assuming office again -- for good reason.  Their very survival might depend on it.  Anyone with affiliations toward Palestine or Ukraine, just for starters.  There has already been one pro-Palestinian kook who got rid of a Presidential candidate (unless you listen to RFK Jr., of course)   

  

15 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

No, he's just genuinely that retarded. The unfortunate result of cousin-Fing and bottom tier public education system.

No no you guys are right, the group that totally "stormed the capitol" to overthrow our govt was so serious and organized that most of them meandered around aimlessly.  It was a protest that a few people took out of control.

14 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Ok, let's play this out to its logical conclusion then... Why were they trying to disrupt the tallying of the votes? For funsies because they were cosplaying or was there a particular reason behind it?

They were so close to taking over our country and there would have been nothing we could have done about it. Scary 

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Oh because they're useful idiots.   Hence why they left on their own after a few hours.  Didn't even have to be dragged out, surrender, or anything.   

Did they leave on their own, or flee after shots started?  Because you've said both and they're very different.

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Oh of course THEY were doing it for him, that doesn't mean they're an actual organized force under his command.  

Poorly organized sure, but they were a force under following his instructions.  You can argue his speeches were simply hyperbolic but clearly they did not take it that way.

1 minute ago, Alphagrand said:

Trump is objectively the single biggest cause for the current toxic political climate. 

No, you, and those like you, in the public, the government, and the media, are.

Just now, Mike31mt said:

No no you guys are right, the group that totally "stormed the capitol" to overthrow our govt was so serious and organized that most of them meandered around aimlessly.  It was a protest that a few people took out of control.

YOU SAID THE SECRET WORD!

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Oh because they're useful idiots.   Hence why they left on their own after a few hours.     

That's not answering the question. For what purpose were they trying to delay certification of the votes? What was the next step if that was successfully acheived?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the Eastman memo, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by playing along here.

Quote

Didn't even have to be dragged out, surrender, or anything.

Yeah all it took was the deployment of the National Guard decked out in riot gear to set up a perimeter, sweep the grounds, and secure the building. No biggie!

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

Did they leave on their own, or flee after shots started?  Because you've said both and they're very different.

Poorly organized sure, but they were a force under following his instructions.  You can argue his speeches were simply hyperbolic but clearly they did not take it that way.

"Did they leave on their own, or flee after shots started?  Because you've said both and they're very different"

No, I said that one section of the crowd fleed after 1 shot was fired.   

"You can argue his speeches were simply hyperbolic but clearly they did not take it that way"

For sure, like I said they were inspired by his rhetoric.  

25 minutes ago, TEW said:

My understanding is the secret service has the compounding issue of (1) low resources and (2) high turnover.

Basically their funding is low and so they always rely on other agencies for additional security and they have the highest turnover of all the federal law enforcement agencies because the work sucks and has the highest divorce rates.

That said, to leave an obvious elevated position like that unattended seems grossly negligent to me.

Yeah it’s pretty bad across the board, but pretty bad for them in particular. 
 

I’m seeing recruiting ads all over the place, and like ten/fifteen years ago youd never see anything like that. You’d be fighting against a bajillion applicants and then if you got lucky you’d be left with a spot as a junior agent at the Bum F, IA field office or something. 
 

I think it’s a combo of the boomers retiring, gen Z not having any concept of civil service, and a lot of qualified people going through 2020 and not wanting to deal with it. 
 

Edit: honestly I’m not so sure we don’t just need to start consolidating different agencies. Every department has their own agency, in addition to what’s at DHS and Justice. IMO should be three federal law enforcement agencies: a protective service (glorified building security), a police service (Park Police, NPS, BIA, etc), and an investigative service. Certain agencies you might be able to let do their own thing (ICE, Energy, Postal Inspectors) because it’s a super specific thing that they do and they’re already good at it. And then just roll some of the USSS into the DSS and have all personal protective details go through them. 
 

You’ve got too many big wigs trying to get the biggest piece of the pie and isn’t that big to begin with. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

That's not answering the question. For what purpose were they trying to delay certification of the votes? What was the next step if that was successfully acheived?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the Eastman memo, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by playing along here.

Yeah all it took was the deployment of the National Guard decked out in riot gear to set up a perimeter, sweep the grounds, and secure the building. No biggie!

Oh they thought that somehow it would mean Trump could still be president.  Like I said, useful idiots. 

7 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

I said that the sides have acted differently... but both sides have acted poorly.   Intimidating Supreme Court Justices (life time appointments, by the way) and saying that 'they won't see what's coming'?   And then there's an actual assassination attempt on one of the Justices named here by Schumer.   Coincidence?   Maybe.  But, in the history of this country, has there ever been an attempted assassination on a Supreme Court justice?  Or protests outside their homes?

Here's what I know...

Jan 6 was bad.  Check.   Agree 100%.  110% even if you want.

Supreme Court justices having protesters outside their homes trying to intimidate them is bad.   
An assassination attempt on one of the Supreme Court justices singled out in this political vitriolic political rant given by the Democratic Senate majority leader is bad.

So... which side has the high ground here?   From my vantage point, neither one.

Those are all "bad" sure, but there's a spectrum friend. Not all **** actions by politicians are equally bad or equally impactful.

He lost the 2020 election and will not (to this very day) accept the will of the people.   Keep making light of this point.  It's completely rational.

 

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You have to be joking. Schumer's comments were completely out of line but they happened in May of 2020, and the self-reported attempt on Kavanaugh didn't happen until two years later. To pretend that Trump's direct incitement of the riot which began minutes after his speech is the same as Schumer's comments resulting in an attempt on Kavanaugh two years after the fact is laughable. Mind you, the riot resulted in the death of Ashlee Babbit because she believed the lie Trump had been telling her about the election for months, not in just a single instance. I know you are a reasonable and sharp guy from our interactions in the blog. There's no way you can honestly believe these two situations are even remotely comparable.

Not joking.   Both sides have said bad things and these bad things being spoken have consequences.   Is there a direct line from Trump to what happened Jan 6?  Sure.  Ok.   Is there a direct line from Schumer to assassination attempt on Kavanaugh?   Not direct.   But, when the statements made are vitriolic and are specifically focused on one particular issue... And there's a leak from the Supreme Court about a decision that was coming on this very issue (when has that ever happened before, btw) and between the leak and the official ruling coming out has an assassination attempt, I think there's a strong connection.  Not to Schumer's direct comment, but that comment was emblematic of the feeling towards the Supreme Court for those 2 years.  And he (and plenty of others) made plenty of inflammatory speeches directed at the Supreme Court in the two years in between.  The feelings ramped up during those two years, because it continued to be fueled. 

Far far too much dehumanization of individuals by both sides and far too much flippancy in the type of rhetoric being tossed around... again by both sides.  

The words our political leaders use matter and they need to measure their speech much more carefully.  There are nut jobs on both sides that are willing to do unspeakable things believing that they are doing what's right, because, once again, the ends justify the means.  Words matter.  And our politicians need to be careful about their words. 

11 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Oh they thought that somehow it would mean Trump could still be president.  Like I said, useful idiots. 

Ok good, so since we agree their motive was to delay certification in an effort to allow Trump to remain in power, then that begs the question as to how they came to understand that.

Someone must've instructed them to do so, right? After all, they sure seemed to be pretty angry with Mike Pence about it. So what about Trump and his co-conspirators? Sure seemed like they also thought it could help him remain as President, since I doubt they were they doing this just for entertainment purposes.  What would you say was their next step of their plan if certification was delayed?