AUFAN78

I read the same sources you do. The problem is when they are intentionally disingenuous. Google Trump offered 10,000 troops. The results are disappointing. And yes, fact-checkers are in there doing the same. It's sad. The reporting in the aforementioned search read like first-year journalism. It's simply opinions these days and I get that, but it is still sad we can't get honest coverage. I'll never pretend I can't be a dick, but I tend to respond in kind. I probably shouldn't but I do. About being the smartest guy in the room, it's not an actual attempt. I'm fortunate to have served with many in the intelligence/logistics community and have access to certain information. Neither you nor I know the answer to the question. As with anything, I expect we'll find out in time. Pretty sure Tucker answered the question in his interview with Cuomo. It's a two-part and good read. You have to read between the lines. $$$. It seemed he was cautious about saying certain things that would land him back in front of the committee or in jeopardy. He was warned in a previous interview, so not sure why he chose another. Maybe we'll find out. He doesn't elaborate on the threat, but to make one's life hell doesn't sound pleasant. You're coming across as quite naive. I read them all. There are articles pointing out precisely what I did earlier about fact-checkers. They are often disingenuous in their approach. See the 10,000 troops example. It is intentionally misleading. That way they can claim accuracy. Ornato's testimony corroborates multiple other testimonies. Your opinion. One who was your hero yesterday. You come across as an emotional teenager who borrowed daddy's computer. I told you they were all in the briefing. Each of them heard what was stated. Trump was quoted as saying he wanted the entire event to remain safe. I have no issue with Miller's claim. I don't control IM's thoughts. He is free to his opinion just as you are. Miller reported what he reported. I have no problem with anything he said. I added the quoted statement from the briefing. I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks!

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2024/03/08/florida-lawmakers-unanimously-pass-bill-to-combat-squatting-giving-property-owners-positive-hope/

Thanks. Hard to tell with you these days. So you did "like" and approve his commentary yesterday in the thread yet question him today after learning his testimony at J6 was potentially coerced. Like I said, hypocrite. And for the record, I could have used better language as well. Apologies and I'll try to refrain going forward.

I'm no mind reader like you are homes, but it does stand to reason that 10,000 troops would cover the entire event including streets, buildings, protesters, etc.

Show proof he is a white nationalist. I think you are lying.

Correct and his concerns were corroborated by at least 5 members in attendance.

Yesterday he was you guys' hero, today not so much. Hypocrites.

Frankly, I think both of his points have some validity. Trump has long been known as a con artist. And I do think we need to reign in lawfare, particularly novel lawfare of political opponents. I'm more concerned with MTG, Gates, Boebert, Swalwell, squad members, Bowman, et al.

I still think she could be playing the long game. Post Trump and in due time she might return. We shall see. No defense was allowed which is one of the many complaints regarding the committee.

Six ways from Sunday. He was correct.

I don't think for a minute she's an idiot. I do think she hates Trump and that alone is reason enough to be on the committee don't you think? Additionally, she's quite wealthy, so I don't think she needs involvement in the current GOP. Her voice is being heard and her bank account growing. And frankly, I doubt she cares for the association with the current GOP configuration. She's not alone. There is no doubt the process has been questioned. Does she have a spine? Definitely, but accounts like this one don't help her. The optics are bad and there's little doubt it diminishes her credibility.

I don't live in an echo chamber. You should try it. Props to DailyMail for the exclusive interview. I don't believe I've ever sourced them, but they got the interview. Impressive. Your cherry-picking is noted. He stated he didn't have the resources to "fight" the committee. Newsflash: The government can crush a common man. It's not an all-expense paid vacation. As Miller noted, don't fight the city hall. He said he felt threatened by the committee. He noted they intimidated him and he became fearful of the committee's aggressive tactics as they didn't want him to share his part of a story that threatened their narrative. The bottom line, they wanted him to stay silent about Trump authorizing the National Guard and they would "make his life hell" if he didn't. A review of the panel's investigation by the House Administration Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight revealed that longtime Secret Service official Tony Ornato, who was in charge of Trump's security detail on January 6, 2021, corroborated Kash and Miller's testimonies. It also corroborates former National Security Advisor Keith Kellogg's testimony. Sure, I mean he has a family. I'd imagine their safety as well as his own is a concern. Falsely accused? Do you have proof of that? I mean actual proof, not some partisan disingenuous fact check much less an echo chamber opinion. Doubtful. There have been countless stories and questions regarding the legitimacy of this committee. This one doesn't help. 'I think by now, as we look at the totality of Liz Cheney's hearings, we realize it was political theater,' the former Acting Defense Secretary claimed. 'And I actually was naive enough to think that it was going to be a serious investigation.' And finally, I do find it comical that your hero yesterday (Miller) is unreliable today. You're emotional, frustrated and all over the place. Not hard to see why.

They were all in the briefing. Everyone heard Trump's comments. And this was released yesterday. To say this is troubling is an understatement: I was threatened by the January 6 committee into staying silent, Trump's acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller claims https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13224061/chris-miller-threatened-trump-capitol-riot-committee.html

According to a Department of Defense Inspector General report from November, Trump asked acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley on Jan. 3 about preparations for election protests on Jan. 6. “The President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021,” the DoD report states. “And Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.’” Miller testified to Congress in May of 2021 that Trump also asked him if D.C.’s mayor had requested any National Guard troops and instructed him to “fill” a request. I don't know about you, but "Making sure it is a safe event" sounds all-encompassing.

Fill request. Offered troops. Sounds similar. Progress.

No argument from me. Trump the man/child is why he doesn't garner my support.

It is my opinion if he wasn't concerned he wouldn't have offered. His behavior post-riot is another matter that I've agreed is childish. The two things are mutually exclusive.

That's not cherry-picking. The two terms have different meanings and are critical to the truth. What essential facts have I overlooked/ignored?

It's absolutely true. You have no say in my thoughts. 🤡 I'm not defending Trump. I am however presenting facts. That you can't handle the truth isn't my concern.

Stay strong brother. You got this!

A different topic, but I disagree with everything he did post-attack. I've not argued anything post-attack.

The thread contained some questions as to whether Trump ordered troops on J6. I simply provided documentation showing he offered, not ordered troops in a meeting on J3/J4. Common sense would dictate his concern via the offer. IMO, the non-response shows he's an idiot.

I wouldn't think of it. BTW, how's your recovery going?

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities". If I was fine with it I'd vote for him and support his candidacy.