AUFAN78

I offered an opinion. Take it or leave it. I'm fine with your decision.

No one is trying to change your mind. We all have opinions. Happy Monday!

I gave you an opinion without research. Perhaps Trump and the perpetrators will eventually foot the bill. IDK.

No doubt he rallied the crowd to D.C. The troop salaries question is a good one. They were likely paid by state funds of each responding unit, although federal funds can be used in full-time deployments. Without research, I can't say for certain how it was handled. Damages/repairs were likely federal funds. I think additional fines were levied against perpetrators to recoup some funding as well.

It has been reported he felt he was robbed, asked his fans who felt similarly to march on the capital and have their voices heard. According to J3 briefing he mentioned there would be large crowds and authorized 10,000 troops to have a safe event.

I've been quite clear in my belief that both can be true. Offering 10,000 troops to ensure a "safe event" speaks for itself IMO. And not just my opinion, but that of others in the briefing. What he did or rather didn't do post-attack is another matter. IMO there is no defense for his lack of and/or delayed action.

It was sarcasm. Lighten up, Francis. What do I see? I'm not making the claim. Miller is, so you'd have to ask him. In general, I wouldn't advise taking on the government. My point was testimony/commentary from three individuals, maybe four, that the committee did suppress it. I don't know if they did or did not nor have I claimed otherwise. It is a he said she said moment. I simply provided that info.

His concern according to testimony was for a safe event. That would include streets, buildings, adjacent grounds, and the people.

It took you three hours of typing to come up with that lame response? Damn Go back and look where I implied your naivety. It wasn't complicated. You made it easy. I do not know why he posted what he did, but I cannot imagine taking such a risk if it isn't true. You simply do not know that as a fact. Nor do I know they did, but it is testimony from multiple individuals. I highly doubt someone from the Secret Service will say anything, but redactions and suppression are different issues. You don't have proof of that either.

So we disagree. I believe he had genuine concern as did others in the meeting. Unfortunately, he was told by Miller in that meeting they had it covered. We now know that was untrue. At the end of the day, more than 7500 troops had been called up after it became apparent an assault was occurring. I still contend the entire riot could have been prevented had they followed through on the offer. But as I've stated, Trump's actions post assault was childish. Knowing his temperament he was probably thinking I told you so.

Seems to reason offering 10,000 troops to ensure a safe event speaks clearly to intention. Do you not agree?

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