Jack Smith’s case got stronger over the past month

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

I could list many more, but if you won't listen to these men, you simply won't listen.

The bottom line is Trump ran the country better than Biden has shown over his time in office and there is no comparison that will put Biden ahead.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

The most alarming thing about January 6th is the fact that a sitting U.S. President participated in spreading lies with the intent on those lies being to gin up an angry crowd.

Borrowing from your mantra:  there is no evidence of this.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

37 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

failed to heed the warnings of an outnumbered police force,

Office Bryd did not give Ashley Babbit a warning, he just shot her.  He later said over the radio that he had been fired upon.  Don’t conflate a single incident with the whole.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

Office Bryd did not give Ashley Babbit a warning, he just shot her.  He later said over the radio that he had been fired upon.  Don’t conflate a single incident with the whole.

I saw the video. If you saw it and think he had no reason to fire or she had no reason to reasonably expect it, it’s just further evidence of your support for lawlessness and your hatred of law enforcement members who aren’t carrying out your agenda.

[Leftfield 2,604]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Borrowing from your mantra:  there is no evidence of this.

You live in an alternate reality. There is no reasoning with a person who believes this.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You live in an alternate reality. There is no reasoning with a person who believes this.

No, he lives in an alternate reality as this is his mantra about Joe being involved in Hunter’s business intrerests and his accusations just have to be proven in a court of law which is coming in both cases.  I doubt before the election though.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

13 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I saw the video. If you saw it and think he had no reason to fire or she had no reason to reasonably expect it, it’s just further evidence of your support for lawlessness and your hatred of law enforcement members who aren’t carrying out your agenda.

What BS.  There were police officers on her side of the partition and they did not object to her actions, nor did they try to stop her.  Why would she have confidence she would not be shot?

You are blinded by you partisanship.  Officer Byrd and the other officers on that side of the partition could have easily subdued a 100 pound unarmed woman.  It was a bad shoot, but you keep defending bad policing.  

Why did Byrd radio that he was fired upon after the fact?

"At 2:45 p.m., or within one minute after shooting Ashli, Lt. Byrd made the following radio call: 405B. We got shots fired in the lobby. We got shots shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us and we’re sh, uhh, prepared to fire back at them.  We have guns drawn. Please don’t leave that end. Don’t leave that end.

Approximately 35 seconds later, Lt. Byrd made another radio call, stating, “405B. We got an injured person. I believe that person was shot.”

In fact, no shots were fired at Lt. Byrd or his fellow officers. The only shot fired was the single shot Lt. Byrd fired at Ashli. He heard the loud noise of the gunshot. He saw her fall backwards from the window frame. The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, 'you just murdered her.' Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide."

 

It was a bad shoot.  I hope the family gets the $30 million.

[Leftfield 2,604]

27 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, he lives in an alternate reality as this is his mantra about Joe being involved in Hunter’s business intrerests and his accusations just have to be proven in a court of law which is coming in both cases.  I doubt before the election though.

You said there was no evidence that Trump spread election lies in an effort to gin up an angry crowd. Even if Trump did not intend for the crowd to attack the Capitol (we will agree to disagree here), to say he didn't lie to stir them up is self-delusion of what you could see with your own eyes. 

You have no problem believing Biden is guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but even with direct evidence you leave it to a court to decide if Trump is. You abandon any sense of objectivity.

[Leftfield 2,604]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Officer Byrd and the other officers on that side of the partition could have easily subdued a 100 pound unarmed woman.  It was a bad shoot, but you keep defending  policing.

This part of your argument is garbage, and you know it. Once one person got through, others would have begun streaming through behind her. She wasn't the only threat. I hate that it happened, but you may have noticed that once it did everyone else backed off.

I'm actually amazed at the restraint the police showed that day. In that situation plenty could have lost their cool and started firing into the crowds, which would have led to many more dying on both sides. 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

to say he didn't lie to stir them up is self-delusion of what you could see with your own eyes. 

That is the whole issue.  Trump actually believes what he has said and that is what Jack is trying to prove is that he intentiallly lied.  The whole case in a nutshell.  You already have him spreading lies.

 

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You have no problem believing Biden is guilty based on circumstantial evidence, but even with direct evidence you leave it to a court to decide if Trump is. You abandon any sense of objectivity.

I do believe Biden is guilty of bribery, but I am willing to wait for his impeachment unlike you who wants to hang Trump for his thoughts.  Interesting.

Be objective.  I’m sure you believe Jack, but he has to prove it.  And Trump is not charged with insurrection, which is what you believe Jan 6th was.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

Just now, Leftfield said:

I hate that it happened, but you may have noticed that once it did everyone else backed off.

Is this how law enforcement is supposed to act; the end justifies the means?

Can you defend Officer Byrd going right to the gun and bypassing other means of controlling the situation.  There was no warning.  Can you justify Officer Byrd’s radio calls trying to cover is negligence?  He knew it.

[Leftfield 2,604]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

That is the whole issue.  Trump actually believes what he has said and that is what Jack is trying to prove is that he intentiallly lied.  The whole case in a nutshell.  You already have him spreading lies.

You may think he believes it. Maybe he eventually actually convinced himself, because he can't accept defeat. Did he believe it at the time? The vast majority of people around him, aside from a small group of sycophants, was telling him he lost and there was no widespread fraud, as did more than 60 court cases. But sure, vote for a man capable of that extent of either 1) Lying or, 2)Self-delusion.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if he believed it. Intent makes no difference in this case, the reality and the result do. Smith doesn't have to prove that Trump believed it.

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I do believe Biden is guilty of bribery, but I am willing to wait for his impeachment unlike you who wants to hang Trump for his thoughts.  Interesting.

And you continue to lie about me (nice throwing the hyperbolic "hang" in there). I've always said Trump should have due process, and you know this. I can still have my own opinion on it. You have an opinion on Biden that you'll share freely, but remain coy about Trump unless pressed on it, at which time you find some way to minimize what he did (i.e. Trump actually believes what he said).

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Be objective.  I’m sure you believe Jack, but he has to prove it.  

I believe what I saw and heard. I believe the evidence and what many Republicans in Trump's orbit testified to during the January 6 Committee hearings. We'll see what happens in court. 

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 And Trump is not charged with insurrection, which is what you believe Jan 6th was.

We've been over this. Not going to rehash it.

[Leftfield 2,604]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is this how law enforcement is supposed to act; the end justifies the means?

Can you defend Officer Byrd going right to the gun and bypassing other means of controlling the situation.  There was no warning.  Can you justify Officer Byrd’s radio calls trying to cover is negligence?  He knew it.

More BS. As I mentioned before, the police showed remarkable restraint overall, as they could have easily started firing before that to gain the upper hand. How far were they supposed to let the crowd go?

A number of people were warning her not to go through, and people in the crowd were yelling that Byrd had a gun before he fired. You can see the gun plain as day in the video, and she had a better angle of it than the camera did. 

You also ignore that that door was literally the last barricade to the Speaker's lobby. If Byrd hadn't shot, people would have streamed into the House chambers, where politicians were still hiding. Even Republicans were saying Byrd had no choice. 

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

24 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Smith doesn't have to prove that Trump believed it.

I disagree with your assessment. What does Smith have to prove?

26 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

And you continue to lie about me (nice throwing the hyperbolic "hang" in there). I've always said Trump should have due process, and you know this. I can still have my own opinion on it. You have an opinion on Biden that you'll share freely, but remain coy about Trump unless pressed on it, at which time you find some way to minimize what he did (i.e. Trump actually believes what he said).

Ok

 

27 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I believe what I saw and heard. I believe the evidence and what many Republicans in Trump's orbit testified to during the January 6 Committee hearings. We'll see what happens in court. 

But this time Trump’s lawyers get to cross examine those witnesses.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

18 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

A number of people were warning her not to go through, and people in the crowd were yelling that Byrd had a gun before he fired. You can see the gun plain as day in the video, and she had a better angle of it than the camera did. 

I surely didn’t hear any warnings.  As to the gun, she is crawling through a window focusing on where she needs to put her hands and legs as she goes.  No why she saw that gun or heard people say a gun was present in the second or two between the warning and the shot.

25 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You also ignore that that door was literally the last barricade to the Speaker's lobby. If Byrd hadn't shot, people would have streamed into the House chambers, where politicians were still hiding. Even Republicans were saying Byrd had no choice. 

Why didn’t the other officers on Bryd’s side offer any help to subdue?  Why was deadly force necessary?  These are questions that will be answered in the wrongful death case.  It won’t change anything and it will not lead to murder charges for Officer Bryd, but it was avoidable.

[arein0 959]

33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

As to the gun, she is crawling through a window focusing on where she needs to put her hands and legs as she goes.  

Your argument loses all credibility with this statement. She wasn't walking through an open door, she was crawling through a window. If an unknown person was crawling through a window at your house would you shoot? I know based on previous threads a lot on here would shoot no questions asked.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

6 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Your argument loses all credibility with this statement. She wasn't walking through an open door, she was crawling through a window. If an unknown person was crawling through a window at your house would you shoot? I know based on previous threads a lot on here would shoot no questions asked.

The statement was made that she should have seen the gun.  Her attention was not on looking around, it was on getting through the window, so she probably didn’t see the gun.  

If an unknown person was crawling through a window at my house I would at least get their attention to see if they would stop before killing them.  Of course, I’m not a cop with training.  Office Byrd was a cop with training and he gave no warning.  Bad police work.

[AU9377 4,950]

On 1/19/2024 at 11:02 AM, Cardin Drake said:

Well, one thing is for certain, I wouldn't be opening the door and inviting them in.

That BS didn't happen.  You really need to stop believing everything someone posts on Twitter or Facebook. 

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/video-doesnt-prove-capitol-police-allowed-jan-6-protesters-to-enter-capitol/

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/

[TexasTiger 12,922]

7 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What BS.  There were police officers on her side of the partition and they did not object to her actions, nor did they try to stop her.  Why would she have confidence she would not be shot?

You are blinded by you partisanship.  Officer Byrd and the other officers on that side of the partition could have easily subdued a 100 pound unarmed woman.  It was a bad shoot, but you keep defending bad policing.  

Why did Byrd radio that he was fired upon after the fact?

"At 2:45 p.m., or within one minute after shooting Ashli, Lt. Byrd made the following radio call: 405B. We got shots fired in the lobby. We got shots shots fired in the lobby of the House chamber. Shots are being fired at us and we’re sh, uhh, prepared to fire back at them.  We have guns drawn. Please don’t leave that end. Don’t leave that end.

Approximately 35 seconds later, Lt. Byrd made another radio call, stating, “405B. We got an injured person. I believe that person was shot.”

In fact, no shots were fired at Lt. Byrd or his fellow officers. The only shot fired was the single shot Lt. Byrd fired at Ashli. He heard the loud noise of the gunshot. He saw her fall backwards from the window frame. The facts speak truth. Ashli was ambushed when she was shot by Lt. Byrd. Multiple witnesses at the scene yelled, 'you just murdered her.' Lt. Byrd was never charged or otherwise punished or disciplined for Ashli’s homicide."

 

It was a bad shoot.  I hope the family gets the $30 million.

You think folks looting a Target should be shot, but someone forcing their way thru a barricaded door to get to congress shouldn’t be? You’re as bad as the worst Antifa thug- two sides to the same coin.

[homersapien 11,382]

You just can't reason with a MAGA cultist.

Whatever part of their brain that was ever devoted to rational, critical thinking has atrophied to mush.  They are oblivious to the truth.

I congratulate those forum members who continue to actively oppose them. It's important.  I only wish they would be banned.  They dishonor the forum.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

On 1/18/2024 at 7:36 PM, AU9377 said:

A large part of the group intended to stop the certification of the election.  They were not peaceful by any measure.  You cannot pretend that this is acceptable behavior.

 

You post this touting *visual forensic* evidence and want us not to believe our own eyes?  What’s the difference here?  You site fact checking from left sources and Politifacts actually says in their article:

We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim. 

Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”

Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/

Let me say that if the police *backed off* that is, in fact, letting them in.  Democrat cities (Baltimore, LA, Portland, Chicago) use this tactic routinely.  Remember Antifa protested for 100 days straight in Portland and their Mayor just contained the mehem.  I guess it shouldn’t be used against right wing protesters though, right?

I love the quote *we have not seen evidence*. The left loves that one.

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

15 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

You think folks looting a Target should be shot, but someone forcing their way thru a barricaded door to get to congress shouldn’t be? Your as bad as the worst Antifa thug- two sides to the same coin.

I do remember some politian thinking this would be the solution, I don’t remember if I agreed with them and we all know it was a touge in cheek comment as I don’t believe anyone took it seriously.  I know I didn’t.

I must be getting to you.

[TexasTiger 12,922]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I do remember some politian thinking this would be the solution, I don’t remember if I agreed with them and we all know it was a touge in cheek comment as I don’t believe anyone took it seriously.  I know I didn’t.

I must be getting to you.

You’re Magtifa 1 on this forum. 

[AU9377 4,950]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You post this touting *visual forensic* evidence and want us not to believe our own eyes?  What’s the difference here?  You site fact checking from left sources and Politifacts actually says in their article:

We have not seen evidence that Capitol Police granted rioters access to the building or that they were “in on” the breach, as some posts claim. 

Footage that appeared to show some officers allowing rioters past barricades was misrepresented online. The journalist who shot the video said the officers backed off the barricade because they were “completely outnumbered.”

Other videos taken at different entrances back that up, and show rioters quickly overwhelming police barricades and eventually forcing officers to retreat

https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifact-did-capitol-police-let-mob-trump-su/

Let me say that if the police *backed off* that is, in fact, letting them in.  Democrat cities (Baltimore, LA, Portland, Chicago) use this tactic routinely.  Remember Antifa protested for 100 days straight in Portland and their Mayor just contained the mehem.  I guess it shouldn’t be used against right wing protesters though, right?

I love the quote *we have not seen evidence*. The left loves that one.

Why would someone breaking and climbing thru a window at a building they knew they were illegally entering assume that they would not be shot?  That makes no sense.  Being overwhelmed by a crowd and inviting them into a restricted space is not the same thing.  You know that.

This has nothing to do with rioting in Portland, Chicago or wherever else.  This is about what happened on Jan. 6th and there being consequences for those actions.  The entire right wing of the Republican party has been lied to so much that many still believe the proven lie that the 2020 election was stolen.  Unfortunately, they would rather adopt a lie than hold those that lied to them accountable for their actions.

Now that they know you will believe anything they tell you to believe, God only knows what the next lie will be.

Edited January 21 by AU9377

[I_M4_AU 7,850]

21 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Why would someone breaking and climbing thru a window at a building they knew they were illegally entering assume that they would not be shot?

Why would a person climb through a window if they knew they were going to be shot?  That is what doesn’t make since.  There were security on her side of the partition and they didn’t stop her or pay much attention.   I believe those security officers were leaving that area when Byrd shot Babbit.  It was a disjointed effort on the part of security.

31 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Being overwhelmed by a crowd and inviting them into a restricted space is not the same thing.

The articles you posted said there was no efficiency they ALLOWED the crowd in, not invite.  The purpose of security was to keep them out, when they were overwhelmed they then LET them in.  No one said anything about inviting them in.

35 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Unfortunately, they would rather adopt a lie than hold those that lied to them accountable for their actions.

This happens on both sides of the aisle.  Adam Schiff.  I guarantee Schiff still believes what he said was true or at least hasn’t recanted.

 

40 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Now that they know you will believe anything they tell you to believe, God only knows what the next lie will be.

I definitely question more than you do.