Imagine if

[Leftfield 2,608]

9 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

I'll add, why offer troops if not for trying to prevent problems?

Because he was trying to prevent his problems, not anyone else's.

Why offer troops to the Mayor of the city if you're trying to protect the Capitol?

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

He was enjoying it. Said they were very special.

So, a guy that has a large ego that likes people to stroke that ego says he enjoys the attention.  Shocking.  It doesn’t mean he wanted it to happen or he wanted anyone hurt. I will remind you he did eventually tweet to stop the violence and go home.  Of course, by that time he was removed from twitter, but the message did finally get through.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

So, a guy that has a large ego that likes people to stroke that ego says he enjoys the attention.  Shocking.  It doesn’t mean he wanted it to happen or he wanted anyone hurt. I will remind you he did eventually tweet to stop the violence and go home.  Of course, by that time he was removed from twitter, but the message did finally get through.

And now he calls the perpetrators hostages and promises to pardon them.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Because he was trying to prevent his problems, not anyone else's.

Why offer troops to the Mayor of the city if you're trying to protect the Capitol?

That sounds like one of your CNN talking points. 

You seem confused. Perhaps it's your partisan resources? 

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

Just now, TexasTiger said:

And now he calls the perpetrators hostages and promises to pardon them.

And?  Did you expect anything less?  Were any insurrectionist if they were not charged with insurrection?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

And now he calls the perpetrators hostages and promises to pardon them.

Which ones?

[Leftfield 2,608]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

That sounds like one of your CNN talking points. 

You seem confused. Perhaps it's your partisan resources? 

I'm sure it does sound like a CNN talking point to someone who would defend a person like Trump.

Please tell me how I'm confused? What facts do you dispute? CBS I might be able to understand, but are you going to explain how the Associated Press and Politifact are partisan resources? Or are you just going to keep posting facepalms?

"Seek truth"....lol.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

14 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Which ones?

Which ones would you deem that characterization and outcome appropriate?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

15 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And?  Did you expect anything less?  Were any insurrectionist if they were not charged with insurrection?

Are they innocent of what they are charged with?

[AUFAN78 3,911]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I'm sure it does sound like a CNN talking point to someone who would defend a person like Trump.

Presenting facts and defending a person are different. That you fail to understand this surprises no one.

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Please tell me how I'm confused? What facts do you dispute? CBS I might be able to understand, but are you going to explain how the Associated Press and Politifact are partisan resources? Or are you just going to keep posting facepalms?

It should be apparent. What facts have you presented? FYI, partisan opinion talking points don't count as facts. And yes, partisan fact-checkers have been proven disingenuous if not flat wrong. Show your ignorance, double down and I'll gladly facepalm you.

 

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

"Seek truth"....lol.

I wish you'd try it. Seriously.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Which ones would you deem that characterization and outcome appropriate?

Say what?

[TexasTiger 12,947]

18 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

And?  Did you expect anything less?  Were any insurrectionist if they were not charged with insurrection?

This close enough?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

24 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Say what?

Sorry. I’m only fluent in English.

[Leftfield 2,608]

7 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Presenting facts and defending a person are different. That you fail to understand this surprises no one.

It should be apparent. What facts have you presented? FYI, partisan opinion talking points don't count as facts. And yes, partisan fact-checkers have been proven disingenuous if not flat wrong. Show your ignorance, double down and I'll gladly facepalm you.

 

I wish you'd try it. Seriously.

As I pointed out, your facts do not absolve Trump of anything, even if he'd meant the troops to be a deterrent against attacking the Capitol, which he clearly didn't.

So, no argument against what I posted? Simply a dismissal of the sources? You refuse to accept that the Secret Service actually did want to review transcripts before they were released? Or that Miller said Trump never gave an order? Or that Pelosi isn't solely, or even primarily, responsible for security of the Capitol?

Unlike you, I've actually debated the merit of your arguments, and not your sources. I'll point out, though, that the irony of someone attacking sources while they're using Fox News as one and an article quoting Kash f***ing Patel in another is off the charts.

How's it going with that supermodel?

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Are they innocent of what they are charged with?

Some were overcharged.  

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

8 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

This close enough?

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

Criminal charges:

Approximately 350 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 110 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department. 

Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.

Approximately 935 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 103 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Approximately 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.

More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.

Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/30-months-jan-6-attack-capitol#:~:text=Criminal charges%3A,bodily injury to an officer.

It sounds like 55 have been charged with what you posted above.  I would think he would not pardon those.  Of the others, some have already served their time and are back in society.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Criminal charges:

Approximately 350 defendants have been charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 110 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer.

Approximately 140 police officers were assaulted Jan. 6 at the Capitol, including about 80 from the U.S. Capitol Police and about 60 from the Metropolitan Police Department. 

Approximately 11 individuals have been arrested on a series of charges that relate to assaulting a member of the media, or destroying their equipment, on Jan. 6.

Approximately 935 defendants have been charged with entering or remaining in a restricted federal building or grounds. Of those, 103 defendants have been charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Approximately 61 defendants have been charged with destruction of government property, and approximately 49 defendants have been charged with theft of government property.

More than 310 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding, or attempting to do so.

Approximately 55 defendants have been charged with conspiracy, either: (a) conspiracy to obstruct a congressional proceeding, (b) conspiracy to obstruct law enforcement during a civil disorder, (c) conspiracy to injure an officer, or (d) some combination of the three. 

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/30-months-jan-6-attack-capitol#:~:text=Criminal charges%3A,bodily injury to an officer.

It sounds like 55 have been charged with what you posted above.  I would think he would not pardon those.  Of the others, some have already served their time and are back in society.

So you sound cool with pardons for those who assault police. Hate the blue?

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

18 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So you sound cool with pardons for those who assault police. Hate the blue?

I love law and order, but I have witnessed illegal immigrants storm US NG members, assaulting them, disregarding authority to do so just yesterday and be let into our country.  I have seen Biden put up Adeel Mangi as a federal judge and he has supported organizations that kill law enforcement officers.  I have seen police officers assaulted during the summer of discontent and the perps not found, much less brought to justice.  I have witnessed the Dems defund the police and release felons with no bail.  Your words ring a little hollow if you are upset that some police were assaulted on Jan 6th.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,947]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I love law and order, but I have witnessed illegal immigrants storm US NG members, assaulting them, disregarding authority to do so just yesterday and be let into our country.  I have seen Biden put up Adeel Mangi as a federal judge and he has supported organizations that kill law enforcement officers.  I have seen police officers assaulted during the summer of discontent and the perps not found, much less brought to justice.  I have witnessed the Dems defund the police and release felons with no bail.  Your words ring a little hollow if you are upset that some police were assaulted on Jan 6th.

 

 

I’m not okay with pardoning anyone you’ve mentioned for assaulting police officers. You are. I support the blue. You don’t.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Sorry. I’m only fluent in English.

Yeah okay.   I asked you which J6 defendants was Trump planning to pardon. When he was asked directly in a recent interview, he stated he would pardon those who were charged unfairly. He specified, not all would be pardoned as some did some very bad things. I've stated previously those who were violent should be locked away. I also felt that some who entered for a photo op, while erring in judgment, were perhaps overcharged. It's simply my opinion.  

[AUFAN78 3,911]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

As I pointed out, your facts do not absolve Trump of anything, even if he'd meant the troops to be a deterrent against attacking the Capitol, which he clearly didn't.

That's an opinion. Yours. Its accuracy is in question.

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

So, no argument against what I posted? Simply a dismissal of the sources? You refuse to accept that the Secret Service actually did want to review transcripts before they were released? Or that Miller said Trump never gave an order? Or that Pelosi isn't solely, or even primarily, responsible for security of the Capitol?

Plenty to argue. As mentioned, the accuracy of your posting, a rambling mess, is in question. Of course, I dismiss disingenuous talking points and fact checks. I'm not sure what your Secret Service transcript point is. I've stated Trump gave no order. I've also shown testimony that he offered the troops. That is not an order. I haven't mentioned Pelosi and I stated who was responsible for Capitol security.

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Unlike you, I've actually debated the merit of your arguments, and not your sources. I'll point out, though, that the irony of someone attacking sources while they're using Fox News as one and an article quoting Kash f***ing Patel in another is off the charts.

You've allowed emotion to guide you. I merely reported factual information. I came into the thread to show testimony under oath that Trump offered troops. Nothing more. It doesn't absolve Trump, but it is factual information. This triggered you. Why?

 

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

How's it going with that supermodel?

What?

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

28 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

I’m not okay with pardoning anyone you’ve mentioned for assaulting police officers. You are. I support the blue. You don’t.

Of course you don’t support it, you like to virtue signal as all Dems do, but you don’t speak out about it when it occurs.  I don’t recall you saying anything about the breach at the southern border yesterday or agains any Biden initiative to weaken our border.

[TexasTiger 12,947]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course you don’t support it, you like to virtue signal as all Dems do, but you don’t speak out about it when it occurs.  I don’t recall you saying anything about the breach at the southern border yesterday or agains any Biden initiative to weaken our border.

I don’t approve of his handling of the border. I think he misjudged it from the start. See how easy that is? Has nothing to do with this topic or the way you continually diminish Trump’s wrongdoings.

[aubiefifty 16,805]

you righties amaze me. if it was antifa you would be trying to hang them in the streets. see how that works? good grief.

[I_M4_AU 7,856]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I don’t approve of his handling of the border. I think he misjudged it from the start. See how easy that is? Has nothing to do with this topic or the way you continually diminish Trump’s wrongdoings.

So you take no personal responsibility for Biden’s border policy, but you believe I should be responsible if Trump pardons Jan 6th offenders?  My God what logic.