Imagine if

[Leftfield 2,654]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

I would point out that Milley was explaining what Miller told him Trump had asked for. What I posted was Miller explaining what Trump told him directly.

You may still consider mine an opinion, but if so even I_M shares it, because early in this thread he posted: 

Trump mentioned several times he wanted the troops to combat the Antifa and BLM protesters he thought would be there, but you don’t believe anything he says….so. 

I'm sure you'll appreciate the irony of that last little bit.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I would point out that Milley was explaining what Miller told him Trump had asked for. What I posted was Miller explaining what Trump told him directly.

You may still consider mine an opinion, but if so even I_M shares it, because early in this thread he posted: 

Trump mentioned several times he wanted the troops to combat the Antifa and BLM protesters he thought would be there, but you don’t believe anything he says….so. 

I'm sure you'll appreciate the irony of that last little bit.

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

 

[Leftfield 2,654]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

 

First of all, I can't believe you attack the sources I use but throw up something from Dailymail without a hint of irony.

Second, he felt threatened because they might make him...testify more? Are you serious?  That's what he said several times in that article. He didn't want to deal with additional questioning. Nothing about physical threats or tearing down his career. He just didn't want to go back in front of the Committee. Oh my, how terrifying. That certainly sounds worse than anything Trump might do to him if he found out Miller wasn't doing everything he could to help him, doesn't it?

This is definitely something he was wise to keep close to the vest all this time. At least until somebody falsely accused the Committee of suppressing evidence and he could use this story to reinforce it.

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

First of all, I can't believe you attack the sources I use but throw up something from Dailymail without a hint of irony.

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.

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Second, he felt threatened because they might make him...testify more? Are you serious?  That's what he said several times in that article. He didn't want to deal with additional questioning. Nothing about physical threats or tearing down his career. He just didn't want to go back in front of the Committee. Oh my, how terrifying. That certainly sounds worse than anything Trump might do to him if he found out Miller wasn't doing everything he could to help him, doesn't it?

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.

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

This is definitely something he was wise to keep close to the vest all this time. 

Sure, I mean he has a family. I'd imagine their safety as well as his own is a concern.

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

At least until somebody falsely accused the Committee of suppressing evidence and he could use this story to reinforce it.

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. 

[auburnatl1 5,023]

5 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

Let’s supposed Cheney isn’t an idiot. Might even be smart Political theatre? Question. Why would she agree to be on the committee to begin with? The GOP is only about Trump submission and loyalty - it was  guaranteed political exile.  She knew it. So why?

You can question how she handled the process but imo she was one of the last gop politicians with a spine.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

27 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

Remember this blast from the past?

Schumer, of the *reap the whirlwind* threat to the SCOTUS, has a tendancy to say the quiet part out loud and nobody notices.  Trump has the ability, financially, to withstand the onslaught back then.  I thought he was toast back in 2017 just for this reason.  He proved me wrong.

I wonder how much of what we see now from the three letter agencies and the DOJ is just vindictiveness?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

16 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Let’s supposed Cheney isn’t an idiot. Might even be smart Political theatre? Question. Why would she agree to be on the committee to begin with? The GOP is only about Trump submission and loyalty - it was  guaranteed political exile.  She knew it. So why?

You can question how she handled the process but imo she was one of the last gop politicians with a spine.

She was playing the long game.  I would think she felt that after the Jan 6th *insurrection* she felt to convict Trump of something tangible was very likely and she would be the one that brought him down.  With him out of the picture, she could be a viable candidate for the old school Republicans and, possibly, win the party’s nomination.

There was not one Republican on the committee that put up any sort of defense of Trump during that whole side show.  It was just one sided and it showed. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

5 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Let’s supposed Cheney isn’t an idiot. Might even be smart Political theatre? Question. Why would she agree to be on the committee to begin with? The GOP is only about Trump submission and loyalty - it was  guaranteed political exile.  She knew it. So why?

You can question how she handled the process but imo she was one of the last gop politicians with a spine.

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. 

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Remember this blast from the past?

Schumer, of the *reap the whirlwind* threat to the SCOTUS, has a tendancy to say the quiet part out loud and nobody notices.  Trump has the ability, financially, to withstand the onslaught back then.  I thought he was toast back in 2017 just for this reason.  He proved me wrong.

I wonder how much of what we see now from the three letter agencies and the DOJ is just vindictiveness?

Six ways from Sunday. He was correct.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

She was playing the long game.  I would think she felt that after the Jan 6th *insurrection* she felt to convict Trump of something tangible was very likely and she would be the one that brought him down.  With him out of the picture, she could be a viable candidate for the old school Republicans and, possibly, win the party’s nomination.

There was not one Republican on the committee that put up any sort of defense of Trump during that whole side show.  It was just one sided and it showed. 

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. 

[auburnatl1 5,023]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

 

Rubio in 2016 vs Rubio today. Same for graham and Cruz. Endless list.  Gop today:  party of total compassless pansies

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/26/dallas-rubio-eviscerates-con-artist-trump/

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4552495-rubio-says-trump-immunity-claims-raise-a-legitimate-issue/amp/

 

[homersapien 11,440]

23 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

I say they are.  Otherwise, we can add schizophrenia to his list of psychological problems.

Edited March 24 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

Rubio in 2016 vs Rubio today. Same for graham and Cruz. Endless list.  Gop today:  party of total compassless pansies

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/26/dallas-rubio-eviscerates-con-artist-trump/

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4552495-rubio-says-trump-immunity-claims-raise-a-legitimate-issue/amp/

 

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. 

Edited March 24 by AUFAN78

[AUFAN78 3,926]

Just now, homersapien said:

You really take such a statement from Chris Miller as accurate???

Seriously?? 

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

[homersapien 11,440]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I say they are.  Otherwise, we can add schizophrenia to his list of psychological problems.

You didn't like that, so let's pursue it.  Maybe I don't understand your argument.  Let's see:

You contend that Trump was concerned about potential violence on Jan. 6 because of statements he made either asking for or about National Guard Support a few days earlier, regardless of what he indisputably demonstrated while the riot was taking place.

Is that about right?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You didn't like that, so let's pursue it.  Maybe I don't understand your argument.  Let's see:

You contend that Trump was concerned about potential violence on Jan. 6 because of statements he made either asking for or about National Guard Support a few days earlier, regardless of what he indisputably demonstrated while the riot was taking place.

Is that about right?

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

[AUFAN78 3,926]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Chris Miller is a White Nationalist.  He has never been my hero - or any liberals hero. 

I think you are just lying now.  Prove me wrong.

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

[homersapien 11,440]

11 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

So he was "concerned" then he wasn't.

Considering his actions - or lack thereof  after violence broke out - not to mention the quotes leftfield introduced, don't you think it's more reasonable to assume his initial concern to be about violence against his supporters as opposed to violence in general?

How do you explain

[homersapien 11,440]

22 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

My apologies.

I wasn't "lying" I was mistaken.

I was confusing Chris Miller with Stephen Miller.

Again, my apologies for suggesting you were lying.  I thought you were suggesting Stephen Miller was a hero to liberals. My bad.

 

Edited March 24 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So he was "concerned" then he wasn't.

Considering his actions - or lack thereof  after violence broke out - not to mention the quotes leftfield introduced, don't you think it's more reasonable to assume his initial concern to be about violence against his supporters as opposed to violence in general?

How do you explain

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.  

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

My apologies.

I wasn't "lying" I was mistaken.

I was confusing Chris Miller with Stephen Miller.

 

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.

Edited March 24 by AUFAN78

[Leftfield 2,654]

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I don't live in an echo chamber. You should try it. 

I didn't say I never read it, I say it's a biased source. Certainly more biased that those I used. I read opinions and news from sources that I disagree with, but it's hysterical that you rag on my sources while you use something like this. It reads like a first year journalism major wrote it.

You love to be a condescending prick about stuff like this. You remind me of guys like Aaron Rodgers, who think they're the smartest guys in the room and they're one of the few that can see behind the curtain, when in reality everyone sees them as unlikeable loons.

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Props to DailyMail for the exclusive interview. I don't believe I've ever sourced them, but they got the interview. Impressive.

Have you stopped to think why a Trump loyalist would give them an exclusive interview?

I wonder why Putin would grant an interview to Tucker Carlson? 

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

Didn't have the resources to fight them from making him testify further? Again, that's all he mentioned they said directly. Everything else he admits was implied or his interpretation. He was the one who said he interpreted it as them saying they would make his life hell. He didn't say anyone on the Committee told him that. 

The article is vague and devoid of any direct evidence that anything else was threatened. Nothing is even asked as to why Miller is only saying this now. The Committee issued their report almost a year and half ago. Why has he waited?

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

You "imagine." Nice editorial. Where in that article did he say he felt his family was at risk? If he had felt that was an issue, wouldn't he have said it? You like to accuse people of cherry-picking, but have no problem just pulling stuff out of your ass.

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

Did you actually read the article I posted about it, or did you just dismiss it because you think Politifact is in the tank for the left? Politifact has a mild left lean but they're at least respected as an accurate source.

In that article they link to a letter written by the Committee to the Department of Homeland Security. They explain that they released Ornato's transcript since he was no longer an employee of the Secret Service, but the release was significantly redacted due to Secret Service concerns. If the Secret Service comes out and says that's not true, then we can revisit this, but I haven't heard anything to that effect.

 

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

There have been countless stories and questions regarding the legitimacy of this committee. 

By countless unbiased people, of course.

 

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

'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.'

From a Trump loyalist.

 

4 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

And finally, I do find it comical that your hero yesterday (Miller) is unreliable today. 

Lol....no, you muppet, he was just effective in showing what Trump's true intention was. As I said, even I_M knew the reason Trump asked for troops. You going to accuse I_M of being biased against Trump? Miller testified as to what Trump said to him, whereas in the article you posted he referred to what he "felt." You tell me which you think is more reliable.

Once again, you like to accuse, yet you take Miller completely at his word in the Daily Mail article and dismiss what he claims Trump told him directly. 

 

5 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

You're emotional, frustrated and all over the place. Not hard to see why. 

Yep...Aaron Rodgers.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

44 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I didn't say I never read it, I say it's a biased source. Certainly more biased that those I used. I read opinions and news from sources that I disagree with, but it's hysterical that you rag on my sources while you use something like this. It reads like a first year journalism major wrote it.

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. 

 

54 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You love to be a condescending prick about stuff like this. You remind me of guys like Aaron Rodgers, who think they're the smartest guys in the room and they're one of the few that can see behind the curtain, when in reality everyone sees them as unlikeable loons.

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. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Have you stopped to think why a Trump loyalist would give them an exclusive interview?

I wonder why Putin would grant an interview to Tucker Carlson? 

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. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Didn't have the resources to fight them from making him testify further? Again, that's all he mentioned they said directly. Everything else he admits was implied or his interpretation. He was the one who said he interpreted it as them saying they would make his life hell. He didn't say anyone on the Committee told him that. 

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.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

You "imagine." Nice editorial. Where in that article did he say he felt his family was at risk? If he had felt that was an issue, wouldn't he have said it? You like to accuse people of cherry-picking, but have no problem just pulling stuff out of your ass.

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. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Did you actually read the article I posted about it, or did you just dismiss it because you think Politifact is in the tank for the left? Politifact has a mild left lean but they're at least respected as an accurate source.

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.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

In that article they link to a letter written by the Committee to the Department of Homeland Security. They explain that they released Ornato's transcript since he was no longer an employee of the Secret Service, but the release was significantly redacted due to Secret Service concerns. If the Secret Service comes out and says that's not true, then we can revisit this, but I haven't heard anything to that effect.

Ornato's testimony corroborates multiple other testimonies. 

 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

By countless unbiased people, of course.

Your opinion.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

From a Trump loyalist.

One who was your hero yesterday. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Lol....no, you muppet, he was just effective in showing what Trump's true intention was. As I said, even I_M knew the reason Trump asked for troops. You going to accuse I_M of being biased against Trump? Miller testified as to what Trump said to him, whereas in the article you posted he referred to what he "felt." You tell me which you think is more reliable.

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. 

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Once again, you like to accuse, yet you take Miller completely at his word in the Daily Mail article and dismiss what he claims Trump told him directly. 

Miller reported what he reported. I have no problem with anything he said. I added the quoted statement from the briefing.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Yep...Aaron Rodgers.

I'll take it as a compliment. Thanks! 

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.  

No doubt.  But the subject in hand is intention - as reflected by what actually happened.

[AUFAN78 3,926]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No doubt.  But the subject in hand is intention - as reflected by what actually happened.

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