Imagine if

[homersapien 11,440]

17 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

No. 

If Trump had a general concern to prevent violence he would have acted much differently than he did when violence actually started (which "actually happened").

I think he was thinking purely in self-serving mode when he said whatever he said earlier.  He always thinks that way. Always.

You are trying to give him credit for something he is literally incapable of.

Edited March 25 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No. 

If Trump had a general concern to prevent violence he would have acted much differently than he did when violence actually started.

I think he was thinking purely in self-serving mode when he said whatever he said earlier.  He always does.

You are trying to give him credit for something he is literally incapable of.

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. 

[Leftfield 2,654]

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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 don't understand how you would post an article, from a biased tabloid, involving an interview with a Trump loyalist who has every reason to attack the veracity of the January 6 Committee, seem to completely dismiss the possibility that he's lying or at the very least exaggerating, and then say I'm the one coming across as naive. No, I do not outright dismiss the possibility there were implied threats, but Miller's honesty is extremely suspect (yes, that's an opinion).

 

2 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Ornato's testimony corroborates multiple other testimonies. 

That wasn't the point. The point was the Committee did not suppress his testimony. Unless someone from the Secret Service comes forward and says the Committee was lying about the SS asking for redactions, there is no evidence the Committee suppressed anything. The Trump camp, once again, is throwing out lies to foment further distrust in the government in general and the Committee in particular. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Leftfield 2,654]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

So we disagree. I believe he had genuine concern as did others in the meeting.

If he had a concern other than himself, and that's a big if, would you agree that it was only for his supporters, not any counter-protestors (or anyone else who didn't support him for that matter)?

 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

I don't understand how you would post an article, from a biased tabloid, involving an interview with a Trump loyalist who has every reason to attack the veracity of the January 6 Committee, seem to completely dismiss the possibility that he's lying or at the very least exaggerating, and then say I'm the one coming across as naive. No, I do not outright dismiss the possibility there were implied threats, but Miller's honesty is extremely suspect (yes, that's an opinion).

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. 

18 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

That wasn't the point. The point was the Committee did not suppress his testimony. Unless someone from the Secret Service comes forward and says the Committee was lying about the SS asking for redactions, there is no evidence the Committee suppressed anything. The Trump camp, once again, is throwing out lies to foment further distrust in the government in general and the Committee in particular. 

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. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

20 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If he had a concern other than himself, and that's a big if, would you agree that it was only for his supporters, not any counter-protestors (or anyone else who didn't support him for that matter)?

 

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

[Leftfield 2,654]

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

It took you three hours of typing to come up with that lame response? Damn

Umm...gee, I do other things than this board. Sorry if I don't hang on your every word and respond right away. Maybe relax a bit?

You just can't help being an asshat, can you?

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I do not know why he posted what he did, but I cannot imagine taking such a risk if it isn't true. 

What do you see as the risk now?  How can the Committee "make his life hell" anymore? 

9 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

Not sure what you're not understanding here, but I'm not disputing that several witnesses say that Trump floated the idea of troops. I'm saying the Committee didn't suppress it. There is actual evidence of that. You have no evidence that they did, yet that's what you choose to believe. 

[homersapien 11,440]

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

I don't understand how you can resolve his obvious unconcern during the riot with the notion he was concerned days before.

Edited March 25 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,654]

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034620/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000034620.pdf

Read from page 177 to 218. Starts to pick up around page 200. Everyone can make their own judgements.

[aubiefifty 16,903]

Trumponly gives a damn about one thing.....himself. he might love baron.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

Trumponly gives a damn about one thing.....himself. he might love baron.

That sounds hateful, fifty.

[aubiefifty 16,903]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That sounds hateful, fifty.

it is. the truth will set you free my friend.............

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

it is. the truth will set you free my friend.............

Oh, I totally believe you hate me.  I am free……

[aubiefifty 16,903]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Oh, I totally believe you hate me.  I am free……

you would be wrong just like you always are...........grins

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

2 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you would be wrong just like you always are...........grins

I must have misinterpreted your post.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

On 3/23/2024 at 9:54 AM, TexasTiger said:

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

Even though you are an independent are you in agreement with the Dems that voted against an amendment in the spending bill that would export an illegal immigrant (new comer) if they assault a police officer?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Umm...gee, I do other things than this board. Sorry if I don't hang on your every word and respond right away. Maybe relax a bit?

You just can't help being an asshat, can you?

It was sarcasm. Lighten up, Francis. 

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

What do you see as the risk now?  How can the Committee "make his life hell" anymore? 

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. 

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Not sure what you're not understanding here, but I'm not disputing that several witnesses say that Trump floated the idea of troops. I'm saying the Committee didn't suppress it. There is actual evidence of that. You have no evidence that they did, yet that's what you choose to believe. 

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. 

[AUFAN78 3,926]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't understand how you can resolve his obvious unconcern during the riot with the notion he was concerned days before.

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.

[creed 1,649]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

No other president has ever had to "try" or call up troops. Why Trump? Why in 2021?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

1 minute ago, creed said:

No other president has ever had to "try" or call up troops. Why Trump? Why in 2021?

 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. 

[creed 1,649]

2 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

 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. 

Which means to me that Trump was the initiator of of January 6th.  Question. Who has to pay for the repairs and/or troops salaries to gaurd such and event?

[AUFAN78 3,926]

5 minutes ago, creed said:

Which means to me that Trump was the initiator of of January 6th.  Question. Who has to pay for the repairs and/or troops salaries to gaurd such and event?

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. 

[creed 1,649]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

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. 

I'm a conservative tax payer and I don't want one penny of my taxes paid for troops salaries beyond a mimimal level to support such an event. Therefore, Trump should have to pay for the (over miminal support) salaries. The damages to the capital should come out of the pockets of the people who penetrated the barracades, and Trump.

Stealing my documents and causing my taxes to be spent on "more" government waste is the reason I will not vote for Trump.

Edited March 25 by creed

[homersapien 11,440]

15 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

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

Yeah you betcha.

You can tell by the way he sat on his hands and and watched as his brownshirts smashed windows in our nation's capitol building.

[homersapien 11,440]

1 hour ago, AUFAN78 said:

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.

Nonsense.  What he did was revert back to his true form.