Liberal Forum

Majik » 18 Jan 2023, 11:59 am » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 11:59 am

There was no insurrection Jerra .....just a protest that Pelosi and Schumer knew was coming because of the reassessed threat assessment by the Capitol Police 3 days prior to Jan.6th.
Trump offered the National guard for that day and Pelosi refused the request.
now why did Pelosi after being briefed by the capital police 3 days prior to jan.6th not increase the security that day?.....or take Trump's offer and recommendations for heightened security?Just The News’ John Solomon exclusively obtained documents showing that President Trump offered National Guard protection to the United States Capitol four days before the events of January 6, 2021.According to Solomon’s reporting:

This reporting flies in the face of Pelosi’s sham political witch-hunt assertion this evening that President Trump did not offer the Capitol National Guard protection ahead of the events of January 6, 2021.Speaker Pelosi could have easily hardened the United States Capitol in those four days, but Capitol Police did not because of “optics.”Read the full report HERE.​​​​​​

trying to blame this on anyone but trump is hilarious.

there is no documentation that trump offered a damn thing.

and if he did that proves he knew what the dangerous crowd would do.
 

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 2:07 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:07 pm

trying to blame this on anyone but trump is hilarious.

there is no documentation that trump offered a damn thing.

and if he did that proves he knew what the dangerous crowd would do.

 Opinion
 

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 2:10 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:10 pm

 Opinion

not opinion, fact,

plus more if he knew and cared he just would not make an 'offer'  he would have made sure there was enough security.

and he would have documented everything on official forms.

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 2:50 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:50 pm

not opinion, fact,

plus more if he knew and cared he just would not make an 'offer'  he would have made sure there was enough security.

and he would have documented everything on official forms.

 

If it isfact prove it

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 2:55 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:55 pm

 

to overturn the election trump summoned violent angry people from all across the country and made sure they were absolutely pissed off before herding them to the capitol
----------------------------------------President Donald Trump convened a heated meeting in the Oval Office on Friday, including lawyer Sidney Powell and her client, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, two people familiar with the matter said, describing a session that began as an impromptu gathering but devolved and eventually broke out into screaming matches at certain points as some of Trump’s aides pushed back on Powell and Flynn’s more outrageous suggestions about overturning the election.Flynn had suggested earlier this week that Trump could invoke martial law as part of his efforts to overturn the election that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden – an idea that arose again during the meeting in the Oval Office, one of the people said. It wasn’t clear whether Trump endorsed the idea, but others in the room forcefully pushed back and shot it down.The meeting was first reported by the New York Times.White House aides who participated in the meeting, including White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and counsel Pat Cipollone, also pushed back intensely on the suggestion of naming Powell as a special counsel to investigate voter fraud allegations Trump’s own administration has dismissed (or, as seems more feasible, hiring her in the administration for some kind of investigatory role). Powell has focused her conspiracies on voting machines and has floated the notion of having a special counsel inspect the machines for flaws

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics ... index.html
 

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:56 pm

If it isfact prove it

you are the one making the claim that trump offered 10,000 troops, you prove it.

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 2:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 2:56 pm

If it isfact prove it

-----------------------------------------------

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/c ... urrection/

 The military would put down Michael Flynn’s proposed insurrection

********************************************

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville quickly responded by issuing a statement that implicitly disavowed both Flynn and his suggestion of martial law. They stated, “There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” This statement echoed similar ones that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has been making since the summer. A handful of retired generals and admirals have also criticized Flynn, but the overall response from this group has been muted, perhaps out of fear that such criticism could backfire by goading the President into taking this action precisely because he is being told he should not.

----------------------------------------------

......>>>>>>  Jan 3, 2021

 
 

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 3:28 pm

-----------------------------------------------

https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/c ... urrection/

 The military would put down Michael Flynn’s proposed insurrection

********************************************

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville quickly responded by issuing a statement that implicitly disavowed both Flynn and his suggestion of martial law. They stated, “There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.” This statement echoed similar ones that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has been making since the summer. A handful of retired generals and admirals have also criticized Flynn, but the overall response from this group has been muted, perhaps out of fear that such criticism could backfire by goading the President into taking this action precisely because he is being told he should not.

----------------------------------------------

......>>>>>>  Jan 3, 2021

 

In that link is the word "opinion" lol
 

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 4:00 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:00 pm

In that link is the word "opinion" lol

the opinion is that the military would not back trump's martial law.

do you have info otherwise??

did the military back trump in declaring martial law?

 

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:10 pm

the opinion is that the military would not back trump's martial law.

do you have info otherwise??

did the military back trump in declaring martial law?

It was the writers opinion

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:17 pm

It was the writers opinion

it was the writer's opinion based on knowledge and experience with the military.

again, do you have information that the military did in fact back trump in declaring martial law?

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 4:17 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:17 pm

It was the writers opinion

********************************************************************************************************I

n our survey, we included an experiment. A control group of 1,522 respondents received no additional information when asked about the Insurrection Act. Another group of 1,524 Americans also read a sentence stating that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed invocation of the Insurrection Act. A final group of 1,464 respondents learned that the chairman supported the use of troops on domestic soil.Among civilians, there were no real differences across these three groups. Roughly 40 percent of Americans supported use of the Insurrection Act regardless of messaging from the chairman.Among veteran respondents, support from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs also had no significant effect. But opposition from the chairman reduced support among veterans by more than 8 points, from 57 percent to 49 percent. If Flynn continues his public calls for martial law, strong rebukes from other military leaders, active and retired, would likely reduce support for any such misadventure among veterans and service members.
 

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:45 pm

********************************************************************************************************I

n our survey, we included an experiment. A control group of 1,522 respondents received no additional information when asked about the Insurrection Act. Another group of 1,524 Americans also read a sentence stating that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed invocation of the Insurrection Act. A final group of 1,464 respondents learned that the chairman supported the use of troops on domestic soil.Among civilians, there were no real differences across these three groups. Roughly 40 percent of Americans supported use of the Insurrection Act regardless of messaging from the chairman.Among veteran respondents, support from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs also had no significant effect. But opposition from the chairman reduced support among veterans by more than 8 points, from 57 percent to 49 percent. If Flynn continues his public calls for martial law, strong rebukes from other military leaders, active and retired, would likely reduce support for any such misadventure among veterans and service members.

Opinion

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 4:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:47 pm

Opinion

a fact from the survey

If I was the democrats I wouldn't put anybody on any committees investigating Biden and call it one sided.

jerrab » 18 Jan 2023, 4:51 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:51 pm

a fact from the survey

you take alot of stock in a hand picked survey....

FJB » 18 Jan 2023, 4:59 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 4:59 pm

you take alot of stock in a hand picked survey....

you take a lot of stock in your non backed up opinions

golfboy » 17 Jan 2023, 8:55 pm » wrote: ↑

17 Jan 2023, 8:55 pm

Republicans can now subpoena Nancy's texts and emails, so we can find out what she knew. 
What WE know is that she was responsible for security, and they DECREASED security, while denying an offer from Trump for more troops.

I bet you will get them and then discover you have to blame someone else.  That's the method here.
 

ScottMon » 18 Jan 2023, 7:07 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Jan 2023, 7:07 pm

I bet you will get them and then discover you have to blame someone else.  That's the method here.

Pelosi is hiding info