I was wondering if he had flown in for the event. One organization I belonged to, at it’s annual national convention would determine which attendee had traveled the furthest to the event and give them a door prize – a door.
High ranking sources inside the Capitol Police Dept. tell TMZ the FBI is looking at several facts that stink of an inside job. For starters, the Bureau is puzzled by the ease with which the mob found its way to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office.
It’s not off any main hallway or next to other Congressional offices … in fact, the path to get to the entrance is maze-like and not open to the public like other parts of the Capitol. The rioters who took it over – vandalizing it and stealing a laptop – got there within 10 minutes of entering the Capitol.
We’re told the FBI feels someone must have provided a roadmap for them to find it that quickly. Remember, the Capitol has been closed to the public since March due to the pandemic so it’s not like these guys could have been casing it to plot their path.
As for suspects – we’re told the FBI is looking at Capitol Police officers and many other Capitol staffers, such as engineers, plumbers and janitors.
So the person who travelled the furthest to attend now has a large, cumbersome object they have to take all the way back home, and probably don’t need.
He claims that he just found those zip ties and was looking to turn them over to a policeman. Right.
How many people had zip ties? From one of the articles I read, I got the impression there were two of them – The guy climbing over the handrail in the gallery (whose face was not clearly visible in the two pictures widely published), and a guy down on the floor of the chamber, whose face was clearly visible. But it wasn’t really clear if those were two different people, and if so, which was the one arrested.
BTW, also, that guy climbing over the railing, looked like he had a holster with a gun – the article I saw said it was a taser.
Really?? I hadn’t noticed that.
/s
I don’t know that any attempts to actually get the door prize home were made, if it makes you feel any better.
No tie is possible with a Senate trial.
Republican bullshit really is striking. The folks who fall for Trump’s bullshit, or q-anon nonsense must think that everyone is as gullible as they are. Kind of suprising, though, that he actually took a strategic step up from: “I was holding them for a friend.”
Horses and Dogs!
On the police opening the gates and waving people through, a possible reason for this could be…
They knew that keeping them out was a lost cause - they are going to break through anyway. People are getting trampled and there is a danger of people getting hurt (assuming that’s a bad thing). Therefore, it’s better to let them come through safely by opening the gates and guiding them through to minimize the injuries.
I’m not saying this is the case, or that they should have done this. I’m just trying to come up with a possible reason why this could be okay.
Why are you trying to do that? Are you just really bored?
Here’s some news:
When all the fighting is settled, combatants weary on both sides, only one person can end the red/blue divide and make America multicolored again:
That would be some comfort, but I wouldn’t say satisfy.
You mean a precedent about how to respond to a President who incites insurrection and starts a riot? I sure hope it starts a precedent.
Vindictive? This isn’t about a mere political disagreement, this is about subverting the Constitution and trying to overthrow the results of a democratic election. This is about the destruction of our democracy itself. The vindictive one is the shithead in the Oval Office who threatened the Governor of Georgia for not changing the election results to say he was the winner.
You know, I said way back when Trump was elected he could be the greatest thing to happen for the Republican Party, or he could be their worst nightmare. Turns out, he’s been both. It will be amusing as hell if he manages to singlehandedly fracture the Republican party and cripple it’s ability to hold office. The alternative is that the Insurrection Party takes off and takes their place. [shudder]
Is it possible? Well, given what we’ve just seen, I can’t say no. But using a well-documented case of inciting the attempt at a violent overturning of the election as a precedent to justify some lesser condition of justification for impeachment is a hard sell.
Though I suppose one could argue that one of the ramifications of Nixon was to normalize the idea of impeachment to get the opposition when they are in charge. Talk of Nixon’s impeachment put that in the modern mindset. Clinton’s impeachment cemented that as a viable option. There was already a lot of smoke about how Trump’s first impeachment was just Democrats playing political games. It’s easy to cast the actions of the opponents as merely political power grabs, especially when that is exactly what you would do.
I’m more concerned by that normalization hitting us as becoming a constant political tool to damage the opponent party when they are in charge. That is what (a) delegitimizes the value of impeachment as an actual tool for regulating poor behavior, and (b) does set the stage for anyone to use it for any reason, including said future autocrat.
But we cannot let that potential be an excuse to prevent us from using it in a justified case. And fomenting insurrection is definitely justified. We just have to fight harder the impulse to turn to impeachment the next time a President does something we disagree with politically that isn’t really an unethical or criminal act.
The Tea Party was just a symptom and stepping stone of those problems.
Or more specifically, what you already have done.
The impeachment of Clinton was entirely political in nature, and had nothing to do with any actual crimes he may or may not have committed.
They had used impeachment as a purely political tool, and therefore were able to claim that the use of impeachment by the opposing party was as well.
I can’t believe you people are insulting honest Hylobatidae like this.
Impeachment is foremost but also are the lower level crimes, like ignoring subpoenas, Illegal entry of federal property and shitting on the floor.
Imagine if a common form of protest becomes sneaking away from legal tours to pee in the potted plants or shit in the corner. The low level stuff is highly disruptive, but impossible to punish.
Which is the problem with the 6 Jan intrusion. They were just good folks who got caught up in the moment. A few bad apples but nothing to see here. Move along.
Impeachment has dangers as a precedent but so does the failure to impeach bad behavior. An unimpeached Trump becomes the bar future Presidents slither down to before they may be impeached.
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word ‘good’ that I wasn’t previously aware of.
Trump speak