Republicans continue to support insurrectionists who killed cops, vandalized the Capitol and threatened to kill politicians

[Nat Algren]

The insurrection that wasn't.

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever​

If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?​

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever

If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?

greenwald.substack.com

 

[FlickShagwell]

The insurrection that wasn't.

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever​

If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?​

As the Insurrection Narrative Crumbles, Democrats Cling to it More Desperately Than Ever

If the threat of "armed insurrectionists" and "domestic terrorists" is as great as some claim, why do they have to keep lying and peddling crude media fictions about it?

greenwald.substack.com

“There’s no evidence anyone intended to assassinate Mike Pence, Mitt Romney or anyone else.”

JFC.

They only built a gallows and chanted “hang Mike Pence.” Who knew living in Bolsinaro’s Brazil was all it would take to turn Greenwood into a right wing kiss ass hack?

And what a silly argument Greenwald makes. After making light of the insurrection (maybe you, he, and swag could go into business doing PR for failed domestic terrorists), he talks about the stepped up security in places where online chatter had suggested it might be needed, and.... there wasn’t any violence after all. In Greenwald’s paranoid mind, this “empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry,” while anyone with a shred of common sense would say it’s good policing.

So lousy meme and silly op-ed, Nat. At least you’re consistent.

 

[Nat Algren]

“There’s no evidence anyone intended to assassinate Mike Pence, Mitt Romney or anyone else.”

JFC.

They only built a gallows and chanted “hang Mike Pence.” Who knew living in Bolsinaro’s Brazil was all it would take to turn Greenwood into a right wing kiss ass hack?

And what a silly argument Greenwald makes. After making light of the insurrection (maybe you, he, and swag could go into business doing PR for failed domestic terrorists), he talks about the stepped up security in places where online chatter had suggested it might be needed, and.... there wasn’t any violence after all. In Greenwald’s paranoid mind, this “empowers the state with virtually unlimited powers to act against the citizenry,” while anyone with a shred of common sense would say it’s good policing.

So lousy meme and silly op-ed, Nat. At least you’re consistent.

What's silly is your take.

 

[CleteyColgate]

Appointing a credible, non-partisan Jan. 6 commission should not be difficult

Proposals for a commission — offered right after the carnage, by Republicans and Democrats alike — have bogged down in partisan sniping.

thehill.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/capitol-riot-january-6-commission/2021/04/17/109572e6-9ed9-11eb-9d05-ae06f4529ece_story.html

Trump supporter found guilty of threatening to kill lawmakers​

Trump supporter found guilty of threatening to kill lawmakers

A supporter of former President Trump has been found guilty of threatening to kill lawmakers before President Biden’s inauguration in January.A jury in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn han…

thehill.com

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Speaking of insurrectionists, what are these people trying to tell us? Both sides suck.

"…other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility. But during oral arguments, liberal and conservative justices alike seemed inclined to dodge the question of his eligibility altogether and throw the decision to Congress. “That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.”

…
The choice that Democrats would face if Trump won without a definitive ruling on his eligibility was almost too fraught for Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland to contemplate. He told me he didn’t know how he’d vote in that scenario. As we spoke about what might happen, he recalled the brutality of January 6. “There was blood all over the Capitol in the hypothetical you posit,” Raskin, who served on the January 6 committee with Schiff, told me….
In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, a trio of legal scholars—Edward Foley, Benjamin Ginsberg, and Richard Hasen—warned the justices that if they did not rule on Trump’s eligibility, “it is a certainty” that members of Congress would seek to disqualify him on January 6, 2025. I asked Lofgren whether she would be one of those lawmakers. “I might be.”

The scholars also warned that serious political instability and violence could ensue. That possibility was on Raskin’s mind, too. He conceded that the threat of violence could influence what Democrats do if Trump wins. But, Raskin added, it wouldn’t necessarily stop them from trying to disqualify him. “We might just decide that’s something we need to prepare for.”

Are You Kidding Me? Here’s the Latest Anti-Trump Ploy Dems Are Considering

townhall.com

 

[FlickShagwell]

Speaking of insurrectionists, what are these people trying to tell us? Both sides suck.

Are You Kidding Me? Here’s the Latest Anti-Trump Ploy Dems Are Considering

townhall.com

Timely thread bump?

I have to say, I gave it to Nat pretty good. Probably not as good as the Ukrainians who blew him to smithereens, but still.

 

[cigaretteman]

Speaking of insurrectionists, what are these people trying to tell us? Both sides suck.

Are You Kidding Me? Here’s the Latest Anti-Trump Ploy Dems Are Considering

townhall.com

You do realize that this is an entirely different scenario, don't you?

 

[Scruddy]

Reminder that no officers were killed on j6 lol this was just another leftist lie