Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

I was just wondering if you were being logically consistent.

 

Yes he is! And what he said was FINE! Just like ALL of the politicians who have come before him who have used the word "FIGHT!" The problem for you is, you don't have ANY problem with those politicians who have come before him! DOUBLE STANDARD!

It's YOUR point that they physically fought because they were following a direction from Trump!

"4 hands 1 belly?" WTF?

I never once claimed that he's not accountable for what he said. I said that he is not accountable for the riot!

Yes, the two events were different police departments! So you're saying that all police departments are the same!

 

I said "Barr just asked a question" in reply to you quoting from your ABC source:

By the way, the FULL quote from your ABC source is, "Are these people still going to be here when POTUS [President of the United States] comes out? according to the report." Oh, so you DO think that the report is trustworthy? Only when it suits I guess! I thought that the auditor was appointed by Trump and can therefore not be trusted!

It says, "the report found no evidence of that, but did find that Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening." So, it claims that Barr URGED officials to speed up the clearing process, but even if that's true, that doesn't mean that it actually had any effect on the clearing process. The NBC article doesn't support this claim that he URGED officials to speed up the clearing process. It quotes the report a number of times, but nothing to support this particular claim.

And what's the problem with this remark?

This is ALSO an opinion according to a person appointed by Donald:

"Are these people still going to be here when POTUS [President of the United States] comes out?" You seem to trust THAT part of the report! How convenient!

 

I am addressing the topic in a coherent and rational manner, rather than pretending, without evidence, that Americans opposed to police brutality are indifferent to any fatalities that resulted from the Trump goons' attack on the Capitol on January 6.

Do I sympathize with the police who were subjected by the Trump goons to such savagery? Of course. Attempting to enforce the law can be stressful in numerous instances. This is one where the public will be able to hear directly from them concerning what they were subjected to in the imminent Congressional hearings.

 

There were no fatalities to innocents. You may be under the false impression that one or more cops died at the hands of the human waste!

Me too. Just as I sympathise with the police who were subjected to such savagery by the HUMAN WASTE from last year's riots. Funny how there is no congressional investigation into that. Gee I wonder why.

 

If no Republican congressman or senator called for a Congressional investigation into whatever criminal activity elsewhere that you are referencing, they probably took into account that there were no other comparable goon attacks upon Congress that Congress needed to investigate.

 

"Whatever criminal activity?" Don't pretend that you're unaware of the insurrectionist, violent, political, criminal activity which swept the nation last year. You're not dumb. Jan 6 was one single day, and the human waste was dealt with in a matter of hours.

 

It is terrible! Unarmed woman together with a violent mob broke into the Capitol Hill and was shot. Everyone should know the the mob was mentally challenged: they listened to President Trump speech, in which Trump never encourage this kind of behavior. Only an idiot will break into the Capitol Hill and later claim that he did it to protect the Constitution.
Poor woman, why she got involved with crowed of idiots?

 

It's clear that it was justified because the investigation said so. Not because the NYT said so.

 

Why?

"The mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the president and other powerful people."
Senate Minority Leader McConnell (R)

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters.
He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.
These facts require immediate action by President Trump."
House Minority Leader McCarthy (R)
​

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore!" Trump said at the rally. Hundreds of his supporters proceeded to heed his remarks, as many expressed a desire to kill Vice President Mike Pence as well as top lawmakers who opposed, or did not sufficiently support, Trump's groundless claims of widespread fraud. Many in the violent crowd of Trump supporters carried and wore overtly racist symbols, including the Confederate flag and Nazi icons.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ats-security-chief/ar-AAM1JVb?ocid=uxbndlbing​

The Cry Baby Sore Loser incited his goons who would not have mounted the violent attack upon Congress if he had not spewed his "Big Lie" at them.

All fifty states, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, often after multiple recounts and audits, had certified their election results. Dozens of courts, even those under Trump-appointed judges, had dismissed frivolous charges of election fraud as being without merit. Congress assembled, with the Vice President presiding, to validate the democratic verdict.

Trump goons arrived at the Capitol, directed by the Loser, to sabotage democracy and the will of the People.

The Liar, far to morally feeble to respect the will of the People, persists in his "Big Lie" to the delight of enemies of democracy around the world. Despite not even a single suspect among all the masterminds, coordinators, collaborators, or lowly factotums in the alleged vast conspiracy ever being identified, the Loser is still lying, and his goons are still swallowing the lie.

 

Trumpery has opened my mind to a nightmare scenario previously thought of as being unique to third world countries. What if Pence had exceeded his constitutional authority and refused to accept the EC votes from PA, AZ, and GA? It would have dropped Biden's total below the needed 270 threshold. Then, taking Mike Flynn's advice, Trump declares martial law and completes a coup by calling for a contingent election in the House. https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-...-contingent-election-and-voting-process-.html

Is it reasonable to assume his base of supporters who stuck with him through hush money payments to defraud the electorate, seeking foreign interference to help him get elected, refusing to fully cooperate with congressional and Special Counsel investigations, firing Inspectors General without cause, firing his AG for perceived disloyalty, installing loyalists in the Defense Dept., would have gone along with it? Yes it is. After all, over 50% of them believe the election was stolen from him.

Is it reasonable to assume he would have had enough support in Congress? Well, over 50% of the House Repub caucus voted to overturn the results of the election.

What if Miley had not been loyal to the Constitution and the rule of law?

 

Well, yah, but the NYT's report shows why "the investigation" came to it's conclusion.

 

https://fee.org/articles/george-flo...says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher/

 

Now you know from my above post, which you had nothing in reply to. The truth hurts doesn't it.

 

They fought like hell to enter the capital to uproot the political process.... that is exactly what Donald told them to do.
His words caused an uprising, and that is all "FINE" according to you? lol

Whataboutism

What Donald meant or did not mean is your point.

His lawyer said this, and at no point did Donald disagree, on HIS stage, on HIS event... but even added to go fight like hell.
Them are 2 individuals in sync with each other.

That's not wanting to hold him accountable that his words caused these actions.

We already discussed that cops are interchangeable.

 

You wondered if Barr speed up the process, and your source proves he did. You saying 'Barr just asked a question" is denying what Barr did. Barr knew Donald was about to show up. And so there is a direct link between that order, and Barr knowing that Donald was about to show up since he did speed up the proces and it all happened after some minutes after Barr showed up.

Nothing points out that the protesters would always have been cleared before Donald would have shown up, since that would deny the process got speed up by Barr. And there is no other time line presented when it otherwise would have been done. So you're done.

It just proves that he knew that Donald was about to show up and so the protesters had to go.

Huh? It's fully incorporated into my argument.

 

Nope. My source says, "the report found no evidence of that, but did find that Attorney General William Barr urged officials to speed up the clearing process once Trump had decided to walk through the area that evening." So, it claims that Barr URGED officials to speed up the clearing process, but even if that's true, that doesn't mean that it actually had any effect on the clearing process. The NBC article doesn't support this claim that he URGED officials to speed up the clearing process. It quotes the report a number of times, but nothing to support this particular claim. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...lear-d-c-s-lafayette-park-protestors-n1270126

What are you saying that Barr "DID?" If you think that he somehow sped up the process, then I refer you to my first reply section in this post! If you STILL think that he somehow sped up the process, then you will need to provide a source to support that claim! But of course, you simply won't be able to!

Irrelevant.

Nothing, other than the ENTIRE mainstream media (minus Fox) which you trust which has reported that the fencing was the cause of the protesters being cleared!

You cited a source (ABC News) which used this "person appointed by Donald" in it's report!

So is the "person appointed by Donald" reliable or not?

 

You're assuming that his words are what made the human waste riot. You're assuming that the riot wasn't planned before Trump's speech.

You don't know what 'whataboutism' is. Whataboutism means when someone excuses someone's bad behaviour because other people who have done the same thing. I don't accept that it's bad when a politician says to "FIGHT", whether it's Trump or any of the thousand politicians who have come before him. You however, give a free pass to all of the others who say it, but not Tump!

You've already admitted that you don't know that Trump meant PHYSICALLY!

Does "4 hands 1 belly" actually mean something to you? Like it means violent or something? I searched this on Google and nothing came up! Where did you even get it from? Are you sure that his lawyer said it?

It's your claim that his words caused these actions. Your UNPROVEN claim!

Which means that all police departments are the same!

 

The only reason you can conclude that, is by stating it's not relevant that Barr complained the protesters were still there where Donald was about to show up, when he ordered them to be removed / speeding up the proces.

While you fail to prove what time the protesters otherwise would have been removed if Barr did not personally get involved in this.

How can he not be bias pro Trump?

 

Assuming? The guy said to take action, and his crowed took that action.

This is your point, that you failed to prove. I will not respond to this nonsense again.

This is all the prove needed: the guy said to take action, and his crowed took that action.

I remains so that I already proved how the police is interchangeable. So there is no need to repeat this same circle.

My claim also still stands:
Cops got no problem to gun down a fleeing black man.
While white fascists attacking cops don't get shot.

 

Yes, you're assuming that his words are what made the human waste riot. You're assuming that the riot wasn't planned before Trump's speech.

My point? No, I'm simply stating that you've already admitted that you don't know that Trump meant PHYSICALLY!

You thinks that's criminal proof? Funny how Trump hasn't been charged with inciting a riot!

Your source disagrees with you:

"With more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies across the country operating at the federal, state and local levels, there is no "typical" police department." https://www.apa.org/monitor/2016/12/cover-policing.html

Does "4 hands 1 belly" actually mean something to you? Like it means violent or something? I searched this on Google and nothing came up! Where did you even get it from? Are you sure that his lawyer said it?

 

You have not been able to prove that Barr sped up the process. I'm still waiting!

Why does the time matter?

Ask the mainstream media sources which YOU TRUST! They all used his report!

 

The point is that people were saying that the shooting was justified on the day that it happened!

 

You you you you...
There is nothing to deny that Donald said to take action, and his crowed took that action.

Pushing goalposts.

That source is not relevant. While I already sourced that cops are interchangeable.

My claim also still stands:
Cops got no problem to gun down a fleeing black man.
While white fascists attacking cops don't get shot.

 

Does "4 hands 1 belly" actually mean something to you? Like it means violent or something? I searched this on Google and nothing came up! Where did you even get it from? Are you sure that his lawyer said it?