Jan. 6. Ray Epps and death of Roseanne Boyland (Cremated after?) New Footage

[Harry Leggs]

Indeed, who did kill Ashli Babbitt?

One of my Senators Kramer got into hot water over all this due to a phone call.

GOP Senator Kevin Cramer Says He's 'Grateful' for Capitol Cop Who Killed ‘Criminal’ Ashli Babbitt for 'Not Complying'

Cramer is also protecting Ashli Babbitt's killer.

nationalfile.com

While fielding questions as part of a radio program, North Dakota GOP Senator Kevin Cramer called 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt a “criminal,” and said he’s “grateful” for the Capitol Police Officer who killed the unarmed January 6th protestor for “not complying” with his orders (there were no orders so that is misinformation) from the other side of a barricaded door.​

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

At the time of the call, the identity of the killer cop was still unknown, and not long afterward killer Byrd, the mystery cop, came out in an interview. Wonder if Kramer did anything behind the scenes to get this cop to out himself. Kramer's reputation took a nosedive for that one call. He might have went back to Washington and raised hell about it. Why is this cop still in hiding after 6+ months?

They said death threats. Big deal.
---------------------

After the interview aired, Aaron Babbitt, Ashli’s widower, had harsh words for Officer Byrd. “I don’t even want to hear him talk about how he’s getting death threats and he’s scared,” Aaron Babbitt told Tucker Carlson on August 26. “I’ve been getting death threats since January 7, two, three, five, 10 a day and all I did on January 6 was become a widower. So, you’re going to have to suck it up, bud, and take it.”91 Carlson himself, noting that armed officers were both in front of and behind Babbitt at the time, described her killing as an “execution.” He mocked the idea that Babbitt posed a threat. “Michael Byrd executed an enemy of the Biden administration so they’re praising him.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 196). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

 

[Thistle]

One of my Senators Kramer got into hot water over all this due to a phone call.

GOP Senator Kevin Cramer Says He's 'Grateful' for Capitol Cop Who Killed ‘Criminal’ Ashli Babbitt for 'Not Complying'

Cramer is also protecting Ashli Babbitt's killer.

nationalfile.com

While fielding questions as part of a radio program, North Dakota GOP Senator Kevin Cramer called 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt a “criminal,” and said he’s “grateful” for the Capitol Police Officer who killed the unarmed January 6th protestor for “not complying” with his orders (there were no orders so that is misinformation) from the other side of a barricaded door.​

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

At the time of the call, the identity of the killer cop was still unknown, and not long afterward killer Byrd, the mystery cop, came out in an interview. Wonder if Kramer did anything behind the scenes to get this cop to out himself. Kramer's reputation took a nosedive for that one call. He might have went back to Washington and raised hell about it. Why is this cop still in hiding after 6+ months?

They said death threats. Big deal.
---------------------

After the interview aired, Aaron Babbitt, Ashli’s widower, had harsh words for Officer Byrd. “I don’t even want to hear him talk about how he’s getting death threats and he’s scared,” Aaron Babbitt told Tucker Carlson on August 26. “I’ve been getting death threats since January 7, two, three, five, 10 a day and all I did on January 6 was become a widower. So, you’re going to have to suck it up, bud, and take it.”91 Carlson himself, noting that armed officers were both in front of and behind Babbitt at the time, described her killing as an “execution.” He mocked the idea that Babbitt posed a threat. “Michael Byrd executed an enemy of the Biden administration so they’re praising him.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 196). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

That's incredible. I'm absolutely speechless. I trust that someone's gonna primary that guy out of his seat. The very idea that this guy would be cheerleading a murderer. I learned one very important thing from this the name of the executioner of Ashli Babbitt. I have never heard the name Michael Byrd before reading your post. I won't forget it!

I'm also reminded of something that I had forgotten, and that is that the Babbits retained Terry Roberts. He represented me back when I lived in Washington DC.. He was a good friend of my brother-in-law. I had bought a Jaguar XJS back in 1988, when they first came out with the convertible. The car wouldn't run however, and Terry represented me. He ultimately got Rosenthal Jaguar of Tysons Corner to give me a brand new 1990 model of the same car. But I must say he wasn't cheap. At lest he didn't seem cheap to me at the time.

 

[Backup]

One of my Senators Kramer got into hot water over all this due to a phone call.

GOP Senator Kevin Cramer Says He's 'Grateful' for Capitol Cop Who Killed ‘Criminal’ Ashli Babbitt for 'Not Complying'

Cramer is also protecting Ashli Babbitt's killer.

nationalfile.com

While fielding questions as part of a radio program, North Dakota GOP Senator Kevin Cramer called 14-year Air Force veteran Ashli Babbitt a “criminal,” and said he’s “grateful” for the Capitol Police Officer who killed the unarmed January 6th protestor for “not complying” with his orders (there were no orders so that is misinformation) from the other side of a barricaded door.​

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

At the time of the call, the identity of the killer cop was still unknown, and not long afterward killer Byrd, the mystery cop, came out in an interview. Wonder if Kramer did anything behind the scenes to get this cop to out himself. Kramer's reputation took a nosedive for that one call. He might have went back to Washington and raised hell about it. Why is this cop still in hiding after 6+ months?

They said death threats. Big deal.
---------------------

After the interview aired, Aaron Babbitt, Ashli’s widower, had harsh words for Officer Byrd. “I don’t even want to hear him talk about how he’s getting death threats and he’s scared,” Aaron Babbitt told Tucker Carlson on August 26. “I’ve been getting death threats since January 7, two, three, five, 10 a day and all I did on January 6 was become a widower. So, you’re going to have to suck it up, bud, and take it.”91 Carlson himself, noting that armed officers were both in front of and behind Babbitt at the time, described her killing as an “execution.” He mocked the idea that Babbitt posed a threat. “Michael Byrd executed an enemy of the Biden administration so they’re praising him.

Kelly, Julie. January 6: How Democrats Used the Capitol Protest to Launch a War on Terror Against the Political Right (p. 196). Bombardier Books. Kindle Edition.

Can God create a source so stupid right—wingers won’t get burned by it?

“National File publishes conspiracy and pseudoscience-related news stories from an extreme right perspective.”

 

[Thistle]

Can God create a source so stupid right—wingers won’t get burned by it?

God created you, did he make you stupid or was that you're doing?

 

[tbeachhead]

If it is irrelevant then why did they omit it nation wide? i did not know about her weight and height until i read about in Kelly's book on J.6. It is not like the media was shouting about it from the rooftops. They were lying about it. She was armed, throwing rocks. Come to find out she was crawling thru a broken window and was shot to death without warning. The cop hides out for approx seven months. When has that happen before? Give me one other example where a cop is hidden from the public for seven months, give or take, after shooting to death, an unarmed person. The autopsy report says the cause of death as a homicide. This all bounces off your head. You must not be a real person but paid in some form or trolling on behalf of FBI or whatever. You come across as phony as a three-dollar bill. Even for Democrats.

It does not matter. Try using that line in court defending a cop who shoots an unarmed suspect. In the meantime

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621234300380143617

J6TRUTH

Exposing the truth about January 6th and sharing the stories of our political prisoners of war.

www.j6truth.org

Just heard this guy speak yesterday. He's been two years in jail without a trial, and he's there because he tried to save Boyland's life, who was murdered by capital police, and did save another's. His eyewitness testimony has got out, because he's making documentaries while in jail.

 

[tbeachhead]

Just trying to be like you.

It worked...until I looked I took your post for his.

 

[tbeachhead]

Can God create a source so stupid right—wingers won’t get burned by it?

“National File publishes conspiracy and pseudoscience-related news stories from an extreme right perspective.”

Two can play at this game...so much fun not having to think:

Palmer Report exclusive: "Media Bias Fact Check" is a malicious scam site

"Media Bias Fact Check" is just one guy making up ratings and changing them at random

www.palmerreport.com

 

[vibise]

Why wasn't that kind of answer good enough for who killed George Floyd? We have no evidence that anyone was trying to arrest Ashli Babbitt for a crime. George Floyd was being arrested.

Really? How do you know it wasn't a fiery but mostly peaceful protest? Because partisan hacks said so?

But making up a crime to charge Donald Trump with so that he can't appear on the ballot is not overthrowing American democracy? Preventing the one person that more Americans agree ought to be president and any other preventing him from putting his name on the ballot that seems like overthrowing American democracy, to me. It's amazing what un-American low life scumbags will do in the name of "democracy." True irony imbeciles…

George Floyd was not in the process of breaking and entering. He was lying on the ground for almost 9 minutes, saying he could not breathe, with bystanders asking the police to let him up.

The Jan6 videos show hundreds and hundreds of people violently breaking down doors and windows and scaling the walls and yelling "hang Mike Pence", as well as videos showing a dozen or so people being let into the Capitol by police. The vast preponderance of evidence shows this was a violent uprising.

Trump supporters think he should be POTUS, but he would not be able to win the general election in 2024.

 

[glenlogie]

George Floyd was not in the process of breaking and entering. He was lying on the ground for almost 9 minutes, saying he could not breathe, with bystanders asking the police to let him up.

The Jan6 videos show hundreds and hundreds of people violently breaking down doors and windows and scaling the walls and yelling "hang Mike Pence", as well as videos showing a dozen or so people being let into the Capitol by police. The vast preponderance of evidence shows this was a violent uprising.

Trump supporters think he should be POTUS, but he would not be able to win the general election in 2024.

Now you are pretending to be a fortune teller.

 

[Thistle]

George Floyd was not in the process of breaking and entering.

George Floyd was being arrested not shot. Ashley Babbitt was not being arrested she was being shot. Can you not tell the difference between being arrested and being shot?

The Jan6 videos show hundreds and hundreds of people violently . . .

The answer to why you shoot a 110 pound woman who is unarmed, is not to get back at hundreds of people you believe are acting violently. That is the clearest definition of an unjustified use of force that anybody could possibly come up with, even as a hypothetical.

Trump supporters think he should be POTUS, but he would not be able to win the general election in 2024.

The assurances is the Donald Trump cannot win in 2016 we're more absolute than this by a wide margin. You don't get to decide who "can't win" in order to determine who you're gonna let on the ballot.

 

[vibise]

George Floyd was being arrested not shot. Ashley Babbitt was not being arrested she was being shot. Can you not tell the difference between being arrested and being shot?

The answer to why you shoot 110 pound woman who is unarmed, is not to get back at hundreds of people you believe are acting violently.

The assurances is the Donald Trump cannot win in 2016 we're more absolute than this by a wide margin. You don't get to decide who "can't win" in order to determine who you're gonna let on the ballot.

Floyd was being arrested for a nothingburger offence and unjustifiably held in a position which prevented him from breathing which caused his death. Just like Nichols, although there the violence was even more excessive.

Babbit was engaged in an active attack on the Capitol and was in the process of breaking and entering into the House Chamber where Congressmen were at risk. She was rightly shot.

I still don't get why your side thinks that pointing out that this terrorist was only 110 pounds is relevant. She was leading the charge into the House chamber and should have been stopped by any means necessary.

Where did I say that Trump should not be on the ballot? I am fined with him on the ballot as I am convinced he could not win.

 

[Thistle]

Floyd was being arrested for a nothingburger offence

He was passing off counterfeit money. I don't think that's a nothing burger. I think that you can go to jail for years if not decades for doing that.

and unjustifiably held in a position which prevented him from breathing which caused his death. Just like Nichols, although there the violence was even more excessive.

He was placed in a police car where he would've been perfectly safe if he had not gone all the way across the police car and out the door on the other side where he fell on the sidewalk with his hands cuffed behind his back and the rest of the ordeal ensued.

Babbit was engaged in an active attack on the Capitol

Meaning what exactly? Was she kicking the marble Waynes coating along the side of the wall?

and was in the process of breaking and entering into the House Chamber where Congressmen were at risk.

She was squeezing through a tiny window that only a person of her size could squeeze through.

She was rightly shot.

Look at how emphatic you are in that comment. You are very, very bloodthirsty. That is desperately wicked!

I still don't get why your side thinks that pointing out that this terrorist was only 110 pounds is relevant.

Would it have been okay to point out that she was 11 years old if that had been the case? It is absolutely germaine to whether or not she presented a threat. No one who could squeeze through that tiny window that she was squeezing through was capable of presenting a threat to a security person on the other side of the door. They could have literally grabbed her by the wrists, pulled her through the door, and zip tied her hands behind her back. And they could've zip tied her ankles too if they were that freaked out by this little woman.

She was leading the charge

Leading a charge of what? Munchkins? There was no line of people her size and shape who were capable of squeezing through that tiny window behind her. Maybe if she had a kindergarten class in tow perhaps they might've been able to squeeze through one at a time, but not so fast that they couldn't all be zip tied together, so they didn't get lost. They would certainly not have needed to be summarily executed one by one.

into the House chamber and should have been stopped by any means necessary.

A couple of pounds of C4 maybe? That is an insane comment! You are dangerously, homicidally off your rocker.

Where did I say that Trump should not be on the ballot?

Should he be charged with a felony in connection with the documents where they rated Mar-a-Lago in August?

I am fined with him on the ballot as I am convinced he could not win.

Then I would think he would definitely want to make sure that he is not charged with a felony in order to keep him off the ballot.

 

[vibise]

He was passing off counterfeit money. I don't think that's a nothing burger. I think that you can go to jail for years if not decades for doing that.

He was placed in a police car where he would've been perfectly safe if he had not gone all the way across the police car and out the door on the other side where he fell on the sidewalk with his hands cuffed behind his back and the rest of the ordeal ensued.

Meaning what exactly? Was she kicking the marble Waynes coating along the side of the wall?

She was squeezing through a tiny window that only a person of her size could squeeze through.

Look at how emphatic you are in that comment. You are very, very bloodthirsty. That is desperately wicked!

Would it have been okay to point out that she was 11 years old if that had been the case? It is absolutely germaine to whether or not she presented a threat. No one who could squeeze through that tiny window that she was squeezing through was capable of presenting a threat to a security person on the other side of the door. They could have literally grabbed her by the wrists, pulled her through the door, and zip tied her hands behind her back. And they could've zip tied her ankles too if they were that freaked out by this little woman.

Leading a charge of what? Munchkins? There was no line of people her size and shape who were capable of squeezing through that tiny window behind her. Maybe if she had a kindergarten class in tow perhaps they might've been able to squeeze through one at a time, but not so fast that they couldn't all be zip tied together, so they didn't get lost. They would certainly not have needed to be summarily executed one by one.

A couple of pounds of C4 maybe? That is an insane comment! You are dangerously, homicidally off your rocker.

Should he be charged with a felony in connection with the documents where they rated Mar-a-Lago in August?

Then I would think he would definitely want to make sure that he is not charged with a felony in order to keep him off the ballot.

He was suspected of passing a counterfeit 20. And he died at the hands of the cops arresting him for that! While handcuffed!! How do you not see that as horrible?

Babbitt was forcing her way into the House chamber through a broken window in front of an angry mob calling for blood. If that happened at your house, would you have just stood there or would you have used your gun? If you had shot an intruder climbing through a window in you house, would that be justified?

They had no way of knowing if she was armed, and if she had gotten through, others were right behind her. And you cannot know that none of them could have fit through that window.

You can complain about this all you want. She was engaged in an illegal act of violence and suffered the consequences. Odd that you think passing a fake $20, a much more benign crime, is deserving of death by cop, but not this act of violence.

Trump should be charged with obstruction of justice because he acknowledged that he stole documents and not only refused to return them, but refused to honor a subpoena.

Trump has no chance of winning in 2024.

 

[Harry Leggs]

Dem security failure Jan 6

 

[vibise]

Passing of counterfeit money is a serious crime for which you can get years or even decades of imprisonment. Generally police are not free to ignore a felony like that.

You're skipping over 100% of the context. These questions turn on specific fact patterns which you're leaving out.

He was not completely safe because he created the circumstances of his peril. Had he simply sat in the back of the police car as he was ordered to do, and not shot out the other door with his hands tied behind his back, nothing would've happened to him.

The United States capital is the peoples house. Soliciting a redress of grievances is every US citizens right and it is literally guaranteed in the constitution of the United States.

The specific contextualizing facts of what you're talking about is quite opaque. It is the opinion of a great many people there to whatever extent that may be true, that may have been engineered by people who did not have the America First movement's interests at heart.

That couldn't happen at my house. Because the constitution does not guarantee the American people a right to solicit me for a redress of grievances at my house.

If you're asking me would I shoot someone who has not broken into my house yet, but is halfway in between the answer is absolutely not. This is doubly true if we're talking about 110 pound woman that I can see is not armed! That would be an excellent way for me to be convicted of a crime. You blood lusting blithering idiot!

Generally no! Once they're in my house then I can take whatever steps are necessary to neutralize the threat, but if I can see that there is no threat I am obliged to take that apparent fact into consideration. Whatever the law might suggest in a particular jurisdiction I would find a moral obligation to apply a reasonable man standard.

There's no problem with the lighting in this area. Did the security guards not have eyes in front of their head?

Other what? Was Snow White and the seven dwarves behind her? Nothing that could have fit through that tiny window could've threatened anybody on the other side of the door!

I can certainly know that if they could fit through the tiny window they are no threat!

Yeah, that happens with murder! Her blood will cry out for justice until the last day! It will not be good for you who stand against justice.

What you know is that she was crawling through a little window, that is not an act of violence. The fact that you would lie about the dead to justify their murder is appalling. It's indicative of a deep-seated wickedness.

And your veiled threats against your political opponents are no better received.

I said no such thing. I pointed out the George Floyd was engaged in a obvious identifiable crime that anybody could know is a crime and would get you arrested. He didn't die because a police officer took out a gun and shot him for passing off the counterfeit 20. His death was fortuitous and the direct result of him creating a dangerous situation after he was completely out of danger in the custody of the police. That is not remotely like a police officer determining that he would pull out a gun and shoot him. Which is exactly what happened to Ashli Babbitt.

In the prior post you said that he should be on the ballot, now you're saying that he should not be, do you have any intention of telling the truth about anything?

That's a lie. Apparently you have no intention of telling the truth.

We have been through all of the law in this regard and you know perfectly well that his ability to designate something as personal records is without limit. We read exactly what the judge said on this exact point. Why you feel you can lie with impunity over, and over, and over again is really mystifying, because it utterly destroys your credibility.

That too is a lie. One would think he would avoid this if for no other reason that it's a terrible strategy for being taken seriously. Apparently the morality of the question is no consideration.

Just as he had no chance of winning in 2016.

The context is suspicion of passing a fake $20. This is not a violent crime and did not justify killing Floyd.

The US Capitol is a govt building subject to restrictions by visitors. On Jan6 the building was closed to visitors due to the importance of the election certification process. Anyone not legitimately in that building was trespassing.

Babbit was breaking and entering, in front of a violent mob calling for blood. 140 officers were injured that day and were slipping and sliding on their own blood. The officer did what he felt was necessary to protect the Congressmen behind him. He was rightly not charged with a crime. It does not matter how little she was or that she had no visible weapon that he could see.

Trump most definitely said that he took documents from the WH. He claimed they belonged to him, but they do not.

And yes, Trump failed to comply with a subpoena to return stolen documents:

• The DOJ is asking a federal judge to hold former President Donald Trump or his office in contempt of court, reports say.
• The request was spurred by Trump’s failure to comply with a subpoena demanding all documents marked classified in his possession.

Trump lawyers say he designated seized Mar-a-Lago documents 'as personal records' — DOJ says he can't do that 'simply by saying so'

The Department of Justice is conducting a criminal probe of ex-President Donald Trump over his removal of thousands of documents from the White House.

www.cnbc.com

And you are confused about the powers of the POTUS, who can declassify classified documents, but POTUS does not have unlimited power to declare any and all documents, classified or not, as personal. The later decision is made by the Archives.

I will accept your apology for mistakenly calling me a liar, multiple times.
I gather that a habit of relying on personal insults is hard to break.

 

[Thistle]

Dem security failure Jan 6

That would be perfectly consistent with a total set up.

 

[Thistle]

The context is suspicion of passing a fake $20. This is not a violent crime and did not justify killing Floyd.

Nobody attempted to kill George Floyd. His death was entirely fortuitous, emanating from circumstances that he himself precipitated, after having been arrested, and after being secured in a completely safe environment. Again your deliberately misrepresenting the facts and circumstances which is fundamentally dishonest.

The US Capitol is a govt building

Who exactly is the sovereign in this government? "We the people of the United States of America."

subject to restrictions by visitors.

The American people are the proprietors.

On Jan6 the building was closed to visitors due to the importance of the election certification process.

Does something unimportant go on there? It's not supposed to. Sadly they have made it a monument to unimportance. The January 6 committee is exhibit one. There should never be anything unimportant going on in that building! So making it off-limits to the sovereign people of the United States is a non sequitur.

Anyone not legitimately in that building was trespassing.

The sovereign people of the United States of America were legitimately in that building.

Babbit was breaking and entering,

This is what happens in demonstrations in America. People violate laws for which they will get arrested. They get arrested, and are released (generally with a slap on the wrist). Squeezing through a teeny tiny broken window is not throwing a Molotov cocktail. It won't (and can't) harm anybody. But you all of a sudden are cheerleading the shooters at Kent State University.

in front of a violent mob calling for blood.

The colloquial language you're using in your framing of the issue here belies the fact that the actions of two or three people is not the actions of everyone. It is simply not true that everyone there was saying something analogous to "crucify him crucified him." I've got, what I believe, are some very well founded suspicions about anybody who is actually to use your words "calling for blood." And to press that misframing of the issue, to justify murder is nothing short of bloodthirsty. The fact that you are completely shameless in this despicable behavior is appalling.

140 officers were injured that day and were slipping and sliding on their own blood.

Which day? January 6 or May 29?

The officer did what he felt was necessary to protect the Congressmen behind him.

His behavior does not need the reasonable man standard that I mentioned in my post above.

He was rightly not charged with a crime.

That is despicable. On the last day you will account for every reckless word that you have uttered.

It does not matter how little she was or that she had no visible weapon that he could see.

So you see no reason to be reasonable. This is a agent 007 license to kill situation? The old innocence is no excuse line. Truly fiendish.

Trump most definitely said that he took documents from the WH.

Which is not a problem.

He claimed they belonged to him,

Which means "they belong to him!"

but they do not.

They absolutely do. We went through the judges ruling who says that for all intents and purposes, the presidents ability to designate records as personal is "unlimited." This is exactly why the recordings of everything that went on in the oval office during the Clinton administration we're designated "personal." Because the president has the power to do that to an unlimited degree, as the judge pointed out, and you and I both read it.

And yes, Trump failed to comply with a subpoena to return stolen documents:

You can't steal your personal property.

And you are confused about the powers of the POTUS, who can declassify classified documents, but POTUS does not have unlimited power to declare any and all documents, classified or not, as personal.

You are conflating two different things that I have properly called to your attention. The president has unlimited power to declassify anything.

Do presidents have 'the ability to declassify anything'?

The blockbuster article in The Washington Post saying President Donald Trump had "revealed highly classified information

www.politifact.com

It's also true that the president has virtually unlimited power to designate records as personal records.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,...the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” link​

The later decision is made by the Archives.

No it's not as the legal decision above shows.

I will accept your apology for mistakenly calling me a liar, multiple times.

I just demonstrated that everything you said was false. Correctly pointing out that you've been repeating lies is not the same thing as calling you a liar. At some point a perpetual indifference to repeating lies might cross that line, but I have not drawn that distinction with reference to you.

I gather that a habit of relying on personal insults is hard to break.

Pointing out that you have repeated a lie is not a personal insult. It's the only way to proceed through a falsehoods appearance in a conversation.

 

[vibise]

Nobody attempted to kill George Floyd. His death was entirely fortuitous, emanating from circumstances that he himself precipitated, after having been arrested, and after being secured in a completely safe environment. Again your deliberately misrepresenting the facts and circumstances which is fundamentally dishonest.

Who exactly is the sovereign in this government? "We the people of the United States of America."

The American people are the proprietors.

Does something unimportant go on there? It's not supposed to. Sadly they have made it a monument to unimportance. The January 6 committee is exhibit one. There should never be anything unimportant going on in that building! So making it off-limits to the sovereign people of the United States is a non sequitur.

The sovereign people of the United States of America were legitimately in that building.

This is what happens in demonstrations in America. People violate laws for which they will get arrested. They get arrested, and are released (generally with a slap on the wrist). Squeezing through a teeny tiny broken window is not throwing a Molotov cocktail. It won't (and can't) harm anybody. But you all of a sudden are cheerleading the shooters at Kent State University.

The colloquial language you're using in your framing of the issue here belies the fact that the actions of two or three people is not the actions of everyone. It is simply not true that everyone there was saying something analogous to "crucify him crucified him." I've got, what I believe, are some very well founded suspicions about anybody who is actually to use your words "calling for blood." And to press that misframing of the issue, to justify murder is nothing short of bloodthirsty. The fact that you are completely shameless in this despicable behavior is appalling.

Which day? January 6 or May 29?

His behavior does not need the reasonable man standard that I mentioned in my post above.

That is despicable. On the last day you will account for every reckless word that you have uttered.

So you see no reason to be reasonable. This is a agent 007 license to kill situation? The old innocence is no excuse line. Truly fiendish.

Which is not a problem.

Which means "they belong to him!"

They absolutely do. We went through the judges ruling who says that for all intents and purposes, the presidents ability to designate records as personal is "unlimited." This is exactly why the recordings of everything that went on in the oval office during the Clinton administration we're designated "personal." Because the president has the power to do that to an unlimited degree, as the judge pointed out, and you and I both read it.

You can't steal your personal property.

You are conflating two different things that I have properly called to your attention. The president has unlimited power to declassify anything.

Do presidents have 'the ability to declassify anything'?

The blockbuster article in The Washington Post saying President Donald Trump had "revealed highly classified information

www.politifact.com

It's also true that the president has virtually unlimited power to designate records as personal records.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,...the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” link​

No it's not as the legal decision above shows.

I just demonstrated that everything you said was false. Correctly pointing out that you've been repeating lies is not the same thing as calling you a liar. At some point a perpetual indifference to repeating lies might cross that line, but I have not drawn that distinction with reference to you.

Pointing out that you have repeated a lie is not a personal insult. It's the only way to proceed through a falsehoods appearance in a conversation.

The police who killed Floyd are in prison. He had said over and over that he could not breathe and bystanders kept urging the police to let him up. For 9 min. Seems deliberate to me.

Sure, we the people are the basis of govt, but our elected representatives need the space to do their jobs, so the Capitol and the WH are periodically closed to visitors. You cannot just walk into the WH.

Breaking through doors to get into the Capitol and then breaking through the last barrier to the House Chamber are indeed violent acts that were performed by an insurgent mob looking for blood. Babbit not only joined the mob, but was leading them into the House chamber. That policeman did the right thing. And note that he shot her in the shoulder, not the head or chest. If she had lived she would rightly have gone to prison.

Two or three people?!?! The calls for blood came from plenty of those in attendance. They even erected a gallows in front of the Capitol.

What do you suppose was the goal of those breaking into the House Chamber? Were they planning to sit quietly in the gallery as the certification process was going on? Not remotely.

The investigation determined that the police officers actions were warranted.

All documents generated during any Presidency related to that office are the property of the govt, not the individual occupying that office. For example, Trump kept letters sent to him by the Pres of N. Korea, but those letters were sent to him as the person in office and are not his. Similarly, classified or unclassified documents prepared by other govt officials that he got to read are not his.

The Presidential records act was put in place after Nixon attempted to hide records relating to Watergate. I do not see anything in there that can be interpreted as giving POTUS the ability to declare anything and everything his personal property.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 | National Archives

www.archives.gov

• Requires that the President and his staff take all practical steps to file personal records separately from Presidential records.
• Allows the incumbent President to dispose of records that no longer have administrative, historical, informational, or evidentiary value, once the views of the Archivist of the United States on the proposed disposal have been obtained in writing.
• Establishes that Presidential records automatically transfer into the legal custody of the Archivist as soon as the President leaves office.

Personal property in this context would include family photos, takeout menus, newspaper clippings. However, it is unimaginable that any POTUS would declare supposedly declassified records prepared by someone else to be his personal property.

I never, ever said that POTUS does NOT have the ability to declassify documents at any time. But that process should not reside solely in the President's head. Classified documents are relied on by multiple agencies in decision making. Declassification should be accompanied by notification of the relevant agencies and relabelling all such documents. If only POTUS knows about this so-called declassification, then it has no practical implications, as the relevant agencies will continue to treat those documents as classified. Also, you have failed to notice two things:
1 - the only documents Trump claims to have declassified are the ones he had at Mar-a-lago which seems a clear attempt to prevent legal action
2 - the legal complaints against Trump are not completely focused on the classified documents, which seems to be the focus of RWers, thinking the POTUS ability to declassify will get him out of hot water. Instead there is a broader picture of taking documents that do not belong to him, refusing to cooperate in their return, ignoring a subpoena, all of which counts as obstruction of justice.

The above shows I have not stated any falsehoods. While there may be differences of opinion, there is no doubt that Trump is culpable in removing govt documents, failing to return them and obstructing efforts of the govt to get them back.

As to your insistence that you do not insult me, here is an example from post 192:
"You are dangerously, homicidally off your rocker."
Or do you think that is not an insult?

 

[Thistle]

The police who killed Floyd are in prison. He had said over and over that he could not breathe and bystanders kept urging the police to let him up. For 9 min. Seems deliberate to me.

And pointing a gun at an unarmed 110 pound woman and pulling the trigger doesn't seem deliberate it to you? Of the two the latter seems far more deliberate to me. If I was really trying to kill somebody, it wouldn't occur to me to try to asphyxiate them by leaning on their back with my knee. If killing people is generally that easy, why are we spending billions of dollars sending war material to Ukraine. Don't they have any knees?

Sure, we the people are the basis of govt,

We aren't just the basis of the government, we are the sovereign's.

but our elected representatives need the space to do their jobs,

I will put the US Capitol up against any similar facility to be found anywhere else in the world. Check!

so the Capitol and the WH are periodically closed to visitors. You cannot just walk into the WH.

That is a comparatively recent development. Certainly during the Lincoln Administration, yes you could walk right into the White House. But then again Lincoln was shot to death. Although, not at the White House. And thus not as a result of letting people just walk into the White House.

Breaking through doors to get into the Capitol and then breaking through the last barrier to the House Chamber are indeed violent acts that were performed by an insurgent mob looking for blood.

Let's just take this point for granted, for the sake of discussion. Why do you suppose they were so successful at "breaking in" to the capital, yet so completely inept at drawing even a single ounce of blood? They didn't manage to exact any cost in blood. If there's one thing that Ashli Babbitt's death illustrates brilliantly, it's that if you want to kill somebody it's very easy to do. What do you chalk that ineptitude up to? I have an answer, they weren't out for blood. A plant however can be inserted to "say" anything and thus anything could be heard emanating from the crowd when the crowd didn't have in mind just anything. And in particular they didn't have a purpose of exacting any cost in blood. By sharp contrast, the officer who pointed his gun at Ashley Babbitt and pulled the trigger, intended to kill her.

Babbit not only joined the mob,

Excuse me, but the difference between a mob and a group of protesters is whether or not you label them as such. So I'm going to correct you and say that she was part of a group of protesters.

but was leading them into the House chamber.

That's an absurd allegation. She wasn't "leading" a crowd of high school gymnasts. About the only kind of "crowd" of any description who could've followed her through the teeny tiny window. Nor was she "at the head" of Punxsutawney Phil and an army of groundhogs.

That policeman did the right thing.

If dealing death is what the circumstances demanded, why were the capital police so inept as to only shoot and kill this one 110 pound woman crawling through a teeny tiny window? And while we're at it, how many additional students should the National Guard have killed at Kent State?

And note that he shot her in the shoulder, not the head or chest.

Wow, this is a statement that could only be made by a blithering idiot. If you're going to point a firearm at someone and pull the trigger, presumably your justification for doing so is neutralizing a threat. You don't neutralize a threat by "shooting to wound." If somebody shoots someone in our nonvital area, it's because they missed. You can scour through all of the firearms training that is available or ever has been available in the history of the world and you're never going to find any of the following: shoot him in the shoulder, shoot him in the leg, shoot him in the arm, that is not part of any firearms training for any circumstance ever. That is the exclusive purview of Hollywood scriptwriters. In a few limited circumstances you might be trained to shoot someone in the head, if you believe you're going to encounter an adversary with body armor or possibly as our GI's encountered in places like Iwo Jima adversaries that were so radicalized by Shintoism that they would come over the top of defensive earth works with samurai swords to Cleve soldiers in-Twain in which case they would do their best to shoot them in the head. Same exception if you were on the receiving end of a bayonet charge.

If she had lived she would rightly have gone to prison.

There is no end to your vindictive imperiousness is there. Edit per mod

Two or three people?!?! The calls for blood came from plenty of those in attendance.

Spoken like someone who was there. How is that you managed to not be cool in your heels in the DC infirmary.

What do you suppose was the goal of those breaking into the House Chamber?

This is not a theoretical question. In fact video tape has emerged of exactly what happened when people did get into the house chambers. Do you know what they didn't observe? Anyone exacting some kind of cost in blood.

Were they planning to sit quietly in the gallery as the certification process was going on? Not remotely.

Again we can observe what happened. They ultimately delay the proceedings for a few hours. For the life of me why doing something so counterproductive would be undertaken is beyond my imagination, but obviously that's what they did, and it had to my mind of the predictable result, which is the opposite of what they ostensibly would've wanted. They completely cut the legs out from under Ted Cruz and others who were trying to do something productive.

Continued . . .​

 

[Thistle]

The investigation determined that the police officers actions were warranted.

And as we always know these investigations are sacrosanct and couldn't ever be questioned on any grounds whatsoever under any in all circumstances… which is why we never have cities being burned to the ground by groups like antifa after some cause celeb has been hyped too the sky usually on a false predicate of some kind.

All documents generated during any Presidency related to that office are the property of the govt, not the individual occupying that office. For example, Trump kept letters sent to him by the Pres of N. Korea, but those letters were sent to him as the person in office and are not his.

The discretion to make that call was not given to you.

"Under the statutory scheme established by the PRA, the decision to segregate personal materials from Presidential records is made by the President, during the President’s term and in his sole discretion,...the President is completely entrusted with the management and even the disposal of Presidential records during his time in office, it would be difficult for this Court to conclude that Congress intended that he would have less authority to do what he pleases with what he considers to be his personal records,” link​

Similarly, classified or unclassified documents prepared by other govt officials that he got to read are not his.

Again that discretion is not given to you it's given to the president.

The Presidential records act was put in place after Nixon attempted to hide records relating to Watergate.

It wouldn't matter if it was carried down from Mount Sinai by Moses. It gives the discretion to the president.

I do not see anything in there that can be interpreted as giving POTUS the ability to declare anything and everything his personal property.

Well you're not a judge and the judge who issue the opinion above is.

Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 | National Archives

www.archives.gov

Personal property in this context would include family photos, takeout menus, newspaper clippings. However, it is unimaginable that any POTUS would declare supposedly declassified records prepared by someone else to be his personal property.

I don't know about that, it's pretty clear thus far in this thread, that your imagination is right up there with the best of them. You're clearly not giving yourself enough credit.

I never, ever said that POTUS does NOT have the ability to declassify documents at any time. But that process should not reside solely in the President's head.

Then I'm sorry to be the one to inform you that that horse is already out of the barn.

Classified documents are relied on by multiple agencies in decision making.

Agencies operate at the pleasure of and the disposal of the President of the United States. There are no agencies in the constitution. They are not necessary and they could all be shut down tomorrow and no harm would come to our republic so long as the president carried out all of his duties. The president is in the constitution. And if anybody in any agency or all of the agencies in unanimous consent don't like what the constitution tells the president he can do they can take a long walk off a short pier we don't need them! I am beginning to see quite clearly that they are primarily staffed by anti-American scumbags and we're better off without them!

Declassification should be accompanied by notification of the relevant agencies and relabelling all such documents.

There are a lot of things that should be that aren't. It should be that no one ever deliberately disobeys an order of the President of the United States. Nevertheless President Trump ordered our troops out of Syria, and after he left office we have military generals bragging about how they disobeyed that order and concealed their treachery and insurrection against the people of the United States, with deceitful lies directly to the president. With your demonstrated imperiousness I would expect that you would want these people hung by the neck until dead, right?

If only POTUS knows about this so-called declassification,

You know that that's a lie, because we have talked over and over again about the fact that Kash Patel was there when it happened. Again repeating lies in a bludgeoning fashion over and over and over again is not okay and will not be tolerated. At least, it won't be tolerated by me!

then it has no practical implications, as the relevant agencies will continue to treat those documents as classified. Also, you have failed to notice two things:

You just laid out a scenario that is completely at odds with the known fact that we have immediately in front of us, and your observation is that I have failed to noticed two things? It's like Helen Keller telling us what she likes best about the Mona Lisa.

1 - the only documents Trump claims to have declassified are the ones he had at Mar-a-lago which seems a clear attempt to prevent legal action
2 - the legal complaints against Trump are not completely focused on the classified documents, which seems to be the focus of RWers, thinking the POTUS ability to declassify will get him out of hot water. Instead there is a broader picture of taking documents that do not belong to him, refusing to cooperate in their return, ignoring a subpoena, all of which counts as obstruction of justice.

I don't know if I'm one of these right wingers that you're talking about, but you and I have discussed the president's sole discretion to designate documents as personal. We have done that extensively in this post. How you can suggest that I have failed to notice this belies 30% of what you and I have been discussing.

The above shows I have not stated any falsehoods.

Is this in some theoretical world were what you stated above was not false as we have just shown it to be?

While there may be differences of opinion, there is no doubt that Trump is culpable in removing govt documents,

Okay, that is an out, and out lie no one who is read this far into this post does not know that.

failing to return them and obstructing efforts of the govt to get them back.

When somebody seeks possession of property which does not belong to them that's called a conversion. It's not "getting something back." It's theft! The level of deceit bound up in everything that you say about this, is off the charts. The dishonest framing that is embedded so deeply in everything that you say about this makes it virtually impossible for you to say anything about it without lying.

As to your insistence that you do not insult me, here is an example from post 192:
"You are dangerously, homicidally off your rocker."
Or do you think that is not an insult?

That was in response to your deliberate cheerleading of the murdering of Ashli Babbitt. In case no one has ever mentioned this to you, promoting murder is bad. If you think that reflects badly on you, you're darn Tootin!