The January 6th committee was a publicity stunt.

Since the other choice was to be permanently held in prison without bail and barely even allowed to see their lawyers what else were they going to do. Neocons are not traditional conservatives - they didn't even exist until the early eighties. They are what we used to call liberals back in the fifties. At least two of those police officers engaged in perjury.

 

The chain of command, and the board of governors are on the Capitol Police website, these are the folks that deal with the day to day operations. Pelosi is not listed. The CoP does NOT 'report to' Pelosi nor Shumer. He reports to the Board of Governors.

As for Congress, the site says:

The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. This oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.


Appropriations and Congressional oversight has NOTHING to do with 'chain of command' and the responsibility imparted therefrom.

This idea that Pelosi was responsible for the attack, was responsible as a command leader for the Capitol Police is beyond the pale preposterous, and reflects a total ignorance of the facts.

We have a video of both Pelosi and Schumer doing everything they can, within their powers and spheres of influence, to help on 1/6. But chain of command leader? That's just plain false. they chipped in to the best they could but responsibility is Trump's and his co-conspirators.

 

tnvalleytalks.com is a talk debate forum, just like this one, your link is tantamount to linking to PF to support your position, which is, in essence, circular reasoning.

You've repeated this tired trope too many times and it is getting old. The proof is in the pudding, and MBFC rates a quite number of right leaning sites with high ratings, quite a number of centrist sites with high ratings, and there are lefty sites that do not get high ratings, so your premise is crapola.

 

Then let me repeat about the fake mediabias site as some seem to have missed it..

Media Bias Fact Check literally is a written opinion site by a man with a ""Communications Degree in college"" Dave Van Zandt

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest

Discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker’ website was served with a ‘cease and desist’ legal notice today for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
MEDIA BIAS/FACT CHECK site owner admits he is unqualified and misrepresented himself as a seasoned journalist.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/media-bias-fact-check-site-served-cease-and-desist/

Media Bias/Fact Check bills itself as "The most comprehensive media bias resource." It's run by Dave Van Zandt, making it fair to say it's run by "some guy" ("Dave studied Communications in college" is his main claim to expertise).
We have nothing against "some guy" possessing expertise despite a lack of qualifications, of course. One doesn't need a degree or awards (or audience) to be right about stuff. But is Van Zandt and his Media Bias/Fact Check right about PolitiFact?
https://www.politifactbias.com/2017/10/can-you-trust-what-media-biasfact-check.html

Media Bias Fact Check Is a Major SCAM to Silence the Right
https://www.independentsentinel.com/media-bias-fact-checking-scam-silence-right/

Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
https://www.sitejabber.com/reviews/mediabiasfactcheck.com comments

Conservatives have criticized the liberal "fact-checking" website for being subjective and often outright false.[19][20][21] On their "10 Best Fact Checking Sites," they list several objectively false and generally inaccurate left-wing "fact-checkers," including PolitiFact, Snopes, and the Fact Checker by the Washington Post.[22]
Media Bias Fact Check sources its information from the Anti-Defamation League and the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center in order to inaccurately label right-wing websites and organizations as "questionable" sources according to Robert Spencer, who wrote to Media Bias/Fact Check's editor describing the attacks on his website, Jihad Watch, as "pure libel," afterward claiming he received no response from the editor.[23]
https://conservapedia.com/Media_Bias_Fact_Check

Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.
https://www.palmerreport.com/politics/palmer-report-exclusive-media-bias-fact-check/2115/

Overall, such fallacious attacks on outsider-opinion represent an effort to strangle social discourse from the top down. In this writer’s opinion, sites like Media Bias Fact Check constitute a desperate retaliatory measure in the wake of the legacy media’s loss of collective attention, and seek to reinforce narrative control in the hands of organizations like the Atlantic Council while smearing reliable sources of scientific journalism like WikiLeaks.
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com...ikileaks-supports-western-propaganda-machine/

If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true
https://www.tnvalleytalks.com/topic/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-just-dishonest

 

Goons are charged with attacking outnumbered police in an attempt to overthrow a certified election, and if the evidence confirms their guilt ( or if they confess to having been duped by the Loser, as some did) they are sentenced accordingly. Those found guilty availed themselves of their right to a defense, but failed to overcome the evidence.

Many alienated malcontents who have contempt for the U.S. Constitution and certified democratic elections also have, not surprisingly, contempt for law and order and the American justice system.

The RINOs of Trumpery are a c___ of personality , an invasive species that has infested the GOP since 2016.

 

All least Kal'Stang admitted that he had goofed and came up with an alternative narrative that now puts all the blame on the congress majority leader and lets the senate majority leader off the hook (though curiously when he thought the senate majority leader was a democrat he was also to blame) @garyd on the other hand is absolutely amazing in his make believe world. Just to get this straight: you are claiming that since Mitch McConnell was going to lose the title of senate majority leader two weeks hence, he deferred his authority to Schumer? Mitch McConnell? Deferred his power and authority ahead of time?!? Are you ****ing kidding me ?!?!?!!!
Other than the preposterousness of an elected official these days deferring anything to the opposition (I mean ESPECIALLY McConnell (does the Supreme Court not ring a bell?)) and especially during a time of crisis when protocol is very important (no one gets off the hook by claiming "well I was practically done with the job, I let the future incoming new guy who hadn't started yet take over") but PLEASE, I beg of you: find me the source from which you learned that McConnell "deferred to Nancy and Schumer since they would be in charge of the incoming congress". Other than your fertile make believe world. Find me ONE source where McConell claims that he had prematurely and during a time of crisis handed over his official function to a future incoming speaker.
Do you realise how bat **** crazy your scenario is?
Now prove it!

 

Two simple questions: Why did the Chief of Police go and talk to the Sargent at Arms for both the Senate and the House? And who is in charge of those two Sargent at Arms?

What you referred to is regarding USCP, they are responsible for enforcing the law all across DC, with the exception of the White House, and its grounds, and the Capitol Building, and its grounds. For the Capitol Building they need to coordinate with the Sargent at Arms, who is responsible for the security of the building. The one assigned to the House takes care of the House side of the building, and the one assigned to the Senate takes care of that side of the building.

Each Sargent at Arms is directed by the heads of each of the respective houses in Congress. The Senate, and the House. At that time that was Pelosi, and McConnell.

There is a reason that both Sargent at Arms that day resigned in the aftermath of 1/6 along with Chief Sund. And it was due to their failure to properly secure the building. LINK: Congress sergeants-at-arms, Capitol Police chief resign after insurrection - UPI.com Though I don't think it was Sunds fault. He at least tried by all accounts.

What has not been answered is what did Pelosi know, and when. And what did McConnell know, and when. And what, if any, orders did they give out. Those things have been studiously ignored. Being deflected to the talking point that you tried to use. Which only focuses on the USCP and ignores the fact that they are not the ones in charge of security for the Capitol building. That they have to defer to the Sargent at Arms and coordinate with them for security.

 

Just so you know, I didn't know McConnells or Schumers party affiliation. I assumed that since Reps had control of the Senate at the time that they were both Reps. Like I said, I'm horrible with names and all them politicians look the same to me. Only time I actually know party affiliation is when they get lots of attention in the media. Or at least enough to make me aware of it. I really don't like parties. I'd love to add an amendment to the Constitution that bans party affiliation for politicians seeking office. Then maybe they'd be forced to focus on the issues more rather than party and sniping at opposing parties.

Also, just to note, that particular bit you quoted from me wasn't an attempt to let anyone off the hook. I hold them both equally responsible. That was just me showing what/how others may think.

 

U beg of your to understand that J6 is three days after J3 and had Schumer wished to counter McConnell had plenty of time to do so. Which is why He deferred to schumer because the event wasn't to be till after schumer took charge.

 

I'm sorry, maybe English isn't your first language, but could you please explain what you are saying again. I really did not understand this. My point here is that on January 6, McConnell was the majority leader of the senate. Chuck Schumer would not become Majority leader until January 20. To try to pin the congressional oversight of the CPB on Schumer on January 6 is preposterous: he was not the Majority leader on that day, and wouldn't be for another two weeks. I have read no source anywhere claiming that McConnell handed over his duties to Schumer before that day. That is just a preposterous proposition. So once again, please show me any evidence that McConnell handed over the reigns to Schumer. Anywhere.

 

Are you claiming it's impossible for 2 people to agree to lie and deceive?

 

Not at all. I'm just saying that CALLING them liars does not make it a lie.

 

Your pronouns are confusing. Does not make it a lie? or them liars?

 

More than 1,350 Trump goons have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack, and prosecutors have secured more than 950 convictions.

Trump goons are still being convicted and sentenced.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has handed down her harshest Jan. 6 sentence to date — five-and-a-half years — to Scott Miller, a Maryland man and former Proud Boys leader who assaulted multiple officers in a violent attempt to breach the Capitol.

Chutkan based her sentence, delivered on Friday, in part on Miller’s “aggressive” actions at the Capitol but also on his private writings that called for racial and religious violence against minorities and Jews. She said the evidence of his “violent ideology” — his embrace of Nazism and his purported belief that Washington, D.C., residents should be executed — troubled her despite Miller’s insistence that he had disavowed those beliefs soon after Jan. 6.

Chutkan’s 66-month sentence narrowly edges two 63-month sentences she handed down to Robert Palmer and Mark Ponder, who similarly joined some of the most egregious violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6: the brutal hand-to-hand combat at the mouth of the building’s Lower West Terrace tunnel.

Chutkan, who is in line to preside over the criminal trial of Donald Trump for his bid to subvert the 2020 election, emphasized her belief that the Jan. 6 mob attack was “close to as serious a crisis as this nation has ever faced.” She lauded officers who, though outnumbered and ill-equipped, fought to protect the building.

“They faced horrendous circumstances. They were assaulted, spat on, beaten, kicked, gassed,” Chutkan said. “They are patriots.”
​