Fogbow

GOP Rep. to 'Birther Princess': 'Honestly, I Don't Even Give a S**t
"We lost that argument on November 6th"

Republican Brags About Comforting Ashli Babbitt’s Killer For CSPAN Special [VIDEO]
30 Comments / General News / By Kari Donovan

The Federal Government has created dangerous mythology around the events at the US Capitol on January 6th that feeds their narrative and gives them seemingly unlimited emergency powers to use against their political opponents, the American people.

Key Point: One of the most unnatural narratives they have is that a female veteran, Ashli Babbitt, a supporter of President Donald J. Trump, who was inside the Capitol building that day, deserved to be shot and left to die that day. The American people have not been told the shooter’s identity, and here is proof that the government knows who it was who shot to kill and that they are intentionally withholding that information from the people.

CSPAN posted on Sunday about a Republican who had been at the Capitol and witnessed the shooting death. They broadcast the representative’s story that ran to comfort the shooter, and then further defended the shooter, saying the shooter was acting in “self-defense” and had to shoot Babbitt dead:

.@RepMullin on police officer who fatally shot woman in Capitol on January 6th: "After it happened, he came over. He was physically and emotionally distraught. I actually gave him a hug and I said, 'sir, you did what you had to do.'" pic.twitter.com/qSwZgilMS7
— CSPAN (@cspan) July 23, 2021

In an apparent push to garner sympathy for themselves, some members of the US Government who feel they have a story turned to CPSAN to be involved with a show titled: January 6th, Views From The House. “14 members of Congress shared stories what they saw, heard, and experienced that day, including Oklahoma Republican Markwayne Mullin. He told us about his conversation with a police officer who fatally shot a woman in the Capitol,” the CPSAN announcer said. “I guarantee you, and I do not know for a fact, but I guarantee you he has never had to pull his weapon in a manner like that before. ah… he was the last person in the world whoever wanted to use force like that.. ah.. and.. ah.. he wasn’t one to do that. And I know that for a fact because after it happened, he was physically emotionally distraught, and I actually hugged him. I said, Sir, you did what you had to do, and I mean that unfortunately .. ah.. the young lady.. ah… her family’s life has changed and it is an unfortunate situation .. that.. that.. she lost her life.. and.. and .. people lost their loved one. But the Luteniaets life is also changed because it is the first time you ever had to use lethal force.. that doesn’t ever leave you, and it wasn’t his choice. He didn’t show up to work that day to have to do that.

“He didn’t.. he was doing his job. Ah.. he got put in a situation where he had to do his job, there were members still in the balcony.. and if you are going to present your weapon in a manner and give commands and you still don’t listen and still approach you don’t have a choice because either you have to at that point, just to discharge your weapon in a manner of.. of self-defense.. or that weapon is going to be taken away from you and used against you and put all of your lives in danger,” said Markwayne Mullins, a US House member from Oklahoma.

Mullins has a very odd pattern of behavior on that day:

Mullins may have been one of the people who invited Trump supporters into the building in the first place. He is videotaped talking to Trump supporters that day. The left uses Mullins a focal point for their narrative that the “insurrection” was an inside job:

you guys keep forgetting the milling among the terrorist republican represenative.. markwayne mullins. he was right out among in the open.. he wasn't negotiating.. see man in blue coat, he motions for mullins to come to him, and grabs his shoulder.. They know each other.. pic.twitter.com/0kGerwzg8A
— Mlee (@McGreggorsback) July 27, 2021

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:32 pm Thanks, I've been doing other things and too lazy to look yet

Edit: Ooops, I thought you linked the actual video. Back on the hunt...

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:38 pm

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:32 pm Thanks, I've been doing other things and too lazy to look yet

Edit: Ooops, I thought you linked the actual video. Back on the hunt...

Yeah, couldn't find it yet.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:50 pm Watching now, thanks!

#1526Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Thu Jul 29, 2021 6:46 am
https://www.causes.com/articles/47665-s ... y-6th-riot

Select Committee Hears Testimony From Police Officers Who Defended Capitol During January 6th Riot

House Democrats investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol riot are newly optimistic about securing testimony from former Trump officials. That doesn’t mean they’re close to hauling in big names from the ex-president’s turbulent final days.

Lawmakers on the Jan. 6 select committee describe their probe’s reach as still undefined, saying in interviews that they have yet to formalize the confines of an already closely watched and fast-moving investigation. Minutes before the panel’s first hearing on Tuesday, however, its members scored a key win thanks to a legal opinion from President Joe Biden's Justice Department that allowed them to freely seek witness statements from former Trump administration officials.

“That means the likelihood of any resistance from the committee’s work from former [Trump] employees or current employees is not an impediment,” Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chairs the Jan. 6 probe, said in an interview. The Biden DOJ’s decision “expedites” the panel’s work digging into the insurrection, he added.

But investigators are still in the earliest stages of crafting their road map, with a clash building outside their hearing room as House Republicans push back on the exclusion of two of their picks for the committee. The panel only recently hired its senior staff and launched its website — and it has more work to do before it can seek out potential Trump-adjacent witnesses such as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) or Gen. Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:46 pm Is it reasonable for the insurrection deniers to ask for video proof of Harry Dunn being called the n-word?

Is there any reason to believe he's lying?

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:46 pm Is it reasonable for the insurrection deniers to ask for video proof of Harry Dunn being called the n-word?

Is there any reason to believe he's lying?

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:07 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:46 pm Is it reasonable for the insurrection deniers to ask for video proof of Harry Dunn being called the n-word?

"Reasonable," in that there often is a tactical advantage to show that the opposing witnesses are lying. That is, if caught in one lie, it is easier to argue that they always lie.

But too also: there's sometimes a tactical advantage not to beat up on a sympathetic witness.

Is there any reason to believe he's lying?

The argument will be framed in the negative, e.g., "Dunn said all these horrible things happened. And this event was widely documented. But the prosecutor failed to present even one video to prove this actually happened. Why not? What other, unfulfilled promises did the prosecutor fail to deliver on? As you see, the prosecutor's case is a house of cards: remove one lie, and the rest of the fairy tale crumbles."

Etc.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:20 pmSo do you think there is reason to believe Dunn may be lying?

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:39 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:20 pmSo do you think there is reason to believe Dunn may be lying?

I, personally, don't.

But it is easy enough to see how it could be framed in the courts (of law and of public opinion).

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:43 pmIn other words, he probably shouldn't have made that claim without anything to back it up,?

Do you see any credibility issues with him or the other officers?

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:49 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 6:43 pmIn other words, he probably shouldn't have made that claim without anything to back it up,?

I can't speak to his motive for making this statement. But I, personally, believe him.

And many will find him credible without supporting evidence. And many will find him not credible, and will conveniently cite the lack of supporting evidence. And some would find him not credible even if he provided evidence ("anything can be faked").

Do you see any credibility issues with him or the other officers?

"Objectively," no. But credibility always is in the eyes of the beholders.

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:01 pm Are the pictures with Nancy Pelosi and some of his social media activity something that could call into question his credibility?

bob wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:12 pm

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 7:01 pm Are the pictures with Nancy Pelosi and some of his social media activity something that could call into question his credibility?

They will be used by those who want to question his credibility, yes.