Assault on the Capitol (DC)

Frater I*I · #5376

Kendra wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:08 pm My hold for Ryan's book Sedition Hunters is ready for pickup at the library. Guess what I'll be doing this afternoon.

Macramé???

Kendra · #5377

Frater I*I wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:11 pm
Kendra wrote: ↑Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:08 pm My hold for Ryan's book Sedition Hunters is ready for pickup at the library. Guess what I'll be doing this afternoon.
Macramé???

Edit. Closed for holiday, will have to wait...

Kendra · #5378

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 39cbb&ei=9

Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man known as the “QAnon Shaman” who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed paperwork to run for Congress as a Libertarian candidate in the battleground state’s 8th Congressional District.

Rep. Debbie Lesko. R-Ariz., announced last month that she won’t seek re-election in the district.

#5379

Kendra wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 3:39 pm https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 39cbb&ei=9

Jacob Chansley, the Arizona man known as the “QAnon Shaman” who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, filed paperwork to run for Congress as a Libertarian candidate in the battleground state’s 8th Congressional District.

Rep. Debbie Lesko. R-Ariz., announced last month that she won’t seek re-election in the district.

This is my district. It's attracting all sorts of weirdos and wackos. Abe Hamadeh, among others, is also running, apparently.

Kendra · #5380

Yikes! Do they have much chance of making it past the primaries?

#5381

Kendra wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2023 6:59 pm Yikes! Do they have much chance of making it past the primaries?

Chansley is running as a Libertarian, dunno if he is going up against anybody. We couldn't even manage to get a Democrat candidate on the ballot in the last election. Ben Toma is the head of the AZ House and actually lives in this district, if he ends up throwing his hat in the ring, he'll probably easily get the nomination. And the seat, for that matter. Or maybe the Dems will field someone this time.

Rolodex · #5382

Former Fox reporter has sued Fox. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/nati ... 70536c9358

Nevertheless, according to Donner’s suit after the election the network made a conscious decision to “pledge its loyalty to President Trump." The lawsuit cites a text message from CEO Suzanne Scott to Lachlan Murdoch, son of Fox News founder and chairman Rupert Murdoch, that the network needed to “plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them.”

Donner claims a toxic environment developed at the network for those who questioned Trump’s unsubstantiated claims of fraud – and says that environment peaked after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Donner says he was in the Fox News booth at the Capitol that day and pushed back on the network’s reporting that rioters were “peaceful.”

“I’m your Capitol Hill producer inside the Capitol where tear gas is going off on the second floor in the Ohio Clock Corridor, rioters are storming the building, reports of shots fired outside the House Chamber, Donner reportedly said in a call to the Fox News control room. “I don’t want to hear any of this f***ing s*** on our air ever again because you’re gonna get us all killed.

#5383

Sounds like a hostile work environment to me. Time to get the NLRB involved.

bob · #5384

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Sat May 01, 2021 3:31 pmBut John Sullivan! According to RWNJ's, it's really just Sullivan leading Antifa who were the rioters at the Capitol and any Trump supporter was invited in by the police and it's totally unfair that these peaceful people are getting arrested when it's Sullivan who was the real leader. And Antifa!

An update!

(Sullivan filmed Ashli Babbitt's shooting.)

DrIrvingFinegarten · #5385

How problematic is Johnson’s release of the J6 videos and should he have been allowed to release them?

bob · #5386

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 4:37 pm How problematic is Johnson’s release of the J6 videos and should he have been allowed to release them?

Legally: Not problematic. Everyone charged with a J6 crime would have had access to them anyway. If anything, the additional footage likely contains additional information and clues, which could lead to more arrests.

Politically: Very little. Those who are convinced there was or was not an insurrection aren't going to be swayed. Hay will be made, of course. But nothing substantial will come of it.

Morally problematic? Sure; the release was mostly just chum for right-wing base. It'll raise tensions and enlarge divides. The opposite of what one expects from real leaders. But no law (or court order) prevented the release.

DrIrvingFinegarten · #5387

How is it in the public interest to have those tapes released? The Democrats should have gotten some sort of restraining order.

Ben-Prime · #5388

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 7:20 pm How is it in the public interest to have those tapes released? The Democrats should have gotten some sort of restraining order.

Could they? Courts have been reluctant to meddle in the internal affairs of how Congress chooses to operate. Can one of our IAALs weigh in?

Dave from down under · #5389

Aren’t the tapes already out there - well with fox at least

DrIrvingFinegarten · #5390

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 12:30 am Aren’t the tapes already out there - well with fox at least

Those tapes never should have been allowed to see the light of day either.

bob · #5391

DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 7:20 pm How is it in the public interest to have those tapes released?

Sunshine, disinfectant, and all that.

The Democrats should have gotten some sort of restraining order.

A bad idea both legally and politically.

Slim Cognito · #5392

As noted above, people's minds are made up. You can't reason with unreasonable people, not even if you post the video evidence right there for everyone to see. People just keep getting stupider. I blame the internet. (remember when we were told how smart computers were going to make everyone?)

DrIrvingFinegarten · #5393

bob wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 3:42 pm
DrIrvingFinegarten wrote: ↑Sat Nov 18, 2023 7:20 pm How is it in the public interest to have those tapes released?
Sunshine, disinfectant, and all that.

The Democrats should have gotten some sort of restraining order.
A bad idea both legally and politically.

There’s no legitimate “other side” to this story. Why should the videos be out there when half the country is too stupid to make up their own minds about it?

Dave from down under · #5394

Because the stupid and evil will say that the tapes if withheld are being done so because they would exonerate the insurrectionist and prove Antifa blah blah blah

much ado · #5395

bob · #5396

Dave from down under wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 5:52 pm Because the stupid and evil will say that the tapes if withheld are being done so because they would exonerate the insurrectionist and prove Antifa blah blah blah

Because attempting to prevent the release would lead to "WHAT ARE THEY HIDING??!?" See, e.g., Obama's "sealed" college records.

Like in life, politics often has no right answer, but rather only least-bad possibilities. (And calling half of the country "too stupid" is bad politics, even if it is accurate.)

#5397

I thought I remember them saying that they did not want some tapes released because that could cause the bad guys to figure out where hidden cameras were located throughout the Capitol.

Kendra · #5398

MN-Skeptic wrote: ↑Sun Nov 19, 2023 8:05 pm I thought I remember them saying that they did not want some tapes released because that could cause the bad guys to figure out where hidden cameras were located throughout the Capitol.

I heard that mentioned numerous times the last day or so on networks other than Fox...

Dave from down under · #5399

The location of all those cameras would have been given away by the elected terrorists by now…

Suranis · #5400

Meh. Cameras can be moved.