Quote: @"BarrNone55" said:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1382670554205990917
Weird, huh?
Are we supposed to find examples of people of all races that weren't shot by police yesterday? Or are you being purposely obtuse? In this case that cop should have shot that dude. Would have been justified all day long.
The last number I seem to be able to come up with is there are 68,000 police pursuits annually (though that is 2012). In that year 355 people died. So on a daily basis about 1 death to 191 police pursuits. So there's probably about what ~190 more videos like this out there from yesterday alone?
Quote: @"savannahskol" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
One cop died, another had an eye gouged out.
But, yes, way more should have been shot. 100s more.
Nice!
But prescient and timely observation by you on this subject.
Today....liberal Georgetown constitutional law professor has some new analysis on the "Jan 6" issue, based on the latest independent IG report on "Jan 6".
Looks like we might need a "snap impeachment" of the new Congress!
April 14, 2021IG Report: Congress Restricted The Capitol Police’s Use of Material And Tactics Before Capitol RiotA new report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton has sent congressional leaders scrambling after finding that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests. The finding challenges the narrative put forward in the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.
My favorite part....
The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.
This is precisely the type of information that should have been revealed in the weeks after the riot. Indeed, as previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence could challenge the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
The report also raises over the Lafayette Park effect. In the prior summer, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church.
Thanks for reporting this document Savannah! There need so to be follow through on this but doubtful the democrats consider it... We'll see, one can always hope!
Quote: @"IDVikingfan" said:
@"savannahskol" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
One cop died, another had an eye gouged out.
But, yes, way more should have been shot. 100s more.
Nice!
But prescient and timely observation by you on this subject.
Today....liberal Georgetown constitutional law professor has some new analysis on the "Jan 6" issue, based on the latest independent IG report on "Jan 6".
Looks like we might need a "snap impeachment" of the new Congress!
April 14, 2021IG Report: Congress Restricted The Capitol Police’s Use of Material And Tactics Before Capitol RiotA new report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton has sent congressional leaders scrambling after finding that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests. The finding challenges the narrative put forward in the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.
My favorite part....
The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.
This is precisely the type of information that should have been revealed in the weeks after the riot. Indeed, as previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence could challenge the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
The report also raises over the Lafayette Park effect. In the prior summer, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church.
Thanks for reporting this document Savannah! There need so to be follow through on this but doubtful the democrats consider it... We'll see, one can always hope!
That document, as you call it, is an editorial, by Johnathan Turley. The report wasn't presented till today, for what it is worth. You all just never get it figured out, read a story check for multiple sources, to substantiate or refute, not just support what you want to hear.
"Michael A. Bolton, the Capitol Police’s inspector general, classified
the report as “law enforcement sensitive” and has not released it to the
public"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/po...eport.html
Quote: @"BigAl99" said:
@"IDVikingfan" said:
@"savannahskol" said:
@"BarrNone55" said:
One cop died, another had an eye gouged out.
But, yes, way more should have been shot. 100s more.
Nice!
But prescient and timely observation by you on this subject.
Today....liberal Georgetown constitutional law professor has some new analysis on the "Jan 6" issue, based on the latest independent IG report on "Jan 6".
Looks like we might need a "snap impeachment" of the new Congress!
April 14, 2021IG Report: Congress Restricted The Capitol Police’s Use of Material And Tactics Before Capitol RiotA new report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton has sent congressional leaders scrambling after finding that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests. The finding challenges the narrative put forward in the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.
My favorite part....
The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.
This is precisely the type of information that should have been revealed in the weeks after the riot. Indeed, as previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a “snap impeachment,” weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence could challenge the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
The report also raises over the Lafayette Park effect. In the prior summer, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the “heavier, less lethal weapons” that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church.
Thanks for reporting this document Savannah! There need so to be follow through on this but doubtful the democrats consider it... We'll see, one can always hope!
That document, as you call it, is an editorial, by Johnathan Turley. The report wasn't presented till today, for what it is worth. You all just never get it figured out, read a story check for multiple sources, to substantiate or refute, not just support what you want to hear.
"Michael A. Bolton, the Capitol Police’s inspector general, classified
the report as “law enforcement sensitive” and has not released it to the
public"
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/po...eport.html
I'm interested in seeing an investigation into this issue. Ought to be far more transparency from the Capital police in the days leading up to 1/6, IMO.
Btw, document can commonly refer to "a piece of written, printed, or electronic matter that provides information". The digital document provided information and links. Shrug, close enough for me!
There are two reports that are now available, from Bolton. This original "document" was a editorial piece, written by a lawyer personality, when you present something as a "document" that implies a tacit representation of fact, not opinion. Since you want to talk about literal aspects of documentation, I asked you earlier about what is a well regulated militia, that is the literal foundation term in the second amendment part of a real document. Now you are retired you should take some Ollie classes, brush up on journalism and
|
