January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Kismet]

Yawn, it is all just political theater until the DoJ tells us all about it in a "speaking incictmemt'.

Would not be at all surprised if the committee does ultimately make a criminal referral to DoJ for any number of the people in this FUBAR at some point.

As for the former DOPUS, NYC AG has now heard testimony from both his chief accountant at Mazars and the lady at Deutsche Bank who handled all of his loans (who was later canned by the bank for a variety of improprieties) - In NY, you get immunity for anything you testify to in front of a Grand Jury.

[MDlaxfan76]

The text messages revealed by Cheney show how little support Trump had for his crazy "insurrection" scheme from within the GOP, his Admin, & even his family. Jan 6th was political theater that spun out of control, made possible by a failure to defend the Capitol grounds & building.

Trump's delusion that he could block the election certification was not shared by enough of his party or admin to make it happen, up to & including his VP. Nobody, beyond Trump & a few true believers & fellow grifters, was buying the whacko legal theories proposed by the likes of Eastman & Clark.

Trump was/is nuts, but I've yet to see evidence of anyone within the govt fomenting a violent insurrection, & specifically -- anyone who acted to subvert or delay a response by Federal police & security forces or the National Guard.

The whole National Guard flap is a diversion & smokescreen to paper over the failure of the Capitol Police Board & the DC Mayor to request the forces to adequately defend the Capitol, for fear of the optics of a militaristic police presence. All the above = imho.

Actually, it appears that ONE PERSON - the Vice President was the only person not playing ball with the plan. Kindly let us know who else wasn't overtly challenging these plans as you claim. ...

As usual, you're DELUSIONAL.

Barr & Esper + their replacements. Pompeo was out of the country a lot.
Liz will tell us who else was actually in on "the plan", in good time, when it has the most dramatic effect.

That does appear to be accurate, Barr initially was playing footsie with the impending Big Lie, and then did task work to try to find out whether there was actual fraud, but when the answer came back 'no' he told Trump no...and then had to leave as insufficiently 'loyal'...and Rosen did stand firm, and wasn't replaced, thank god. But only not replaced upon threat of mass resignations.

Esper too, had to leave because he stood up to Trump on various issues. I'm less persuaded that his replacement was straight, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Mattis, of course.

But Trump, his Chief of Staff, a DOJ wannabe AG, a whole slew of "true believers and grifters" and a whole slew of Representatives and Senators were in on it, as well as the brown shirts, Proud Boys, etc. down line.

Thank goodness they weren't better organized, but really thank god a handful of key folks didn't fold. But note, it would have only taken Pence to have thrown it into chaos. Or AG. Or a couple of State Sec's of State or Governors. And now some state Legislatures have empowered themselves to over rule the voters.

We really need to consider not just the imminent Trumpist threat, but also the eventual backlash from the left. Which means the Trumpist anti-democracy threat needs to be put down hard.

We can argue over tax rates later...

[MDlaxfan76]

And yes, there's emerging evidence that groups like the Proud Boys etc were told that the National Guard would be on their side when it went down. They came prepared for violence.

Link ? Source ? ...plz share this emerging evidence that the National Guard would side with the protesters.

Email from Meadows saying so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 497829001/

[old salt]

A criminal referral from a partisan Congressional committee is just more political theater unless DoJ responds with an indictment.

With the leaks & selective disclosures, Liz & supporting cast are trying hard to capture or maintain interest in a Trump scandal-weary public.

[Kismet]

A criminal referral from a partisan Congressional committee is just more political theater unless DoJ responds with an indictment.

With the leaks & selective disclosures, Liz & supporting cast are trying hard to capture or maintain interest in a Trump scandal-weary public.

Pretty confident if the goods are there the DoJ will proceed with any referrals they get from Congress (just like in Watergate).
It's generally not about PR with them under Garland but rather evidence.

Waldron and the other ex-military Flynn toadies are also on the target lists as well.

[seacoaster]

A criminal referral from a partisan Congressional committee is just more political theater unless DoJ responds with an indictment.

With the leaks & selective disclosures, Liz & supporting cast are trying hard to capture or maintain interest in a Trump scandal-weary public.

Man, you are one really sad case, and getting sadder still by the day. The Committee isn't "partisan." It happens to be populated with people who aren't McCarthy's sheep. There's a difference.

I love how you try to diminish women by using their first names and giving them nifty -- fifty years ago -- nicknames. You couldn't carry a briefcase for her at this point.

My guess is DOJ acts pretty promptly on this one, given the seriousness of the potential evidence being withheld from Congress.

[old salt]

And yes, there's emerging evidence that groups like the Proud Boys etc were told that the National Guard would be on their side when it went down. They came prepared for violence.

Link ? Source ? ...plz share this emerging evidence that the National Guard would side with the protesters.

Email from Meadows saying so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 497829001/

...protected from who ? Did it say they'd be protected from the police ?
There was a fear that there would be violent clashes with counter-protesters & the NG might be needed to supplement the police in keeping them apart.

There's a reason why that snippet was lifted without context & did not disclose the entire email chain.

[seacoaster]

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/14/us/p ... d=tw-share

"Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the onetime Republican leader ousted from her post and pushed to the sidelines by her own party for bluntly condemning former President Donald J. Trump’s false election claims, has re-emerged as a force on Capitol Hill — this time as one of the most active and aggressive members of the special committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

Ms. Cheney’s no-holds-barred style grabbed the spotlight this week as the committee led the charge to hold Mark Meadows, the former White House chief of staff, in contempt for his refusal to cooperate with the panel’s investigation.

Twice in the space of two days, from hearing rooms on Capitol Hill, she read aloud panicked and angry text messages that Republican lawmakers sent Mr. Meadows on Jan. 6 as rioters laid siege to the complex.

“It’s really bad up here on the Hill,” one wrote in a text that Ms. Cheney read on Tuesday, ahead of a House vote to hold Mr. Meadows in contempt. “The president needs to stop this ASAP,” another said. A third simply wrote: “Fix this now.”

Ms. Cheney’s recitation — delivered in her signature monotone — reflected her approach as the vice chairwoman of the panel, where she is serving in defiance of Republican leaders who have sought to thwart the investigation at every turn.

Both in public and behind the scenes, Ms. Cheney has used her perch to hold up an unsparing and often unflattering mirror to her own party, exposing Republicans’ complicity in the stolen-election narrative that fueled the Jan. 6 riot. She has done so even in the face of a primary challenge from a Trump-backed candidate that is likely to be a referendum on the former president.

“For her, this is about setting out in stark relief what the truth is, and in some way making the Republican Party confront that truth,” said Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “‘Here are the text messages, here are the phone logs, here are the conversations.’ That becomes a very difficult story line to refute.”

Ms. Cheney, the scion of a conservative dynasty, has found herself in an unusual place as a result of her position on the committee, as has the panel’s only other Republican member, Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois. They have been ostracized and derided as grandstanders by their own party; at the same time, they have been embraced by Democrats as the only Republicans willing to demand a full and bipartisan accounting of the worst attack on Congress in centuries.

During committee hearings and floor debates, Ms. Cheney often tailors her public comments to an audience of Republican voters and elected officials. On Monday, she chose to publicly read anguished texts sent to Mr. Meadows on Jan. 6 by conservative personalities like the Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Mr. Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr.

In doing so, Ms. Cheney made the case that there was a moment when even the most devoted loyalists to Mr. Trump understood that his inaction in the face of the violence at the Capitol was inexcusable.

“We as Republicans used to be unified on this point — in terms of what happened on Jan. 6 and the responsibility the president had to stop it,” Ms. Cheney said.

But her challenge is that her audience is a decidedly hostile one, a reality that is perhaps nowhere clearer than at home in Wyoming, where she has been purged from the state party and is facing a challenge from Harriet Hageman, a Never Trumper turned MAGA acolyte.

“By pointing out the facts of what happened Jan. 6, and the hypocrisy of those pushing a narrative into a population willing to receive it, she’s identifying the lies,” said Denver Riggleman, a former Republican congressman who is on the special committee’s staff. “And hoping that a small percentage will see this and understand that Jan. 6 not only was one of the worst things in our history, in our capital, but has also been used to play people for money.”

Behind the scenes, Ms. Cheney has been just as aggressive. She is known to draft her own remarks in advance of hearings and does her own preparation work, poring over the voluminous documents the committee has obtained. She also pressed to assemble a team of former intelligence analysts and law enforcement specialists on the committee’s staff, some of them Republicans — a move that bolstered the committee’s bipartisan bona fides.

In closed-door interviews held in a nondescript federal office building near the Capitol, Ms. Cheney has emerged as a leader and central figure on the panel, known for drilling down into the details of the assignment she views as the most important of her political career. She is well-versed in the criminal code and often uses language borrowed from it to make clear she believes the former president and others face criminal exposure.

She has been particularly pointed in suggesting that Mr. Trump, by failing to stop the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, may have violated a federal law that prohibits obstructing an official proceeding before Congress.

“We know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were trying to count electoral votes,” Ms. Cheney said. “Mr. Meadows’s testimony will bear on a key question in front of this committee: Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

The statute that Ms. Cheney was citing is the basis for the main charge that law enforcement officials have brought against more than 200 Capitol rioters accused of interfering with Congress’s role in certifying the Electoral College vote. The obstruction law, which prosecutors have used in lieu of sedition or insurrection, is how the government has chosen to describe the central political crime of Jan. 6: disrupting the peaceful transition of power.

Ms. Cheney has also established herself as a tough and meticulous questioner in deposition interviews.

When Jeffrey Clark, a Justice Department lawyer who participated in Mr. Trump’s frenzied efforts to overturn the election, appeared before the committee last month, Ms. Cheney pressed him in a series of rapid-fire questions on various aspects of the plan to keep Mr. Trump in power.

“In terms of your assertions about Dominion voting machines and smart thermostats, could you explain where you got that information?” she asked about a wild conspiracy theory about the hacking of voting machines that was endorsed by Trump supporters.

Ms. Cheney has taken particular interest in holding members of her own party accountable.

“I’d like to ask the witness when he first met Congressman Scott Perry,” Ms. Cheney asked Mr. Clark, referring to a lawmaker who had acted as a conduit between him and Mr. Trump.

“Did you have any interaction with any other members of Congress?” she asked at another point.

Each time Mr. Clark refused to answer.

“I just want to be clear that I want the record to show that Mr. Clark is refusing to answer any questions, including those questions that have nothing to do with any of his interaction with the president, questions that couldn’t conceivably be covered by any assertion of executive privilege,” Ms. Cheney said.

Ms. Cheney has said that the investigation could very well lead to Mr. Trump facing her questions, with criminal penalties hanging over his head if he lies.

“Any communication Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath,” Ms. Cheney said this month. “And if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.”

[MDlaxfan76]

And yes, there's emerging evidence that groups like the Proud Boys etc were told that the National Guard would be on their side when it went down. They came prepared for violence.

Link ? Source ? ...plz share this emerging evidence that the National Guard would side with the protesters.

Email from Meadows saying so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 497829001/

...protected from who ? Did it say they'd be protected from the police ?
There was a fear that there would be violent clashes with counter-protesters & the NG might be needed to supplement the police in keeping them apart.

There's a reason why that snippet was lifted without context & did not disclose the entire email chain.

You've seen the entire email chain?

As I said, there's "emerging evidence"...I'd agree that's there's far more than the little bits and pieces we've seen so far.

But as long as we're speculating, no I don't think there was a "fear" of "violent clashes with counter-protestors", rather that was the whole point. They wanted the violent clashes and they wanted to be able to declare martial law. And yes, this sure seems like an assurance that the National Guard would be on the side of the Proud Boys etc.

But hey, let's see what else Meadows has and knows...and Bannon...and all those in the 'war room'...and the Reps and Senators, what did they know and when? What were they saying?

Now, if you're saying Meadows was talking out of his butt in that reassurance, there was no actual 'fix' with the NG, I'd place my chips with you on that bet. Until shown otherwise.

[old salt]

A criminal referral from a partisan Congressional committee is just more political theater unless DoJ responds with an indictment.

With the leaks & selective disclosures, Liz & supporting cast are trying hard to capture or maintain interest in a Trump scandal-weary public.

Man, you are one really sad case, and getting sadder still by the day. The Committee isn't "partisan." It happens to be populated with people who aren't McCarthy's sheep. There's a difference.

I love how you try to diminish women by using their first names and giving them nifty -- fifty years ago -- nicknames. You couldn't carry a briefcase for her at this point.

My guess is DOJ acts pretty promptly on this one, given the seriousness of the potential evidence being withheld from Congress.

What evidence is being withheld from the DoJ in their investigation ?
They may move quickly on the contempt charges, but the witnesses under subpoena have lawyers too.

None of the minority leaders nominee's were included. Only 2 (R) members were deemed suitable by the Speaker..

Liz will need someone to carry her briefcase in 12 mos, unless someone's already carrying a briefcase full of cash from her recent visit to NH, of all places. I'll gladly vote for Liz if she somehow finds her way onto a (R) national ticket with Mitt, Kinzinger or Hogan. Did I use the correct pronouns ? Hope I didn't diminish Mitt.

[old salt]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

[MDlaxfan76]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

yes, I certainly don't have the whole email chain...but you asked what "emerging evidence" there was on the topic, citation...I provided it.

Yeah, I don't think you write "protect Trump people" unless you mean "pro-Trump" in specific. If you said, "protect all protestors" or "protect all citizens" then that's quite different, and hey, maybe he did and we'll ultimately see that to be the case; come on Mark, testify!...but this is what is "emerging" right now and it's no surprise why McCarthy et al were so opposed to a full bi-partisan Senate and House Commission. Scared witless...

BTW, keep cutting my posts down just to a phrase...that's a heck of a tactic.

[old salt]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

yes, I certainly don't have the whole email chain...but you asked what "emerging evidence" there was on the topic, citation...I provided it.

Yeah, I don't think you write "protect Trump people" unless you mean "pro-Trump" in specific. If you said, "protect all protestors" or "protect all citizens" then that's quite different, and hey, maybe he did and we'll ultimately see that to be the case; come on Mark, testify!...but this is what is "emerging" right now and it's no surprise why McCarthy et al were so opposed to a full bi-partisan Senate and House Commission. Scared witless...

BTW, keep cutting my posts down just to a phrase...that's a heck of a tactic.

So you know precisely what I am addressing & don't rehash tangential diversions.

[old salt]

Previews of coming attractions :

[a fan]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

yes, I certainly don't have the whole email chain...but you asked what "emerging evidence" there was on the topic, citation...I provided it.

Yeah, I don't think you write "protect Trump people" unless you mean "pro-Trump" in specific. If you said, "protect all protestors" or "protect all citizens" then that's quite different, and hey, maybe he did and we'll ultimately see that to be the case; come on Mark, testify!...but this is what is "emerging" right now and it's no surprise why McCarthy et al were so opposed to a full bi-partisan Senate and House Commission. Scared witless...

BTW, keep cutting my posts down just to a phrase...that's a heck of a tactic.

So you know precisely what I am addressing & don't rehash tangential diversions.

See? I'm not the only who does that.

Guys, when you just hit quote an 18 paragraph, not only does it clutter up the forum, it makes it impossible to know what the firetruck a poster is responding to....so what OS is doing by editing a post that he's responding to, is saying "this is the SPECIFIC clause and idea I am responding to", it makes communication quicker and easier.

I tune out when you have to scroll through 80 paragraphs of nonsense to get a silly one word response.

[Kismet]

A criminal referral from a partisan Congressional committee is just more political theater unless DoJ responds with an indictment.

With the leaks & selective disclosures, Liz & supporting cast are trying hard to capture or maintain interest in a Trump scandal-weary public.

Man, you are one really sad case, and getting sadder still by the day. The Committee isn't "partisan." It happens to be populated with people who aren't McCarthy's sheep. There's a difference.

I love how you try to diminish women by using their first names and giving them nifty -- fifty years ago -- nicknames. You couldn't carry a briefcase for her at this point.

My guess is DOJ acts pretty promptly on this one, given the seriousness of the potential evidence being withheld from Congress.

What evidence is being withheld from the DoJ in their investigation ?
They may move quickly on the contempt charges, but the witnesses under subpoena have lawyers too.

None of the minority leaders nominee's were included. Only 2 (R) members were deemed suitable by the Speaker..

Liz will need someone to carry her briefcase in 12 mos, unless someone's already carrying a briefcase full of cash from her recent visit to NH, of all places. I'll gladly vote for Liz if she somehow finds her way onto a (R) national ticket with Mitt, Kinzinger or Hogan. Did I use the correct pronouns ? Hope I didn't diminish Mitt.

Jordan is going to turn out to be a material witness before this is over. His texts are all over the evidence they already have and he will be on the list of 10 members whose identities will be made public soon. How could he ever be on a panel investigating himself?

Your lame attempts to be funny are tiresome especially because they aren't actually funny. Ditto for you trying to be a wisea** and not actually contribute to any discussion you're in.

[seacoaster]

Nice snip from the Times article:

"On Jan. 5, Mr. Jordan was still pushing.

That day, he forwarded Mr. Meadows a text message he had received from a lawyer and former Pentagon inspector general outlining a legal strategy to overturn the election.

“On January 6, 2021, Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all the electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all — in accordance with guidance from founding father Alexander Hamilton and judicial precedence,” the text read.

On Jan. 6, Washington was overcast and breezy as thousands of people gathered at the Ellipse to hear Mr. Trump and his allies spread a lie that has become a rallying cry in the months since: that the election was stolen from them in plain view.

Mr. Brooks, wearing body armor, took the stage in the morning, saying he was speaking at the behest of the White House. The crowd began to swell.

“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” Mr. Brooks said. “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?”

Just before noon, Mr. Pence released a letter that said he would not block certification. The power to choose the president, he said, belonged “to the American people, and to them alone.”

Mr. Trump approached the dais soon after and said the vice president did not have “the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our Constitution.”

“We will never give up,” Mr. Trump said. “We will never concede.”

Roaring their approval, many in the crowd began the walk down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, where the certification proceeding was underway. Amped up by the speakers at the rally, the crowd taunted the officers who guarded the Capitol and pushed toward the building’s staircases and entry points, eventually breaching security along the perimeter just after 1 p.m.

By this point, the six lawmakers were inside the Capitol, ready to protest the certification. Mr. Gosar was speaking at 2:16 p.m. when security forces entered the chamber because rioters were in the building.

As the melee erupted, Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, yelled to his colleagues who were planning to challenge the election: “This is what you’ve gotten, guys.”

When Mr. Jordan tried to help Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, move to safety, she smacked his hand away, according to a congressional aide briefed on the exchange.

“Get away from me,” she told him. “You heck did this.”

A spokesman for Mr. Jordan disputed parts of the account, saying that Ms. Cheney did not curse at the congressman or slap him.

The back-and-forth was reported earlier by the Washington Post reporters Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker in their book “I Alone Can Fix It.”

Of the six lawmakers, only Mr. Gosar and Mr. Jordan responded to requests for comment for this article, through their spokespeople."

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/us/p ... jan-6.html

[dislaxxic]

DOJ appears to be methodically building a case to hold the "inciters" of the J6 insurrection - all the way to the (obvious) top of the list - responsible for federal obstruction felonies.

THE PIED PIPER OF INSURRECTION, AND OTHER CHALLENGES IN CHARGING THE JANUARY 6 ORGANIZER-INCITERS

It is a fact that the guy leading the coup, Donald Trump, asked Alex Jones (personally, as Jones tells it) to lead the mobs Trump had incited at the Ellipse down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol. As Jones was doing this, his former employee, Joe Biggs, was kicking off the entire riot. It is also a fact that Jones lured rioters like Stacie Getsinger to the East side of the building, to where Biggs and the Oath Keepers were also gathering, by promising a second speech from Trump.

There’s reason to believe that Jones and Biggs remained in contact that day, evidence of which DOJ would presumably have from Biggs’ phone, if not his phone provider (based on whether the contact was via telephony or messaging app). Getting it may have taken a while. While DOJ obtained Ethan Nordean’s phone when they searched his house (because his spouse provided the FBI the password), and obtained the content of Biggs’ Google account quickly (which included some videos shared with his co-travellers), it may have taken until July 14 to exploit Biggs’ phone (this Cellebrite report must pertain to Biggs because it is not designated Highly Sensitive to him). While the content of any calls Biggs had with his former boss would not be captured, some of it is also likely available from videos shot of him. If his co-travellers wanted a cooperation deal they might be able to provide Biggs’ side of any contacts with Jones too, though several of Biggs’ co-travelers are represented by John Pierce, who may be serving as a kind of firewall for Biggs or even Enrique Tarrio.

Nevertheless, if DOJ has in its possession evidence that one of the guys accused of masterminding the plan to encircle the Capitol and breach it from two sides was in contact during that process with Jones, who lured unwitting rioters to the second breach by lying to them, then DOJ would appear to have far more evidence tying Jones to militia violence than they used to charge Hostetter in a conspiracy with 3%ers. And Jones got just as far inside the restricted area of the Capitol — to the top of the steps on the East side — as Hostetter did.

PMM is WAY down in the weeds with the whole J6 conspiracy...

..

[MDlaxfan76]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

yes, I certainly don't have the whole email chain...but you asked what "emerging evidence" there was on the topic, citation...I provided it.

Yeah, I don't think you write "protect Trump people" unless you mean "pro-Trump" in specific. If you said, "protect all protestors" or "protect all citizens" then that's quite different, and hey, maybe he did and we'll ultimately see that to be the case; come on Mark, testify!...but this is what is "emerging" right now and it's no surprise why McCarthy et al were so opposed to a full bi-partisan Senate and House Commission. Scared witless...

BTW, keep cutting my posts down just to a phrase...that's a heck of a tactic.

So you know precisely what I am addressing & don't rehash tangential diversions.

hmmm, and lose what I've said that puts such in context. Feels like cherry picking a phrase. The rest wasn't "tangential" to that one.

I do understand cutting long, multi-person discussions down, but not a short one like this.

[MDlaxfan76]

You've seen the entire email chain?

No, & neither have you. That's my point. Yet you don't hesitate to site an email snippet in response to my request for evidence that the NG, or anyone in their chain of command, was somehow complicit in "the plan" & would protect the Proud Boys. I ask again. Protect them from who ?

yes, I certainly don't have the whole email chain...but you asked what "emerging evidence" there was on the topic, citation...I provided it.

Yeah, I don't think you write "protect Trump people" unless you mean "pro-Trump" in specific. If you said, "protect all protestors" or "protect all citizens" then that's quite different, and hey, maybe he did and we'll ultimately see that to be the case; come on Mark, testify!...but this is what is "emerging" right now and it's no surprise why McCarthy et al were so opposed to a full bi-partisan Senate and House Commission. Scared witless...

BTW, keep cutting my posts down just to a phrase...that's a heck of a tactic.

So you know precisely what I am addressing & don't rehash tangential diversions.

See? I'm not the only who does that.

Guys, when you just hit quote an 18 paragraph, not only does it clutter up the forum, it makes it impossible to know what the firetruck a poster is responding to....so what OS is doing by editing a post that he's responding to, is saying "this is the SPECIFIC clause and idea I am responding to", it makes communication quicker and easier.

I tune out when you have to scroll through 80 paragraphs of nonsense to get a silly one word response.

Nope, this was not a long exchange that Salty cut down. It was a short one and the effect was to specifically ignore the context and the rest of my short response to him.

It's a jerk move in such instances.

I totally agree that sometimes the long, multi-party exchanges don't need to copied again and again and again. Getting specific about what is being responded to is indeed helpful.

But that's not what Salty was doing.