Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 52

Thread: Putin n Trump urge Villianship to Mirror and Wile E Coyote

  1. #16
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,595
    Thanks
    45,869
    Thanked 35,483 Times in 10,182 Posts
    Theatre was once slow, drawn, days or longer in the old days, when good was spellbinding,

    We are aware there will be people wearing masks still in years to come, even with all the everdance contrary nowadays.

    We are aware that biden and Trump are not who the media say they are and many others, so what %s are left, hanging onto an old movie enjoying or trying to stay alive with their narrative givith ?


    We know warmongers are kaput, seeing it daily from most media, so now the media are complicit in forming a joint narrative, why ?, sure some are throwing verbal grenades but as we strike the nuclear button to be soon but dont, where will the theatre take us, besides the happy people that thought they were going to die lol again, yeah well sure it not be a laughing matter but the acceptance of fear is a suicidal matter nighly, i sense the unspeakable will be the next pawn king check, either pedo putrids rings etc or adrenochrome data, i hope not but masks will come off if masks come off, what i sense strongest atm is the quickness of behind the scenes movements, flashy fast, on noospheric diving, besides the Cosmic Eagle energy entered Earthly of late , The Fool arrives, the fool survives , the fools flute breaks so the drums have a heartbeat, one circle gets bigger, two smaller.

    If 23 be pain then 24 is harmony ?,

  2. #17
    Senior Member United States Diabolical Boids's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th December 2022
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 2,043 Times in 651 Posts
    Aragorn;842055037]Well, the insurrection thing is a crime, isn't it? Although I will admit that I haven't been following up on that, and that I have no idea what the outcome — if any — of that commission report is. The whole thing was already heavily politically laden from the start anyway, and to his own followers, Orange Jesus™ will always be a saint, no matter what. They already now believe that the US left-wing stole the elections.
    I don't know in what country anywhere where a bunch of 'people were let in or otherwise escorted into a governmental building, unarmed, and non violent could be construed as a insurrection. Rowdy yes, but not violent. Insurrection means arms, militias, storming barricades taking hostages, an earnest attempt to take over Congress by force, smoke bombs, violent outbreaks. An unarmed protest can in no way mean an insurrection to thinking people. No politicians were taken hostage, or even present in the building at the time. The capital wasn't burned down, they didn't hole up in any buildings for weeks on end, it was all over in a couple of hours. It wasn't the American revolution or the Weather Underground or the Rosenburg's. What is does is discredit Democrats utterly.
    We have had far more violent protests that went on for weeks that burned down entire communities without a murmur. In other words "Disagreement and not towing the party line is now insurrection." So yes that part is true. Lots of people here and abroad are in disagreement with the Biden admin. That the Biden Admin expected an insurrection is absolute certainty. And why would they expect that when he's the most popular president ever who won in a land slide of popularity.

    I was undecided whether the election was stolen at the time. I'm certain of it now. Unless there are really just that many idiots in nation.

    They don't want Bernie Sanders. They stabbed him in the back, and not just once but twice.

    In politics, hypocrisy is considered a virtue, didn't you know that?
    Bernie Sanders is a prime example of stolen election, not once but twice in spite of the people who say it can never happen here. Politically, 8k miracles needed to happen simultaneously for the two lowest polling candidates to end up in office. Another popular democrat will be along shortly and they too will be displaced by the Biden/ Clinton/ Obama cartel.

    As far as Trump. He was never guilty or as bad as the news and hysterics said he was, and he's certainly not as wonderful as his followers insist he is. But he's a huge distraction for up and comers like DeSantis who seems like the Trump that Trump never was. With the focus on Trump, there's not been much hysteria over DeSantis.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diabolical Boids For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (22nd March 2023)

  4. #18
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Diabolical Boids View Post
    I don't know in what country anywhere where a bunch of 'people were let in or otherwise escorted into a governmental building, unarmed, and non violent could be construed as a insurrection. Rowdy yes, but not violent. Insurrection means arms, militias, storming barricades taking hostages, an earnest attempt to take over Congress by force, smoke bombs, violent outbreaks. An unarmed protest can in no way mean an insurrection to thinking people. No politicians were taken hostage, or even present in the building at the time. The capital wasn't burned down, they didn't hole up in any buildings for weeks on end, it was all over in a couple of hours. It wasn't the American revolution or the Weather Underground or the Rosenburg's. What is does is discredit Democrats utterly.
    We have had far more violent protests that went on for weeks that burned down entire communities without a murmur. In other words "Disagreement and not towing the party line is now insurrection." So yes that part is true. Lots of people here and abroad are in disagreement with the Biden admin. That the Biden Admin expected an insurrection is absolute certainty. And why would they expect that when he's the most popular president ever who won in a land slide of popularity.

    I was undecided whether the election was stolen at the time. I'm certain of it now. Unless there are really just that many idiots in nation.


    Bernie Sanders is a prime example of stolen election, not once but twice in spite of the people who say it can never happen here. Politically, 8k miracles needed to happen simultaneously for the two lowest polling candidates to end up in office. Another popular democrat will be along shortly and they too will be displaced by the Biden/ Clinton/ Obama cartel.

    As far as Trump. He was never guilty or as bad as the news and hysterics said he was, and he's certainly not as wonderful as his followers insist he is. But he's a huge distraction for up and comers like DeSantis who seems like the Trump that Trump never was. With the focus on Trump, there's not been much hysteria over DeSantis.
    I'm sorry Boids, you are woefully misinformed. Haven't you heard that Fox news is being sued by Dominion for 1.6 billion dollars for essentially lying about the election and everything else for that matter?

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023), Aragorn (22nd March 2023), Wind (23rd March 2023)

  6. #19
    Senior Member United States Diabolical Boids's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th December 2022
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 2,043 Times in 651 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chuckie View Post
    I'm sorry Boids, you are woefully misinformed. Haven't you heard that Fox news is being sued by Dominion for 1.6 billion dollars for essentially lying about the election and everything else for that matter?
    If Fox is found culpable of lying, then Fox's parent companies which also hold liberal news stations will equally be culpable as these sorts of things tend to set precedence. They can't be because Obama amended the Smith Mundt Act in 2012 that pretty much gives any news outlet to report whatever they want regardless if its news or lies. Besides the US Government isn't going to allow their best brainwash and propaganda and divisionary branch to be throttled for the sake of appearances. They will reach into the naughts and early 2010's, and the lead up to the 2020 election where CNN and MSNBC news outlets reported the exact same thing that Fox did about Dominion. Furthermore, none of the charges are about insurrection because corporations cannot try for insurrection. Besides, lying and insurrection aren't the same thing. Neither have any of the detainees been charged for insurrection. It's the usual political exercise to see how the gullible will snap up evocative but inaccurate sounding words that appeal to their emotional bias.
    Last edited by Diabolical Boids, 22nd March 2023 at 16:11.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Diabolical Boids For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (22nd March 2023)

  8. #20
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Diabolical Boids View Post
    If Fox is found culpable of lying, then Fox's parent companies which also hold liberal news stations will equally be culpable as these sorts of things tend to set precedence. They can't be because Obama amended the Smith Mundt Act in 2012 that pretty much gives any news outlet to report whatever they want regardless if its news or lies. Besides the US Government isn't going to allow their best brainwash and propaganda and divisionary branch to be throttled for the sake of appearances. They will reach into the naughts and early 2010's, and the lead up to the 2020 election where CNN and MSNBC news outlets reported the exact same thing that Fox did about Dominion. Furthermore, none of the charges are about insurrection involved in the suit are about insurrection because corporations cannot try for insurrection. Besides, lying and insurrection aren't the same thing. Neither have any of the detainees been charged for insurrection. It's the usual political exercise to see how the gullible will snap up evocative but inaccurate sounding words that appeal to their emotional bias.
    No way AND one have to connect the dots. Everything you posted is propaganda. I wouldn't even know where to begin. Too bad you haven't been around for the past few years.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023)

  10. #21
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,420
    Thanks
    88,990
    Thanked 81,406 Times in 20,436 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Diabolical Boids View Post
    I don't know in what country anywhere where a bunch of 'people were let in or otherwise escorted into a governmental building, unarmed, and non violent could be construed as a insurrection.
    I'm sorry, but you seem to be badly misinformed regarding the facts. They were not "let in or escorted in"; they forced their way in by damaging property. They were also not all unarmed. And there most certainly was violence too, as well as an attempt to capture and publicly execute Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi — who to the best of my knowledge still qualify as politicians and who were present in the building when the mob forced its way in, albeit that they were safely escorted off the premises by security.

    Trump's responsibility in all of this, albeit disputed, is that (1) he was the one who invited all of his followers over, and that (2) he did nothing within his legal power nor within his power as the Messiah of that far-right mob to stop them, even after his former coworkers pleaded with him to intervene. He wanted it to happen, because he did not (and still does not) accept his electoral defeat.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (22nd March 2023), Wind (22nd March 2023)

  12. #22
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    CLAIM: Former President Barack Obama signed a law in 2012 allowing government propaganda in the U.S., and making it “perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people.”

    AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. In 2013, Obama signed legislation that changed the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act. The amendment made it possible for some materials created by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, the nation’s foreign broadcasting agency, to be disseminated in the U.S.

    THE FACTS: A post circulating on Facebook with a photo of Obama falsely states he repealed a ban on government propaganda in the U.S. when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act in 2013. The amendment did not repeal the Smith-Mundt Act, but rather lifted some restrictions on the domestic dissemination of government-funded media.

    The change essentially eased restrictions for Americans who want to access government-funded media content, allowing media produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to be made available to Americans “upon request.”

    That was not possible before the law was changed. “Even upon request, if I wanted to get it through FOIA, for instance, they couldn’t do it. The amendment changed that,” said Gabe Rottman, director of the Reporters Committee’s Technology and Press Freedom Project.

    Under the previous law, the agency’s content, including radio broadcasts from Voice of America, were banned from dissemination in the U.S. However, Americans were still able to access much of the content online.

    “There was essentially a de facto ban on the domestic dissemination of materials originating from the State Department,” said Weston Sager, an attorney who published a paper on the change in law.

    Under the new law, it is still against the law for government-funded media to create programming and market their content to U.S. audiences.

    Versions of the claim accusing Obama of legalizing propaganda have circulated on Twitter and Facebook since around the time the law was passed. The meme attempts to link Obama to the spread of misinformation.

    During consideration of the bill, critics voiced concern that lifting the restrictions could result in information designed to influence foreign audiences being used against American citizens. Proponents countered that the ban made it difficult for Americans to access and evaluate this content.

    The U.S. government created the agency now known as the U.S. Agency for Global Media during World War II to broadcast American-centric programming to foreign audiences. With an $805 million annual operating budget, agency oversees five media networks that reach millions of viewers and listeners abroad.

    “When it was first passed in 1948, the ban wasn’t even about protecting the public from propaganda,” Emily Metzgar, professor at The Media School at Indiana University, told The Associated Press. “The ban was about protecting a nascent broadcast industry in the United States in the early post-war years… . But these restrictions became framed as something that was about preventing the poison within those agencies from being distributed to the American public.”

    ___

    This is part of The Associated Press’ ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023)

  14. #23
    Senior Member United States Diabolical Boids's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th December 2022
    Posts
    671
    Thanks
    630
    Thanked 2,043 Times in 651 Posts
    To distinguish between a protest and insurrection there has to be evidence uncovered that it was premeditated or planned or had a cohesive organization and organizers. Insurrections are not announced in advance nor granted licenses to insurrect. To this date there is no evidence it was anything more than a protest which was not nearly as destructive as some we have had in recent years. Even the protests in France cannot be called insurrections. There's ample evidence Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection and none proving otherwise. Feelings don't count as proof. Primarily because the DC authorities knew about the protest days in advance AND ISSUED A LICENSE to hold the protest but otherwise did nothing to halt the insurrection --because it wasn't--including failure to call in National Guards and more Capital Police those responsible for failure to do so could be charged with aiding and abetting. Slapping up some barriers after the fact is proof of nothing. Democrats don't think about stuff like this because they are swept along on a gale of outraged indignation and emotion triggered by provocative words they cannot understand and don't know the meaning of. If Republicans do, they are likely too timid to state or act upon it.

    Examples of actual insurrections: Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1790), and Fries Rebellion (1799) were actual acts of insurrection to make for comparison. The Gunpowder plot was an insurrection. All of these were covert and well planned plots, not active in the open public demonstrations. The Southern Democrats rebelled causing the Civil War, and the LA riots were deemed insurrections. None of which bear any resemblance to a bunch of slap happy boomers who poised for selfies and moved the furniture around. That it deeply injured the personal feelings of Democrats is also not insurrection. Insurrections are against governments not feelings.

    BLM riots during the summer of 2020 caused 18 deaths, over $1 billion dollars in damage, including federal and state buildings, and in some cities sovereign nations were declared. That is also an actual insurrection but smoothed over as a protest. But that's okay because it's perceived as preserving progressive 'values'. Which firmly establishes that progressive values are violence based.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Diabolical Boids For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023)

  16. #24
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Diabolical Boids View Post
    To distinguish between a protest and insurrection there has to be evidence uncovered that it was premeditated or planned or had a cohesive organization and organizers. Insurrections are not announced in advance nor granted licenses to insurrect. To this date there is no evidence it was anything more than a protest which was not nearly as destructive as some we have had in recent years. Even the protests in France cannot be called insurrections. There's ample evidence Jan 6 wasn't an insurrection and none proving otherwise. Feelings don't count as proof. Primarily because the DC authorities knew about the protest days in advance AND ISSUED A LICENSE to hold the protest but otherwise did nothing to halt the insurrection --because it wasn't--including failure to call in National Guards and more Capital Police those responsible for failure to do so could be charged with aiding and abetting. Slapping up some barriers after the fact is proof of nothing. Democrats don't think about stuff like this because they are swept along on a gale of outraged indignation and emotion triggered by provocative words they cannot understand and don't know the meaning of. If Republicans do, they are likely too timid to state or act upon it.

    Examples of actual insurrections: Shays’ Rebellion (1786-1787), the Whiskey Rebellion (1790), and Fries Rebellion (1799) were actual acts of insurrection to make for comparison. The Gunpowder plot was an insurrection. All of these were covert and well planned plots, not active in the open public demonstrations. The Southern Democrats rebelled causing the Civil War, and the LA riots were deemed insurrections. None of which bear any resemblance to a bunch of slap happy boomers who poised for selfies and moved the furniture around. That it deeply injured the personal feelings of Democrats is also not insurrection. Insurrections are against governments not feelings.

    BLM riots during the summer of 2020 caused 18 deaths, over $1 billion dollars in damage, including federal and state buildings, and in some cities sovereign nations were declared. That is also an actual insurrection but smoothed over as a protest. But that's okay because it's perceived as preserving progressive 'values'. Which firmly establishes that progressive values are violence based.
    My goodness, Ms. Boids, do you not realize that there was an 'inside faction' that was swayed by Orangeman's demonic tools?

    It's posts like yours that disturbs me the most when someone accuses me of being brainwashed.

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (22nd March 2023), Wind (22nd March 2023)

  18. #25
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,420
    Thanks
    88,990
    Thanked 81,406 Times in 20,436 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Diabolical Boids View Post
    To distinguish between a protest and insurrection there has to be evidence uncovered that it was premeditated or planned or had a cohesive organization and organizers.
    Not according to the official definition as per Wikipedia. Besides, it was planned in a way, via social media, and there most certainly is evidence of that.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (22nd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (22nd March 2023), Wind (22nd March 2023)

  20. #26
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,595
    Thanks
    45,869
    Thanked 35,483 Times in 10,182 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Chuckie View Post
    My goodness, Ms. Boids, do you not realize that there was an 'inside faction' that was swayed by Orangeman's demonic tools?

    It's posts like yours that disturbs me the most when someone accuses me of being brainwashed.
    Even underwhelmimg proof of your said facts regards Boids facts would be pleasant ?. Emotions vs facts has one winner unless crying n hugging together.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (23rd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (22nd March 2023)

  22. #27
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aianawa View Post
    Even underwhelmimg proof of your said facts regards Boids facts would be pleasant ?. Emotions vs facts has one winner unless crying n hugging together.
    Might as well go to the top:

    CLAIM: Former President Donald Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 National Guard troops before his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but was stopped by the House sergeant at arms, at the behest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about the National Guard response, he issued no such order before or during the rioting. Speaker Pelosi does not control National Guard troops.

    THE FACTS: New footage released Thursday of House lawmakers on Jan. 6 has sparked a resurgence of false claims and conspiracy theories about the insurrection.

    The videos, recorded by Pelosi’s daughter, showed the congresswoman responding to the attack in real time as she negotiated with governors and defense officials in an effort to get Guard troops to the Capitol. In one clip published by CNN, Pelosi can be heard saying that if Trump showed up she would “punch him out.” Some on social media used the occasion to revive baseless claims that Pelosi had stopped a Trump order for tens of thousands of National Guard troops before the event.

    “Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 Guardsmen on J6. It was refused by the House sergeant at arms, who reports to Nancy Pelosi,” one user wrote Friday on Gettr. The claim also spread on Instagram and Twitter.

    “Trump signed an order to deploy 20,000 Guardsmen on Jan 6. It was refused by the House Sergeant at Arms, who reports to YOU,” a Twitter user tweeted at Pelosi on Saturday.

    Trump has made similar false claims in the past. As The Associated Press has previously reported, Trump was not involved in decision-making related to the National Guard on Jan. 6, and Pelosi did not stand in their way.

    Trump did say during a 30-second call on Jan. 5 with then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops on Jan. 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021.

    But Miller added that there was “no elaboration,” and he took the comment to mean “a large force would be required to maintain order the following day.” He noted that domestic law enforcement believed they had sufficient personnel.

    There is no evidence that Trump actually signed any order requesting 10,000 Guard troops, let alone 20,000, for Jan. 6. Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense provided a timeline of the agency’s involvement in preparing for and responding to the attack on the Capitol. The timeline shows no such order, and notes only that on Jan. 3, the president concurred with activating the D.C. National Guard to support law enforcement at the behest of Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser.

    National Guard troops were already activated and deployed to checkpoints around Washington before the violence began. When the rioting started, Bowser requested more Guard help, on behalf of the Capitol Police. That request was made to Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who then went to Miller, who approved it.

    The Pentagon said Miller approved the request without speaking with the White House because he had gotten direction from the president days earlier to do whatever he deemed necessary with the Guard.

    Neither Pelosi nor the House sergeant at arms could have stopped an ordered deployment of National Guard troops because Congress doesn’t control the National Guard, legal experts say. Guard troops are generally controlled by governors, though they can be federalized, said William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University.

    The online claims “make no sense at all,” Banks said, adding, “The House sergeant at arms, he or she is not in the chain of command. Nor is Nancy Pelosi.”

    “The speaker was no more in charge of the security of the U.S. Capitol that day than Mitch McConnell,” Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s deputy chief of staff, told the AP in an email.

    The AP has previously reported on false claims that Pelosi blocked the National Guard from coming to the capitol on Jan. 6. As the newly released footage showed, she and McConnell, then Senate majority leader, called for military assistance, including the National Guard, during the attack.

    The House sergeant at arms does sit on the Capitol Police Board, which also includes the Senate sergeant at arms and the architect of the Capitol. That board opted not to request the Guard ahead of the insurrection, but did eventually request assistance after the rioting had already begun. There is no evidence that either Pelosi or McConnell directed the security officials not to call the guard beforehand, and Hammill said after the insurrection that Pelosi was never informed of such a request.

    ___

    This is part of AP’s effort to address widely shared misinformation, including work with outside companies and organizations to add factual context to misleading content that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (23rd March 2023), Aragorn (23rd March 2023)

  24. #28
    Senior Member Aianawa's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2015
    Posts
    12,595
    Thanks
    45,869
    Thanked 35,483 Times in 10,182 Posts
    Picking cherries is so one may eat them, hope yours are edible.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aianawa For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (23rd March 2023), Emil El Zapato (23rd March 2023)

  26. #29
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aianawa View Post
    Picking cherries is so one may eat them, hope yours are edible.
    yeah, that was a pretty weak argument that I made, but it was quick, there is a lot of info out there, surprise! surprise! Look at different sources Aianwa, your greatest tool can be to know your enemy. It will become clear when the criminal indictments start falling out.

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (23rd March 2023), Aragorn (23rd March 2023), Wind (24th March 2023)

  28. #30
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Location
    Earth I
    Posts
    12,278
    Thanks
    36,859
    Thanked 43,274 Times in 11,991 Posts
    This is much closer to the point of your question Aianawa

    In late December, the New York Police Department sent a packet of material to the U.S. Capitol Police and the FBI. It was full of what's known as raw intelligence — bits and pieces of information that turned up by scraping various social media sites. It all indicated that there would likely be violence when lawmakers certified the presidential election on Jan. 6.

    The NYPD sent the information to Washington under the assumption it would be folded into a formal intelligence bulletin by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI's version is known as a joint intelligence bulletin. The DHS produces a threat assessment. These reports are typically written as a matter of course ahead of high-profile events. Local law enforcement officials see them as actionable intelligence — an early warning system to help them prepare for incoming threats.

    And yet, for last week's deadly attack on the Capitol, an event the president himself had promised would be "wild," no formal report was ever released.

    A spokesperson from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis confirmed that the agency didn't produce any threat assessment about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6. The FBI confirmed it didn't produce one either. Instead, DHS provided a report about the "heightened threat environment during the 2020-2021 election season, including the extent to which the political transition and political polarization are contributing to the mobilization of individuals to commit violence," the DHS spokesperson said.

    NATIONAL SECURITY

    "I was surprised that we didn't receive any information" about Jan. 6, Mike Sena, president of the National Fusion Center Association, said. "We received a number of reports, but they were all regarding events all around the election cycle, you know, information sharing."

    The federal government created fusion centers after the Sept. 11 attacks to improve communication and intelligence sharing among local and federal law enforcement officials. There are 80 of them across the U.S., and one of their key responsibilities is to disseminate these kinds of intelligence bulletins.

    The bulletins are considered a finished product — a synthesis of validated and analyzed intelligence that helps local law enforcement make informed decisions.

    Some FBI officials have said that the bureau and DHS didn't produce a bulletin for Jan. 6 out of concern that doing so might run afoul of First Amendment free speech protections that allow people to protest and assemble peacefully.

    But three law enforcement officials said that this didn't stop DHS and the FBI from issuing intelligence bulletins ahead of mostly peaceful demonstrations in Portland, Ore., after the killing of George Floyd last May, before Black Lives Matter marches in Washington in early June or in anticipation of an annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America.

    Given all the Sturm und Drang ahead of the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress to count the electoral votes and given all the threats on social media weeks ahead of a pro-Trump rally that morning, it struck Sena and other local law enforcement officials who spoke as strange that there wasn't a DHS-FBI report on what to expect. Threatening and planning violence aren't protected First Amendment speech.

    The FBI revealed this week that its field office in Norfolk, Va., had indeed uncovered intelligence that might have helped the U.S. Capitol Police decide how to deploy its forces.

    One law enforcement official confirmed that Norfolk FBI officials had found specific threats against members of Congress, an exchange of maps of the tunnel system under the Capitol complex, and gathering places in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and South Carolina where extremists were meeting before convoying up to Washington. (The Washington Post first reported the existence of the Norfolk FBI warning.)

    The problem was that the threats they uncovered hadn't gone through any rigorous analysis process. "They seem to have only had a couple or single sourcing," said R.P. Eddy, a former U.S. counterterrorism official and diplomat who now runs Ergo, a private intelligence firm. "So, if you were a consumer of that intelligence and that's all you saw ... you'd say, 'Oh, it's just one source. You know, I'm not so sure I'm going to invest $2 million into extra overtime and get a bunch of new gear for my troops."

    Three FBI special agents in charge around the country and four current and former DHS officials agreed that Jan. 6 was a fast-moving event that was hard to anticipate. But they also said a specific threat assessment from the FBI and DHS in the weeks before might well have persuaded Capitol Police and others to beef up security.

    Eddy said if there wasn't an intelligence bulletin ahead of the pro-Trump rally, that was a problem. "If the reality is that ... neither FBI nor DHS did a threat assessment for Jan. 6, that was blinking red. If that's indeed the fact, then that's absolutely a failure of intelligence ... and weird," he said.

    The head of the U.S. Capitol Police told reporters last week that he had no intelligence that suggested there would be a storming of the Capitol. DHS and FBI officials said that what he hadn't seen was a specific threat assessment report or intelligence bulletin from DHS and the FBI. A raw intelligence report a day before an event just isn't the same thing.

    "The invisible obvious"

    Last week, Steven D'Antuono, the assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington Field Office, told reporters that the FBI was working closely with its partners and that there was no indication that Jan. 6's events would turn so horribly violent. D'Antuono reversed himself this week after it became public that the Norfolk field office had indeed provided intelligence about a possible assault on the Capitol the day before the rally was set to start.

    Local law enforcement partners said they felt blindsided by events because they had only a general intelligence report about unrest during the election season with which to work. Typically, raw intelligence, which is what the NYPD and Norfolk FBI provided, needs to be vetted and analyzed before it is actionable. A reporter reached out to U.S. Capitol Police asking if a federal intelligence brief about Jan. 6 would have changed its planning and has not heard back.

    The Office of Intelligence and Analysis at DHS is responsible for producing these threat assessments, and it often works in concert with the FBI. The I&A Office, as it is known, has had staffing and operations problems for months, ever since the former FBI agent who ran the division, Brian Murphy, was removed from the job in August after media reports that he was compiling dossiers on journalists and protesters in Portland. Among other things, the dossiers made note of which journalists were publishing leaked documents.

    The acting secretary of homeland security at the time, Chad Wolf, ordered the intelligence office to stop collecting the information on journalists and said there would be an investigation into the matter. A short time later, Murphy filed a whistleblower complaint in which he alleged that he had been told to stop reporting on Russian threats to the U.S. election in his threat assessments. He said he was told it would make President Trump look bad. His whistleblower case is still pending.


    Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf resigned this week, just days after the storming of the U.S. Capitol and a little over a week before Inauguration Day.

    Murphy was replaced in the fall by a longtime member of the department's general counsel's office. He was a lawyer and didn't have an analysis background. What that meant, officials said, was that one of the department's key missions — disseminating actionable threat information out to local law enforcement — was hobbled. This week, acting Secretary Wolf announced his own departure.

    Against that backdrop, instead of a specific intelligence report focused on Jan. 6, the I&A Office produced something more general about demonstrations, according to a DHS spokesperson.

    The National Fusion Center Association's Sena remembers seeing that report, and other local law enforcement officials contacted said they recall only that back in December there was a bulletin that focused on domestic extremists who might mobilize and create violence "in the coming months." It didn't focus on the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, and it didn't indicate that Capitol Hill could be a target.

    Some security specialists said they didn't think an intelligence report would have made much of a difference. "It was perfectly obvious, if you read the newspaper, that there was going to be a big rally, that the president was talking about ... be 'wild,' and that the focus was going to be the Capitol, where they were having a certification vote," said former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff. "It didn't take rocket science to see if there was a realistic foreseeable risk to the Capitol and you would enhance the security."

    The threat was so out in the open, Chertoff said, you didn't need the threat analysis to know what was going to happen.

    A specific warning finally came from federal authorities the day before the riot at the Capitol. After the FBI field office in Virginia issued that explicit internal warning quoting an online threat that cited specific violence and an assault on the Capitol, officials convened a conference call with local law enforcement to discuss it. But by then it was too late.

    By the time a warning finally came from an FBI field office in Virginia, it was too late. Less than 24 hours later, a mob would descend on the U.S. Capitol.

    Eddy says in hindsight he believes the problem was something he calls "the invisible obvious" — things that sit right in front of us that we don't notice. "The reason that they are invisible to us ... gets to our biases," he said. "The situation here, I'm unfortunately quite sure we're going to find, that it was very hard for these decision-makers and these analysts to realize that people who look just like them could want to commit this kind of unconstitutional violence and could literally try to and want to kill them."

    This was supposed to be a pro-Trump rally, until it wasn't.

    "Foe look differently, foe act differently, say different things," Eddy said. "They don't have the same bumper stickers. They don't have the same yellow flag of 'Don't Tread on Me.' It was hard for them to see that the law-and-order hierarchy in which they were born and bred ... where they got their paycheck, was inciting the mob that was going to commit the violence that was indeed the foe, not the friend."

    This Sunday, the FBI formally warned local law enforcement that armed protests were being planned for all 50 statehouses and the U.S. Capitol. The warning also said an unidentified group was calling on others to help it "storm" state, local and federal courthouses should Trump be removed as president before Inauguration Day. In Washington, the secretary of the Army announced that as many as 20,000 National Guard troops are expected to be deployed with guns.
    Last edited by Emil El Zapato, 23rd March 2023 at 18:29.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Emil El Zapato For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (23rd March 2023), Aragorn (23rd March 2023)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •