Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

Oh you know..... THE NARRATIVE.....

I wish I could say it was amusing watching these people twist themselves in order to try and lessen the capitol attack, but apparently it's effective over a large number of people due to a concerted effort.

 

Here's what I don't get......staged by WHO??? No one is this dumb, it`s a lie, they know it and we know it but it makes them feel better about their party if they can somehow "spin" this that there traitors...errrrr patriots would ever do such a thing

 

Staged by the deep state anti-white leftist marxists.

 

I guess you could say the same dumb people who believed Covid was a hoax even before it reached America, when thousands were dying in Spain and Italy. Then, when thousands started dying in NYC, they continued to believe it was a hoax. SMH at those fools. They are such perfect marks for guys like Trump, and his new breed of clones carrying on his propaganda and lies.

 

"the narrative":

Yet, the narrative remained that this was a peaceful protest that was met with tear gas and stun grenades. While I criticized the use of force in the operation, calling the protest entirely peaceful is only possible by focusing on the time just before the clearing. As discussed in my testimony, some 150 officers were injured during the protests and half of those were injured around the White House. The Justice Department claimed 750 injured officers during the various protests. The attacks around the complex were so great that the President was moved into the bunker.

Nevertheless, Lafayette Park became the rallying cry against the use of National Guard personnel and resources like tear gas and pepper balls. After Lafayette Park, Mayor Bowser declared “if you are like me, you saw something that you hoped you would never see in the United States of America.” Democratic leaders and the media denounced the use of the guard and tear gas as akin to military rule. The New York Times even apologized for publishing a column of Sen. Tom Cotton encouraging the use of National Guard (and effectively fired the editor who approved the column).

Both the media and members are heavily invested in the Lafayette Park narrative. It would be embarrassing to report that the Congress should have ordered the same expansion of a fenced perimeter and guard deployment before the protests — let alone the use of non-lethal devices like pepper balls.

The question is whether that narrative influenced the restrictions placed on the Capitol Police. It was only after losing control of Congress that a full deployment of fencing, riot resources, and the National Guard was allowed. It then remained up for months at a huge daily cost. It was the ultimate example of locking the barn door after the horse had bolted. But in Washington, it is not really about horse or the barn. It is about who gets the blame.
​

more at the link that was originally provided for the Turley piece

 

As predicted charges are not brought against the Capital Hill LEO that shot Ashley Babbitt.
https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...ll-not-bring-charges-against-officer-who-shot

Federal prosecutors will not bring charges in Ashli Babbitt death

Federal prosecutors said Wednesday that they would not file charges against the U.S. Capitol Police officer who shot and killed Ashli Babbitt during the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.

Babbitt, who was 35, was one of the five people who died as a result of the riot as supporters of former President Trump overran the Capitol while Congress was preparing to certify President Biden's Electoral College victory.

Her shooting was captured on video just outside the House chambers where a crowd was trying to make its way past police.

In a statement on Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney's office in Washington, D.C., said that after investigating the shooting, prosecutors found "no evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt " that it was unlawful.

"Specifically, the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber," the statement reads. "Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter."

Prosecutors did not identify the officer who fired the single shot that struck Babbitt as she was climbing over a barricade erected outside an area known as the Speaker's Lobby.

Babbitt was reportedly unarmed when she was shot.

According to the press release, officials from the Metropolitan Police Department's internal affairs division have informed Babbitt's family of the decision not to bring criminal charges.

Federal prosecutors in D.C. have brought criminal charges against hundreds of individuals who are accused of taking part in the riot. Those charges range from disorderly conduct and conspiracy to obstruction of an official proceeding, which carries a maximum possible sentence of 20 years in prison.

 

What narrative is that inconvenient for?

Who told them to not to use critical riot gear?

Still does not answer the question of why the pentagon and Trump would not release the National Guard.

 

Have you ever seen another case like this where, even after the investigation was closed and they elected not to file charges, the identity of the officer involved was not released? How can this not seem suspicious to people?

 

On that part I agree with you that I'm not aware of a case like this where we don't know the name of the LEO. For me it doesn't change my opinion of the situation.

 

Did you see the video angle they showed on Tucker Carlson's show (posted in another thread) where you can clearly see several officers within a few feet of her back directing people down a staircase, completely unmolested? Check out 3:39 to 4:00 of this video (hat tip to @jigglyfly who posted the video in another thread):

Does it seem strange at all to you that none of those cops that are within about 6 feet of Babbitt when she is killed considered her dangerous enough that they even needed to pay any attention to her? They are calmly directing people down a staircase, saying nothing to these protesters, and suddenly Babbitt is shot without warning. It sure seems strange to me. I really hope they release some investigative materials to explain how anything that appears in now three angles of her death amounts to her being an imminent threat of GBI or death.

 

Police were already injured. Protestors were already chanting violent threats. Police had barricaded the doors. She was breaking in.

Police had to have a decoy officer lead the crowd away from innocents. Police were amazingly restrained.

 

I've never seen a case like it, and I've never seen an angry person trying to break through a door to get to US Congress members either. I'm not saying the process is right or just -- I'm just saying I've never seen a case I can compare to this one, (and I hope American never does again).

 

Are you really unable to come up with a scenario where two different sets of police officers view a threat level differently? The answer is obvious, but I'll let you think about it for a bit.

 

Why didn't the cops right behind her with the AR-15s and body armor shoot her, or shoot everyone trying to break down the door? What about say, "if you go through that window, we will shoot you?" Nothing about this makes sense for anyone that knows anything about police use of force.

Police did have a decoy officer lead the crowd away from innocents. That may or may not have been necessary. We do not and cannot know.

I would say, other than the one that shot Babbitt, they acted pretty much as riot police generally act in a riot. They formed shield walls, they clashed with the rioters that attacked. They tried to herd the crowd. They used non (or less, whatever terminology you prefer) lethal weapons. All typical riot police stuff. There was just that one outlier.

Set aside anything about the cause or who was right or wrong, does it seem strange in modern America to have a video of an unarmed person being shot by an officer and have no information about who the officer is? We knew who Kim Potter was the same day she shot Daunte Wright or the next day at the latest. By day 2 we had all the information about the shooting, the accidental use of the taser instead of the gun, the body cam footage, etc. By day 3, she had been charged, booked, and released on bail, and she was doxxed and had to flee her home. The capitol riot was more than three months ago, and the only information we have about the shooting of Ashlii Babbitt is the amatuer video people posted and that now they are saying there are no charges coming.

I don't see how the officer on the other side of a door, where there was no crowd and he could engage with her one on one would possibly view the situation as more threating than the officers that are mixed in with the rioters within arms reach among the crowd, no.

 

I'm not going to set aside context, circumstance, and behavior, sorry.
But yes, I would say it is anomalous to have such a video but no info on the officer. It makes me wonder if Congress has a special set of security on the down-low, which would not surprise me at all. Having looked into the nutty woman's background, I don't think she was some sort of high-value target for illuminati. She was just playing a really stupid game and won an overzealous stupid prize. And if the US gov'mnt has extra layers of protection for those who protect the most privileged few (POTUS, SCOTUS, Congress), I would smirk and shake my head but not be surprised. That seems completely like American business as usual.

Overall, I'll step out of this particular narrow vector. I'm not keen to help this effort of yours and Tucker's to make the one protestor who died the center of a much larger American tragedy that also resulted in the deaths of a number of Capitol police officers and left our democracy much more vulnerable moving forward.

 

I watched the video and what it looks like to me are LEO leaving the scene and not doing their duty. The person they appear to be directing is someone wearing a lanyard, so a staff member and they appear to be directing him to leave with them. The fact that one of the rioters pats the LEO on the back as they leave the scene, while they do nothing to try to get that rioter to leave, raises far more concern in my mind about their commitment to doing their duty.

In the meantime we see several rioters smashing a door using helmets and other tools. A door that has already been established leads to Congress that the LEO are sworn to protect.

As far as not releasing the name of the LEO I can agree with yourself and Tucker Carlson that it is odd they aren't releasing the name of the LEO and I would have no problem with releasing his name and agree it is the duty of the press to demand that. That said that doesn't change the facts of the situation. Ashli Babbitt was in a crowd that was in the process of breaking down a line of defense, after already crossing several lines of defense. They were not just knocking and asking if they can be let in but using force to try to break down a door. This wasn't a matter of someone in custody being killed or an LEO that can't tell the difference between their taser and a firearm.

The rest of Carlson's piece is a lot of "whataboutism", as you say that's not a thing so bringing up what's happening in Brooklyn Center and what Democratic politicians are saying isn't really relevant then.

 

BECAUSE FOR ALL THEY KNEW, SHE COULD HAVE HAD A BOMB OR OTHER DEVIDE OR WEAPON DESIGNED TO KILL LAW ENFORCEMENT OR CONGRESSMEN.

how obtuse do you need to be? This is a lunatic who chose to break through a barrier while trainer officers had guns drawn and were clearly protecting congress.

you dont see because you see what you want to see.

this is an example where use of deadly force was appropriate and unquestionably the right choice. My god this is stupid.

 

For those who enjoy reading my debates I'm going to debate myself here.

This is speculation on very limited info. Thinking about it what the LEO might've been doing is retreating. They've already lost a line of defense and are now surrounded by the rioters who are attacking another line of defense. What they might've figured at that point is that they are in no position to stop the rioters from behind and likely are going to end up putting themselves in to danger so are retreating through an available line of retreat.

What I don't see in that video is any clear indication they are trying to get the rioters to leave but trying to get a staff member to leave with them.