Originally posted by cliffw: According to reports, your overlords will not release the name of the ?Capitol Hill Police Officer? who shot through a door killing a veteran.
A veteran. Really. Was she also a piano player? A bird watching enthusiast? A golfer? A stamp collector?
Intersectional Politics is never not relevant.
I've heard it remarked that her life might have been saved if the Capitol Police could have rendered First Aid more promptly. That they wanted to render First Aid ASAP, but were slowed down by all the members of the MAGA Mob that were in their way and did not get out of their way ASAP.
Black cop in a Democrat admin kills White woman? You can't even know his name. Black drug addict ODs on Fentanyl while being arrested and.the cop gets convicted of 2 murders because BLM protestors are on the jury.
Point out one of those and Rinse's head starts spinning in circles.
Black man shoots retired 77 year old Fire Chief 8 times, murdering him because he wouldn't give him a ride and the jury acquits him.
Another White child was just murdered by a Black man and nobody hears it on media like when a criminal dies in a conflict with police.
I'm not going to try to tackle that one (from sourmash), directly. It should be scored (NFL-style) as "ball carrier went down without contact from the defense."
But here's something that was just published.
The family of Capitol rioter Ashli Babbitt is suing to force Washington, D.C., to hand over records revealing the identity of the police officer who fatally shot her during the Jan. 6 invasion.
The litigation is separate from a forthcoming lawsuit in which Babbitt’s family plans to demand “well above $10 million” from the U.S. Capitol Police, a lawyer for the family told CNBC.
The civil suit comes after the Department of Justice announced it would not pursue criminal charges against the officer, who has not been named by officials.
I guess I should add that based on my perceptions about what happened, I think the first judge that sees either of the Ashli Babbitt-related lawsuits should dismiss in a "New York second" as "frivolous." Certainly, the one asking for monetary compensation and damages. The other one, about the withholding of the officer's identity (the one that shot her)--well, I don't know about that. I like the idea of withholding the officer's identity, but I can't say that I feel that I am standing on such firm ground about. About what is or what is not proper or legally incumbent upon the government.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-10-2021).]
A color commentator doesn't handle.the football. I just call em as they appear. I've seen Cybill.
Already knew about the law suit. They're seeking 14 bajillion hours or something of recordings too. But we've seen the murderer of Randy Weaver's wife and child get promoted.
The Capitol cop was already doxed as I understand.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 06-10-2021).]
I guess I should add that based on my perceptions about what happened, I think the first judge that sees either of the Ashli Babbitt-related lawsuits should dismiss in a "New York second" as "frivolous."
Who the hell are you trying to bullshit?
You wouldn't know what a frivolous lawsuit is if your life depended on it.
Almost 4 years of your nonsensical "legal prognostications" from Michael Cohen to General Flynn have been one long, pathetic, string of:
Maybe you can amuse us all with your "expert analysis" of exactly what in the entire panoply of codified American jurisprudence makes any possible civil suit in the matter of the late Ashli Babbitt "frivolous".
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-10-2021).]
Doug Jones points an accusatory finger (so to speak) at the FBI, asserting that the FBI grossly underperformed in terms of assessing and acting upon the warning signs on social media in the run-up to the January 6 MAGA riot or "insurrection"; "incursion"; "unscheduled open house at the Capitol Building"; bla-bla-bla.
Joy Reid puts it to Clint Watts, who explains why the FBI was hamstrung by civil liberties and First Amendment considerations, and suggests a need for federal legislation to allow the FBI to sharpen it's focus on the threat of violence from extremists like the January 6 MAGA mob.
Originally posted by 2.5: Posted with extra clarity for you sir, in response to your quoted post above: Why the heck don't you : refute the claims in the thread I referenced (below), instead of starting a new one full of empty leftist bologna cherry picked manufactured bytes and reinterpreted headlines (with no meat in them) that seem to be trying to justify what the details of the aforementioned thread (https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum6/HTML/126412.html) refute?
Why don't you reserve some judgement about the events of January 6 until the various federal and state-level investigations of it are farther along?
Now maybe you are thinking "It's already been 5 months, going on 6 months, since January 6," but investigations of this size can run for an entire year or more before the last indictments are filed and the last courtroom trials are held.
I personally don't expect to see anyone indicted for Insurrection. That's a high bar to overcome, or a big ask (of a jury) for a prosecutor. The Conspiracy charges are certainly piling up--as evidenced by the various news reports that I have been putting on display here (across a few different threads.)
The reporters that I follow, both online and on MSNBC (TV) have referred to the events of January 6 with a veritable smorgasbord of descriptions: a conspiracy to overturn a presidential election; a riot; an assault or attack upon or an invasion of the Capitol Building. A siege, as in "They laid siege to the nation's capitol building."
These are not prosecutors, speaking in court case filings or courtroom trials, and it's not rational to subject their discourse to the exacting standards of the legal profession.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]
Why don't you reserve some judgement about the events of January 6 until the various federal and state-level investigations of it are farther along?
Like the Clinton email server? Like the investigation into Joe Biden and Hunter Biden? Or perhaps you were talking about Donald Trump impeachment trials, because they moved pretty quickly. How about any of the riots where people were hurt and personal properties were destroyed?
When an administration can pick and choose what crime they pursue then there is never going to be justice. Doesn't matter what side you are on, all of this should have you worried.
"How about any of the riots where people were hurt and personal properties were destroyed?" ~ Jake Dragon.
How about it?
"Over 300 People Facing Federal Charges For Crimes Committed During Nationwide Demonstrations"
quote
The Department of Justice announced today that more than 300 individuals in 29 states and Washington, D.C., have been charged for crimes committed adjacent to or under the guise of peaceful demonstrations since the end of May [2020.]
To date, of the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs), more than 40 USAOs have filed federal charges alleging crimes ranging from attempted murder, assaulting a law enforcement officer, arson, burglary of a federally-licensed firearms dealer, damaging federal property, malicious destruction of property using fire or explosives, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, unlawful possession of a destructive device, inciting a riot, felony civil disorder, and others. Violent opportunists have exploited these demonstrations in various ways.
Approximately 80 individuals have been charged with offenses relating to arson and explosives. Approximately 15 individuals have been charged with damaging federal property. In some instances, these individuals are alleged to have set fires to local businesses as well as city and federal property, which will regrettably incur millions of taxpayer dollars to repair damages to the Portland Courthouse, Nashville Courthouse, Minneapolis Police Third Precinct, Seattle Police East Precinct, and local high school in Minnesota; and, to replace police cruisers in South Carolina, Washington, Rhode Island, Georgia, Utah, and other states. . . .
In the wake of George Floyd's death involving "police use of knee" in Minneapolis.
let me know when they are charged and brought to justice.
As for George, he shouldn't have died there. He should have not put himself in that position and should not have involved others. If he would have just stayed home that day he would have been another fentanyl statistic.
While there needs to be police reform, burning down private property and looting is not the way. Hell starting and or running an organization to take advantage of any of this should be criminal. When will that reform happen?
Former FBI agent Clint Watts has said that there needs to be new legislation to enable the FBI to become more capable and more proactive against the threats from Domestic Violent Extremists. To enable the FBI to make better use of the "chatter" that appears on the various social media platforms and channels.
Clint (we go way back ) says that as it stands now, the FBI's "dot connecting" when it comes to Domestic Violent Extremists is being hampered by laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments--the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and privacy--compared to the space for surveillance and proactive countermeasures that currently exists for the FBI and other federal agencies to defend against Foreign Violent Extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
I interpret Clint Watts's reference to "Domestic Violent Extremists" to include U.S. citizens and residents that operate under the Black Lives Matter and Antifa banners, as well as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters and other groups that are being tied to the violence, intimidation and property damage at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]
Former FBI agent Clint Watts has said that there needs to be new legislation to enable the FBI to become more capable and more proactive against the threats from Domestic Violent Extremists. To enable the FBI to make better use of the "chatter" that appears on the various social media platforms and channels.
Clint (we go way back ) says that as it stands now, the FBI's "dot connecting" when it comes to Domestic Violent Extremists is being hampered by laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments--the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and privacy--compared to the space for surveillance and proactive countermeasures that currently exists for the FBI and other federal agencies to defend against Foreign Violent Extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
I interpret Clint Watts's reference to "Domestic Violent Extremists" to include U.S. citizens and residents that operate under the Black Lives Matter and Antifa banners, as well as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters and other groups that are being tied to the violence, intimidation and property damage at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.
They declined to press charges for something that would have landed any one of us in jail and probably sitting in a black site. Start at the top, this insurrection chatter is a distraction while they take your liberties and steal our futures. I don't know about you but I am tired of being a tax cow just waiting to be milked.
Somewhere in these 50 United States, an aspiring young girl dreams about being appointed U.S. Secretary of State, misusing her private email server and being slipshod when it comes to classified information and after that--being elected President.
Their First Amendment freedoms are getting in the way of enforcing the law?
Well, gosh, maybe we don't need those pesky rights anymore!
(That was sarcasm)
Take a look. Clint Watts. He's all over it. If you hear it in his own words, it may make more sense for you than the way that I just described it.
I already said all that (with the YouTube) but here's more of Clint Watts in his own words.
This is at the end of a column in the Wall Street Journal from Clint Watts.
quote
A more fundamental challenge is that America’s counterterrorism system has long depended on a clear partition between international and domestic terrorism. This has given focus and latitude to the fight against post-9/11 jihadists. In pursuing white supremacist terrorism, by contrast, U.S. law enforcement—from the FBI to local police forces—will find itself restricted in various ways. The rulebook, resources and public support for aggressive, intelligence-led, investigative approaches differ between the domestic and international realms. For instance, the secretary of state can formally designate a foreign group as a terrorist organization, which gives the FBI a legal basis for pursuing U.S. persons who are providing that group with material support. It also lets the authorities request court-supervised surveillance and follow social media leads about violent radicalization.
We have no comparable mechanism for designating domestic-terrorist groups—but we need one. Without it, investigators are left to pursue violent white supremacists individually, charging them based on specific crimes or conspiracies, even if they are part of a larger nexus of online supporters bent on perpetrating violence. Moreover, investigators have limited abilities to pre-emptively assess whether white supremacists are taking a radical turn toward violence. The FBI should be granted more authority, with careful oversight, to designate domestic terrorist groups and then open nationwide investigative cases.
The overall balance of U.S. counterterrorism efforts is behind the times.
In this regard, the overall balance of U.S. counterterrorism efforts is behind the times. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified just the week before the Gilroy shooting that the bureau has recorded roughly as many domestic terrorism arrests as international terrorism ones in 2019, with the bulk of these domestic arrests arising from white supremacist motivations. But the FBI still dedicates more investigators to international terrorism than domestic, which likely increases the number of cases and subsequent arrests, simply because the bureau has more resources to tackle the jihadist problem and more legal authority to pursue its adherents.
We urgently need to reset and standardize our approach to domestic terrorism. If Congress is truly concerned about domestic terrorism and serious about its oversight responsibilities, it should immediately hold hearings to clarify the extent of the threat and identify needs. The homeland-security and judiciary committees should gather data about domestic terrorism’s different variants and ideologies and ensure that the U.S. has the resources and personnel to meet each threat. At the same time, the foreign-affairs and intelligence committees should examine the degree to which foreign countries and connections intersect with domestic extremist movements. Finally, Congress should ensure that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security get additional resources and tools to investigate domestic terrorism.
Why don't you reserve some judgement about the events of January 6 until the various federal and state-level investigations of it are farther along?
I am reserving some, but not all. But I won't lie about it, or spread lies.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
The reporters that I follow, both online and on MSNBC (TV) have referred to the events of January 6 with a veritable smorgasbord of descriptions: a conspiracy to overturn a presidential election; a riot; an assault or attack upon or an invasion of the Capitol Building. A siege, as in "They laid siege to the nation's capitol building."
let me know when they are charged and brought to justice.
As for George, he shouldn't have died there. He should have not put himself in that position and should not have involved others. If he would have just stayed home that day he would have been another fentanyl statistic.
While there needs to be police reform, burning down private property and looting is not the way. Hell starting and or running an organization to take advantage of any of this should be criminal. When will that reform happen?
Why was this video filmed by a brown skinned white supremacist not shown by the media? This is not the antifa "activist John" Sullivan video. Ashli Babbit - other video
The whole video is good, but@3:30 in shows the other angle.
------------------ Blue 87 Fiero GT with flux capacitor!
) says that as it stands now, the FBI's "dot connecting" when it comes to Domestic Violent Extremists is being hampered by laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments--the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and privacy--compared to the space for surveillance and proactive countermeasures that currently exists for the FBI and other federal agencies to defend against Foreign Violent Extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
