Make it stop.
In early July, after the new DC Reflecting Pool paint started peeling, Dept of Interior Secretary Burgum stated the US had evidence of wrongdoing and that “acts of vandalism” were caught on camera.
US Atty Jeanne Pirro presented “evidence” and got an indictment of former US Olympian David Hearn for that vandalism from a DC Grand Jury.
President Trump stated “We have photographs, or tapes…” In addition, he said in June “We also have pictures… ”. When he was pressed to show those images, he said they would come out in time. “At the right time you’ll see it,” he said. “You’ll see it in court.”
But then reality set in.
US Atty Pirro, after getting the indictment against Hearn actually sat down to look at the evidence and realized something… there was no evidence. No photos, no tapes, no nothing. She had stepped up to do the president’s bidding and was caught holding the bag.
Even as she dropped the case, Trump essentially ripped her a new one in stating "I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro on the Reflecting Pool.” He then went on to add the following…
"Frankly, I think she choked, because the judge was really vicious.” And that he said she "folded like a cheap umbrella”.
Yesterday he had this to say after admitting there was “contractor error” on the job…
“…there is no video or proof, other than the damage, itself,”, essentially exonerating Hearn and Pirro.
None of the above is in dispute. It’s all part of the public record and included in court filings and POTUS Trump’s own Truth Social postings.
Conclusions… I’ll admit, I don’t want to be charitable to the POTUS. I’m fed up with Trump, his lies, his profiteering off the office of the presidency, and his petty narcissism.
But I’m willing to say that it is possible no one in the Oval Office orbit was actually aware of the truth. Perhaps in a rush to satisfy the demands of the president, Burgum and Pirro just went along with what Trump wanted, hoping some real evidence would later turn up.
Because the only alternative is that all three of them knew early on that the president had gotten out over his skis, and it was their job to protect him… even if it meant lying to the American people.
What say you?
43 comments:
I say you're too willing to give the clowns and sycophants of the trump administration the benefit of the doubt that they, (at the behest of their cult leader trump) would never given you.
This is what happens when authoritarian followers surrender their conscience to their authoritarian leader.
Not to mentions murdering protesters in cold blood on the streets.
"I vass chust folloving orders!"
Unlike Brennan and Comey, who went WAY over their ski's to protect their FORMER boss. Barack Obama.
What I find most ironic is that Biden created an illegal immigrant crisis with no not-authoritarian means to solve, and then Democrats scream at the man who attempts to solve it, because their white guilt-pride prevents them from participating in the solution. *tsk-tsk*
Trump is karma
Both Republican and Democratic administrations share the blame for our southern border crises.
"Republican and Democratic administrations approached southern border enforcement differently, with Republican administrations generally favoring more visible, restrictive, and militarized deterrence strategies. However, how "lax" an administration appears often depends on global migration pressures, economic pull factors, and legal constraints rather than party affiliation alone.
Both parties have struggled to control migration spikes driven by severe foreign crises, post-pandemic economic demand in the U.S., and transnational smuggling networks.
Federal laws governing asylum rights, limited detention capacity, and federal court rulings have constrained both Republican and Democratic presidents from entirely closing or sealing the border."
Let's try this -FJ/Joe/Thersites... You're right on all counts. But the discussion today is Trump, Pirro and Sec Burgum, all of whom have been shown to have lied to the American people, brought a fake lawsuit and lied to the court.
In any real world, that would certainly lead to disbarment.
In the end, we are still left with the central question...
Did all three of the folks I cited lie, or we're they totally unaware of the facts, as Pirro is seeming to claim?
Trump is idiot
Yup, trump certainly is an idiot. Supported by a dwindling number of idiot cultists.
They were aware. They lied. Pirro is merely attempting to deflect responsibility in an attempt to cover her own lying reichwing ass.
You ask this after all the Biden Admin and all the Trump indictments?
Four separate criminal indictments comprising 88 total counts were brought against Donald Trump. Of these, only one indictment (the New York state hush-money case) ultimately prevailed through trial, resulting in a conviction on 34 felony counts, though he later received an unconditional discharge. The other three indictments—two federal cases and one Georgia state case—did not prevail, ultimately being dismissed or dropped
What about THOSE prosecutions? Were those prosecutors disbarred?
We need an unbiased judiciary. We do not have one. Jurisdiction shopping is the NORM, not the exception.
I agree. The Neoliberal UniParty segment of both parties profit from cheap labour and corporate cronyism.
Dave, we live in a state of hyper-real hypernormalization. What would it mean to know, direct witnessing of events, or hearing reports of events by unreliable others (some official, some not)?
To be fair, how big is an injection relative to a baby as compared to a full grown adult? Is it "soda bottle" big?
Actually Joe... yes, I hold my lib friends to the same standard. Call me old fashioned. They hate me for it.
I noticed you brought up venue shopping. Sure, it happens all the time. The libs love the 9th, the MAGA folks the TX district. But that's not what this is about.
Lawyers went into court AND lied. To a federal judge, to a grand jury and to the American people. They flat out lied, to please a president, who wanted to put an innocent man in jail, because that president is an idiot. An idiot who illegally hired his friends, on a no bid federal contract, to do a job, which they had never done before and which failed. After the presidents mulit-ton motorcade drove over the uncured new coating.
None of this is in dispute. It's all part of the factual, public record. But the president struggles with reality.
So he ordered his lackeys to arrest a guy, without any evidence. Not question him, but to arrest and try him. And potentially send him to jail for 10 years.
My gosh, any American defending Trump on this should check themselves.
You seem to have a strong streak of whataboutism. And we can play that game all day. But any objective look at the facts of this case, render your point moot.
David Hearn, as Jeanne Pirro said, is innocent. And as President Trump said, the US has no evidence he committed a crime. And that the damage to the pond was caused by contractor error.
As Ducky used to say, you keep pitching. Because for gosh sakes, even the president himself admitted it.
Didn't your mother ever teach you two wrongs don't make a right?
Oofda, the projection is so strong I had to pop extra popcorn!
Wow, our resident many named troll is more agitated than usual. The edges of their perceived reality must be unraveling extra fast. I feel for them, I really do. OK, that moment has passed.
Onto the question. Dave asked about who knew what they knew and when did they know it?
Trump is delusional and only repeats what was whispered to him by his advisors. He lies so easily that he lies when the truth would serve him better. I'm not sure he is aware of anything other than he's the victim and no one has been more persecuted than himself.
As for the rest of the crew? They all knew but orders are orders and Pirro may project fierce independence but she's only interested in making sure her bread is well buttered.
I am firmly convinced that had David Hearn not been a white male medal winning Olympic athlete but instead a person of a marginalized community that the charges would not have been dropped. Why do I believe this?
The decades of reporting by people of color. The mountains of evidence that was ignored by investigators in order to lock up BIPOC. The historic practice of all LEO's to ignore inconvenient facts in order to pursue "Just Us" against me and mine. This is a centuries old issue and needs to be addressed if our country is ever to recover.
As I see it the lying isn't a bug it's a feature only now it's played out on the world stage. Lies tend to die under harsh light of day and the unblinking eye of social media.
The build up was epic: the lining was so tough you couldn't cut it with a knife until it floated up on it's ownsome. Perhaps Trump shouldn't have driven his motorcade over the undercoat before it was cured. Perhaps turning the wheels of the beast wasn't the brightest idea because I watched video as the vehicles turned and the tire marks did not dissipate after the vehicle had moved on. As the experts who know about such things opined on the topic, that's not a good thing.
Botched job but Trump never fails, he can only be failed.
J6 Dave. There was no 'insurrection'. Insurrections require guns. How's that for prosecutorial lies?
The point of the whataboutism is that Democrats don't really care about the corruption unless it affects THEM. Everyone here screamed "Insurrection". It was a LIE!
It's ALL kayfabe, M. The Democrats used to have a saying, "The personal is political". They've made everything political. And now the political is "entertainment". It's spectacle. So "enjoy the show". Don't take it "personally".
WRONG. AGAIN.
"Multiple individuals who participated in or attended the events of January 6, 2021, had access to firearms, with several carrying them onto the Capitol grounds or storing them in nearby vehicles and hotels.
Federal court documents and law enforcement records confirm that firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition were recovered in connection with various participants.
Firearms and Ammunition Recovered
Carried on Grounds: Multiple defendants were charged with carrying loaded handguns or having firearms on their person at the Capitol, including individuals like Christopher Alberts and Lonnie Kaufman (who also had an arsenal in his truck). Other participants, such as Guy Reffitt, brought firearms to the area, and outside caches or nearby hotel rooms held additional rifles and supplies.
Strict Local Laws: Washington, D.C., had strict open-carry and gun permit laws at the time, which legal and security experts note discouraged many participants from openly carrying long guns directly into the dense crowds at the Capitol, though concealed or stored weapons were still present.
Other Weapons: In addition to firearms, dozens of rioters were prosecuted for carrying and using dangerous or deadly weapons, including bear spray, tasers, metal pipes, baseball bats, and flagpoles used as spears."
Who used their "guns" Shaw. Ashli Babbit??? Acta non Verba.
The empire has fractured. Stress lines are evident. Walls are starting to crumble. Foundations are weakened and shifting.
But evidence be dawned. Double down on the mistakes of the old failed rightwing ideologies that drove us here in the first place. Including unregulated capitalism.
Enters trump, the malignant narcissist, pathological liar, insurectionist, rapist, proven criminal, etc, and ignorant America reelects the SOB to a second time. Guess white supremacy and and criminal graft is what America wants. For if not we would not be in the very hot mess the country is in. Right now. Under America's very own reichwing white supremacist Fuhrer, trump.
-FJ states... "J6 Dave. There was no 'insurrection'. Insurrections require guns. How's that for prosecutorial lies?
Once again -FJ evades the clear question of the day to shift the focus away from a lying administration he supports.
It's become apparent that -FJ, in some sense like many MAGA supporters are unable to deal with questions at hand and provide the simple answers they demanded of politicians like John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Instead we get a steady diet of obfuscation, lies and YouTube videos.
As for insurrection, can you cite a few written definitions of insurrections from, you know, dictionaries, where it is specifically said an insurrection requires guns?
I'll wait.
Ashli Babbitt was participating in an unlawful entry and occupation of a restricted federal building during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Federal authorities and courts have established that entering and remaining in the Capitol without authorization to disrupt the congressional certification of electoral votes constituted federal crimes.
MAGA want us to understand that Renee Good and Alex Pretti deserved their deaths because they were interfering with federal agents (they weren't); and at the same time they make a martyr out of Ashli Babbitt.
If it weren't for situational morals, MAGA wouldn't have any morals at all. Breaking the laws for their convicted criminal president is considered patriotic. To the rest of the sane world, it is insane.
This is part of an edited conversation I had with Google AI on the insurrectionist/Kayfabe/hypernormalization thread -FJ used to ignore my post. I find it illuminating.
When your friend states with absolute certainty that "Insurrections require guns," he is dropping a definitive, factual claim. But when someone pushes back or asks him a question as I have, he will retreat into his "it's all Kayfabe" shield to avoid defending his incorrect statement.
This dynamic reveals a deep psychological and rhetorical strategy that defines modern internet-era political debates.
1. The Weaponization of the “Fact”… As established earlier, your friend's claim is objectively incorrect. No major dictionary, legal statute, or historical framework requires firearms for an event to be deemed an insurrection.
However, in a hyper-real political environment, your friend doesn't actually care about the dictionary. He is using a tactic known in debate circles as a "thought-terminating cliché" or a rhetorical anchor. By inventing a hyper-specific, unwritten rule ("must have guns"), he instantly shuts down the argument. If he can make the conversation about the presence of firearms, he completely avoids having to talk about the actual violence, the breach of the Capitol, or the disruption of the democratic process.
2. The Asymmetry of the Rules… His behavior—freely making demands of others while refusing to answer questions himself—is a classic display of conversational narcissism driven by political grievance.
His Rule for Us... We must answer his questions because we still believe in the system. Therefore, he can use our own decency, logic, and desire for debate against us to poke holes in our arguments.
His Rule for Himself... -FJ is exempt from answering us because he has declared the system "illegitimate." In his mind, because he is an enlightened outsider who sees through the "Kayfabe," he doesn't owe compliance to the rules of a rigged debate.
So what do we do?
-FJ,
Why do you defend criminal thugs and their criminal leader for violently attempting to overturn the election?
Babbitt was a violent insurrectionist in the process of COMMITTING CRIMES. She was armed with a knife.
Who beat cops bloody attempting overturn a fair election?
Who sent them to "Take back your country"?
Who PRAISED the thugs for beating cops bloody attempting to overturn a fair election?
Who PARDONED the thugs for beating cops bloody attempting to overturn a fair election?
Who want to PAY the thugs for beating cops bloody attempting to overturn a fair election?
Who won the 2020 election?
Apparently my definition is true on its' face. Not a single J6 defendant was charged with Insurrection.
In other words, the lawyers refused to LIE.
...but they did follow the President's malicious "orders".
Not because it wasn't an insurrection; it was, by definition,
an insurrection.
"The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) did not charge January 6 defendants under the federal criminal insurrection statute (18 U.S.C. § 2383) because prosecutors chose alternative, more direct charges like seditious conspiracy and obstruction that carried stiffer prison sentences and faced a less ambiguous legal threshold.
The insurrection statute carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Prosecutors instead used charges like seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384), which carried a maximum sentence of 20 years, allowing them to secure landmark convictions against leaders of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys (such as Stewart Rhodes and Enrique Tarrio).
Section 2383 is a rare Civil War-era law that has seldom been tested or defined in modern modern jurisprudence, making "insurrection" legally trickier to prove to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt compared to standard conspiracy and assault statutes."
I will not publish anymore comments on J6. This is a post about Trump's lie about the Reflecting Pool, and you've hijacked it and made it about the January 6, 2021, insurrection against the United States government.
From Dave M.'s comment:
"The Asymmetry of the Rules… His behavior—freely making demands of others while refusing to answer questions himself—is a classic display of conversational narcissism driven by political grievance."
Q.E.D.
Dave,
"So what do we do?"
We continue to maintain our integrity while correctly identifying the dishonest authoritarian for what he truly is.
They always prefer to overturn the chessboard when checked.
Good faith discussion is NOT their purpose. Never has been.
I answered your question. Having a gun, and using a gun, are two completely different things. The 2A guarantees the right to the former. When they start firing them at government officials, THAT is an "insurrection".
VDH responds to Dave Miller's complaint.
Yep - even the My Pillow guy with all Trump's blessings fell far short in his
foray into MN politics -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2026/08/12/mike-lindell-pillow-guy-trump-minnesota-republican-primary/91270669007/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
"In other words, the lawyers refused to LIE."
Indeed. In SIXTY courts Trump's lawyers refused to LIE and his bullshit cases on voter fraud were soundly rejected.
Trump and his thugs are ALL criminals.
Say, -FJ, have you figured out who won the 2020 election yet? Or are you STILL confused?
“The explicit goal of the mob was to disrupt a core constitutional function—the certification of the presidential election.Participants used concerted force and violence to breach a federal seat of government and confront elected officials.Numerous institutional bodies, including the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack, characterized the event as an insurrection.”
More reichwing delusion and BS.
VDH is MAGA all the way. His head is further up Trump's ass than -FJs.
Speaking of said cranial placement, who won the 2020 election, -FJ?
For someone who presents himself as enlightened and philosophical you seem terrified of the truth. Does it hurt your brain to admit what your Criminal President cannot? Yes, he is a criminal both convicted and indicted under overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Refusing facts the leader rejects is a classic authoritarian follower personality trait.
We're still waiting for your answer. Dodging this just reveals your moral cowardice and fealty to the Big Lie from your Malevolent Mendacious Messiah.
And no, the highly partisan MAGA loyalist VDH is not going to admit the truth either. This is why he's such a star at the laughably idiotic "Prager U".
"Prager U and -FJ too!" All we need to know.
”Victor Davis Hanson is not a neutral pundit.He is a prominent conservative and right-leaning political commentator, military historian, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
VDH is on the political right, writing regular columns for outlets like National Review Online.
Rated by media watchdogs, such as AllSides, as having a "Lean Right" or firm conservative bias.
Authored sympathetic and supportive works on populist conservatism, including the book The Case for Trump.”
VDH never responded in his video to "my complaint". he argued Kennedy whataboutism regarding DOJ nominee Todd Blanche. Nothing in my post, nor any of my comments on this thread relate directly to DOJ Blanche. So no, VDH did not respond to me.
Also, I'll note you never provided a requested written definition of "insurrection". Which honestly, I never expected.
Because to have done so would have exposed the vapidity of your argument.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's on to Skud in the next thread.
Unless you're Skud too!
The improperly constituted House Committee? lol!
They had characterized it as such before it was even constituted. That's why they REJECTED the Republican Leadership appointed members. Nancy needed a reason to suspend the actual inquery into the electors certifications. The original excuse was supposed to be the discovery of "bombs" at the DNC and RNC. But hey, just fire some teargas into people returning from a presidential speech and wha-lah! A riot ensues. Not an insurrection. A riot provoked by Nancy's Capitol Police.
Post a Comment