ADVERTISEMENT

That was a gaslighting like I've never experienced before.

Properly replying to your posts requires real commitment. Kudos for that.

Let me start by pointing out that any mischaracterization of Trump's role in J6 or any shortcomings of the J6 Committee can and will be addressed in the two criminal trials, assuming Trump is not successful in his efforts to prevent them from ever occurring. As I've said before, the fact that Trump is all in on the presidential immunity defense tells a lot about his guilt regarding the charges.

So back to your post.

Any of the supposed “preparation” much less the activation of the DC National Guard had to go through acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller.

Here is his memo of Jan 4th clearing stating his role in deploying the National Guard.


Despite repeatedly lying in TV interviews on this topic, here is Miller testifying under oath that no extensive preparation was made and no order to deploy came from the WH.

Here he is lying. Not shading or spinning the truth, just straight up lying.



And here is the audio of his testimony.



So Ornato can testify that he heard a discussion about preparing 10k guard troops, but the person who would actually be responsible for making it happen says he never received that order or had the conversation.

And I can point to the bias of your various articles by their repeated suggestion that Ornato's testimony is "exonerating". One person testifying that he overheard a conversation is in no way exonerating, particularly given the facts I shared about Chris Miller above and all of the public information available on the topic.

Regarding Loudermilk, I am not inclined to take anything he says at face value. He's an election fraud conspiracist and loyal MAGA, so I'll reserve the right to readdress the topic of J6 committee documents once there is more information.



  • Trump started lying about election fraud months before the election. He had zero evidence of election fraud at the time, during and just after the election, in the lead up to J6 or today, as the lies continue.
  • Trump called his followers to help "save the country" in DC on J6, the day of certification, and he goaded that group and his other followers in the lead up to J6 with lie after lie about fraud and the Dems "stealing the country". Trump announces the January 6 rally on Twitter, stating: "Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!"[89][90]
  • While Trump was lying about fraud, Bill Barr refused to contribute to the chaos and made a public pronouncement that the DOJ had no evidence of election fraud. Barr then resigned.
  • The senior leadership of the DOJ all threatened to resign when Trump attempted to install environmental lawyer and compliant loyalist Jeffry Clarke as the acting AG. Clarke of course is under currently under indictment for his role in attempting to overturn the election.
  • John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro and others devised the plan of throwing certification into chaos and submitting fake Trump electors in an effort to stop certification.
  • Following the results of the 2020 United States presidential election, an obstruction scheme was devised by outgoing 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his allies in seven states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico. The goal of this scheme was to create and submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely asserted Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states1. Here are the key points of the fake elector plot:
    1. Objective:
      • The intent of the scheme was to pass the fraudulent certificates to then-Vice President Mike Pence during the congressional certification on January 6, 2021.
      • The hope was that Pence would count these fake electors’ votes instead of the authentic certificates, thereby overturning Joe Biden’s victory.
    2. Legal Theory:
      • The scheme was based on a fringe legal theory outlined by Trump attorney John Eastman in the Eastman memos.
      • These memos claimed that the vice president had constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, potentially changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race.
      • This theory came to be known as the "Pence Card"1.
    3. Coordination and Recruitment:
    4. Pressure and Attempts:
    5. Investigations and Indictments:
  • Trump's efforts to pressure Pence into "doing the right thing" to block certification was Plan A. I believe the rally and the protesters were part of the effort to "encourage" Pence to block certification and to submit the fake electors. Trump and team did not know Pence's intentions until 1:02 p.m.
  • 1:02 p.m.: Pence refuses to go along with Trump's plan to pick and choose electors, and tweets a letter[207] stating in part,
  • How do I know the purpose of the protestors was the pressure Pence and republicans to go along with the plan? Because of how Trump ended his speech at the rally.
  • 1:10 p.m.: Trump ends his speech by urging his supporters to march upon the Capitol Building:[209][181][210][211]
  • I have raised the issue of Trump's lack of effort to stop the riot. He waited over three hours before telling people to go home. But here is a tweet that was later deleted, that not only doesn't attempt to calm the situation, but it was also intended to make it worse.
  • 2:24 p.m: President Trump tweets "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!"[165] This is over ninety minutes after the first violence started.
  • Ashli Babbit was shot at 2:44 p.m., and Trump didn't release his video asking his people, carrying his flags, who came from his rally, to leave the Capitol until 4:17 p.m. That same video also praised the great patriots who stormed the Capitol, something Trump continues to do to this day, along with the promises of pardons.
  • And if you are concerned about deleted records, I bet you are very curious about the absence of WH records between 1:25 p.m. and 4:03 p.m. And of course, the fact that the Secret Service deleted all relevant texts.
  • There is an ongoing criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding the destruction of Secret Service text messages related to the events of January 6, 2021. Here are the key details:
I could go on for hours and actually had to edit this to make it a tolerable length.

So again, given Trump's and his supporter's proclamations of innocence, let's get these trials underway, let's get people testifying under threat of perjury, and let's get Trump cleared or not. We all deserve some clarity before the election in November.
Two things:

1. Miller testifying there was no "Order" to activate the guard is completely separate from the newly-revealed evidence that Trump asked the Mayor about her desire for NG support...she said no, so of course there was no activation order

2. Using the Immunity effort by Trump as evidence of anything other than lawyers trying to get a case thrown out before it starts is flawed. Why would they not try it? It doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. Your argument is counter to justice system mechanics. Lawyers attempting to get cases thrown out is standard.
 
Two things:

1. Miller testifying there was no "Order" to activate the guard is completely separate from the newly-revealed evidence that Trump asked the Mayor about her desire for NG support...she said no, so of course there was no activation order

2. Using the Immunity effort by Trump as evidence of anything other than lawyers trying to get a case thrown out before it starts is flawed. Why would they not try it? It doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. Your argument is counter to justice system mechanics. Lawyers attempting to get cases thrown out is standard.

This is a gotcha q and a with cnn. Glad to see Biden do this with Fox. Oh wait a minute he hasn’t. He went on and ate ice cream with a talk show host.

He sent out a tweet asking them to go home. They took it down. Why do that? Also, why even make the camera statement at all at 4:15 telling folks to go home. The old three hour statement. This is someone who is ego driven. Why go on camera at all and ask people to go home when this is what he wanted and planned all along. Wouldn’t anyone with half a brain planning this tell leadership, hey, I have to make an announcement to save face. Just ignore the announcement and take over the capital. Don’t leave until you take our country back. Right. It was a protest that got out of control.

Facts on a paper say, no he didn’t order troops. But he suggested they would need them. Right there in black and white. They were turned down. That is really hard to walk back. You can’t walk that back or spin it.
 
Last edited:
Two things:

1. Miller testifying there was no "Order" to activate the guard is completely separate from the newly-revealed evidence that Trump asked the Mayor about her desire for NG support...she said no, so of course there was no activation order

2. Using the Immunity effort by Trump as evidence of anything other than lawyers trying to get a case thrown out before it starts is flawed. Why would they not try it? It doesn't say anything about guilt or innocence. Your argument is counter to justice system mechanics. Lawyers attempting to get cases thrown out is standard.
Ornato claimed, even after Bowser declined troops, that Trump requested the NG be prepared to deploy quickly from a staging area as well. Miller stated under oath that no such request was ever communicated to him, which calls into question all of Ornato's testimony. Meadows, Kash Patel and now Ornato have made claims about Troop preparation efforts for J6 and the one guy who would have had to execute those orders to be prepared said under oath that those conversations never happened.

Note that the Capitol police chief officially requested National Guard support at 1:49, and it took another 75 minutes before the DOD approved the deployment and the NG didn't actually arrive until 5:20. The DC National Guard Armory is about a ten-minute drive from the Capitol.

Ornato is also former Secret Service, so it's a reasonable question to ask how he might have been involved in the mass deletion of J5 and J6 text messages, which you have to agree was a concerning development.

Bowser declining troops before the event does not explain why, on a day that Trump and team were supposedly so concerned about, National Guard troops didn't arrive until 5:20 p.m., and according to multiple reports, it was Pence and not Trump who finally authorized their deployment.

Regarding the presidential immunity defense, I have to disagree. It is a hail mary with a multitude of unhealthy implications for our system of government, but we will see how events unfold.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the presidential immunity defense, I have to disagree. It is a hail mary with a multitude of unhealthy implications for our system of government, but we will see how events unfold.

1. Attempts to get a case thrown out for any reason says less about 'guilt' than an individual exercising their 5th Amendment rights...I don't see the logic of your position, here

2. Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution. Presidents are only immune from civil prosecution. Why? because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions for POTUS, as it's never "come up" before...so again, I don't see this as a 'hail mary' unless you're also arguing that the previous cases for Congressional members & Judges were also 'hail marys' when their lawyers also argued that they had immunity (which, clearly they eventually were granted).

I just don't see how you can argue that asking for a ruling on this is some obvious admission of guilt.

EDIT: "are immune for their official acts from civil and criminal prosecution"
 
1. Attempts to get a case thrown out for any reason says less about 'guilt' than an individual exercising their 5th Amendment rights...I don't see the logic of your position, here

2. Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution. Presidents are only immune from civil prosecution. Why? because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions for POTUS, as it's never "come up" before...so again, I don't see this as a 'hail mary' unless you're also arguing that the previous cases for Congressional members & Judges were also 'hail marys' when their lawyers also argued that they had immunity (which, clearly they eventually were granted).

I just don't see how you can argue that asking for a ruling on this is some obvious admission of guilt.
Members of Congress and federal judges are not immune from criminal prosecution. A sitting president has civil immunity and a DOJ rule to generally be immune from arrest and criminal prosecution, while serving in office. Once out of office, there are no further protections enumerated in the Constitution or by generally accepted principle, beyond those rights that we all share.

I understand we see this one differently. Hopefully the SCOTUS will do their duty and resolve it quickly.

Here are some recent instances of members of Congress who were found guilty of criminal conduct:
  1. George Santos (R-NY): In 2023, George Santos was indicted and found guilty of one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators1.
  2. Steve Stockman (R-TX): In 2018, Steve Stockman, a former U.S. Representative, was convicted of fraud2.
  3. Chris Collins (R-NY): Chris Collins pleaded guilty to insider trading in 20192.
  4. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA): In 2019, Duncan D. Hunter pleaded guilty to misuse of campaign funds2.
  5. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE): In 2021, Jeff Fortenberry was found guilty of one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shonuff253
Members of Congress and federal judges are not immune from criminal prosecution. A sitting president has civil immunity and a DOJ rule to generally be immune from arrest and criminal prosecution, while serving in office. Once out of office, there are no further protections enumerated in the Constitution or by generally accepted principle, beyond those rights that we all share.

I understand we see this one differently. Hopefully the SCOTUS will do their duty and resolve it quickly.

Here are some recent instances of members of Congress who were found guilty of criminal conduct:
  1. George Santos (R-NY): In 2023, George Santos was indicted and found guilty of one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators1.
  2. Steve Stockman (R-TX): In 2018, Steve Stockman, a former U.S. Representative, was convicted of fraud2.
  3. Chris Collins (R-NY): Chris Collins pleaded guilty to insider trading in 20192.
  4. Duncan D. Hunter (R-CA): In 2019, Duncan D. Hunter pleaded guilty to misuse of campaign funds2.
  5. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE): In 2021, Jeff Fortenberry was found guilty of one count of scheming to falsify and conceal material facts and two counts of making false statements to federal investigators1.
Sorry, I accidentally left out "for their official acts"...which they (Congress & Judges) are & what has not been ruled on re: POTUS...which is what this is about. . Clearly this is about what was & wasn't an 'official act' & if that also applies to POTUS. My point remains the same...this is not some "hail mary" that indicates Trump's guilt.
 
Sorry, I accidentally left out "for their official acts"...which they (Congress & Judges) are & what has not been ruled on re: POTUS...which is what this is about. . Clearly this is about what was & wasn't an 'official act' & if that also applies to POTUS. My point remains the same...this is not some "hail mary".
You should read the Court of Appeals ruling on immunity, which was the consensus opinion of all three judges. It may change your mind about that.
  1. “In the opinion finding that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution, the three appeals court judges found that if proven, the former president’s efforts to usurp the 2020 presidential election were an ‘unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.’ ‘It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,’ they wrote.”
  2. "The judges flatly rejected Trump’s claim that his criminal indictment would have a ‘chilling effect’ on future presidents. Trump’s attorneys had argued that if future chief executives believed that they could be indicted for their ‘official acts’ as president, they would be more hesitant to act within their role. In rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, the appeals panel also said the public interest in holding a potentially criminal president accountable outweighed the potential negative impacts on the office of the presidency. But the court was clear to explicitly note that they weren’t offering any commentary on the potential implications of prosecuting a sitting president – which didn’t happen in this case."1

 
You should read the Court of Appeals ruling on immunity, which was the consensus opinion of all three judges. It may change your mind about that.
  1. “In the opinion finding that Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution, the three appeals court judges found that if proven, the former president’s efforts to usurp the 2020 presidential election were an ‘unprecedented assault on the structure of our government.’ ‘It would be a striking paradox if the President, who alone is vested with the constitutional duty to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’ were the sole officer capable of defying those laws with impunity,’ they wrote.”
  2. "The judges flatly rejected Trump’s claim that his criminal indictment would have a ‘chilling effect’ on future presidents. Trump’s attorneys had argued that if future chief executives believed that they could be indicted for their ‘official acts’ as president, they would be more hesitant to act within their role. In rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, the appeals panel also said the public interest in holding a potentially criminal president accountable outweighed the potential negative impacts on the office of the presidency. But the court was clear to explicitly note that they weren’t offering any commentary on the potential implications of prosecuting a sitting president – which didn’t happen in this case."1

It doesn't really change anything... I'm not smart enough to have an opinion on the legality of the argument...just that it (again) doesn't make him guilty for his lawyers to file a motion that's now made its way to the Supreme Court.

That's been my issue with your argument, as I've repeatedly said. Whatever is decided is decided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willdup
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT