A few thoughts about January 6, 2021

Burnhardt

Senior Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
136
21
23
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Does it really matter?
Ideally, everyone would easily have the same take on the riot on Jan 6th, but if people are going to insist it was a coup planned by the GOP, then there's gonna be an argument to be had.
Did the GOP plan it?

I doubt it.

But GOP Politicians didn't help things in the slightest publicly playing along with Trumps wild conspiracy theories about voter fraud and how the election was stolen from him, even if they privately knew he was talking absolute bullshit. By public pandering to their electorate and kissing the arse of their 'kingmaker', they at minimum helped set these events in motion.

Trump on the other hand?

-If the mob would have successfully intimidated Pence to employ powers he didn't have to throw out votes then Trump could claim either victory or a disputed election which might get the supreme court involved. The supreme court he stacked.
-If the mob had intimidated enough people to delay certification then there was enough time for the Trump camp to get up to some devilry. Maybe the chaos would prompt the supreme court to quasi innocently suggest such chaos and um...''uncertainty'' would require their involvement.
One of these, although I believe 'intimidation' was never on the cards. This was a fucking lynch mob. They were out for blood, particularly Pence's and Pelosi's.

As it has been sated multiple times here already, Trump is incredibly narcissistic. He was never going to accept an election loss. Not in 2020. Not even in 2016. He even implied not ruling out the possibility of a third term, despite the 22nd Amendment.

He has stated that he had the right do as he wanted as President, used said position to investigate his political opponents, criticised the independent nature of the US Government Branches, and has had an utter contempt for the 1st Amendment - helping to popularising the incorrect term Fake News. A term he has used against any outlet that has dared to criticise him, ask him question he does not want to answer honestly, or call him out over incorrect statements.

The man may have been democratically elected (the electoral college not withstanding - but that is its own debate), but he didn't see himself as a President. He saw himself as a King.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
If your party is prepared to back him just to troll the libs, you're just making my point for me that the GOP is not the party you like to think it is, and seriously broken.

What you want us to understand is a fantasy that helps you pretend your party is not a damaged institution has that de facto condoned the unforgivable. And not just that, but fails what is supposed to be one of the fundamental conservative tenets of taking responsibility, in that it seeks to place all blame for all the right's poor choices and misjudgements on the left.
Why do you say that as if it speaks particularly well at your side? Because that heavily implies that Trump supporters knowingly and very willingly put their own country to the torch just to spite people they don't like.
First things first: the country was not put to the torch for anything. The policy employed during Trump's term was genuinely solid, the country was doing well as a result, and it took a global pandemic to undo it. Without Covid, Trump would still be in office, just doing whatever smart people tell him had worked in the past. It is an absurd suggestion that people of either party were indifferent to the events of 2020, as the man went from coasting into term 2 to getting blown out over the course of 6 months. Your logic defies the evidence.

Edit: You'll all dispute it, but he was impeached and gained in popularity.

But we're not talking about actual policy. We're talking about rhetoric and partisanship. People don't think purely about their own positions. Positional thinking is really hard. Directional thinking in dramatically easier, so that's what people do (oh my god, all of you included in that). People push alongside others whom they like, and pull back against those they dislike. The harder a partisan group pulls on something, the harder the reaction of the opposite party. Like, if we're talking about policy positions, Donald Trump is pretty much identical to a centrist Democrat. Nobody is pulling hard right in support of him, he's not far right. The hard pull is reaction to the treatment he's received. Like, what is the difference between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney as far as positions they take? Nothing at all. But because Trump is a boar, the left freaked out, which incentivizes the right to counter yell back. This is not a right wing fault. A user on this forum is currently denying the existence of Chinese concentration camps because it makes the US look better by comparison. People take ridiculous positions all the time in any direction because they are trying to pull (what they believe is) the right direction rather than find the correct position. You all have believed absolute bullcrap about Donald Trump because you believe attacking him is pulling the right direction, and then when I stake out the true position, you resent me for pulling the wrong way.

So yes, explaining why Trump supporters embrace lies to spite you is not a strong defense, because I'm not defending that behavior. I'm condemning it. You all participate in it.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,319
606
118
Country
The Netherlands
First things first: the country was not put to the torch for anything. The policy employed during Trump's term was genuinely solid, the country was doing well as a result, and it took a global pandemic to undo it. Without Covid, Trump would still be in office, just doing whatever smart people tell him had worked in the past. It is an absurd suggestion that people of either party were indifferent to the events of 2020, as the man went from coasting into term 2 to getting blown out over the course of 6 months. Your logic defies the evidence.
Rampant corruption was knowingly put into the highest position of power, the administration was famously not only corrupt but incredibly chaotic, relations with American allies were the lowest they had been in decades, civil divisions were pushed well beyond their breaking point and the president who everyone knew was far too incompetent to handle a disaster indeed wasn't able to handle a disaster. This was all incredibly predictable and you can very well argue that those who elected Trump indeed predicted these outcomes. When electing Trump a voter took into account that he'd be a horribly corrupt president who wouldn't be able to handle any disasters(such as a pandemic) and then he ultimately concluded he could live with all that as long as the libs were unhappy. I'd absolutely call that putting it to the torch.

What went as policy under the Trump presidency were ridiculous ideas like Muslim travel bans, tax cuts for the ultra rich, pulling out of vitally important climate accords, deregulation were more regulation was needed, a hawkish stance to America's allies.

The policies of the Trump administration were not solid. At best the economy was doing well but even this had some serious caveats. That Trump even had a chance for reelection hinged solely on the American system bending over backward to aid Republicans. Never in a single time during his presidency did Trump convince even half of the US that he was doing an acceptable job. So appeals to electoral success doesn't really say anything about Trump doing a good job or not, because the electoral system doesn't require Trump to do a good job, and in fact allows him to win even if the majority thinks he doesn't.

But we're not talking about actual policy. We're talking about rhetoric and partisanship. People don't think purely about their own positions. Positional thinking is really hard. Directional thinking in dramatically easier, so that's what people do (oh my god, all of you included in that). People push alongside others whom they like, and pull back against those they dislike. The harder a partisan group pulls on something, the harder the reaction of the opposite party. Like, if we're talking about policy positions, Donald Trump is pretty much identical to a centrist Democrat. Nobody is pulling hard right in support of him, he's not far right. The hard pull is reaction to the treatment he's received. Like, what is the difference between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney as far as positions they take? Nothing at all. But because Trump is a boar, the left freaked out, which incentivizes the right to counter yell back. This is not a right wing fault. A user on this forum is currently denying the existence of Chinese concentration camps because it makes the US look better by comparison. People take ridiculous positions all the time in any direction because they are trying to pull (what they believe is) the right direction rather than find the correct position. You all have believed absolute bullcrap about Donald Trump because you believe attacking him is pulling the right direction, and then when I stake out the true position, you resent me for pulling the wrong way.
I doubt a centrist Democrat or Mitt Romney were willing to waste millions on a vanity wall. In terms of policy Trump wasn't just your average politician. He was someone willing to inflict direct harm to implement policies who's only goal was to strengthen his election chances. And while politics is a cynical business people like Romney, Biden or even Manchin will draw the line somewhere.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
Rampant corruption was knowingly put into the highest position of power, the administration was famously not only corrupt but incredibly chaotic, relations with American allies were the lowest they had been in decades, civil divisions were pushed well beyond their breaking point and the president who everyone knew was far too incompetent to handle a disaster indeed wasn't able to handle a disaster.
Corruption there is an argument for, the rest is untrue. International relations were doing pretty darn well (when considering actual intergovernment relations rather than protestors with baby balloons), civil divisions were at a local minimum. Like, look at the BLM movement. It formed during the Obama years, maintained activity through the first year of Trump, and basically took the year 2019 off. Pre-pandemic, things were great, by basically every measure. Was Trump personally capable of handling a disaster? No, but for the first few months of pandemic, Democrats cooperated with him and a united government managed things basically as well as they could. He was only in the position of managing a disaster personally because it was politically expedient to distance from Trump and leave him with the blame.
What went as policy under the Trump presidency were ridiculous ideas like Muslim travel bans, tax cuts for the ultra rich, pulling out of vitally important climate accords, deregulation were more regulation was needed, a hawkish stance to America's allies.
It was never Muslim travel bans, it was travel restrictions from previously listed nations of interest. The tax cuts were primarily for the middle class and corporations, the Democratic Party's conflation between corporate taxes and taxes on the rich has deceived people, those aren't tax breaks for the ultra rich. The billionaire class gets a fraction of a percent of their wealth from corporate profits, and many paid more because of the tax reform. Those climate accords are utterly worthless and fundamentally misunderstand what is required to manage climate change, all that deregulation has made life easier for people, and Trump's policies were not hawkish towards anyone overall and only in a specific sense if you count tariffs as "hawkish".
I doubt a centrist Democrat or Mitt Romney were willing to waste millions on a vanity wall. In terms of policy Trump wasn't just your average politician. He was someone willing to inflict direct harm to implement policies who's only goal was to strengthen his election chances. And while politics is a cynical business people like Romney, Biden or even Manchin will draw the line somewhere.
The majority of physical barriers at the border predate Trump. Every politician you just named has openly supported expanding border fencing before or even during Trump's term. Literally all three of them. You only think of it as a vanity project harming people when it's associated with Trump. He did nothing new or different.
 

Hades

Elite Member
May 7, 2020
1,319
606
118
Country
The Netherlands
Corruption there is an argument for, the rest is untrue. International relations were doing pretty darn well (when considering actual intergovernment relations rather than protestors with baby balloons), civil divisions were at a local minimum. Like, look at the BLM movement. It formed during the Obama years, maintained activity through the first year of Trump, and basically took the year 2019 off. Pre-pandemic, things were great, by basically every measure. Was Trump personally capable of handling a disaster? No, but for the first few months of pandemic, Democrats cooperated with him and a united government managed things basically as well as they could. He was only in the position of managing a disaster personally because it was politically expedient to distance from Trump and leave him with the blame.
Trump famously didn't get along with essentially any of his allies. Not Merkel, not May, not Macron, not Trudeau, and Trump's very open hostility to European allies caused a rift. From 2016 till 2020 no European likely had the illusion that they could count on the US. The fact that about half of the Republican party refuses to believe Biden won the election after Trump was done with them already suggests that civil divisions were hardly minimum. Even before the pandemic the two sides in American had became completely hostile to each other. Its true that the division was already there otherwise Trump couldn't have appeared, but he undeniably widened them considerably.

It was never Muslim travel bans, it was travel restrictions from previously listed nations of interest. The tax cuts were primarily for the middle class and corporations, the Democratic Party's conflation between corporate taxes and taxes on the rich has deceived people, those aren't tax breaks for the ultra rich. The billionaire class gets a fraction of a percent of their wealth from corporate profits, and many paid more because of the tax reform. Those climate accords are utterly worthless and fundamentally misunderstand what is required to manage climate change, all that deregulation has made life easier for people, and Trump's policies were not hawkish towards anyone overall and only in a specific sense if you count tariffs as "hawkish".
I don't buy the ''its not a Muslim ban but just conveniently targets only Muslim countries and accidentally doesn't even apply to the nation most of the terrorists come from'' spiel. Especially if you combine it with Trump's particular stance towards Muslims. ''Corporations'' kinda says all about who the tax break had been for and considering what Trump comes from that's hardly surprising. And lets not pretend Trump left the Paris accord because its ''useless''. He left because he just doesn't want to do anything about climate change. After all, climate change is a hoax from China. To an extend the Paris accord wouldn't be enough but that's because it could only do the bare minimum to avoid getting blocked by politicians like Trump. And then Trump still left it. It not doing enough can hardly be an argument from people who themselves are responsible for it not doing enough.

What becomes apparent when looking at Trump's policies is that they very overtly cater to the upper class which again isn't surprising considering that's his own class. Can't allow regulation if they hinder the upper class, can't solve global warming if it hinders the upper class, tax breaks not for the lower but for the higher classes.

The majority of physical barriers at the border predate Trump. Every politician you just named has openly supported expanding border fencing before or even during Trump's term. Literally all three of them. You only think of it as a vanity project harming people when it's associated with Trump. He did nothing new or different.
That's not exactly helping your case now is it? If the majority of barriers were already there then it would mean Trump was essentially lying about the oh so vital need for a great wall, which also leads to the conclusion he was indeed wasting millions on something that didn't need to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
That's not exactly helping your case now is it? If the majority of barriers were already there then it would mean Trump was essentially lying about the oh so vital need for a great wall, which also leads to the conclusion he was indeed wasting millions on something that didn't need to be done.
What case do you think that I'm making? I'm not saying that Trump never lied, or that he did new exciting things. I'm saying he did the opposite, he just followed the lead of other politicians, and non-coincidentally doing things that worked for others also worked for Trump.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,101
4,289
118
But we're not talking about actual policy. We're talking about rhetoric and partisanship. People don't think purely about their own positions. Positional thinking is really hard. Directional thinking in dramatically easier, so that's what people do (oh my god, all of you included in that). People push alongside others whom they like, and pull back against those they dislike. The harder a partisan group pulls on something, the harder the reaction of the opposite party. Like, if we're talking about policy positions, Donald Trump is pretty much identical to a centrist Democrat. Nobody is pulling hard right in support of him, he's not far right. The hard pull is reaction to the treatment he's received. Like, what is the difference between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney as far as positions they take? Nothing at all. But because Trump is a boar, the left freaked out, which incentivizes the right to counter yell back. This is not a right wing fault. A user on this forum is currently denying the existence of Chinese concentration camps because it makes the US look better by comparison. People take ridiculous positions all the time in any direction because they are trying to pull (what they believe is) the right direction rather than find the correct position. You all have believed absolute bullcrap about Donald Trump because you believe attacking him is pulling the right direction, and then when I stake out the true position, you resent me for pulling the wrong way.
Let me remind you Trump arrived in 2016 touting as key policies extremely aggressive and in some cases borderline racist anti-immigrant policy, repealing the ACA, tax cuts and no-one who has a serious comment on US politics thinks this is centreist Democrat territory. Obviously in the background he was tubthumping a ton of standard Republican positions like gun ownership, anti-abortion, etc. So this idea it was somehow some sort of moderate Democrat platform is completely laughable.

Next, Trump entered the scene back in 2016 spouting outrageous shit, and the Republicans loved that outrageous shit. And again, this isn't the left's fault. It's the same vein that had been growing in the Republican party that made McCain think Sarah Palin would be a good VP pick and the Tea Party. This groundswell of haters / trolls was long since already there.

Finally, just about anybody who in 2016 seriously looked at Trump's long history of superficiality, lies, boasting, bullshit, getting financially blacklisted, and erratic behaviour and had every reason to believe he was likely to be venal, corrupt and incompetent. And so he proved to be. The fact that for much of those four years he didn't have anything that critical to screw up or self-combust over is not a reason to think he was okay.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
11,055
3,716
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
It's called personal responsibility
Which we know he will never have, nor own up to.


This is why Facebook can burn in its golden hell.

You tell those cowardly bitches, judge. Show what happens when threaten those that know how to use their power properly and responsibly.

 
Last edited:

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,314
1,515
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Which we know he will never have, nor own up to.


This is why Facebook can burn in its golden hell.

You tell those cowardly bitches, judge. Show what happens when threaten those that know how to use their power properly and responsibly.

I don't just mean Trump. I mean the whole GOP. Looking at Reagan's administration and their claims of personal responsibility, I dont see much of that there either
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
Let me remind you Trump arrived in 2016 touting as key policies extremely aggressive and in some cases borderline racist anti-immigrant policy, repealing the ACA, tax cuts and no-one who has a serious comment on US politics thinks this is centreist Democrat territory.
The ACA barely passed a gutted version with a Democratic supermajority that did not require a single Republican vote. Mainstream Democratic leaders voted on multiple occasions to build barriers on the southern border. Joe Manchin personally cut West Virginia's corporate income tax when he was governor. You're off on all points.
 

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,703
1,515
118
Britannialand
This person has some seriously spicy footage, have been privvy to some during a stream a little while back, but alas it was not going to last forever with the paranoia the groups submerg themselves in. Hopefully it will all be released in a manageable format for further analysis.



Deets on the sheets...




Flynn loses lawsuit claiming he wasn't a believer in qanon because he regularly, openly believes in qanon, ffs thank fuck we can at least agree on that.

 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,101
4,289
118
The ACA barely passed a gutted version with a Democratic supermajority that did not require a single Republican vote. Mainstream Democratic leaders voted on multiple occasions to build barriers on the southern border. Joe Manchin personally cut West Virginia's corporate income tax when he was governor. You're off on all points.
No, you're bullshitting with exaggerated nonsense to try to bolster a patently dumb argument. The furthest fringe ~10% of the Democratic party clearly isn't its mainstream.

Don't waste our time.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
794
645
98
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
Flynn loses lawsuit claiming he wasn't a believer in qanon because he regularly, openly believes in qanon, ffs thank fuck we can at least agree on that.
Reminder to everyone playing along at home: Truth is an absolute defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

XsjadoBlayde

Intersectional Multidimensional Pansexual Alliance
Apr 29, 2020
1,703
1,515
118
Britannialand
This is, or bloody well should be, damning. Though still no surprise to anyone following these types for the last few years.




Two sources are communicating with House investigators and detailed a stunning series of allegations to Rolling Stone, including a promise of a “blanket pardon” from the Oval Office.


As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.

Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

Judge Ordered Jan. 6 Rioter Not to Associate with Proud Boys. He Then Spoke at Rally Attended by Proud Boys

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.”

For the sake of clarity, we will refer to one of the sources as a rally organizer and the other as a planner. Rolling Stone has confirmed that both sources were involved in organizing the main event aimed at objecting to the electoral certification, which took place at the White House Ellipse on Jan. 6. Trump spoke at that rally and encouraged his supporters to march to the Capitol. Some members of the audience at the Ellipse began walking the mile and a half to the Capitol as Trump gave his speech. The barricades were stormed minutes before the former president concluded his remarks.

These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).


“We would talk to Boebert’s team, Cawthorn’s team, Gosar’s team like back to back to back to back,” says the organizer.


And Gosar, who has been one of the most prominent defenders of the Jan. 6 rioters, allegedly took things a step further. Both sources say he dangled the possibility of a “blanket pardon” in an unrelated ongoing investigation to encourage them to plan the protests.

“Our impression was that it was a done deal,” the organizer says, “that he’d spoken to the president about it in the Oval … in a meeting about pardons and that our names came up. They were working on submitting the paperwork and getting members of the House Freedom Caucus to sign on as a show of support.”

The organizer claims the pair received “several assurances” about the “blanket pardon” from Gosar.

“I was just going over the list of pardons and we just wanted to tell you guys how much we appreciate all the hard work you’ve been doing,” Gosar said, according to the organizer.

The rally planner describes the pardon as being offered while “encouraging” the staging of protests against the election. While the organizer says they did not get involved in planning the rallies solely due to the pardon, they were upset that it ultimately did not materialize.

“I would have done it either way with or without the pardon,” the organizer says. “I do truly believe in this country, but to use something like that and put that out on the table when someone is so desperate, it’s really not good business.”

Gosar’s office did not respond to requests for comment on this story. Rolling Stone has separately obtained documentary evidence that both sources were in contact with Gosar and Boebert on Jan. 6. We are not describing the nature of that evidence to preserve their anonymity. The House select committee investigating the attack also has interest in Gosar’s office. Gosar’s chief of staff, Thomas Van Flein, was among the people who were named in the committee’s “sweeping” requests to executive-branch agencies seeking documents and communications from within the Trump administration. Both sources claim Van Flein was personally involved in the conversations about the “blanket pardon” and other discussions about pro-Trump efforts to dispute the election. Van Flein did not respond to a request for comment.

These specific members of Congress were involved in the pro-Trump activism around the election and the electoral certification on Jan. 6. Both Brooks and Cawthorn spoke with Trump at the Ellipse on Jan. 6. In his speech at that event, Brooks, who was reportedly wearing body armor, declared, “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.” Gosar, Greene, and Boebert were all billed as speakers at the “Wild Protest,” which also took place on Jan. 6 at the Capitol.

Nick Dyer, who is Greene’s communications director, said she was solely involved in planning to object to the electoral certification on the House floor. Spokespeople for the other members of Congress, who the sources describe as involved in the planning for protests, did not respond to requests for comment.

“Congresswoman Greene and her staff were focused on the Congressional election objection on the House floor and had nothing to do with planning of any protest,” Dyer wrote in an email to Rolling Stone.


Dyer further compared Greene’s efforts to dispute certification of Biden’s victory with similar objections certain Democrats lodged against Trump’s first election.

“She objected just like Democrats who have objected to Republican presidential victories over the years,” wrote Dyer. “Just like in 2017, when Jim McGovern, Jamie Raskin, Pramila Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Raul Grijalva, and Maxine Waters tried to prevent President Trump’s election win from being certified.”

Dyer also suggested the public is far more concerned with issues occurring under President Joe Biden than they are with what happened in January.

“No one cares about Jan. 6 when gas prices are skyrocketing, grocery store shelves are empty, unemployment is skyrocketing, businesses are going bankrupt, our border is being invaded, children are forced to wear masks, vaccine mandates are getting workers fired, and 13 members of our military are murdered by the Taliban and Americans are left stranded in Afghanistan,” Dyer wrote.

In another indication members of Congress may have been involved in planning the protests against the election, Ali Alexander, who helped organize the “Wild Protest,” declared in a since-deleted livestream broadcast that Gosar, Brooks, and Biggs helped him formulate the strategy for that event.

“I was the person who came up with the Jan. 6 idea with Congressman Gosar, Congressman Mo Brooks, and Congressman Andy Biggs,” Alexander said at the time. “We four schemed up on putting maximum pressure on Congress while they were voting so that — who we couldn’t lobby — we could change the hearts and the minds of Republicans who were in that body hearing our loud roar from outside.”

Alexander led Stop the Steal, which was one of the main groups promoting efforts to dispute Trump’s loss. In December, he organized a Stop the Steal event in Phoenix, where Gosar was one the main speakers. At that demonstration, Alexander referred to Gosar as “my captain” and declared “one of the other heroes has been Congressman Andy Biggs.”

Alexander did not respond to requests for comment. The rally planner, who accused Alexander of ratcheting up the potential for violence that day while taking advantage of funds from donors and others who helped finance the events, confirmed that he was in contact with those three members of Congress.

“He just couldn’t help himself but go on his live and just talk about everything that he did and who he talked to,” the planner says of Alexander. “So, he, like, really told on himself.”

While it was already clear members of Congress played some role in the Jan. 6 events and similar rallies that occurred in the lead-up to that day, the two sources say they can provide new details about the members’ specific roles in these efforts. The sources plan to share that information with congressional investigators right away. While both sources say their communications with the House’s Jan. 6 committee thus far have been informal, they are expecting to testify publicly.

“I have no problem openly testifying,” the planner says.

A representative for the committee declined to comment. In the past month, the committee has issued subpoenas to top Trump allies, government agencies, and activists who were involved in the planning of events and rallies that took place on that day and in the prior weeks. Multiple sources familiar with the committee’s investigation have confirmed to Rolling Stone that, thus far, it seems to be heavily focused on the financing for the Ellipse rally and similar previous events.

Both of the sources made clear that they still believe in Trump’s agenda. They also have questions about how his election loss occurred. The two sources say they do not necessarily believe there were issues with the actual vote count. However, they are concerned that Democrats gained an unfair advantage in the race due to perceived social media censorship of Trump allies and the voting rules that were implemented as a result of the coronavirus pandemic.


“Democrats used tactics to disrupt their political opposition in ways that frankly were completely unacceptable,” the organizer says.

Despite their remaining affinity for Trump and their questions about the vote, both sources say they were motivated to come forward because of their concerns about how the pro-Trump protests against the election ultimately resulted in the violent attack on the Capitol. Of course, with their other legal issues and the House investigation, both of these sources have clear motivation to cooperate with investigators and turn on their former allies. And both of their accounts paint them in a decidedly favorable light compared with their former allies.

“The reason I’m talking to the committee and the reason it’s so important is that — despite Republicans refusing to participate … this commission’s all we got as far as being able to uncover the truth about what happened at the Capitol that day,” the organizer says. “It’s clear that a lot of bad actors set out to cause chaos. … They made us all look like shit.”

And Trump, they admit, was one of those bad actors. A representative for Trump did not respond to a request for comment.

“The breaking point for me [on Jan. 6 was when] Trump starts talking about walking to the Capitol,” the organizer says. “I was like. ‘Let’s get the fuck out of here.’ ”

“I do kind of feel abandoned by Trump,” says the planner. “I’m actually pretty pissed about it and I’m pissed at him.”

The organizer offers an even more succinct assessment when asked what they would say to Trump.

“What the fuck?” the organizer says.

The two potential witnesses plan to present to the committee allegations about how these demonstrations were funded and to detail communications between organizers and the White House. According to both sources, members of Trump’s administration and former members of his campaign team were involved in the planning. Both describe Katrina Pierson, who worked for Trump’s campaign in 2016 and 2020, as a key liaison between the organizers of protests against the election and the White House.

“Katrina was like our go-to girl,” the organizer says. “She was like our primary advocate.”

Pierson spoke at the Ellipse rally on Jan. 6. She did not respond to requests for comment.

Both sources also describe Trump’s White House chief of staff, Mark Meadows, as someone who played a major role in the conversations surrounding the protests on Jan. 6. Among other things, they both say concerns were raised to Meadows about Alexander’s protest at the Capitol and the potential that it could spark violence. Meadows was subpoenaed by the committee last month as part of a group of four people “with close ties to the former President who were working in or had communications with the White House on or in the days leading up to the January 6th insurrection.”

“Meadows was 100 percent made aware of what was going on,” says the organizer. “He’s also like a regular figure in these really tiny groups of national organizers.”

A separate third source, who has also communicated with the committee and was involved in the Ellipse rally, says Kylie Kremer, one of the key organizers at that event, boasted that she was going to meet with Meadows at the White House ahead of the rally. The committee has been provided with that information. Kremer did not respond to a request for comment.

Both the organizer and the planner say Alexander initially agreed he would not hold his “Wild Protest” at the Capitol and that the Ellipse would be the only major demonstration. When Alexander seemed to be ignoring that arrangement, both claim worries were brought to Meadows.


“Despite making a deal … they plowed forward with their own thing at the Capitol on Jan.y 6 anyway,” the organizer says of Alexander and his allies. “We ended up escalating that to everybody we could, including Meadows.”

A representative for Meadows did not respond to requests for comment.

Along with making plans for Jan. 6, the sources say, the members of Congress who were involved solicited supposed proof of election fraud from them. Challenging electoral certification requires the support of a member of the Senate. While more than a hundred Republican members of the House ultimately objected to the Electoral College count that formalized Trump’s loss, only a handful of senators backed the effort. According to the sources, the members of Congress and their staff advised them to hold rallies in specific states. The organizer says locations were chosen to put “pressure” on key senators that “we considered to be persuadable.”

“We had also been coordinating with some of our congressional contacts on, like, what would be presented after the individual objections, and our expectation was that that was the day the storm was going to arrive,” the organizer says, adding, “It was supposed to be the best evidence that they had been secretly gathering. … Everyone was going to stay at the Ellipse throughout the congressional thing.”

Heading into Jan. 6, both sources say, the plan they had discussed with other organizers, Trump allies, and members of Congress was a rally that would solely take place at the Ellipse, where speakers — including the former president — would present “evidence” about issues with the election. This demonstration would take place in conjunction with objections that were being made by Trump allies during the certification on the House floor that day.

“It was in a variety of calls, some with Gosar and Gosar’s team, some with Marjorie Taylor Greene and her team … Mo Brooks,” the organizer says.

“The Capitol was never in play,” insists the planner.

A senior staffer for a Republican member of Congress, who was also granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation, similarly says they believed the events would only involve supporting objections on the House floor. The staffer says their member was engaged in planning that was “specifically and fully above board.”

“A whole host of people let this go a totally different way,” the senior Republican staffer says. “They fucked it up for a lot of people who were planning to present evidence on the House floor. We were pissed off at everything that happened .”

The two sources claim there were early concerns about Alexander’s event. They had seen him with members of the paramilitary groups 1st Amendment Praetorian (1AP) and the Oath Keepers in his entourage at prior pro-Trump rallies. Alexander was filmed with a reputed member of 1AP at his side at a November Stop the Steal event that took place in Georgia. The two sources also claim to have been concerned about drawing people to the area directly adjacent to the Capitol on Jan. 6, given the anger among Trump supporters about the electoral certification that was underway that day.

“They knew that they weren’t there to sing “Kumbaya” and, like, put up a peace sign,” the planner says. “These frickin’ people were angry.”
Bonus MJG video...

 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,739
615
118
Country
USA
No, you're bullshitting with exaggerated nonsense to try to bolster a patently dumb argument. The furthest fringe ~10% of the Democratic party clearly isn't its mainstream.
Never said they were.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
7,137
1,374
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I really wish you would understand the dynamics here. Donald Trump is not popular with people because of anything about him. He's popular because he pisses you people off.
Shitposting for the lulz is not a legitimate political position and shouldn't be treated as such. How did the republican party decide to embrace being 4chan trolls?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan