Jim Jordan Shreds Democrats On House Floor: 'They Used The Virus To Attack Our Freedoms'

originally posted by: network dude

It's amazing that when you break all that down, removing all the money from politics seems to fix so many other issues.

That's why the untouchable criminal class won't let it happen. The greatest generation saved us then trusted the system to work. Then we came along and let them get away with too much shizzle.

Not even sure a bloody war would do much. Not to be a pessimist but I think not only planned obsolescence as far as democracy has played it's part entropy is inevitable regardless.

I think it's definitely time to not comply no matter the consequences but to start focusing on our true sphere of influence: Family, friends, and neighbors.

Will we live to see the total collapse? If we do we may wish we hadn't.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: network dude

I'm mildly curious about what dependable sources with access to facts around the subject are saying. What you "heard" is not particularly relevant without those sources.

If Pelosi is in fact invoking some form of political or executive immunity then clearly she's just as innocent as Trump. Unless his privileges are morally superior to hers for whatever reason? 🤔

www.msn.com...

The video talks about how Sund gave his statement to congress and Irving (or his contemporary equivalent) is refusing to submit the communications for examination. If you read the original statements from Steve Sund, he points directly to the Pentagon (Piatt and Flynn specifically) as being culpable for the failures of command that eventually fell to Irving and himself as expendable pawns.

www.nbcnews.com...

The fact remains that in spite of Sund's detailed analysis of foresight, preparations and negotiations they were critically overwhelmed because somewhere in the chain of command, someone took a little too long changing their mind. And his remarks point to the less expendable officers I named above.

a reply to: TzarChasm

if you pay attention to what was said, there is a conflict. Sund says he asked for the NG to assist, the new sergeant at arms said he never did. Sund turned over all his data, the new sergeant at arms won't give up the data and said ask the Speakers' office, they said no.

So regardless of what you wish to accept, those are the facts as told in that video. maybe once the GOP has control, someone will ask the difficult questions, under oath.

Jim Jordan Shreds Democrats On House Floor: 'They Used The Virus To Attack Our Freedoms'

The truth is coming out ....
The best dang virus Barry could buy from the Wuhan labs using US taxpayer money .

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: JinMI

Yes. The details of that dialogue, not so much. But here's a quick glimpse of her priorities on that day:

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesman for General Milley, confirmed that the phone call with the speaker had taken place but described it as informational. “He answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

Nuclear command authority was her priority on January 6th?

a reply to: The GUT
What's that they say, "Hindsight is 20:20?"
Great post, brother!!

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: JinMI

Yes. The details of that dialogue, not so much. But here's a quick glimpse of her priorities on that day:

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesman for General Milley, confirmed that the phone call with the speaker had taken place but described it as informational. “He answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

Nuclear command authority was her priority on January 6th?

For whatever reason, she seemed to expect the former president would exploit his nuclear options for unhealthy purposes. I can't say she was right or wrong on that matter.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: TzarChasm

if you pay attention to what was said, there is a conflict. Sund says he asked for the NG to assist, the new sergeant at arms said he never did. Sund turned over all his data, the new sergeant at arms won't give up the data and said ask the Speakers' office, they said no.

So regardless of what you wish to accept, those are the facts as told in that video. maybe once the GOP has control, someone will ask the difficult questions, under oath.

I agree there's a conflict, particularly around the behavior of the generals at the Pentagon.

Matthews’ memo begins by focusing on a 2:30 p.m. conference call on Jan. 6 that included senior military and law enforcement officials, himself and Walker among them. Then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund “pleaded” on the call for the immediate deployment of the National Guard to the Capitol, Matthews recalled, saying that rioters had breached the building’s perimeter. Walker has also told Congress that Sund made that plea then. According to Matthews, Flynn and Piatt both opposed the move.

At the time, Piatt was the director of Army staff, one of the top generals in the Pentagon, and Flynn was the Army’s director of operations. The two men were the highest-ranking Army officials who spoke on the 2:30 call, according to Matthews.

“LTG Piatt stated that it would not be his best military advice to recommend to the Secretary of the Army that the D.C. National Guard be allowed to deploy to the Capitol at that time,” Matthews wrote, adding: “LTGs Piatt and Flynn stated that the optics of having uniformed military personnel deployed to the U.S. Capitol would not be good."

www.politico.com...

It's curious that officials want to focus exclusively on Irving and Pelosi, when it's public record that the Pentagon was complicit in the failure of command.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What would the Pentagon have to do with the National Guard?

a reply to: peter_kandra

Diplomacy and non weaponization of military assets against the American public. The idea was to avoid provocation or escalation at all cost. I recommend searching for the relevant publications on your Google device.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I say he was made to lie.

a reply to: putnam6

Too much falsehood in this video

originally posted by: Fryguy
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, did she not turn down the request for the national guard. Because Trump requested it. So, it woukd seem he did more to prevent 1/6 than Pelosi did. Btw, how does butt hole smell? Hopefully not like she looks. Not that you would mind either way

her and bowser, mayor, not the dog.

didn't nancy stack the j6 committee?

carrot top called and wants his eyebrows back, nancy.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: JinMI

Yes. The details of that dialogue, not so much. But here's a quick glimpse of her priorities on that day:

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesman for General Milley, confirmed that the phone call with the speaker had taken place but described it as informational. “He answered her questions regarding the process of nuclear command authority,” he said.

www.nytimes.com...

Nuclear command authority was her priority on January 6th?

For whatever reason, she seemed to expect the former president would exploit his nuclear options for unhealthy purposes. I can't say she was right or wrong on that matter.

Sure you can say if she was right or wrong .... the President didn't come close to exploiting his nuclear options for unhealthy purposes.... not at any point in the 6 years Democrats used that nonsense as a propaganda point.

So we are left with the two possibilities, that Pelosi is bat $hit crazy to think there would be a nuclear strike due to a lost election or that narrative is a lie.

Since I don't think a person who is bat $hit crazy could easily propel themselves into such a high ranking position as Speaker of the house the much more plausible explanation is that the narrative is a lie.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
The same guy who lied about Pelosi interfering with security reinforcements at the capitol. Of course it's possible he wasn't lying on purpose, just genuinely dumb.

As if Pelosi is in no way corrupt enough for this to even be possible.

Good grief mon!

a reply to: putnam6

Go Jim Jordan! I love this guy ! What a mouthful in a record time!