-->
@HistoryBuff
The videos of police just letting people through, taking selfies etc are disturbing.
I agree.
Protestors were INVITED into the Capital Building - - 57 seconds of uncut video,
Posts
Total:
80
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiThe police are claiming that pieces are being taken out of context and that most of the videos took place an hour or two after the invasion but it 's hard to know what to credit.Why would they let people into the building AFTER "the invasion"?Oh, it's over now? You guys are all leaving? Hey, before you go, why don't you ENTER THE BUILDING?? We'll even open the doors for you.
DId you watch it live? DId you see how there was 2-3 hours of people just milling around the Capitol? People were going in and out of unsecured doors on a constant basis for hours. Why are you so certain that this video must have taken place at the opening moments of the storming in spite of the fact that the end of the video shows the building already filled with rioters.
-->
@3RU7AL
There was an incident in Oregon where it was a republican lawmaker who opened the door and let the protesters in to the building. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/oregon-legislator-entry-protest-december-trnd/index.html
-->
@3RU7AL
Please link to either video of the actual Scarborough footage or some "official" mainstream coverage.Looking specifically for the quote you cited, I found, secondary, fringe and independent reports of the Scarborough event.These reports say things like,"Scarborough drops F bomb",Who cares? The story is not about an F bomb."Scarborough accuses Capital police of assisting protestors"Accuses?? Why don't they just show the footage? Can they not find it? Aren't they professional journalists??It's weird to me how easily they can turn a story into a RED-HERRING by trying to make it about "the Scarborough" while obviously downplaying the actual story.Nobody gives a shit about the Scarborough. THAT'S NOT THE STORY.The "best" clip I could find so far, is from "the hollywood reporter" - [LINK]It plays audio of the Scarborough after saying, "protestors BROKE INTO the Capital building" and then saying, "Scarborough calls for TRUMP's arrest" (which is what they want outrage all day and outrage all night turn the poor people against the other poor people in red hats) and "Scarborough ACCUSES police of cooperating with protestors".It's not an "accusation". They're acting like he's "crazy".They play the Scarborough audio over still images of protestors clashing with police, directly contradicting the audio, making Scarborough seem unhinged and out of touch with reality.WHY DIDN'T THEY SIMPLY SHOW THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP OF THE PROTESTORS CALMLY AND PEACEFULLY BEING LET INTO THE CAPITOL BUILDING???Ok, here's a clip from MSNBC - [LINK]It's an uncut 7 minutes of AUDIO from the Scarborough rant with the f bomb clipped out.In the full context, especially with the audio played over "scary" images of protestors clashing with police, the rant itself plays very strongly as a PRO-POLICE-STATE rant.Make sure you pay attention to the part where they emphasize that "trumppies are cult members" (of course biden supporters aren't cult members, of course not).I believe this clip also plays well because it suggests that the TRUMPPIES and the POLICE are "RACISTS" (pure rampant speculation, opinion stated as fact).THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP IN THE FULL 7 MINUTES THEY DEVOTED TO THIS RANT.Instead, when the Scarborough says "the cops opened the doors for them", that audio plays over protestors entering the building through a broken window and footage of protestors entering through a broken door and smashing a window with their fist.The video very specifically suggests that the Scarborough is speaking metaphorically, as if their incompetence "opened the door". the Scarborough does devote a good portion of the rant to complaining about how unprepared the police seemed to be.the Scarborough practically rants, "WE NEED TANKS AND MACHINEGUN NESTS AND RAZOR-WIRE ON EVERY STREET IN WASHINGTON!!!!!"THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.
I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.
You offered a conspiracy theory that "the news" had covered up the story of Capitol Hill police allowing rioter passage unopposed.
"I haven't heard a single peep about this anywhere in "the news. I'm actually very surprised my upload wasn't insta-banned by the magical algorithm."
I argued that "the news" was not covering up the story because I've have seen regular reporting of this story since the hour it happened. Since you have now included a clip of mainstream media covering the story early the next morning, I take that we are in agreement that there were many "peeps" about this available on mainstream media. We should therefore conclude that the reason you had not heard a single peep was because you haven't paid attention to much mainstream media on the subject.
-->
@oromagi
Why are you so certain that this video must have taken place at the opening moments of the storming in spite of the fact that the end of the video shows the building already filled with rioters.
It doesn't matter when this video was recorded.
Beginning, middle, or end, THE COPS WHO ARE TASKED WITH PROTECTING THE BUILDING DO NOT JUST LET PEOPLE WALK INTO THE BUILDING THEY ARE PROTECTING.
Did you notice the protestor dressed in black from head to toe with the yellow cube on their back and carrying zip-ties?
This particular protestor has been singled out by "the news" as a "particularly dangerous individual" and have featured "scary" photos of them.
Now we know how this "particularly dangerous individual" gained access to the Capital building.
-->
@Death23
There was an incident in Oregon where it was a republican lawmaker who opened the door and let the protesters in to the building. https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/us/oregon-legislator-entry-protest-december-trnd/index.html
Nice link.
-->
@oromagi
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.You offered a conspiracy theory that "the news" had covered up the story of Capitol Hill police allowing rioter passage unopposed.
I'M JUST ASKING WHY NOBODY "OFFICIAL" IS SHOWING THE CLIP.
ANY "CONSPIRACY" IS IN YOUR OWN IMAGINATION.
I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM.
-->
@oromagi
I argued that "the news" was not covering up the story because I've have seen regular reporting of this story since the hour it happened.
LINKS PLEASE.
The video very specifically suggests that the Scarborough is speaking metaphorically, as if their incompetence "opened the door". the Scarborough does devote a good portion of the rant to complaining about how unprepared the police seemed to be.
-->
@oromagi
We should therefore conclude that the reason you had not heard a single peep was because you haven't paid attention to much mainstream media on the subject.
I've been doggedly watching the "featured stories" and "top news" and "breaking news" clips.
I didn't happen to catch "morning joe" (which also doesn't show the clip in question).
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiThe only logical explanation for letting the protestors in is to accomplish a political objective - such as increasing online censorship and directing the tools of US military occupation inwards on the domestic population.
I think the political objective was clear as a bell- hang Mike Pence.
Rioters spoke openly on Facebook of hanging Mike Pence if he did not halt the electoral process. The President met the rioters, encouraged them to them to show Congress their strength, then the rioter build a gallows in front of the Capitol and stormed the Senate with twist-ties and rope chanting over and over, "hang Mike Pence!" As the rioters broke down the Senate doors, Trump tweeted, "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution" (past tense)
Twitter has had to interfere to keep HANG MIKE PENCE from trending as a topic ever since.
Why would you look for some other political objective? The objective has been presented as forcefully as possible short of the VP's public assasination.
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiElection Fraud 2020: Capitol ‘Siege’ | Red Flags Point to Orchestrated False Flag ‘Insurrection’
logiczombie is you, right? So you are citing a source that is citing you as a source?
"As for disturbing videos we've all seen that seem to show some officers letting rioters behind barricades & taking selfies with them: I can assure you these videos are being thoroughly investigated & there will be consequences for any deviations from proper training & protocols." - Tim Ryan (Chairman of the Appropriations Committee over the Capitol Police)
That's pretty much all we've gotten so far, that I'm aware of. They know it looks fishy as hell. They've already confiscated texts and emails from all the Capitol police at the riot.
-->
@Castin
"As for disturbing videos we've all seen that seem to show some officers letting rioters behind barricades & taking selfies with them: I can assure you these videos are being thoroughly investigated & there will be consequences for any deviations from proper training & protocols." - Tim Ryan (Chairman of the Appropriations Committee over the Capitol Police)That's pretty much all we've gotten so far, that I'm aware of. They know it looks fishy as hell. They've already confiscated texts and emails from all the Capitol police at the riot.
Excellent reporting.
I'm just wondering why it's not "front-page-news".
I'm just wondering why nobody ("official") is showing this 57 second long clip.
-->
@oromagi
Election Fraud 2020: Capitol ‘Siege’ | Red Flags Point to Orchestrated False Flag ‘Insurrection’
The article is over 4000 words and I did not write it.
And even if I did write it, what difference would that make to you?
-->
@3RU7AL
Excellent reporting.I'm just wondering why it's not "front-page-news".I'm just wondering why nobody ("official") is showing this 57 second long clip.
Because they just have no motive to further advertise video evidence of their mismanagement. Either their guys were working with the mob or their guys were so unprepared for the mob they had to resort to letting it in some places to redirect it from others. That shit is embarrassing. We spend more on defense than any other nation in the fucking world.
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiWhy are you so certain that this video must have taken place at the opening moments of the storming in spite of the fact that the end of the video shows the building already filled with rioters.It doesn't matter when this video was recorded.Beginning, middle, or end, THE COPS WHO ARE TASKED WITH PROTECTING THE BUILDING DO NOT JUST LET PEOPLE WALK INTO THE BUILDING THEY ARE PROTECTING.
We agree that the cops failed. We agree that at least some cops seem to be colluding with the rioters on some vids.
Did you notice the protestor dressed in black from head to toe with the yellow cube on their back and carrying zip-ties?This particular protestor has been singled out by "the news" as a "particularly dangerous individual" and have featured "scary" photos of them.Now we know how this "particularly dangerous individual" gained access to the Capital building.
I think you are talking about Lt. Col Larry Brock Jr, who was wearing camo, tan pants, black body armor and a green helmet and did carry zip-ties. That could be him with the yellow square on his back but a lot of guys were wearing shit like that and its hard to confirm.
-->
@Castin
Because they just have no motive to further advertise video evidence of their mismanagement.
I thought the entire function of a "free press" was to EXPOSE government incompetence.
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @oromagiTHEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.You offered a conspiracy theory that "the news" had covered up the story of Capitol Hill police allowing rioter passage unopposed.I'M JUST ASKING WHY NOBODY "OFFICIAL" IS SHOWING THE CLIP.ANY "CONSPIRACY" IS IN YOUR OWN IMAGINATION.I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM.
POST #10 Your wrote: "I haven't heard a single peep about this anywhere in "the news". I'm actually very surprised my upload wasn't insta-banned by the magical algorithm."
That is a conspiracy theory all by itself- you are alleging that "the News" is working together to prevent this story when the fact is that this story is all over "the news"
Your conspiracy theory stands disproved.
-->
@oromagi
That is a conspiracy theory all by itself- you are alleging that "the News" is working together to prevent this story when the fact is that this story is all over "the news"
You're LEAPING TO CONCLUSIONS.
Both statements are factual.
I hadn't "heard a peep" about THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION.
AND, I am genuinely surprised the upload wasn't insta-banned.
-->
@3RU7AL
I hadn't "heard a peep" about THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION.
ok, but his point is that the police letting people through has been getting coverage. So the fact that you personally haven't seen it is kind of irrelevant. It is getting covered.
AND, I am genuinely surprised the upload wasn't insta-banned.
this says more about you than anything else. You are surprised that some secret cabal hasn't taken down your post.
-->
@HistoryBuff
this says more about you than anything else. You are surprised that some secret cabal hasn't taken down your post.
I've had uploads insta-banned before.
My personal expression of surprise does not constitute a "conspiracy theory".
You're LEAPING TO CONCLUSIONS.
I specifically suspected that somebody else had already uploaded the video and mine would be flagged as a duplicate.
-->
@HistoryBuff
I hadn't "heard a peep" about THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION.ok, but his point is that the police letting people through has been getting coverage. So the fact that you personally haven't seen it is kind of irrelevant. It is getting covered.
I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION COVERED BY ANY "OFFICIAL" "NEWS" SOURCES.
It certainly seems "news-worthy" to me.
-->
@3RU7AL
I specifically suspected that somebody else had already uploaded the video and mine would be flagged as a duplicate.
then why would you care? taking down duplicates of something is hardly evidence of any ill intent on the part of anyone.
I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION COVERED BY ANY "OFFICIAL" "NEWS" SOURCES.
so the news has been covering the exact topic you want them to, but because they didn't use the exact video clip you want them to, it must be evidence they are covering it up? even though they are covering the exact story you are talking about?
It certainly seems "news-worthy" to me.
it is newsworthy. which is why it has been covered by the news.... they just used other clips of the police letting people through.
-->
@HistoryBuff
the police letting people through has been getting coverage.
Oh, good.
Do you have a link perhaps?
All I can find are small, local news stations "speculating" that "at best the police were overwhelmed and at worst they were complicit" suggesting ambiguity. [LINK]
WASHINGTON — Congressman Jim Cooper (D) from Tennessee spoke with WUSA9's Adam Longo on Wednesday about some strong concerns and possible allegations to levee against US Capitol Police.
His fear? US Capitol Police were somehow complicit in allowing the Capitol to be breached.
"Some people are worried today that some police were complicit with the protesters," Cooper said. "It's one thing to be friendly and to de-escalate the violence. But it's one thing to take selfies with them (rioters) and let them go through the lines."
Cooper said he did not see these actions by Capitol Police himself, but said he's "never seen a crowd less afraid of the police than this one."
"At best they were overwhelmed and did not anticipate what they had been warned of by (President) Trump, even as of this morning when he said he would join the protests at the Capitol. ... At worst, they let this protest proceed unlike any other," Cooper said when asked directly if he believes that US Capitol Police were complicit in what happened.
STRANGELY, NO ACTUAL VIDEO FOOTAGE OF THE PROTESTORS PEACEFULLY WALKING PAST THE POLICE OFFICERS INTO THE BUILDING THEY WERE "PROTECTING".
I GUESS I'M JUST A BETTER JOURNALIST THAN THE PROFESSIONALS...
-->
@HistoryBuff
I specifically suspected that somebody else had already uploaded the video and mine would be flagged as a duplicate.then why would you care? taking down duplicates of something is hardly evidence of any ill intent on the part of anyone.
I never suggested "ill intent".
Wow.
LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS MUCH?
-->
@HistoryBuff
I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION COVERED BY ANY "OFFICIAL" "NEWS" SOURCES.so the news has been covering the exact topic you want them to, but because they didn't use the exact video clip you want them to, it must be evidence they are covering it up? even though they are covering the exact story you are talking about?
I GENERALLY EXPECT THE PROFESSIONALS TO BE BETTER INFORMED THAN MYSELF.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you have a link perhaps?
I don't watch alot of network news. I saw several segments about the police not stopping them the day of.
Here is a link to a rant by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. There takeway chunk being "“You opened the fucking doors for em!”
Here is an article from business insider.
I GUESS I'M JUST A BETTER JOURNALIST THAN THE PROFESSIONALS...
you're quoting a politician who was in the siege saying he didn't see it, then criticizing journalists. The 2 things aren't related.
I GENERALLY EXPECT THE PROFESSIONALS TO BE BETTER INFORMED THAN MYSELF.
this story has been covered on the news. They just used other clips. That has nothing to do with how well informed they are.
-->
@HistoryBuff
It certainly seems "news-worthy" to me.it is newsworthy. which is why it has been covered by the news.... they just used other clips of the police letting people through.
In the seven minute long Scarborough rant, they exclusively showed clashes between police and protestors.
The WUSA9 story showed footage of police following protestors which looks like the protestors are being herded politely by police.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Your "Business Insider" story links to a NYT ("the newspaper of record") story:
"But they could not find Mr. Schumer’s office. He said they asked a Capitol Police officer, who tried to direct them. But they appeared to have gotten nowhere near the minority’s leader’s office."
The headline of the story is very very scary,
These Are the Rioters Who Stormed the Nation’s Capitol
The mob that rampaged the halls of Congress included infamous white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. [LINK]
The story describes the protestors as milling around, randomly vandalizing offices and smoking marijuana while the police stood by politely.
STRANGELY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO GAVE THE ORDER FOR THE POLICE TO "STAND DOWN".
-->
@HistoryBuff
I watched the full 7 minute Scarborough rant.
Ok, here's a clip from MSNBC - [LINK]
It's an uncut 7 minutes of AUDIO from the Scarborough rant with the f bomb clipped out.
In the full context, especially with the audio played over "scary" images of protestors clashing with police, the rant itself plays very strongly as a PRO-POLICE-STATE rant.
Make sure you pay attention to the part where they emphasize that "trumppies are cult members" (of course biden supporters aren't cult members, of course not).
I believe this clip also plays well because it suggests that the TRUMPPIES and the POLICE are "RACISTS" (pure rampant speculation, opinion stated as fact).
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP IN THE FULL 7 MINUTES THEY DEVOTED TO THIS RANT.
Instead, when the Scarborough says "the cops opened the doors for them", that audio plays over protestors entering the building through a broken window and footage of protestors entering through a broken door and smashing a window with their fist.
The video very specifically suggests that the Scarborough is speaking metaphorically, as if their incompetence "opened the door". the Scarborough does devote a good portion of the rant to complaining about how unprepared the police seemed to be.
the Scarborough practically rants, "WE NEED TANKS AND MACHINEGUN NESTS AND RAZOR-WIRE ON EVERY STREET IN WASHINGTON!!!!!"
THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.
WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.
STRANGELY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO GAVE THE ORDER FOR THE POLICE TO "STAND DOWN".