The narrative that the Capitol protest was a “deadly insurrection” is falling apart (Page 19/110)
Jake_Dragon JUN 16, 02:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

"How about any of the riots where people were hurt and personal properties were destroyed?"
~ Jake Dragon.

How about it?

"Over 300 People Facing Federal Charges For Crimes Committed During Nationwide Demonstrations"
U.S. Department of Justice; September 24, 2020.
https://www.justice.gov/opa...nwide-demonstrations

In the wake of George Floyd's death involving "police use of knee" in Minneapolis.




let me know when they are charged and brought to justice.

As for George, he shouldn't have died there. He should have not put himself in that position and should not have involved others.
If he would have just stayed home that day he would have been another fentanyl statistic.

While there needs to be police reform, burning down private property and looting is not the way.
Hell starting and or running an organization to take advantage of any of this should be criminal.
When will that reform happen?

And incase anyone forgot

Click to show
rinselberg JUN 16, 02:52 PM
Former FBI agent Clint Watts has said that there needs to be new legislation to enable the FBI to become more capable and more proactive against the threats from Domestic Violent Extremists. To enable the FBI to make better use of the "chatter" that appears on the various social media platforms and channels.

Clint (we go way back ) says that as it stands now, the FBI's "dot connecting" when it comes to Domestic Violent Extremists is being hampered by laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments--the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and privacy--compared to the space for surveillance and proactive countermeasures that currently exists for the FBI and other federal agencies to defend against Foreign Violent Extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

I interpret Clint Watts's reference to "Domestic Violent Extremists" to include U.S. citizens and residents that operate under the Black Lives Matter and Antifa banners, as well as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters and other groups that are being tied to the violence, intimidation and property damage at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]

olejoedad JUN 16, 03:29 PM
Their First Amendment freedoms are getting in the way of enforcing the law?

Well, gosh, maybe we don't need those pesky rights anymore!

(That was sarcasm)
rinselberg JUN 16, 03:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Their First Amendment freedoms are getting in the way of enforcing the law?

Well, gosh, maybe we don't need those pesky rights anymore!

(That was sarcasm)


Take a look. Clint Watts. He's all over it. If you hear it in his own words, it may make more sense for you than the way that I just described it.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]

Jake_Dragon JUN 16, 04:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Former FBI agent Clint Watts has said that there needs to be new legislation to enable the FBI to become more capable and more proactive against the threats from Domestic Violent Extremists. To enable the FBI to make better use of the "chatter" that appears on the various social media platforms and channels.

Clint (we go way back ) says that as it stands now, the FBI's "dot connecting" when it comes to Domestic Violent Extremists is being hampered by laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments--the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and privacy--compared to the space for surveillance and proactive countermeasures that currently exists for the FBI and other federal agencies to defend against Foreign Violent Extremists like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

I interpret Clint Watts's reference to "Domestic Violent Extremists" to include U.S. citizens and residents that operate under the Black Lives Matter and Antifa banners, as well as the Oath Keepers and Three Percenters and other groups that are being tied to the violence, intimidation and property damage at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6.




They declined to press charges for something that would have landed any one of us in jail and probably sitting in a black site.
Start at the top, this insurrection chatter is a distraction while they take your liberties and steal our futures.
I don't know about you but I am tired of being a tax cow just waiting to be milked.
rinselberg JUN 16, 04:24 PM
Deep State. Deep State. Deep State.

Somewhere in these 50 United States, an aspiring young girl dreams about being appointed U.S. Secretary of State, misusing her private email server and being slipshod when it comes to classified information and after that--being elected President.

Oh, wait . . .
randye JUN 16, 05:04 PM
BREAKING NEWS:

As of today, still NOT ONE PERSON has been charged with Insurrection as a result of the events of January 6, 2021
rinselberg JUN 16, 06:27 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

Their First Amendment freedoms are getting in the way of enforcing the law?

Well, gosh, maybe we don't need those pesky rights anymore!

(That was sarcasm)


Take a look. Clint Watts. He's all over it. If you hear it in his own words, it may make more sense for you than the way that I just described it.



I already said all that (with the YouTube) but here's more of Clint Watts in his own words.

This is at the end of a column in the Wall Street Journal from Clint Watts.

quote
A more fundamental challenge is that America’s counterterrorism system has long depended on a clear partition between international and domestic terrorism. This has given focus and latitude to the fight against post-9/11 jihadists. In pursuing white supremacist terrorism, by contrast, U.S. law enforcement—from the FBI to local police forces—will find itself restricted in various ways. The rulebook, resources and public support for aggressive, intelligence-led, investigative approaches differ between the domestic and international realms. For instance, the secretary of state can formally designate a foreign group as a terrorist organization, which gives the FBI a legal basis for pursuing U.S. persons who are providing that group with material support. It also lets the authorities request court-supervised surveillance and follow social media leads about violent radicalization.

We have no comparable mechanism for designating domestic-terrorist groups—but we need one. Without it, investigators are left to pursue violent white supremacists individually, charging them based on specific crimes or conspiracies, even if they are part of a larger nexus of online supporters bent on perpetrating violence. Moreover, investigators have limited abilities to pre-emptively assess whether white supremacists are taking a radical turn toward violence. The FBI should be granted more authority, with careful oversight, to designate domestic terrorist groups and then open nationwide investigative cases.

The overall balance of U.S. counterterrorism efforts is behind the times.

In this regard, the overall balance of U.S. counterterrorism efforts is behind the times. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified just the week before the Gilroy shooting that the bureau has recorded roughly as many domestic terrorism arrests as international terrorism ones in 2019, with the bulk of these domestic arrests arising from white supremacist motivations. But the FBI still dedicates more investigators to international terrorism than domestic, which likely increases the number of cases and subsequent arrests, simply because the bureau has more resources to tackle the jihadist problem and more legal authority to pursue its adherents.

We urgently need to reset and standardize our approach to domestic terrorism. If Congress is truly concerned about domestic terrorism and serious about its oversight responsibilities, it should immediately hold hearings to clarify the extent of the threat and identify needs. The homeland-security and judiciary committees should gather data about domestic terrorism’s different variants and ideologies and ensure that the U.S. has the resources and personnel to meet each threat. At the same time, the foreign-affairs and intelligence committees should examine the degree to which foreign countries and connections intersect with domestic extremist movements. Finally, Congress should ensure that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security get additional resources and tools to investigate domestic terrorism.


"How to Fight the New Domestic Terrorism"
Clint Watts for the Wall Street Journal; August 9, 2019.
https://www.wsj.com/article...errorism-11565363219

I thought my access would be blocked because I don't have a subscription, but "WSJ" gave it to me. So maybe, anyone else here, as well.

This was when Trump was President and more than a year before the Capitol Building "dustup" on January 6, 2021.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 06-16-2021).]

olejoedad JUN 16, 06:48 PM
It makes absolutely no difference who was in office when he spoke.
randye JUN 16, 07:20 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Take a look. Clint Watts. He's all over it. If you hear it in his own words,.....




You mean his words that YOU LIED ABOUT......TWICE

He never once said that the government was "hamstrung" by civil liberties or the First Amendment.

He never once said that the government is being "hampered" by "laws that are overly protective of the First and Fifth Amendments"

He never said anything even remotely like that.

Those are YOUR LIES

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-17-2021).]