Congratulations on your online newsletter. I am looking forward to reading it as you go. Always a fan of yours. I would like to respond to today's post:
Naturally, I agree with this 100 percent:
“First, as a former journalist, take nothing you read, watched or heard via corporate media today at face value. I have long learned that much early reporting is wrong. Worse, much of the media has been pining for years for an event like this - something to prove that ‘tea party’ or Trump supporters are prone to violence. Some no doubt are. But let's wait for the facts before drawing conclusions.”
But I do not take as sanguine a view of the rest of your assessment of what happened on January 6th. The presentation of how close the VP, Speaker, and others, came to being killed/harmed was compelling simply by watching the model presented by Rep. Plaskett. The matter at hand is to draw a connection between what level of responsibility the former occupant of the White House had to what happened that day. I think the team has done so handily, and today's presentations have been even more elucidating.
As for tea partiers being prone to violence, hearing the insurrectionists in their own words, which one can do by going anywhere on social media where these people are, is enough evidence. This has nothing to do with tea party people, but the group of those who stormed the Capitol.
Where they came from, who they are, what they represent, none of that is really the point at issue. It's who told them to come and why that is.
As for the question of it being an armed attack [Another unsubstantiated statement, also made by Rep. Cicciline, called the breach of the Capitol an “armed attack,”], there has been testimony and evidence of that to support what Cicciline said.
However, here are neutral sources: DC police and DOJ arrest and court records that also indicate they were armed.
You can use the "find" function to search for "weapon" and see there were at least 25 arrests for possession of a dangerous or other item legally considered a weapon:
Also, I would like to suggest that while this is obviously good counsel --
["We would all be better served by waiting for the truth to get its boots on and make an overdue appearance, no matter how inconvenient that may prove to be, at least to certain political narratives that are flying around the world. Fact are, indeed, stubborn things."]
respectfully, there is no way ANY of this be brought to the public if Mitch McConnell had remained leader of the Senate. He has been the greatest threat, greater than Trump, to truth and fairness in our government, because he has bent the Senate, and thus Congress to his will, and has destroyed any pretense of fairness whether in how committees work legislation, or in how he strong arms other Republicans from voting their own conscience. Had he not done so, we likely would not have had to suffer through any of this, as there would have been enough voices of reason on both sides of the aisle refuting the lie that there was a steal. There was no steal.
Thanks, Kelly. Looking forward to continued reading of Against the Grain and wishing you good luck with it.
Hi, Kelly:
Congratulations on your online newsletter. I am looking forward to reading it as you go. Always a fan of yours. I would like to respond to today's post:
Naturally, I agree with this 100 percent:
“First, as a former journalist, take nothing you read, watched or heard via corporate media today at face value. I have long learned that much early reporting is wrong. Worse, much of the media has been pining for years for an event like this - something to prove that ‘tea party’ or Trump supporters are prone to violence. Some no doubt are. But let's wait for the facts before drawing conclusions.”
But I do not take as sanguine a view of the rest of your assessment of what happened on January 6th. The presentation of how close the VP, Speaker, and others, came to being killed/harmed was compelling simply by watching the model presented by Rep. Plaskett. The matter at hand is to draw a connection between what level of responsibility the former occupant of the White House had to what happened that day. I think the team has done so handily, and today's presentations have been even more elucidating.
As for tea partiers being prone to violence, hearing the insurrectionists in their own words, which one can do by going anywhere on social media where these people are, is enough evidence. This has nothing to do with tea party people, but the group of those who stormed the Capitol.
Where they came from, who they are, what they represent, none of that is really the point at issue. It's who told them to come and why that is.
As for the question of it being an armed attack [Another unsubstantiated statement, also made by Rep. Cicciline, called the breach of the Capitol an “armed attack,”], there has been testimony and evidence of that to support what Cicciline said.
However, here are neutral sources: DC police and DOJ arrest and court records that also indicate they were armed.
You can use the "find" function to search for "weapon" and see there were at least 25 arrests for possession of a dangerous or other item legally considered a weapon:
https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/Unrest-Related%20Arrest%20Data%20as%20of%20January%2011%202021.pdf
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Also, I would like to suggest that while this is obviously good counsel --
["We would all be better served by waiting for the truth to get its boots on and make an overdue appearance, no matter how inconvenient that may prove to be, at least to certain political narratives that are flying around the world. Fact are, indeed, stubborn things."]
respectfully, there is no way ANY of this be brought to the public if Mitch McConnell had remained leader of the Senate. He has been the greatest threat, greater than Trump, to truth and fairness in our government, because he has bent the Senate, and thus Congress to his will, and has destroyed any pretense of fairness whether in how committees work legislation, or in how he strong arms other Republicans from voting their own conscience. Had he not done so, we likely would not have had to suffer through any of this, as there would have been enough voices of reason on both sides of the aisle refuting the lie that there was a steal. There was no steal.
Thanks, Kelly. Looking forward to continued reading of Against the Grain and wishing you good luck with it.
Whitney in Washington