Almost half of Republicans support the pro-Trump protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, putting them at odds with Democrats who largely oppose the actions of the demonstrators, a poll has found.

The survey released by YouGov on Thursday morning found that 45 percent of Republican voters backed the attack on the Capitol building, while 43 percent said they "strongly or somewhat" opposed the protesters' behavior.

Six percent of Republicans were unsure while a further 6 percent said they were unaware of the events.

By comparison, an overwhelming majority of Democratic voters (96 percent) said they were strongly or somewhat opposed to the actions of pro-Trump protesters—actions that led to four deaths and at least 52 arrests.

Only one in five independents told pollsters they backed the protests, while more than two-thirds (67 percent) said they were opposed.

Almost three-quarters of all voters (71 percent) either strongly or somewhat opposed the actions of demonstrators, with only a minority (21 percent) saying they supported the storming of the Capitol.

Asked whether they believed the breach of the building was a threat to democracy, 62 percent of all registered voters told YouGov it was. Thirty-two percent said it was not.

However, when the results were broken down along partisan lines, pollsters found that more than two-thirds of Republicans (68 percent) felt the protesters were not a threat to democracy, compared to 27 percent who felt they were.

Democrats were less divided on the issue. Ninety-three percent said the storming of the Capitol represented a threat to democracy, while only 4 percent felt it was not.

When it came to assigning blame, 55 percent of voters said President Donald Trump was responsible for the breach of Congress. Just 22 percent said he was "not at all to blame."

Half of all voters think it would be appropriate to remove Trump from office over the incident and his perceived stoking of the unrest.

In the wake of the protests, The New York Times reported that some Republicans had discussed removing the president under the 25th Amendment, despite the fact that he is set to leave the White House in a little less than two weeks.

YouGov surveyed 1,448 registered voters, including 1,397 who had heard about the unfolding events on Capitol Hill, within the space of half an hour on January 6. The poll's margin of error is 3.3 percentage points.

https://www.newsweek.com/45-percent-republican-voters-support-storming-capitol-1559662

despicable and deplorable.

Yikes. I'm trying to wrap my brain around how such a large % could be in favor. Could it be due to when the poll was taken (am I reading that last sentence correctly... poll was taken same day, within an hour of it happening)?

Disturbing and repulsive.

I don't care about partisan politics. The rule of Law must prevail.

Supporting what took place is no different than ceding from from the Union. It is treason.

Anyone who supports what took place does not deserve to live in this country.

I think when it was taken may have something to do with. I'm just not sure how much of a difference time passing will make. I'm sure as more details come out some will change their minds and their perspective.

But after seeing all of the lies, conspiracies and warped sense of reality they have believed for so long, I'm wondering if anything will change their minds at this point.

A change has happened so fast. Sure, there are crazy people on both sides. Extremists on both sides. But until now these people were on the outside looking in. At this point in time they have taken complete control of the Republican party.

I've always had disagreements over policy issues with both parties in the past. But up until now I didn't see cause to question their patriotism or there sincerity. If you take men like Mitt Romney or John McCain, they aren't people I always agreed with but they are men of character and integrity. Now men of such character are shunned and attacked by their own party.

Republicans used to claim being the party of personal responsibility and accountability. No more can they make claim to that mantra.

That's actually a paradox that I present to my own family and can't seem to get a real answer to.

Assuming you (not you, Pit, individually) are a Republican who voted for McCain, Romney, and Trump, based on platforms, and now see how much they are (or were) at odds, how do you reconcile that?

Honest question. Because, I don't think much ever really changed in the beliefs and advocacy of McCain or Romney. What made them wrong all of a sudden, and Trump right?

I have my own inclinations, but I don't fall within that group. Perhaps someone who falls in line with that can answer?

I doubt it. Seriously, what could I possibly say to change your mind? We both know the answer to that question, so it is pointless to try. It is what it is.

I see it like this. I liked McCain and Romney. I didn't and don't really like President Trump as a person. I think he is a gruff, spoiled SOB, but darned if I didn't like his positions on the issues.

I want a secure border.
I want fair deals with China....obviously they didn't, they turned loose a virus on the world.

I could go on.

Who the hell are they talking to? I've been a republican my entire life... know several republicans (and dems)... I've only know one or two who have supported storming the capital...

what they did was disgusting and i hope they are found and prosecuted...

this is how I felt... I agree more on his policies than I do Biden... after the crap he's pulled after the election I wouldn't vote for him again... hoping he doesn't (or can't) run in 2024...

I would like to see how the questions were worded. I can't fathom that number is an accurate depiction.

You, sir, are a voice of reason in this 'hate' political game. Thank you. (now, watch me get attacked)

I agree ... it's entirely possible to lead a "poll" in a particular direction based on the questions - how they are formatted and how they lead onto the next question.

With that said it seems both of you agree that what happened at the Capitol Building was wrong. Criminal. Anti-American? ... yes or did I go to far?

Assuming you agree with that - it then seems that the impeachment of Trump would be merited if:

- There is sufficient evidence that he has constantly pushed a lie since Nov 3rd that the election was stolen. (indisputable)

- That using this lie - has motivated and cajoled his avid/loyal supporters into action. (hard to refute)

- Used the speech and the speech of all his closest allies to talk up revolution, violence, fighting, overturning the election result to prevent the election being stolen. (debatable - but I haven't reviewed all the speeches, tweets and media).

- Evidence that there were plans made by Trump and Rudy and his Allies that were contingent on the process of the Electoral Votes being delayed. (No proof yet - but some inferences that bare investigating)

- Evidence that prior to the 6th Allies of the Trump gave access to the Building to some of the parties who occupied the Building on the 6th. (No proof yet - but some inferences that bare investigating)

- Evidence that Trump/Allies deliberately prevented rigorous defense of the Capitol Building being in place for the 6th (No proof yet - but some inferences that bare investigating)

- Evidence that when back-up was requested on the 6th - that Trump/Allies deliberately delayed approving the much needed support (No proof yet - but some inferences that bare investigating).

I mean the easy answer would be to shrug all that off and deflect.... But my hope is that each point gets fully investigated and those coordinating the occupation of the Capitol get the full weight of the law thrown at them. There is just so much that stinks about the events.

I'm with you so far.



You lost me on the rest of this. I mean, you yourself state in ( ) no proof.


Bottom line, the attempted impeachment is singly this: We don't like Trump, and some of us need to kowtow to what we think will get us re elected.

The senate, for prosecution of impeachment needs to investigate, then debate. There are 7 days left. That isn't happening.

No, this impeachment in the house is a vitriolic, idiotic attempt at what could not be done in the prior 4 years,and we know the dem's tried hard for 4 years.

To your first question, yes it dead criminal and un-American.

As to impeachment... You through in a lot of ifs in there. If some of your its are true he should be thrown in prison. Also, you talk about him lying about the election. I think he really believes that some of the stuff he says is true. He believed it in 16 when he won and I have seen nothing from him to think he has changed his mind.

So you know, I didn't vote for him in 16 and I certainly didn't vote for him this year.

Whether you voted for him or not does not invalidate your well spoken opinion.

It's just, on here, if someone doesn't crucify Trump on everything and anything, they get labeled. Way to cya.

Oh, and I know probably tomorrow there will be the usual 2-4 people attacking my statements.

Bottom line you spoke the truth. I'm sure perfect will come and attack. I have always considered him and 40 trolls and nothing I've read from him changes my opinion.

There's no probably about it, arch, guaranteed...

Oh somebody is full of himself. I won't attack you because I don't care what you think. Trump is being impeached again for yet another horrendous crime and your nature is to cover for him in any way you can. I get that, but as you pretend to be looking for something deeper, moral, or just simply gloss over the facts that the rest of us agree to, most of us have moved on to the part where we drive Trump and all that is Trump politically back into the shadows of irrelevance. Don't forget your scarlet T on the way out the door.

I have no idea what the actual numbers are, nor do I care. They can and probably do number into the tens of millions. The questions are only relevant to understand if the answers are somehow skewed, yet it troubles me that the answers themselves are not the greatest concern you two seem to have. I know you said you didn't vote for him, but I have to ask if you support him? Do you think impeachment is a political move or did you see what we saw on the 6th? Did you see him rile up the crowd and send them to the capitol? Did you listen to his words? Haven't you watched him spread his brand of hate and vitriol for the last 4 years as we have?

I mean, I feel a bit vindicated by recent events. I've told everyone I know who he is for the last four years and could not believe that others could not see it as plain as I have. I'm not surprised by what he has done, what he will try to do, or what he will accomplish with those that would do anything for him... but I think those numbers are dwindling by the minute and after he is successfully impeached, as long as McConnell gets onboard, then he will no longer be a major threat. He and his movement will be just another fascist uprising in the trash bin of horrendous human bad actors. And his most ardent supporters will be there too, just like other fascist leaders and their henchmen.

I was lucky enough to see how some of the once fierce Nazi leaders acted as they've been hunted down and brought to justice over the years. And we all know how it ended for Hitler and Mussolini... Even more importantly, history shows us how the foot soldiers, who initially claimed to be just following orders, soon sorted themselves between the truly repentant and the truly lost. We will now get to watch some of that go on in this country, but hopefully to a lesser degree and with no more bloodshed needed. I'm convinced that most of Trump's supporters bought into his lies and somehow replaced reality with the world he wanted them to believe in... now we get to see who can come back to reality and who is lost. Polls like this mean nothing if we can't see it with our own eyes, 45% or 10% does it even matter? My best guess is the actual number of people who would do something like the 6th again for Trump is more in the thousands or possibly tens of thousands, but they are no match at all for our Military and intelligence agencies and consequently they are no longer a major threat.

This does not mean that they should not be judged and punished. This does not mean that they all are deserving of punishment. This just means in another week, they will no longer bother the average citizen and whatever becomes of them is frankly their problem. They attacked our country and anything they get, they deserve. They supported a fascist POTUS and anything they get, they deserve. They want to heal and move on... we can do that as soon as the accountability stage is done and amends have been made or legal prices have been paid. The rest of it means nothing. Maybe then some of the diehards who felt so empowered can begin to accept the new world they find themselves in, instead of clinging to some trash ass white supremacy and fascist propaganda. That would go a long way toward healing the country. Good luck finding any willing to admit that today, but time has a way of changing hearts and minds... so does being considered terrorists.

Well, the first one didn't take long. ocd wins the prize.

You've had trump impeached since before he was sworn in. Please spare us anything other than your hatred.

I've been 100% right all along and you are finally going to have to admit that. I love it.

Or, 99.9% wrong. But if that makes you feel good, go for it.

Mueller report. Russian collusion. Nuclear war with N. Korea. War with China (guns war, not trade war)........dude, your list goes on and on and on of things you've been wrong about.

lol, I knew you'd jump on that like a pitbull while you are reeling with the loss of your Doltus.

You are so sad. Dude, I'm not reeling with the loss (not sure what that means though). Biden won. I've admitted that so many times. You, on the other hand, can't grasp that just because someone voted for trump.........know what? you aren't worth the time.

Now, come tomorrow, pit will have 2 posts to reply to. You 2 are so predictable it's sad.

I don't buy that. This, to me, is more about impeaching the Republican party for the next two years, at least, then holding Trump accountable. Cruz, Hawley, McConnell et. al. have done a terrific job of carrying a bucket of pee for Trump especially post election.

I say this, but I must admit to you, I have gone full George Carlin the last five years or so. These folks, Republican or Democrat care only about protecting themselves and their ruling class aka "the owners" than doing anything for the common man. It's about who gets to put their hand in the cookie jar.

Trump may have put a nail in the GOP coffin by kowtowing to the most idiotic of voices in America because that's the kid of POS he is. He loves to get in spats. He has no idea how to build bridges only burn them.

Unfortunately now, I fear we will get four years of leftists running amok trying to tell me what to do, what to say, what to think, what to wear, what to watch all in the guise of making America a better, safer place . . . for them and their owners.

Polls can be generated to produce a desired result. You also have to be able to trust the polling source. Just toss out polling data as flawed one way or the other until you get the desired result.

We need to be very careful here. A very large segment of our population is more or less brainwashed and want the government to be their keeper.

This is the crux of why I got into a pee/poo contest in another thread. I simply can't fathom that % being legit.

I don't have access to all the information. I am 100% certain that others in Congress and the Senate information - or what evidence has been gathered so far. I don't listen or watch what Trump says, does. I get snippets.

My questions and comments were not to lay out why Trump should be impeached. It was to list out the things that would prove that Trump was complicit in inciting the insurgency.

Thanks for responding. For the record, I voted for McCain (although I HATED Palin) and Romney, too. When it comes to the issues, depending on what is pressing at the time, I tend to align with that side of the aisle.

In 2016, I went 3rd party because I just could not get behind Trump. I also want secure borders and - given the nature of my work - I think I am more mistrusting of China than most, so I am 100% on board with exuding leverage over them.

It's the place where you and I agree about his attitude, personality, and what I perceived to be his personal motivations, ambitions and tendencies that I believed made him unfit for POTUS. I thought he would put a strain on our institutions and foment intense polarization, both of which I think happened.

"
Almost half of Republicans support the pro-Trump protesters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, putting them at odds with Democrats who largely oppose the actions of the demonstrators, a poll has found"

What it really puts them at odds with is "THE LAW"

Law and Order party my butt

whatever arch.

I'll just be quiet now and watch y'all whine.

The actual question that was asked:

How much do you support or agree with those who stormed the Capitol?

-Completely
-Somewhat
-Only a little
-Not at all

So hypothetically, what if I agree with them that I think the election results are shady and that there appears to have been some irregularities... but I don't support their actions of storming the Capitol.

How do I answer that question?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...tormed-capitol/

Here's some info on the poll results with the actual question.

Using the word Patriotic to describe them and defending freedom seem to be troublingly high answers.

I think - based on the fact that the premise of a "stolen election" is a total, complete lie and has been proven to be a lie in the courts - and that even after that, the idea that people think this was a legitimate protest along with patriotic and 'defending freedom' is deeply, deeply troubling.

You can try to couch and reframe the issue onto "irregularities" or whatever ... but Trump has been selling a lie, as have Cruz - Gohmert and the others. It's been run through the courts ... there is no merit in trying to throw ANY shade on the legitimacy of the election or the result.

Those verbs mean a lot and are somewhat contradictory. Now, I wouldn't choose either one, personally, but it is possible to agree with what they believe while not supporting their actions, which is exactly what you said.

Now, on the contrary, I'd be curious to see how many people who responded to the poll actually gave it that much of a deep, philosophical consideration.

and a violent overthrow of the government? because that's part of the package. Stop ignoring that part.

Why do you continue to lie? Actually OCD and I disagree on a lot of things and fight amongst ourselves quite often. I'm sure you never saw that though.

As for how questions of a survey having a huge impact on the outcome, you are certainly right. You'll get no argument from me on that. Was that enough of an attack on you?

But then you went off the deep end.... again.

Let's do a little math, shall we?

Trump was elected in November of 2016. He took office in January of 2017. There wasn't even an impeachment inquiry held until September 24th 2019.

For someone who had him impeached from the moment he took office, it took them over two and a half years to attempt it. For some reason that math doesn't add up.

Do you consider that an attack? If you do your threshold is pretty low.

And another portion of our population is brainwashed into thinking our government should be overthrown by listening to conspiracy theories that have been proven over and over again to be false.

I have already posted that the way questions are asked often garner responses that are desired. But the way you framed it really doesn't apply. What does feeling there may have been irregularities in the elections have to do with approving or disapproving of a violent and illegal takeover of our nations capital?

I agree with peaceful protests by any and every American. It's our right as Americans. But once you cross the line into violence and when you try to overthrow the elections by taking over the capital building, I'm against you.

That pertains to protests for social justice and political protests. I don't see that as a complicated issue.

The yougov poll needs to ask, what percentage of x voters belive in the following of the paper document called the Constitution of the United States.
What percentage of x voters believe paper document US constitution is being followed by the government in current events.

What percentage of x voters took an oath to defend the paper document of the United States constition. against all enemies, foreign and domestic ,


What percentage of x voters think the current government is folloing, i.e. acknowledging the paper document of the United States constitution.

What percentage of x voters believe an ignoring of the paper document known as the United States Constitubion by the current government represents a threat to democracy.

I think they were just trying to find out what percentage pf Republicans supported crimes against The Unites States government and who does not even though some people wish to make it more compicated than that.

I think many would say that when you use the words "supporting what took place"
that the same applies to what took place with the perceived stealing by changing and commiting fraud in the election
AS WELL AS, the ignoring of the constitution in spelled out ways of resolving of the issue,
and such
they probably feel just as strongly that anyone on the other side (how do you put it)

"is no different from ceding from the union, and does not deserve to live in this country"

Therefore you need to look at your own side,
I think these individuals would not be acting like this without believing they in the right,
and history shows, they didn't act like this any other time,
only after the election results were changed in front of everyone and results were abridged and counted in secret with deception, under the cover of night.

there is an old saying that goes something like
If a man does something sneaky at night, they are untrustworthy,
but the trustworthy act in the light of day, ... or something like that.

There was no stolen election. There was no mass voter fraud.

Believing a lie doesn't make it true. It's also no excuse for such unlawful and violent actions.

While I agree, it was not me that said that. It was peen. Thanks for following along so well.


Please note, again, who my "you had him impeached before he was inaugurated" comment was in response to. That may clarify things for you?

Ah, heck, I know better than that. My comment was to ocd, because he in fact DID chant that mantra, as did a few others on here, at the time I mentioned - pre presidency.

Also, talk from the dem. reps and sen's was of that also.

Thanks for playing.

Prove it! Where's your evidence?

I'll always play arch. I just wish you brought a higher quality of toys to the playground. That old General Dollar crap ain't cuttin' it.

You do realize that the people accusing others of wrong doing are the people required to provide proof, right?

Yet Trump's hand picked head of the DOJ disputes it. Trump appointed judges have disputed it. Republican election officials in the states in question dispute it. Even Trumps hand picked SCOTUS appointees have disputed it. Everywhere Trump has promoted these Qanon conspiracy theories they have been shown false.

You're the people trying to float the conspiracy theory that "the election was stolen" yet any credible court or official shows it's false. Maybe you should have joined your comrades in Washinton D.C on the 6th.

To be very frank. You don't don't know what you are talking about.

Votes were recounted. There was every opportunity to prove that the election was corrupted in a court of law.

That is the way the Law works. Prove your case in court.

What was proven was that there was no fraud.

You and the others that buy that were mislead.

You want to believe it. Go right ahead.

As it stands today trumps approval rating is 34%.

So join up with those who like to be lied to.

You’ll need a shrink to inform you about real vs fake if you still believe there appears to have been wide spread voter fraud. Enjoy your nothing burger.

Where’s your evidence there was wide spread voter fraud? Trump supporters bare the burden of proof not US.

You accuse without evidence, and then when people respond you demand evidence.

The abysmal record of Trump's team of lawyers in challenging this election is all the proof needed.

No, it wasn't. What was proven is there is no way to prove voter fraud with the way things are today.

Do you know for a fact that thousands of ballots weren't somehow dropped off for counting?

No, you don't. You can't prove that they weren't any more than it can't be proven that they were. How can that be proven? I don't doubt the count is accurate. I have concerns that many of the ballots counted aren't legit.

My point is our voting system is seriously flawed, more than votes were or weren't padded towards President-elect Biden.

We need to fix that because until we do, this issue is going to come up again.

Are you another Russian Bot Troll like 40?

This doesn't deserve an answer - but there are several already, correctly highlighting that the burden of proof is with you and your lies. Proof? 61 legal court verdicts. If that's not enough for you - take it from one of your own: William Barr.

I feel so very sad for you. Living in a country where you think that there might have been mass voter fraud. But overall same answer to you as Fish ... it HAS been proven in 61 courts that there was no mass voter fraud. And Barr has said the same thing.

"today" has nothing to do with it.

Welp...add another to the list.

The burden of proof was for trump's legal team not me.

They were given every opportunity. They proved that nothing would have changed the outcome.

Did you feel there was fraud when trump won?

There has never been a presidential election in this country that was fraudulent to the point that the election would have changed. Gore accepted a defeat that was way worse than this. There were real tangible questions.

Maybe you question the popular vote as well because he lost that twice.

The end result was not even close.

Were you in court to hear the cases? The judges were. They made a determination based upon the facts.

Facts you know those tricky things that spell truth.

You are going to the wrong place for answers. Read the court reports.

Sorry Bone. My primary point went over your head.

I wasn't asking you to prove anything.

I read your post as you believe the voter fraud and manipulation and illegal votes we done in such a way that "today" the US government is not smart or sophisticated enough to catch and prove what happened. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

It's a frightening world you live in.

No problem forget it.

No big deal I am done with politics.

trump is out. That is all I ever cared about.

Official for me I am retiring from political discourse.

The new Trump-appointed US Attorney in Georgia says he was surprised to find there wasn't any election fraud

Jacob Shamsian
Wed, January 13, 2021, 11:15 AM

Bobby Christine, the new US Attorney overseeing federal prosecutions in Atlanta, said in a call with staffers that he was pleasantly surprised to find there were no legitimate election fraud cases, according to a recording obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

President Donald Trump appointed Christine after reportedly pressured his predecessor to resign over the lack of election fraud cases.

Christine said he already dismissed the two highest-profile cases his department was looking at, which he said had no merit.

Trump has sought to overturn the results of the election he lost, focusing his efforts on Georgia.


The newly appointed acting federal prosecutor in Atlanta said in a conference call with staffers Monday that he was surprised to find out the office didn't have any legitimate election fraud cases.

"Quite frankly, just watching television you would assume that you got election cases stacked from the floor to the ceiling," said US Attorney Bobby Christine in a recording of the call obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "I am so happy to find out that's not the case, but I didn't know coming in."

President Donald Trump installed Christine to the role of Acting US Attorney in Georgia's northern district on January 5 after his predecessor, Byung Pak, abruptly resigned. US Attorneys typically remain in their roles until the end of a presidential administration and often continue into new ones.

The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that Trump pressured Pak, also a Trump appointee, to resign. According to the Journal, Trump was frustrated that Pak had not launched investigations into election fraud in Georgia, which election officials and independent experts agree does not exist.

Normally when a US Attorney resigns, the role would go to their deputy, but Trump bypassed that process and selected Christine, who is also the US Attorney for Georgia's Southern District. Georgia's Northern District includes the city of Atlanta, which has a large Black population and where Trump has focused his efforts seeking to throw out votes.

But in the call recording obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Christine told staffers that he dismissed two of the highest-profile investigations into election fraud on his first day, finding they had no merit.

"I closed the two most - I don't know, I guess you'd call them high profile or the two most pressing election issues this office has," Christine said. "I said I believe, as many of the people around the table believed, there's just nothing to them."

Christine donated $2,800 to Trump's 2020 reelection campaign, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the maximum allowed by law.Â

In the recording, staffers at the Northern District office asked Christine whether he was appointed for political reasons, and why Pak's deputy was not chosen for the role. Christine declined to discuss why he was appointed.

Trump has focused his efforts to overturn the election in Georgia

Since he lost the presidential election on November 3, Trump has falsely claimed he actually won and has pushed numerous conspiracy theories about election fraud. He and his allies filed more than 40 lawsuits challenging the results, none of which succeeded.

Trump's efforts seeking to overturn his loss have focused on Georgia, where he lost by fewer than 12,000 votes and became the first Republican to lose the state in a presidential election in 28 years. The results were upheld in several audits of the state's results. Democrats later won both of the state's runoff Senate races.

In a call with Georgia's Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger earlier in January, Trump appeared to push him to participate in election fraud himself and "find" votes that would allow him to win the state. The call sparked new calls for impeachment.

Trump is expected to be impeached once again Wednesday after inciting a mob to storm the US Capitol building to stop Congress from certifying Biden's win. At a rally ahead of the insurrection, Trump once again falsely claimed he won and that the presidential election was marred by widespread voter fraud.

Christine told staffers at Georgia's Northern District that he brought in two election fraud staffers from his Southern District office to look into fraud claims, but ultimately dismissed the major cases the district was looking at.

"In my opinion, there is no there, there," he said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-appointed-us-attorney-georgia-161550950.html

The answer is obvious...

The proof is that zero people have been arrested or charged with committing mass election fraud.

But I really am tall, dark, and handsome.

I'd also just like to add that the burden of proof is on the accuser.

It hasn't gone well for the accuser.

Yeah - but when they have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing other than a bruised ego of a megalomaniac who can't take losing, then you lie, double down on your, lie and scream and shout and jump up and down and threaten. And then lie some more.

Trump playbook - start, middle and end. Right there.

No, what you were doing is nothing more than waving a false flag. Anyone can make false allegations. I could say terrible and awful things about you, then ask you to prove them false. You have worked in the field of law, and no that's not how any of this works. As has been a pattern lately, you know better.

But let me give you one example here. Giuliani was peddling an edited video that tried to claim that "boxes of votes were hidden under a table". That they were brought out and counted when no observers were present. There's only one real problem with that. They have the entire video that was taken live at the time all of this happened. Republican observers were present. They were legal ballots. But that video was chopped and edited to try and paint a different picture.

Another example. Claiming thousands of dead people voted in Georgia. What they did was take the names on the voting roles and found anyone, anywhere with that same name in the entire country, then say that was the same person whose votes they were counting. YetRepublican officials themselves who reviewed the election in Georgia researched this themselves. They found TWO ballots that came from this election from dead people. Not 2000, not 200, not 20, but two.

The fraud being perpetrated here was by Giuliani and Trump's legal team. But I suppose you're willing to dismiss everything you know about the law and how credibility factors in.

The way things work is that you must show guilt. Unless you think there is some huge conspiracy theory among Republican election officials in multiple states, you know better.



For God's sake Peen, just stop it.

Of course maybe someone could just "find him" some votes.

FWIW

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sin...-a-record-rate/

Short version (I skimmed it)
-Perhaps the hit to approval ratings needed some time, but it has started.
-The drop in approval ratings is near record-setting
-The drop is most likely occurring within his base (historically tough to change their polled opinion)

While we see some on the opposite extreme try and label every Trump supporter as evil for supporting him, I do not. At least to a certain point.

On this very board some us warned them all along how Trump's rhetoric was dangerous. How it would lead to violence and upheaval. That demonizing everyone who disagreed with you would turn American against American to the point things could easily explode. Well here we are.

But we are now at that crossroad. You will have those who will ignore what has happened and continue to support Trump. They will ignore his words of contempt, anger and hostility that further divides America than any time since the Civil war. they will continue to support the vile man who is ripping our nation apart.

Then we will have those common sense Republicans who will try and fight to take their party back. This will separate the wheat from the chaff. Because only through total denial can they ignore what Trump has insidiously wrought upon our nation. It's time now they choose to patriot up or treason down.

And most of the population believes that everybody who doesn't agree with them is brainwashed.

Hence, why it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation any more.

I don't believe that's true at all.

I think half the people believe that the other half want the government as their keeper.

The slogan “government as keeper” or “free everything” is bread and butter for the GOP.

It’s the same as Reagan’s welfare queen.

I saw that the woman from NY said she wants money to deprogram Trump voters.

I think it's covered under Obamacare.

Well they have to build all those detainment camps and they are not free...

No, they wouldn't be...

There's plenty of crazy to go around on both sides. Only one side isn't crazy enough to storm the Capital Building in an attempt to overturn our election process. But give it time.

I think both sides have "crazy" - I think both sides have extremes and idiots .... all in equal measure. I think - personally - that the Trump carazies have been enabled and encouraged on this one particular lie about a stolen election and how storming the Capitol Building was patriotic and a way to save Democracy.

Centrist are the crazy ones! 40+ years of neoliberal neoconservative centrist corporatist policies have created all of this mess. It eventually brought us the tea party, then Trump... all because the middle class was under financial assault for 40+ years. That's radical and extreme. It also creates the cracks in democracy that allow the fascists, racists, and authoritarian leaders to rise. Save the democracy and back progressive policies for a decade or two. Rebuild the middle class.

Yet comparing every Democrat as socialists is there rallying cry. You have never been good at paying attention.

j/c

FBI vetting Guard troops in DC amid fears of insider attack

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. defense officials say they are worried about an insider attack or other threat from service members involved in securing President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, prompting the FBI to vet all of the 25,000 National Guard troops coming into Washington for the event.

The massive undertaking reflects the extraordinary security concerns that have gripped Washington following the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol by pro-Trump rioters. And it underscores fears that some of the very people assigned to protect the city over the next several days could present a threat to the incoming president and other VIPs in attendance.

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told The Associated Press on Sunday that officials are conscious of the potential threat, and he warned commanders to be on the lookout for any problems within their ranks as the inauguration approaches. So far, however, he and other leaders say they have seen no evidence of any threats, and officials said the vetting hadn’t flagged any issues that they were aware of.

”We’re continually going through the process, and taking second, third looks at every one of the individuals assigned to this operation,” McCarthy said in an interview after he and other military leaders went through an exhaustive, three-hour security drill in preparation for Wednesday’s inauguration. He said Guard members are also getting training on how to identify potential insider threats.

About 25,000 members of the National Guard are streaming into Washington from across the country — at least two and a half times the number for previous inaugurals. And while the military routinely reviews service members for extremist connections, the FBI screening is in addition to any previous monitoring.

Multiple officials said the process began as the first Guard troops began deploying to D.C. more than a week ago. And they said it is slated to be complete by Wednesday. Several officials discussed military planning on condition of anonymity.

“The question is, is that all of them? Are there others?” said McCarthy. “We need to be conscious of it and we need to put all of the mechanisms in place to thoroughly vet these men and women who would support any operations like this.”

In a situation like this one, FBI vetting would involve running peoples’ names through databases and watchlists maintained by the bureau to see if anything alarming comes up. That could include involvement in prior investigations or terrorism-related concerns, said David Gomez, a former FBI national security supervisor in Seattle.

Insider threats have been a persistent law enforcement priority in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But in most cases, the threats are from homegrown insurgents radicalized by al-Qaida, the Islamic State group or similar groups. In contrast, the threats against Biden’s inauguration have been fueled by supporters of President Donald Trump, far-right militants, white supremacists and other radical groups. Many believe Trump’s baseless accusations that the election was stolen from him, a claim that has been refuted by many courts, the Justice Department and Republican officials in key battleground states.

The insurrection at the Capitol began after Trump made incendiary remarks at the Jan. 6 rally. According to McCarthy, service members from across the military were at that rally, but it’s not clear how many were there or who may have participated in the breach at the Capitol. So far only a couple of current active-duty or National Guard members have been arrested in connection with the Capitol assault, which left five people dead. The dead included a Capitol Police officer and a woman shot by police as she climbed through a window in a door near the House chamber.

Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, has been meeting with Guard troops as they arrive in D.C. and as they gather downtown. He said he believes there are good processes in place to identify any potential threats.

“If there’s any indication that any of our soldiers or airmen are expressing things that are extremist views, it’s either handed over to law enforcement or dealt with the chain of command immediately,” he said.

The insider threat, however, was just one of the security concerns voiced by officials on Sunday, as dozens of military, National Guard, law enforcement and Washington, D.C., officials and commanders went through a security rehearsal in northern Virginia. As many as three dozen leaders lined tables that ringed a massive color-coded map of D.C. reflected onto the floor. Behind them were dozens more National Guard officers and staff, with their eyes trained on additional maps and charts displayed on the wall.

The Secret Service is in charge of event security, but there is a wide variety of military and law enforcement personnel involved, ranging from the National Guard and the FBI to Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department, U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. Park Police.

Commanders went over every aspect of the city’s complicated security lockdown, with McCarthy and others peppering them with questions about how the troops will respond in any scenario and how well they can communicate with the other enforcement agencies scattered around the city.

Hokanson said he believes his troops have been adequately equipped and prepared, and that they are rehearsing as much as they can to be prepared for any contingency.

The major security concern is an attack by armed groups of individuals, as well as planted explosives and other devices. McCarthy said intelligence reports suggest that groups are organizing armed rallies leading up to Inauguration Day, and possibly after that.

The bulk of the Guard members will be armed. And McCarthy said units are going through repeated drills to practice when and how to use force and how to work quickly with law enforcement partners. Law enforcement officers would make any arrests.

He said Guard units are going through “constant mental repetitions of looking at the map and talking through scenarios with leaders so they understand their task and purpose, they know their routes, they know where they’re friendly, adjacent units are, they have the appropriate frequencies to communicate with their law enforcement partners.”

The key goal, he said, is for America’s transfer of power to happen without incident.

“This is a national priority. We have to be successful as an institution,” said McCarthy. “We want to send the message to everyone in the United States and for the rest of the world that we can do this safely and peacefully.”

https://apnews.com/article/biden-inaugur...dc9fefed1242ae8

Is that a joke or are you the joke?

You really need to be paying more attention. It's hard enough for people that try and advance the people at the bottom to get elected the way it is. Most people are smart enough to know Biden isn't a socialist. If it weren't for that Trump would have probably have won.

I'm pretty sure that very soon you will get a democratic socialist as the nominee. Once they get stomped in a national election, get back to afterwords and try explaining it.

Not our fault that the Democratic Party would rather grift the donor class and corporations for donations to keep themselves in positions of power.

Get rid of American hegemony and plutocracy. That’s more important than keeping taxes at a lower level so they get donations.

I pretty much agree.
Trump did not have the most elaborate campaign plan of all time. Basically, he found the people that have been offered nothing for 40 years and offer them something small. Vilifying these people is a big mistake when all anyone ever had to do to get them on their side was offer them anything.

For example, The Mahoning Valley went to Trump twice and for people that don't know anything about the Mahoning Valley, that is insane, because 15 years ago, the Mahoning Valley was a Democratic lock.

curious as to what you think Trump offered them this time around?

I mean yes - 2016, he offered something different & he wasn't Hilary.

2020 - to me - he didn't run on anything other than fear mongering and being a victim: Covid was a hoax that the world played on him and was hyped by the media to ruin 'his' economy - and he ran on not being a communist while trying to tell his base and any Republican that would listen that the Dems and Biden (who is so centrist it's not funny) were going to fundamental change America so much that you won't recognize it in 4 years time.

If he ran "for" something - then he sure didn't get the message out.

The side that refuses to recognize gender, is demanding a female president. ( I like that quote, don't know who it's from, point is)

It's pretty clear to see how whacko the left is.

This is the kind of stuff you post when you just can't hold it in any more, and you have no viable argument regarding the topic at hand.

Again, another one of your disjointed non-sequiturs as you try to get the bloodhounds to look at your squirrel.


transparent (and flimsy) as Saran Wrap.


If you want to have a gender conversation, start a gender thread.

Back then Georgia and Nevada were Republican strongholds too. Funny how things work out isn't it?

Whose whackos stormed the capital building on Jan. 6th? In case you missed it, they're the dangerous ones.

PERFECT! A centrist moderate arguing with an alt-righter about who is more dangerous to the country... You just can't make this crap up. lmao

As compared to the fringe left radical who leads the forum in hysteria driven extremist propaganda.

Oh put away the stirring schtick, nobody asked you. Don't you have a mixed potion to slurp?

You never disappoint. You have never had enough common sense to figure out who to rally against. To you, someone who wants 80% of the same thing you do will never be enough for you. It's why you'll always end up on the losing end of things.

Along with the Progressive that can't/won't differentiate between the two. Entertaining, indeed!

More or less dangerous than the ones who tried to break into a federal courthouse, started fires, and then spent multiple nights firing live fireworks at federal officers?

That doesn't count, come on man. You probably need to be deprogrammed.

Says the guy who believes China developed and unleashed the virus on America all on purpose so they can take over the world, and make Donald Trump look bad. Que the mad scientist laugh.

I guess that depends on your perspective. Don't you think overthrowing our democratically held elections to keep what at that point would be an illegitimate government in power in our own nation is more dangerous? You see riots in the name of social justice as being on equal footing as an attempted overthrow of our government?

You see, unlike so many Trumpians, I always called out the violence that erupted from those protests. I advocated calling them criminal acts and said they should be arrested and prosecuted.

Many on the right consider their criminal acts as some patriotic duty and promote that the Biden administration will be an illegitimate government.

No, those two things are not the same and one is far more dangerous than the other one. It's not even close.

And no amount of rationalization can change that.

No, I think what happened at the Capitol is more serious and more dangerous.. I just don't think it is orders of magnitude more dangerous.

Since it happened I've pushed back against the common narrative that there was any attempt to overthrow the government..

If you are trying to overthrow the government and you gain control of one of their buildings, you don't voluntarily leave.
If you occupy the seat of the democracy, you make demands, you fight to keep it.
I also find it odd that the oft described "gun nuts" who carried long guns to mask and shutdown protests, who carry guns when they go to Walmart, who pine for the days when kids went to school with shotguns in their trucks, showed up to overthrow the government without a single gun.

I think what happened at the Capitol was very serious, more serious than what happened in Portland.. I just don't think what happened at the Capitol was what folks want to say it was.

I think the only reason it wasn't more serious is because it was parts of different groups from different places with differing ideologies which made it impossible to be an organized effort to accomplish their goals. At a certain point it simply became disjointed and confusing.

I don't see how that in any way changes their goals or what their intentions were. You could hear them screaming "Hang Mike Pence!". You could hear them screaming to get their hands on Pelosi. Their intent and mission was clear. Their execution of it was horrible.

They screamed a lot of things.. but what real effort did they make to find Mike Pence or Nancy Pelosi once they got inside? They walked around and whenever they encountered any real resistance, they backpedaled.

It wasn't about being disjointed, it was about lacking conviction. If they really had any conviction to do what people say they were going to do, a lot more people would be dead.

Let's be honest, a lot of these militia warriors are the ultimate cowards.. they love guns, but only when they are the only ones that have them... they talk big and bad out at the militia compound and on social media but when confronted with a serious counterforce, they will run... and if Mike Pence had walked straight out into the middle of them, there wasn't a single one with the guts to do what they were chanting.. (not that I'm advocating he should have taken that chance).. but we both know it's true.

Oh I do differentiate, but it's more fun when I pretend not to...

All I'll say is that it was a good thing they didn't get their hands on Pelosi or Pence because you would be singing a different tune right now if they had. The fact that they did this without any follow through does not excuse one iota of the fact they did it. Thankfully they just weren't that smart which ultimately made them less dangerous. I mean who in the world thinks storming the Capitol building, beating cops, smashing crap and hunting politicians was a prime selfie moment or Facebook live stream material other than a group of total morons? Tracing these guys is the easiest thing the FBI has had to do in a long time. They might as well have held up signs saying "I'm a dumbass criminal, come arrest me".

I hated the damage done by the riots, but I also know for a fact that much of it was the right inducing those riots. I do not and will not lay blame on the peaceful protestors that outnumbered rioters 100s to 1. Just like I would not say Trump supporters who were there on the 6th but did not storm the capitol are guilty of insurrection even if their pals were. Condemning BLM or the protest against cops murdering blacks due to riots that may or may not have been associated to BLM is nuts. But that won't stop the right from trying.

I think the insurrection was an attempted coup to keep Trump in power, period. It in no way compares to the BLM protests and only compares in violence to the riots and looting. The whole idea that they didn't like the elections results so they just decided Biden cheated and they could do that then go home and lead happy ALL AMERICAN lives was just insanity and WAY more dangerous than the riots. I never heard of any looters or rioters that got arrested and charged thinking what they did was heroic... this is what makes what happened in DC so scary and dangerous if you ask me. These people thought they were doing god's work, being heros, and saving the country... INSANE.

I don't think that we'll ever agree on this. There never was a call to occupy the Capital Building. That was never their stated goal. And to at least some extent we do agree. In such a situation as this you do have what I call "the dog that's chasing the car". If they actually catch the car they are chasing, they wouldn't know what to do with the car if they caught it.

But as I stated, there were different factions involved here. Some were certainly far more bark than they were bite. Some more innocuous than others. Some of these people and groups are very dangerous and I feel you are undervaluing the level of chaos and death they may have unleashed had their intended targets have been found.

That's one thing about a mob. Where as they may be far less dangerous on their own, when put together in such a heated pitch and spurred on by voices they trust, what they are capable of is not predictable and what otherwise may have its limitations will certainly rise above it.

These aren't people who feel they were cheated out of some overtime pay. These are people who have been convinced that the election had been stolen from them. That what was actually told were their enemies were taking over. That these people would end America and their way of life as they know it. That these people taking over would destroy America.

Putting on a show isn't what this was about for some very dangerous and extreme factions that were a part of this crowd. The more information that's coming out the clearer that picture has become and we will be seeing even more as further information comes to light.

I'd like to jump in if you don't mind.

My view on it is that there appears to be a blend of people, but I am not sure of the ratios.

Off the top of my head, these are the following tiers from least concerning to most concerning:

1. Trump supporters who were just there in a supporting presence.

2. Adamant protesters. These were the people who marched down to the Capitol and were looking to push the limits, but not enter the premise.

3. Trespassers. People who wanted to enter into the Capitol without any real intention of following through or causing harm. Basically, they got caught up in the fervor and wanted to go inside. Take some selfies with cops. No real end game.

4. Havoc-wreakers. People who wanted to enter the Capitol with the intention of either self-promotion or imposing mayhem as a power play. These are the people who went through offices and messed them up or looted stuff out of the building. They wanted to break windows and cause damage.

5. Hostage-takers. These are the worst ones that would embody the terrorism mantra. I would include the dude who walked in with the zip-tie cuffs. I don't think he would have brought those if he had no intention of using them. I think this was the most pre-meditated element.

As you move from less extreme to more extreme on that list, I think there were fewer and fewer people, but the worst-of-the-worst on that list needed the less extreme people on there to provide the numbers. I think as the people on the list who fit 1-3 realized they didn't know WTH they were going to do next and started leaving, that groups 4 and 5 realized that they needed to leave as well because they didn't have the strength in number to pull off their motives. I do think, had something monumental happened (say they captured AOC or a prominent Democrat), that could have galvanized a lot of people in the crowd to move up in number.

I agree with DC's point about a lot of these people being cowards when actually confronted with force, but I don't think all were. The lady who got shot, I'm guessing would have fit Group 4 or 5 on that list. When she got shot, all the other people there (who I'm guessing mostly fit 2-3) you could tell were like "oh hell no." Had she busted through and not been shot, and actually gotten to the Reps/Senators, I think this conversation would be going a lot differently.

I think, more or less, most would agree with you. But this last sentence might be where there is the most contention. I agree with you. There were people there planning, willing and able to take this to the extreme. Wanting to take it to the extreme.

It's also clear that the whole thing had Trump Ally backing and support ... what we don't know is whether that backing was aimed at supporting the efforts of group 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 in your list. The Rudy call and voice message to the wrong Senator still has me deeply concerned and believing that Trump was trying to delay the proceedings for a specific event/purpose. What other conclusion can you draw?

That call was definitely concerning. It wasn't a "Hey, how are you doing? Is everything okay?" It was "Hey, we still need to delay this thing a few more hours."

Was it because he knew of the events all along, or was it because he was trying to be opportunistic as a result of the events having already occurred? I can't definitively say, but yeah, at a very baseline level, that call is cause for a lot of concern.

I think you pretty much described my feelings on the matter. There were different factions within the crowd that stormed the Capital with different intentions.

And please, it's an open forum so jump in any time. The more actual discussion and honest opinions we have on here the better. As you pointed out before, there are people who wish to have an open dialogue and those who just want to be a distraction. While I will certainly respond in kind to those simply sowing discourse, I'm not about to let them derail honest debate and discussion among those willing to do so.

Maybe..... hypothetically.

So exactly how many people needed to die before you’ll call this a violent attempted coup to keep trump in power? Mmmm?

more.

Could you give us an accurate body count?

Of the 6 people that died that I am aware of, 1 was the lady that was shot by the cap. police officer. 1 was a cap. police officer that succumbed to injuries. Both are tragic. The lady died doing something she shouldn't have, but she's still dead, right?

The officer that died doing his job, tragic. The people responsible need to be held accountable.

That's 2 deaths.

To get to 6, included is an officer that committed suicide a day or so later.

3 of the deaths were medical emergencies. (heart attack? Other?)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/07/us/capitol-mob-deaths/index.html

Exactly. Pfft trump supporters.

I'm not sure what your point is. You do realize that if they had been sitting at home or had gone fishing instead of being worked into a frenzy and being involved in a riot, they probably wouldn't have been having a heart attack, right?

I mean I understand some people will try to downplay how many people died that day by any means possible but....

I suppose that one is too many, but lets not try to make this in to the battle of Bull Run. Manassas if you want to use the southern term for the battle.

The only reason the death count is low is because the Capital Police didn't start shooting the insurrectionists as they stormed the Capital.

I think it was more like protesters, but I agree with your point.

The location of the riot doesn't make it any more serious than anywhere else.

It was what they were attempting to accomplish that made it far more serious than anywhere else. It's something so many have trouble admitting. If you don't think trying to overthrow our elections is more serious, I'm not sure what you're thinking.

You're being deliberately obtuse.

You asked a question. Sure, it was a loaded question, but I answered the question you asked. I was not downplaying anything. I answered a question.

And I pointed out that had they not been there, the odds are they would still be alive. Someone invited them to that rally. Someone told them to march to the capital. Someone told them the election had been stolen from them and someone told them they had to fight.

You pointed out the cause of death. I'm pointing out why they died.

How many people had to die at BLM protests before they stopped being "mostly peaceful"?

Maybe it was that the vast majority of them had no violence at all? I'm still missing the "coup" aspect.

the vast majority of people in DC that day didn't go in the Capitol.

The violent attempted coup happened on Capital grounds. The protest happened on the streets of Washington D.C. Those are two different events. But then you know that already.

You are next to impossible. Period.

There are no reports of those people dying IN the capital bldng. that I am aware of. If you have evidence of that, share.

Hence, standing outside caused what we think might have been heart attacks? (again, no proof they did die of heart attacks - only thing we know is 'medical emergencies'.

Those happen at home, also.

I said they died because they were there. They had been worked up into a frenzy and marched to the Capital. I said they would not have died had they not have been there.

I'm not sure what part of that confused you. You call all of that "standing outside" then claim I'm the one being impossible.

There were 3 people who died because they were there.. the officer, the woman who was shot, and another woman who was crushed in a mass of people..

The other 2 were men in their 50s.. one had high blood pressure and died of a heart attack, the other had a stroke. I think it's safe to say that there is no way to prove or disprove that those events were related to them being there..

Not to pit. According to him, they died because they were there.

So what you're trying to say is that being fed speeches to anger them didn't raise their heart rate. That being told to march and marching from Freedom Plaza to the capitol building had nothing to do with it? That the same conditions would have been there had they been sitting at home or sitting on the bank of a river fishing?

Do you even hear yourself? And yes arch, anyone with the common sense God gave them at birth understands when someone purposefully angers you then sends you on a march your blood pressure and heart rate are greatly increased which are direct contributors to a cardiac event.

Being in denial of the facts won't change that.

I understand you're not big on personal responsibility when there is ANY possibility you can link it to the former president.

But, using your logic, I started a thread about the biden's and the national guard. Why not have a cookie?

I have cookies. Just remember the next time someone offers you a donought, make sure to refuse it because they didn't actually bake it themselves which means they aren't really being nice.

I don't think anyone (except maybe those that stormed the Capitol) are saying that they have no personal responsibility.

But we are saying trump also has responsibility. Where is his personal responsibility? Not just here but with anything? He has never accepted any responsibility for anything he has done. But he sure has no problem claiming the accolades for the work of others

Trump had nothing to do with it.

Only the left could put the word nought, into the spelling of the word Donut,
and would advocate for refusing a donut. (<-- real values shining through)

Thread, 45% of Republican blah blah bl...

What's a Republican? They don't exist.

Reeducation says the word does not exist, only democrat,

others never existed, only great leader.

.

Republicans were silenced sometime in the last 72 hours like they never existed. Just like something China or N.Korea would do.

doughnut

noun

1A small fried cake of sweetened dough, typically in the shape of a ball or ring.
‘The menu mentioned toasted teacakes, scones, doughnuts, Danish pastries and flapjack.’

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/doughnut

Throw... now that diam's not posting on here, you're literally the last person that can use spelling/grammar smack.

Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick died of natural causes after Jan. 6 riot, examiner says

U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after he confronted rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to Washington's top medical examiner.
The chief medical examiner, Francisco Diaz, said Monday that an autopsy of Sicknick found no evidence the 42-year-old suffered an allergic reaction to chemical irritants. Diaz ruled the Sicknick, 42, died from "acute brainstem and cerebellar infarcts due to acute basilar artery thrombosis."
NEW YORK TIMES CORRECTS REPORT ON CAPITOL OFFICER'S DEATH CITED IN TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL
The medical examiner's report showed that Sicknick was sprayed with a chemical substance around 2:20 p.m. on Jan. 6 and collapsed at the Capitol around 10 p.m. that evening. He died around 9:30 p.m. on Jan. 7, according to the examiner's office.
Diaz told the Washington Post, which first reported the news, that the Jan. 6 events "played a role in his condition."
Federal officials arrested and charged two men last month with assaulting Sicknick with bear spray during the riot. Julian Elie Khater, 32, of State College, Pennsylvania, and George Pierre Tanios, 39, of Morgantown, West Virginia, each faced an array of charges, including assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon and conspiracy to injure an officer, although authorities stopped short of charging them with his death.