Not enough by far, by design. Only 1/4 of the capitol police were on duty for this advertised riot/attack on democracy. Offers of backup from DC police and the national guard were refused. Normal non violent events usually have at least double that number, the non violent BLM protests at BLM park (the whitehouse) had over 7500 law enforcement officers stationed for days, this advertised armed attack and trial by combat had what, <500? Almost half of those were diverted to the two seperate live bombs the terrorists set, yet they still refused offers of more officers and didn't even call in off duty capitol police....good thing, they were busy being part of the riot. The FBI had many indications the Trump crowd planned unprecedented violence, dozens if not hundreds of messages calling for murder of BLM and Antifa members, murder of representatives, murder of anyone trying to stop their coup. "Either we get our president or die fighting for him" was a typical message. Rally points in other states discussed. "This is not a March, not a protest, it's war, come ready for battle." Read numerous others.
Turns out in many cases the barricades were useless because cops refused to use them and allowed people to walk through or around. They have been successfully used uncountable times before, but we’ve never had capitol police themselves be part of the mob, and with so many off duty cops and military in the crowd they thought, like at their job, the rules don’t apply to them or those with them. They talked their coworkers off the line in MANY instances, flashing their badges to gain entry then helping other rioters through.

Even if they weren’t stopping everyone, that’s not a reason to remove them so they stop no one. That’s asinine, I suppose you leave your front door open because your windows won’t stop a determined home invader?

Is your point that a fence that has openings is useless....hmmm...I recall someone else that was willing to divide and bankrupt the nation over a 1/2 of a fence...who was that?

Tear gas....and rubber bullets, in many instances live ammo, hit with clubs, cars, horses, shields, boots. You're just so full of shit.

There was only 1/4 of the capitol police on duty. They knew an attack was coming but refused all offers of help. Two have been arrested for being complicit, and the fbi is investigating them all because it seems they helped protesters find unmarked senators offices. It's looking like many off duty were there helping the terrorists.
No part of the building was held in the end.

Not correct.
They used metal barricades to hit police in the face many times. One of the two arrested so far was arrested for repeatedly punching a cop in the face, I think hospitalizing him.
They also sprayed police with pepper spray/mace repeatedly.
I just saw video of a lone officer being chased up a stairway by a group of men and he gets his baton out, not his taser or gun.

Edit: one cop has now died from injuries received from rioters. Over 60 were injured.

Not to mention all the felony destruction of federal property the police made no moves to stop, or that carrying a firearm in the building is a felony that many were committing, or the pipe bombs and molotovs they left behind. Edit: now there’s word that top secret documents and a laptop with more state secrets were stolen.

The only rational explanation for totally insufficient preparations and/or the inhuman restraint is the capitol police were complicit.

Edit: It has now been verified that the Capitol police refused an offer of thousands of extra officers and refused national guard help with the coming Jan 6 riots days earlier, knowing full well that thousands of violent nut jobs were coming to get “wild” as Trump put it, many armed to the teeth and ready to force a “trial by combat”. Even after the armed rioting by the same group the night before, the capitol police still refused any help. They were definitely complicit here. The entire force should be investigated with any that helped prosecuted for dereliction of duty AND sedition....not just the chief, and not just fired. Prosecuted harshly and dumped in gen pop.

Etitiled douchebag.
This guy needs to be arrested for blocking traffic, impeding a government worker in their official duties, and have his truck impounded, not listened to and reasoned with for 10 minutes. In some jurisdictions this is considered kidnapping....blocking someone in.
I thought you said people should just obey the law and comply or expect to get beaten and shot....but not him. You support him. What’s different, @bobknight33 ? Hmmmm....

I think it was more because Moscow Mitch made it clear was serious that he wasn't holding any confirmation hearings for Obama by not even hearing Merrick Garland, actually a republican pick, that he wasn't going to consider anyone Obama put forth.

The politics of "because I can", not serving the country or even his party, just his own animus.

This precedent is going to backfire big-time if, as appears likely, dems take the Whitehouse and Senate. Adding ten seats to the supreme court and filling them with far left activist judges might happen just because they can, and that's the standard now.

For all intents and purposes his powers are revoked when the Senate is only interested in obstructionism, like today's that won't consider bills and revels in their nickname "the chamber of death, where bills go to die".

The "lame duck" ploy was just pure "because we can"ism. No legal precedent, actually a dereliction of duty by congress ignoring what the constitution says they shall do. I sure as Fuck hope dems grow a spine and ignore all right wing arguments as they have ignored democrats, and play the politics of "because we can" through October 2024, then write an amendment to stop more...like capping the supreme court at 19 forever and other instances where because I can-ism can override patriotism. If they don't exercise their power to the fullest, ignoring any attempt to reach across the aisle or compromising to get some bypartisanism in the next two years at a minimum (assuming they win), they'll deserve to be discarded.

Technically correct: the Constitution does not provide specific details of how Supreme Court appointments are to be made. The fine details have been left up to the Senate and Executive (to a lesser degree, I believe). The executive branch has the right to nominate someone to the court, the Senate then has a duty to serve as a check on that. Technically there's nothing in the Constitution stating you're not allowed to advance a SC nominee weeks before an election.

It IS however, a naked partisan power grab. In 2016 one party argued, 8-9 months prior to the election, that their political opponents should not be able to have their SC nominee even get a hearing prior to the election. There was no actual precedent for this, but they insisted that the will of the electorate must be respected, and that we therefore must await the results of the election. So we did. Now 4 years later, the same party that insisted on respecting the will of the electorate in 2016 is taking precisely the opposite stance. Because last time they could potentially gain from the delay, and this time they almost certainly won't.

The CNN guy was correct: it is NOT unconstitutional to ram through a SC appointment. The authors of the Constitution didn't see fit to include that level of granularity in how the process would work. There is a process to clear this all up though: let's amend the Constitution! That's a super American thing to do! Let's establish, once and for all, the specific rules of the process. Then there won't be any back-and-forth like this about when a nominee can move ahead and when they can't. Nice and tidy.

The question then becomes: at what point in a President's term do they no longer get to nominate a replacement to the Supreme Court, when an election is pending? Should there in fact be no limit (like prior precedent, or lack thereof), and you believe that Merrick Garland should have been allowed hearings, and by extension the Amy Barrett hearings now are legit? Personally, I say we establish a cut-off to spare the political arguments in the future. Let's make it 100 days prior to the election: it's nice round number, bit over 3 months (so time for meaningful hearings and background checks), and should be after or at the end of primary season most cycles. That would of course invalidate both the 2016 and 2020 schemes by the Republicans, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

What's your take, Bob? How should this be handled? You posted the video, so I assume you have a stance on the issue?

Congratulations! Your video, Former Cop Speaks Out.. "They Want To Be Call Of Duty", has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 81 Badge!

Your video, Former Cop Speaks Out.. "They Want To Be Call Of Duty", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Fit the description....except for his height, weight, age, and clothing.
Just like I fit the description of a vandal when I was 12-13 riding the bus to school in my prep school uniform, 130lbs and maybe 5'4", and white...and the description was mid twenties black man, approximately 6' 180 lbs. I was still in custody when they brought him in.

Never trust a word a policeman says, they are professionally trained to be liars, and have fought to the supreme court to secure their right to lie. They know that doesn't include lying about what happened, making up charges, or perjury, but once you're ok with lying, even feel it's an important tool to use to trick innocent suspects into prison, crossing the next line is nothing, just lie about it.
Stating that in court under oath makes me ineligible for jury duty. I got a huge smile from the judge too, seems he doesn't like liars either.

Call of Duty: Rehash

I removed 10% of capacity and won't put it back, but I put out notices stating we are incapable of performing our duties without them.
I'm a professional.
Trump's "best people". Running the government just like his businesses, straight into bankruptcy and out of business.

As a child I played with matches up in the attic of our house. The matches were book matches from a funeral home my father worked for as a part time job when he was off duty as a cop. The cover of the matches had a black glossy finish.

Dad found the matches while cleaning out the attic. Dad called my name from upstairs and I headed that way.

His first question to me was, "Were you playing with matches up here?"

His second question was, "Are you lying?"

His third question was, "Are you lying?"

His last question was, "I'm only going to ask you one more time. If you lie to me I'm taking you down to city hall and lock you up. Were you playing with matches up here?"

He grabbed my hand and turned it palm up. He pulled out the pack of matches and picked up some floor sweepings then sprinkled it on the black glossy cover. And DAMN! wouldn't you know it. There stood a perfectly proud little fingerprint. It matched the one on my hand. (I guess. I never brought a lawyer.)

Out to the car we went. I was on my way to jail which gave me about five minutes to rethink my answer. The closer we got, the bigger my fears grew. He made the last turn onto the street for city hall.

I cracked! "I did it. I was playing with the matches." I confessed.

My answer was my Get Out of Jail Free card.

Many years later I brought up that day with my dad. He confessed that he had no idea what he was going to do if I didn't crack.

My only reply to him was, "You bastard!" We both laughed together.

You moronic brain dead slugs, you're contradicting the Bob that was on duty yesterday. You need to read each other's trolling notes and get on the same page or you just prove you're imbeciles.

Because Trump said it doesn't make it true, in fact it's good evidence that it's false. In this instance, it's 100% pure bullshit, which you would know if you had two brain cells to rub together.
Just yesterday you sent a link to an article about all the mail in votes disqualified through the checks they must pass (checks and balances are a different thing, part of our system Trump has been actively dismantling his entire term, Americans know that, Russian trolls can be forgiven for their ignorance of American political systems).

Vote by mail is as regulated as in person, both at registration before the ballot is sent out and before it's counted.

Jesus Christ, don't you remember? It was YESTERDAY you took the position that far too many votes were disqualified by the regulations when they were checked, today you claim there are no regulations and no checking.
WTF Bob. Get your position straight, don't just spout nonsense, it makes you ripe for ridicule, and you know I'll oblige.

🤦‍♂️

Just absolutely wrong on every point except the post office....but consider instead of giving them the funding needed to address these problems, Trump has withheld funding for even normal operation and his appointees have already removed 10% of it's capacity, when they need to be expanding it to hold a fair and open election according to Whitehouse and CDC guidelines.
What happens when it takes 4 weeks to deliver ballots because of the intentional slowdowns and many aren't delivered before election day? Tens of millions are disenfranchised directly because of Trump's actions. A vote blocked is a vote STOLEN, so you are standing with a plan that cheats tens of millions out of their vote unequivocally in a stated plan to avoid hundreds of assumed fraudulent votes from being attempted (but likely caught so not cast).

Trump should want to fund it because holding a fair election is his duty, but he's never fulfilled a duty in his life.

Um...Covid absolutely 100% is a legitimate reason for vote by mail according to health agencies that determine such things (CDC, HHS) ..as if any reason is needed, it's the norm in many states.
Vote by mail is not an excuse for covid, that actually is BS....but I think you meant to be contradicting the former. It's a pure lie that it's more fraudulent than in person voting, another bold faced lie Trump told you.

You can't vote outside. Social distancing while voting is going to take the lines that were 5-6 hours long in places and make them twice that long. Thousands of polling places can't be staffed because most pollsters are elderly retired people, in the most effected group and totally not safe to work, (especially since it's a given that dozens of moronic denier Trumpsters are going to show up at every open polling place unmasked insisting it's their right to vote while spreading disease and forcing their way inside), so many are being closed. How do you think in person voting could possibly work given those facts?

If your ilk would mask up, we could do that, but you all have extended and exacerbated the pandemic so badly, and in their brainless worship of Trump still claim it's ALL a hoax, never even existed, and still won't wear masks because they block oxygen and suffocate people. Because of Trump's horrific leadership, in person voting is a no go for most without risking their, and other people's lives.

Your choice for president is failing at even holding an election...not surprising, he's failed at literally every job a president has, and our nation has suffered greatly, lost international status, tens of trillions, trade, respect, jobs, and over 160000 lives directly because of Trump's leadership....and every problem I listed is getting worse daily as he floundered.

What has he done successfully in your mind besides the tax cut he gave himself, doubling the deficit? Not the economy, not employment, not safety, not health, not trade, not deals, not strengthening ties with allies....so what?