Garland doesn’t rule out indicting Trump

His is obviously a bad actor tactic. Kudos for pointing it out.

"Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise."

The Burden of Proof

I'm not sure where he gets away the stuff he's trying here. Warms my heart to watch the demolition.

 

I've learned from the best, people like him. Thank you.

Bottom line, he had better deliver undisputable evidence that I cannot rebut if he is to have any chance to change my mind as to what the truth is and is not. He knows he can't do that, so he puts the burden on me while not doing anything I request. For example, it took 5 requests before he would list the "underlings" according to him he was referring to in the 1/5 Muriel Bowser letter when she rejected any more troop assistance.

You should reconsider who is actually doing the demolition.

 

He's done a more than adequate job of pushing you around the chess board. He has refuted your claims with evidence and called you out when a claim cannot be substantiated. That's all one can do when someone is intractable.

I can't know for sure, but I suspect md knows he won't change your position. But his retorts do a wonderful job of pointing out how weak your conclusions are, despite your bluster.

 

All one needs to get out of the DOD report is that there was utter confusion while the response was delayed. Where were the Troops who were supposed to be deployed? When violence starts, you don’t wait to “get on the busses.” That report is not result oriented: prevention and stopping the mob. And Miller saying Trump has delegated him responsibility? While he pissed away hours with essential inaction and was not prepared? Utterly not credible. As time went on, Trump’s fury was to issue clear orders, not sit on his butt. And, the Senate Report documents the intelligence failures. Bowers, Pelosi and the Capital Police should have been directly informed of the threat risk. Blaming them for what happened when the time got bad information is ridiculous. Trump certainly knew when he said that the armed people were not there to hurt him. But still, no effort was made to issue orders to protect the capital.

 

BS. He has refuted nothing. He is good for asking questions, not much else.

My conclusions are spot on to anyone with an open mind.

 

Apparently, all you need to do is to read the report. Your critique is 100% inaccurate.

 

OK, I appreciate you finally posting some links. But ...
1. You claimed multiple times that Bowser rejected any federal troops. That's not what she says in that letter. She says she discourages any additional deployment without coordinating with the MPD. That's not the same thing at all, is it?
2. Posting a link to a 128-page report is not providing evidence. If you actually read the report, you should be able to point to the place where it says Trump ordered 10,000 federal troops.
3. Ditto on that 153-page report.

If you really have anything, you haven't produced it yet.

 

Poster gives one citation to prove his point on Bowser .... and it doesn't. Just not good at this... be better.

 

I did read the reports, multiple times. You do the same.

Given the letter from Muriel Browser came on 1/5, it is rejection of troops. See who she addressed the letter to, you'd would know a plan of action was already in place and she knew the plan. You would know this is you do your homework.

I'll refer you to pages 16 and 31 of the DOD report but read the whole thing if you want to understand what happened on 1/6 and before.

The senate report is a must read.

If you aren't up to it, that's okay. Most people wanting vengeance are really not interested beyond the point of getting Trump.

 

In addition, her Jan 5 tweet states that she's "not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel", which is plainly different than "refusing an offer" for 'troops'.

 

LOL! You are grasping at straws as your beliefs are unraveled.

 

Exactly. I don't know whether he's consciously making stuff up and he is simply unable to understand the difference.
BTW, would the mayor even have authority to refuse federal troops?

 

Yay! Abusive ad hominem.

 

Abusive? LOL! Only to a snowflake.

 

You tell me. On 1/6, who controlled the 2,000 DC NG, what was the plan for 1/6, and the leading executive agency for the plan on 1/6 and prior?

 

Let's not forget this gem regarding the DCNG:

 

The president cintrols the dc national guard

 

I see Muriel Bowser FINALLY thinks something is important enough to call out the NG. She didn't think it was important enough on or before 1/6 until AFTER the riot was instigated:

DC mayor asks for National Guard to help with migrants - YouTube

 

Browser does NOT reject troop support at all. She requests notifications. Reading comp. is your friend. Be better, sighj

 

Non sequitur to the now fully refuted argument that trump offered 10,000 troops.