Tuesday, January 9, 2024

Citizen Free Press: "Congressman Clay Higgins breaks down what really happened on J6."



1/9/24: Update to yesterday's post:

It appears that my posting about the challenges not being completed due to an emergency session set up by Speaker Pelosi, may not be correct. According to another source of information, all challenges were completed. They may have occurred under an emergency session organized by Pelosi, but the challenges were completed and voted upon.

Consequently, the assertion that this was a reason that standing was denied by SCOTUS, appears to be incorrect. That assertion needs to be closely examined. As of this writing, I haven't looked at the SCOTUS refusal to hear any case coming before it after the Congress had already certified Biden's victory in the electoral count.

In other words, that assertion here is no longer operative.

I looked at the entire timeline of the riot. There indeed appears to have been a failure of security. There were failures all around.

There was no formal charge for insurrection, but the information says that there was a referral to the DOJ for the same. Evidently, the charges were not sought by the DOJ.

Perhaps all of this can be considered by the SCOTUS now. I'd say that with the new information, that the SCOTUS ducked the issue of the election being lawful back in 2020. Will they duck this issue ( with respect to insurrection ) or will they actually address it courageously and honestly?

end update, the orginal post is directly below:

The link from CFP is to a tweet, which consists of an interview conducted by Tucker Carlson of Congressman Clay Higgins of Lousiana.

Sure, we can talk about J6th. Maybe we can get to the "bottom of it". But once again, the question: Why would Trump act adversely to his own interests, and why would events occur to the benefit of Democrats so that they could have an excuse to end all challenges, and remove standing in any court challenge, and thereby install Joe Biden to the Presidency?

I'll keep posting those questions even with an excellent argument is presented. It's not meant to detract from it, but to try to keep the focus on what the real issues are. By the way, this interview does provide some insights into what was really going on that day with respect to those issues. But NOT ENOUGH OF THOSE ISSUES. You can reduce it all to a one word question --- WHY?









No comments: