Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

This too. The left is led by absolute lunatics now.

---

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were acts of war from external enemies for motives unrelated to our democratic institution.

"Attack on democracy" connotes an attack from within whose intent is to overthrow or dramatically change our system of governance.

It's not some maladjusted stance to think that the sitting President attempting to deny and circumvent the results of a free and fair election was a colossally bad day for the nation.

Our country has never seen anything like it and we all better hope we don't see anything like it ever again.

---

You have to be kidding me right???

You really are a freaking MARXIST nut job aren't you?

How many countries have been overthrown with selfie-sticks, flag poles and pocket books?

There were law breakers there and idiots there. There was NEVER an attempt to overthrow the government.

Dummies like yourself that believe that BS are the main reason this country is in the decline that it is.

But rest easy.... you really got the Big Bad Orange Man this time!!!

Nice pic Civ... It's going to be easy to identify you if you ever decide to meet for lunch...

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

This too. The left is led by absolute lunatics now.

---

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were acts of war from external enemies for motives unrelated to our democratic institution.

"Attack on democracy" connotes an attack from within whose intent is to overthrow or dramatically change our system of governance.

It's not some maladjusted stance to think that the sitting President attempting to deny and circumvent the results of a free and fair election was a colossally bad day for the nation.

Our country has never seen anything like it and we all better hope we don't see anything like it ever again.

---

You have to be kidding me right???

You really are a freaking MARXIST nut job aren't you?

How many countries have been overthrown with selfie-sticks, flag poles and pocket books?

There were law breakers there and idiots there. There was NEVER an attempt to overthrow the government.

Dummies like yourself that believe that BS are the main reason this country is in the decline that it is.

But rest easy.... you really got the Big Bad Orange Man this time!!!

---

Unfortunately, he's not kidding. Most following along with and believers of this ideology aren't Marxists........they're "useful idiots". "Useful idiots" are precisely what the name connotates.....useful idiots of the Marxists. The Marxists are those that end up with the totalitarian power.......and the "useful idiots" then become serfs. Unfortunately, the discerning populace also ends up as serfs too.

America's Useful Idiots | CNSNews

Civ, I wish you would truly debate the actions on that day. Nothing you believe is factual; rather, it's a made up narrative you have fallen for…

I think it's clear most on here realize people acted extremely poor on January 6th. That said, who actually were these people? The Twitter gate saga should make you question the narrative thats espoused by the MSM!

So, these 51 intelligence officers that sold the country, and perhaps you, on a narrative about Russia Collusion…. Well, that is as treasonous as anything we've seen…. That was about bringing down the elected President! What do "you" want to call that?

Georgia Supreme Court reversal

https://www.georgiarecord.com/

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

This too. The left is led by absolute lunatics now.

---

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were acts of war from external enemies for motives unrelated to our democratic institution.

"Attack on democracy" connotes an attack from within whose intent is to overthrow or dramatically change our system of governance.

It's not some maladjusted stance to think that the sitting President attempting to deny and circumvent the results of a free and fair election was a colossally bad day for the nation.

Our country has never seen anything like it and we all better hope we don't see anything like it ever again.

---

I gotta call BS on the "our country has never seen anything like this before" bit

We've had the following

• 4 Presidents assassinated: Lincoln (1865), Garfield (Shot 7/2/1881 and died on 9/19/2881 after being shot twice), McKinley (Shot 9/6/1901 and died on 9/14/1901 after being shot twice), Kennedy (1963)
• 2 Presidents have been shot and wounded: Theodore Roosevelt (1912), and Ronald Reagan (1981)
• 15 Presidents have had assassination attempts against them: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump
• 1915 Bombing in the Capital Senate Reception Room with dynamite by a Harvard professor
• 1954 shooting inside of the House of Representatives in which 5 congressmen were injured
• 1971 bombing in the Capital Building by the Weather Underground
• 1983 bombing inside the Senate wing of the Capitol by the Armed Resistance Unit
• 1890 shooting of a congressman
• 1998 shooting of two capital police officers
• 2017 shooting and attempted shooting of several republican congressmen at a baseball field

You can't say that a small group of folks who did something stupid is tantamount to any of the above items.

As far as the "attack of democracy" by challenging the election....Would you say that all of the democrats in positions of power who challenged the election in 2016 and forward when Trump won didn't do the same thing? I would argue that its all the same thing in my book.

---

Cary and others seem to think I'm worried about Davy Crockett animal pelt-wearing loons defecating on desks in the Capital. While the mob that Trump incited behaved illegally and were completely out of bounds, that's not my main concern.

Cowboy keeps rattling off all these crimes that rando loons committed that impacted our nation negatively and completely misses the point, too.

A sitting President tried to remain in office after he lost an election. The guy y'all put in the big boy's chair tried to make himself a king.

Do y'all think that didn't happen?

Or do y'all just think that's not a huge, never-before-seen problem for our nation?

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

I could get down on some lunch though. Pam's Farmhouse maybe?

Civilized said:

---

I could get down on some lunch though. Pam's Farmhouse maybe?

---

We can switch it up; however, was thinking we could make Amedeo's our base lunch place...

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

This too. The left is led by absolute lunatics now.

---

9/11 and Pearl Harbor were acts of war from external enemies for motives unrelated to our democratic institution.

"Attack on democracy" connotes an attack from within whose intent is to overthrow or dramatically change our system of governance.

It's not some maladjusted stance to think that the sitting President attempting to deny and circumvent the results of a free and fair election was a colossally bad day for the nation.

Our country has never seen anything like it and we all better hope we don't see anything like it ever again.

---

I gotta call BS on the "our country has never seen anything like this before" bit

We've had the following

• 4 Presidents assassinated: Lincoln (1865), Garfield (Shot 7/2/1881 and died on 9/19/2881 after being shot twice), McKinley (Shot 9/6/1901 and died on 9/14/1901 after being shot twice), Kennedy (1963)
• 2 Presidents have been shot and wounded: Theodore Roosevelt (1912), and Ronald Reagan (1981)
• 15 Presidents have had assassination attempts against them: Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William Howard Taft, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H W Bush, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump
• 1915 Bombing in the Capital Senate Reception Room with dynamite by a Harvard professor
• 1954 shooting inside of the House of Representatives in which 5 congressmen were injured
• 1971 bombing in the Capital Building by the Weather Underground
• 1983 bombing inside the Senate wing of the Capitol by the Armed Resistance Unit
• 1890 shooting of a congressman
• 1998 shooting of two capital police officers
• 2017 shooting and attempted shooting of several republican congressmen at a baseball field

You can't say that a small group of folks who did something stupid is tantamount to any of the above items.

As far as the "attack of democracy" by challenging the election....Would you say that all of the democrats in positions of power who challenged the election in 2016 and forward when Trump won didn't do the same thing? I would argue that its all the same thing in my book.

---

Cary and others seem to think I'm worried about Davy Crockett animal pelt-wearing loons defecating on desks in the Capital. While the mob that Trump incited behaved illegally and were completely out of bounds, that's not my main concern.

Cowboy keeps rattling off all these crimes that rando loons committed that impacted our nation negatively and completely misses the point, too.

A sitting President tried to remain in office after he lost an election. The guy y'all put in the big boy's chair tried to make himself a king.

Do y'all think that didn't happen?

Or do y'all just think that's not a huge, never-before-seen problem for our nation?

---

nEvER FoUR GeTt!!1

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Lol, it's the media's fault, don't you know.
Could not possibly have been Trumps vitriolic speech to an already angry crowd. The media caused it. Or was it the FBI?

We should just start listening to Cary's sources. They have a great track record "I know for certain this election is going to be overturned" and "Trump won in a landslide ". Lol, lol.

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

To all of you Biden followers. pic.twitter.com/3xhgYsdLZG

— Rod (@Rodneygene) December 21, 2022

Yeah but Groomer Civ and the rest of his loyal followers who have their heads up their ass most of the time will say it's a "conspiracy" theory... until of course it comes out in the next year or so to be true.

Then they will ignore the facts and move onto whatever the current flavor of the day being perpetrated by the MSM and the MARXIST PARTY.

The entire crowd is dumb as a box of rocks...

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Oh... since you said it isn't true then by all means it isn't true.....

As far as you know? LOL.. you have shown you are nothing but a race baiting partisan hack like the rest of your groomer squad.

Where is YOUR evidence that the calls didn't happen? You are quick to ask for "facts" that you can't prove don't exist but you got your ass handed to you a few times when you tried to argue the FBI/GOV website facts about blacks, gun violence and how they overwhelmingly are responsible.

You ran away from that one didn't you comrade? Just like the spineless liberal you are when you are presented with facts you run and hide and wait for another "gotcha" moment that you think you can spring on Conservatives.

Well here you go.. I'm sure you will discredit them because they aren't from your MSM overlords. You know the ones you slurp up like gravy and cling to every iota of information they put out because you are too lazy to actually research information yourself...typical of your type....

FOIA laws do not apply to Congress. But.. that doesn't mean that the calls didn't take place and that it didn't happen. The articles you are referring to DO NOT say the calls didn't happen. They say that the FOIA would not be how they found out about them.

Typical lefty logic... you take a portion of the truth and spin it to your BS narrative. Again, the laziness in you is obvious.

https://www.sgtreport.com/2022/07/breaking-freedom-of-information-act-requests-show-a-dozen-phone-calls-between-the-cell-phone-of-ray-epps-and-the-office-of-speaker-pelosi-in-the-week-before-january6th/


Why was Epps such a prominent figure in the Ice Cream Queen's documentary??? Care to answer that one Race Baiter???


https://launchliberty.com/whoops-cnn-shows-ray-epps-footage-shot-by-nancy-pelosis-daughter-in-jan-6-propaganda-segment/

I'm sure you will run, hide and cry some sort of -ism after this. I also find it very interesting that you have failed to comment on your party's grooming of children.................telling.

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Manny,

I'm still "NOT" arguing the veracity of this report BBW is posting; so, don't piss on my following comments. Why are members of congress, not eligible for FOIA request?

They represent the people! They are not above the law; unless, they write the law a certain way (which is a problem).

So, instead of linking an article about FOIA; shouldn't you be asking why they are exempt?

This has nothing to do with Nancy and Epps; rather, its a call out regarding the law...

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Oh... since you said it isn't true then by all means it isn't true.....

As far as you know? LOL.. you have shown you are nothing but a race baiting partisan hack like the rest of your groomer squad.

Where is YOUR evidence that the calls didn't happen? You are quick to ask for "facts" that you can't prove don't exist but you got your ass handed to you a few times when you tried to argue the FBI/GOV website facts about blacks, gun violence and how they overwhelmingly are responsible.

You ran away from that one didn't you comrade? Just like the spineless liberal you are when you are presented with facts you run and hide and wait for another "gotcha" moment that you think you can spring on Conservatives.

Well here you go.. I'm sure you will discredit them because they aren't from your MSM overlords. You know the ones you slurp up like gravy and cling to every iota of information they put out because you are too lazy to actually research information yourself...typical of your type....

FOIA laws do not apply to Congress. But.. that doesn't mean that the calls didn't take place and that it didn't happen. The articles you are referring to DO NOT say the calls didn't happen. They say that the FOIA would not be how they found out about them.

Typical lefty logic... you take a portion of the truth and spin it to your BS narrative. Again, the laziness in you is obvious.

https://www.sgtreport.com/2022/07/breaking-freedom-of-information-act-requests-show-a-dozen-phone-calls-between-the-cell-phone-of-ray-epps-and-the-office-of-speaker-pelosi-in-the-week-before-january6th/


Why was Epps such a prominent figure in the Ice Cream Queen's documentary??? Care to answer that one Race Baiter???


https://launchliberty.com/whoops-cnn-shows-ray-epps-footage-shot-by-nancy-pelosis-daughter-in-jan-6-propaganda-segment/

I'm sure you will run, hide and cry some sort of -ism after this. I also find it very interesting that you have failed to comment on your party's grooming of children.................telling.

---

I'll give you credit for posting a link to something at least apparently on topic, but the "stgreport" post you linked to is just a copy of the tweet. How does that add anything to this discussion?

Someone posted an assertion of fact and I found that it could not be true. In particular, a supposed "FOIA request" could not turn up the phone records asserted. Unless you have some other facts that back it up - and you must not because you or someone else would post them - then the assertion is still false.

(I'm still not going to chase down whatever other rabbit holes you want to throw out.)

And I haven't seen substantial proof that the calls did or did NOT happen.

Manny and the rest of the Groom Squad hit and run on comments and refuse to support their claims.

He said it "didn't happen" because he read it "didn't happen."

But what we do have is evidence, confirmed evidence, of Epps leading rioters, not protestors, toward the Capitol and leading them to the barricades and instructing them to "tear them down."

He however, is living comfortably on a ranch in Texas with zero investigations ongoing against him.

Manny has once again proven he hasn't got the testicular fortitude of a gnat and is nothing more than a liberal lackey.

Maybe he's too busy researching how to get drag queen shows in town for Christmas to entertain children since that what his party supports these days. And like a good little minion whatever his party tells him to do, think or say he will goose step right in line with it.

Oh.. and don't forget... white people are raaayyyyyyccccceeeeesssssttttt....freaking clown.

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Manny,

I'm still "NOT" arguing the veracity of this report BBW is posting; so, don't piss on my following comments. Why are members of congress, not eligible for FOIA request?

They represent the people! They are not above the law; unless, they write the law a certain way (which is a problem).

So, instead of linking an article about FOIA; shouldn't you be asking why they are exempt?

This has nothing to do with Nancy and Epps; rather, its a call out regarding the law...

---

Cary,

I don't know why individual members of congress are exempt, ecept that they wrote the law and tend to exempt themselves idividually from laws they write. I'm not suggesting that they should be exempt, but the fact is that they are exempt, and that means that the FOIA request asserted in that tweet could not be true. Whether that individual exemption is good or bad public policy, the fact it exists disproves the tweet.

To be clear, congress, as a body, their action, and their records - again, as a body - are subject to FOIA.

BBW12OG said:

---

And I haven't seen substantial proof that the calls did or did NOT happen.

---

So, just out of curiosity, what would qualify as "substantial proof that the calls did not happen"?

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Manny,

I'm still "NOT" arguing the veracity of this report BBW is posting; so, don't piss on my following comments. Why are members of congress, not eligible for FOIA request?

They represent the people! They are not above the law; unless, they write the law a certain way (which is a problem).

So, instead of linking an article about FOIA; shouldn't you be asking why they are exempt?

This has nothing to do with Nancy and Epps; rather, its a call out regarding the law...

---

Cary,

I don't know why individual members of congress are exempt, ecept that they wrote the law and tend to exempt themselves idividually from laws they write. I'm not suggesting that they should be exempt, but the fact is that they are exempt, and that means that the FOIA request asserted in that tweet could not be true. Whether that individual exemption is good or bad public policy, the fact it exists disproves the tweet.

To be clear, congress, as a body, their action, and their records - again, as a body - are subject to FOIA.

---

Manny,

Your post is eloquent, no doubt; however, I'm not sure you said anything, other than to regurgitate what's already been said.

I am interested in your opinion of whether they should be exempt. If you and I agree, then, isn't it on us to make change in our representation and/or go to congress and fight for a just law?

I would think it would bog down every representative and their staff with FOIA requests, which may be a good or bad thing, depending on how pessimistic you feel about your representatives

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

And I haven't seen substantial proof that the calls did or did NOT happen.

---

So, just out of curiosity, what would qualify as "substantial proof that the calls did not happen"

---

Exactly. You don't know anymore than the rest of us.

You just slurp up what your MSM overlords say and tell you happened. You have ZERO credible evidence, proof etc.. that the calls didn't happen.

Here's what we DO have:

• Ray Epps seen several times on Jan 6th inciting the crowd to violence
• Ray Epps seen several times during the course of the day on a cell phone which we ALL know his phone records would be easily traceable
• Ray Epps seen encouraging rioters to "march to the Capitol and ""we are going in.""
• Ray Epps seen telling rioters to tear down the barricades
• Ray Epps seen on the Pelosi documentary numerous times throughout it's entirety
• Ray Epps seen on his huge ranch in Texas avoiding all questions from Conservative Media outlets

What we haven't seen:

• Any MSM organization acknowledge his existance
• Any FBI/DOJ/CIA investigation into a man that was seen numerous times on camera inciting violence, destruction and for rioters to "breach the walls of the Capitol."
• Any public comments from the Ice Cream Queen about him when she has been asked other than "it's all right wing nonsense."

If you are as concerned as you posture to be about the January 6th riot you should want to know. But as a card toting MARXIST it doesn't fit your anti-Trump/anti-America agenda does it?

It makes sense with the evidence at hand that he had a role to play along with the police officer that let the rioters in and led them into the Capitol.

And with the Twitter Files release you are treading water and the tide is coming in. Any lawyer worth his weight in salt would demand Epps to take the stand and answer questions about the phone calls. But, with the media, FBI, DOJ and CIA all in bed with your MARXIST PARTY we will never know the actual truth.

Sadly if you have two working brain cells you know that's the truth.

hokiewolf said:

---

I would think it would bog down every representative and their staff with FOIA requests, which may be a good or bad thing, depending on how pessimistic you feel about your representatives

---

Very pessimistic!

BBW12OG said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

And I haven't seen substantial proof that the calls did or did NOT happen.

---

So, just out of curiosity, what would qualify as "substantial proof that the calls did not happen"

---

Exactly. You don't know anymore than the rest of us.

You just slurp up what your MSM overlords say and tell you happened. You have ZERO credible evidence, proof etc.. that the calls didn't happen.

Here's what we DO have:

• Ray Epps seen several times on Jan 6th inciting the crowd to violence
• Ray Epps seen several times during the course of the day on a cell phone which we ALL know his phone records would be easily traceable
• Ray Epps seen encouraging rioters to "march to the Capitol and ""we are going in.""
• Ray Epps seen telling rioters to tear down the barricades
• Ray Epps seen on the Pelosi documentary numerous times throughout it's entirety
• Ray Epps seen on his huge ranch in Texas avoiding all questions from Conservative Media outlets

What we haven't seen:

• Any MSM organization acknowledge his existance
• Any FBI/DOJ/CIA investigation into a man that was seen numerous times on camera inciting violence, destruction and for rioters to "breach the walls of the Capitol."
• Any public comments from the Ice Cream Queen about him when she has been asked other than "it's all right wing nonsense."

If you are as concerned as you posture to be about the January 6th riot you should want to know. But as a card toting MARXIST it doesn't fit your anti-Trump/anti-America agenda does it?

It makes sense with the evidence at hand that he had a role to play along with the police officer that let the rioters in and led them into the Capitol.

And with the Twitter Files release you are treading water and the tide is coming in. Any lawyer worth his weight in salt would demand Epps to take the stand and answer questions about the phone calls. But, with the media, FBI, DOJ and CIA all in bed with your MARXIST PARTY we will never know the actual truth.

Sadly if you have two working brain cells you know that's the truth.

---

I saw a guy that resembles Ray Epps inciting a charge (directing via bullhorn) of the Capitol from 100+ yards away at a portable fence. The full length of the portable fence (being respected by the crowd on the Supreme Court side) was pulled back and out of the way by the CAPITOL POLICE to allow people to race towards the Capitol.

Trump had not even finished his speech at the Ellipse which is more than 1 mile from the Capitol bldg itself.

Some of you here have no clue what you're talking about. Just parrot what the MSM tells you. Not a bone of discernment in your bodies. Sheep

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

Manny Sanguine said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Civilized said:

---

How did Trump "see" things in real time that no one else has seen in the last two years?

Trump started claiming the election was going to be fraudulent months in advance. He wasn't seeing anything. He was trying to build a case amongst his worshipers to cry foul just in case he lost.

Respectfully Cary, Trump didn't see *****

---

Why don't you and the rest of your MARXISTS groomer squad address this?? Can't face the facts when it puts your party in a bad light can you?

pic.twitter.com/gusWLJiLeA

— Coffee Anytime (@coffee_anytime) December 21, 2022

---

If this is true, then that could explain the whole Ray Epps saga…

---

But it isn't true. Or, at least, there isn't any evidence that it is true, and it goes against the rules for FOIA requests.

This assertion apparently first appeared in a tweet back in July and has been debunked many times. (I'm happy to follow up with links, but I don't think you really care.)

The fact is that FOIA requests do not apply to individual members of congerss. Nor, obviously, would FOIA apply to the phone records of private individuals. (I cannot make a FOIA request for your phone records, for example.) So, how would a supposed "FOIA request" turn up evidence of cell phone calls between a member of congress and a private individual?

As far as I know, no details of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents that would have come from such requests have ever been specified. Why? Because the the supposed "FOIA requests" and the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls don't actually exist.

On the other hand, if you have any other facts that support the assertion in this tweet, please share. A copy of the supposed "FOIA requests" or the documents produced in response showing the supposedly damning records of cell phone calls would be perfect.

---

Manny,

I'm still "NOT" arguing the veracity of this report BBW is posting; so, don't piss on my following comments. Why are members of congress, not eligible for FOIA request?

They represent the people! They are not above the law; unless, they write the law a certain way (which is a problem).

So, instead of linking an article about FOIA; shouldn't you be asking why they are exempt?

This has nothing to do with Nancy and Epps; rather, its a call out regarding the law...

---

Cary,

I don't know why individual members of congress are exempt, ecept that they wrote the law and tend to exempt themselves idividually from laws they write. I'm not suggesting that they should be exempt, but the fact is that they are exempt, and that means that the FOIA request asserted in that tweet could not be true. Whether that individual exemption is good or bad public policy, the fact it exists disproves the tweet.

To be clear, congress, as a body, their action, and their records - again, as a body - are subject to FOIA.

---

Manny,

Your post is eloquent, no doubt; however, I'm not sure you said anything, other than to regurgitate what's already been said.

I am interested in your opinion of whether they should be exempt. If you and I agree, then, isn't it on us to make change in our representation and/or go to congress and fight for a just law?

---

Cary,

I'll start by backtracking on the last part of what I posted: Congress is not subjecto FOIA at all - as a whole or indivisually. Sorry, I skimmed something and conflated it with something else. All the more reason that there couldn't be a FOIA request for Pelosi's phone records.

As for why congress is exempt, the best explanations, I think are:

• They tend to exempt themselves
• For expediency, FOIA was originally an amendment to the Administrative Procedures Act, which only applies to administrative agencies, not to congress

Overall, I think because of the adversarial nature of congress (especially today) and the amount of hearings, testimony, debate, floor speeches about anything a member wants to say (not to mention the right to "revise and extend" the congressional record), there isn't much of substance that gets hidden that couldn't still be hidden under FOIA. I agree that it would be prefereable for congress to be subject to FOIA, but I doubt we would learn much if it were.

I'm sure this would be an interesting deep dive with someone knowledgable about FOIA and congress, but I'll have to leave it there.