Washington DC - Der Sturm aufs Capitol

[Rundumblick]

Lulu sagte: 16. Februar 2021 um 08:26



https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/amerik...i-101.html
Hier nochmal der Brief, der der irren Nanci zum Verhängnis wurde und um den die Tröte natürlich einen Bogen macht. Bloß nicht der Wahrheit zu nah kommen. Infektionsgefahr!
? #BREAKING: @RodneyDavis, @Jim_Jordan, @RepJamesComer, @DevinNunes demand answers from Speaker Pelosi on her security decisions surrounding January 6th. pic.twitter.com/k0W8kMJ46N
— House Judiciary GOP (@JudiciaryGOP) February 15, 2021

Kongress der Vereinigten Staaten
An die ehrenwerte Nancy Pelosi
Sprecherin des Repräsentantenhauses
Repräsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
Sehr geehrte Sprecherin Pelosi:
Das amerikanische Volk verdient eine Antwort auf ein paar einfache Fragen bezüglich der Sicherheit des Kapitols am 6. Januar.

• Als der damalige Polizeichef Sund am 4. Januar die Unterstützung der Nationalgarde anforderte, warum wurde diese Anforderung abgelehnt?
  
• Hat Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving am 4. Januar eine Erlaubnis oder Anweisung von Ihrem Stab erhalten, bevor er die Anfrage von Polizeichef Sund an die Nationalgarde ablehnte?
  
• Welche Gespräche und welche Anweisungen haben Sie und Ihre Mitarbeiter dem Sergeant at Arms im Vorfeld des 6. Januar bezüglich der Sicherheitslage auf dem Campus gegeben?
  
• Welche Gespräche haben Sie während des Angriffs auf das Kapitol geführt und welche Antwort haben Sie den Sicherheitsbeamten am 6. Januar gegeben, als Polizeichef Sund die Unterstützung der Nationalgarde anforderte, was Ihre Zustimmung erforderte?
  
• Warum weigern sich Ihre Beamte des Repräsentantenhauses, den Aufforderungen zur Aufbewahrung und Produktion von Materialien, die für die Ereignisse vom 6. Januar relevant sind, nachzukommen?
  

Fünf Wochen sind seit dem Angriff auf das Kapitol am 6. Januar vergangen, und viele wichtige Fragen über Ihre Verantwortung für die Sicherheit des Kapitols bleiben unbeantwortet. Wie Sie wissen, ist die Sprecherin des Repräsentantenhauses nicht nur die Vorsitzende der Mehrheitspartei, sondern hat auch eine enorme institutionelle Verantwortung. Die Sprecherin ist verantwortlich für alle operativen Entscheidungen, die im Haus getroffen werden. Wir haben zwei Jahre lang beobachtet, wie Sie, Ihre Mitarbeiter und ein Heer von ernannten Repräsentanten des Repräsentantenhauses die Abläufe im Repräsentantenhaus mit großer Härte und strenger Kontrolle regeln.
Vollständige Übersetzung gibts hier:
Kongressmitglieder verlangen Antworten von Sprecherin Pelosi auf ihre Sicherheitsentscheidungen rund um 6. Januar (15. Februar. 2021)
https://qlobal-change.blogspot.com/2021/...orten.html

[Rundumblick]

CNN zahlte Sullivan 35.000 Dollar, um “die Schießerei am Capitol Hill” zu filmen. Vor der Schießerei. http://blauerbote.com/2021/02/18/cnn-zah...harbeiten/

[kalter hornung]

(18.02.2021, 10:47)Rundumblick schrieb: CNN zahlte Sullivan 35.000 Dollar, um “die Schießerei am Capitol Hill” zu filmen. Vor der Schießerei. http://blauerbote.com/2021/02/18/cnn-zah...harbeiten/

Ich halte das für sehr wahrscheinlich, daß CNN und Sullivan Vorwissen hatten, aber woraus genau ergibt sich, daß der Exklusiv-Vertrag vor dem Ereignis abgeschlossen und ebenfalls vor dem Ereignis als Titel des Materials "Eyewitness video of the shooting at Capitol Hill 01/06/2021" festgelegt wurde?

[Rundumblick]

(18.02.2021, 12:26)kalter hornung schrieb:

(18.02.2021, 10:47)Rundumblick schrieb: CNN zahlte Sullivan 35.000 Dollar, um “die Schießerei am Capitol Hill” zu filmen. Vor der Schießerei. http://blauerbote.com/2021/02/18/cnn-zah...harbeiten/

Ich halte das für sehr wahrscheinlich, daß CNN und Sullivan Vorwissen hatten, aber woraus genau ergibt sich, daß der Exklusiv-Vertrag vor dem Ereignis abgeschlossen und ebenfalls vor dem Ereignis als Titel des Materials "Eyewitness video of the shooting at Capitol Hill 01/06/2021" festgelegt wurde?

nicht eindeutig!

Spielt das eine große Rolle? Weiß nicht! Vielleicht für CNN und NBC

CNN Paid Leftist Who Stormed The Capitol $35,000, Corporate Media is FUNDING What They Call Terror
https://www.bitchute.com/video/z2-7b2iHCUM/

Soooo....looking through the archive of John Sullivan’s website for his anti-fascist group, Insurgence USA, I found an events calendar page. As it turns out, John Sullivan was not there to ‘record video’ as a ‘citizen journalist.’ He actually planned and organized an event for 11 a.m., January 6th, at the Washington Monument called ‘Kick These Fascists Out Of DC.’ 

This is proof that it was not Trump that planned and/or incited an insurrection, it was John Sullivan through his group Insurgence USA.
After the riot, John Sullivan reported he was there because he knew Trump and the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys were planning to storm the Capitol and dress like ANTIFA and he wanted to record it on video.

Anti-Trump Capitol rioter sold footage for $35K to NBC and CNN: court papers
By Ben Feuerherd
February 17, 2021
Accused Capitol rioter John Sullivan sold video footage he recorded at the Jan. 6 siege to NBC and CNN for $35,000 each, according to new court papers.
The news came as prosecutors on Tuesday tried to ban the Utah provocateur — a self-styled anti-Trump activist who they allege infiltrates protests to cause chaos and record video footage — from accessing social media, according to Politico.
Sullivan maintains that he is a journalist for his website Insurgence USA — and his defense attorney filed invoices for the $35,000 that NBC News and CNN each apparently paid for rights to use the videos.
But the feds allege in a criminal complaint that Sullivan was actively participating in and encouraging the siege.
As throngs of President Donald Trump supporters stormed the building, Sullivan helped one of the rioters scale a wall leading up to an entrance of the Capitol, an affidavit alleges.
John Sullivan maintains that he is a journalist for his website Insurgence USA.
He then entered the Capitol through a window that had been smashed by a rioter.
As he recorded footage inside the building, Sullivan allegedly said, “we gotta get this s—t burned.”
“It’s our house, motherf—kers. We are getting this s–t,” he added.
Still recording, Sullivan moved with the crowd to outside the Speaker’s Lobby, where rioters faced off with police officers who were securing a doorway.
He then captured an officer fatally shoot rioter Ashli Babbitt as she attempted to climb through a broken window that was being guarded by the officers — footage he sold to several news networks.
“On January 6th, CNN was contacted by a reputable agent regarding an eye-witness video from the Capitol Hill riots. The company entered into a one-week agreement for use of 44-seconds of key content, which was attributed to the witness on air. When his role in the event was later called into question, the company informed staff to cease all use of the video,” a CNN spokesperson said.
Sullivan was arrested soon after the riot and indicted by a grand jury last week on six charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding, civil disorder and disorderly conduct.
In a court hearing Tuesday, a magistrate judge in Washington blocked prosecutors’ request that Sullivan be barred from his social media accounts while he awaits trial for the riot, according to Politico.
The judge, however, did order Sullivan to cease work for Insurgence USA, and said he could not use social media to incite riots or violence.
A representative for NBC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

> https://nypost.com/2021/02/17/accused-ca...o-nbc-cnn/

This is the same John Sullivan that was involved in a shooting at a BLM protest last year.

He claimed to be working with a news outlet that time too.

He was at the Seattle riots and other locations.

Caught by police each time for instigating violence.

He's been a clear problem, causing violence everywhere he has been. Only to be released and show up in time for the next false flag. 

Sounds like he’s a state-sponsored agent provocateur?

(Das CNN und ABC Sullivan bereits vor diesen Ereignissen für Videomaterial bezahlt haben soll, geht aus den Dokumenten und Artikeln nicht hervor. Sollte sich das irgendwann bestätigen, dann haben die Sender ein wirkliches Problem)

[kalter hornung]

(18.02.2021, 16:05)Rundumblick schrieb: nicht eindeutig!

Spielt das eine große Rolle? Weiß nicht! Vielleicht für CNN und NBC

[...]

Ein harter Beweis für Vorwissen wäre schon eine interessante Sache. CNN wird das kaum jucken. Sie haben halt die Rechte an Sullivans Filmchen gekauft, ein fast normaler Vorgang. Abgesehen davon schließe ich mich der Vermutung an, daß die Schießerei ein inszenierter Fake war. Aber auch dafür gibts bis jetzt leider keinen wirklich überzeugenden Beweis. Was bei der Relevanz des Vorfalls und dem Potential an enttäuschten Trumpwählern und Pro-Trump-Journalisten erstaunlich ist.

[Rundumblick]

US media reports of the invasion of the Capitol have contributed to the spread of hatred and fear
The invasion of the Capitol on 6 January now stands alongside 9/11 as an act of war against American democracy. Unsurprisingly, news coverage of the incursion has come to resemble war propaganda. All facts, true or false, are pointed in the same direction with the aim of demonising the enemy and anybody who minimises its demonic nature.
The three-hour takeover of the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob is portrayed as a “coup” or an “insurrection” egged on by President Trump. The five who died during the events are seen as evidence of a violent, pre-planned plot to overturn the result of the US presidential election. Film spliced together and shown by prosecutors during the impeachment proceedings gives the impression that what happened resembled a battle scene in Braveheart.
Does it matter what really did occur? Many people feel that anything damaging to Trump and his fascistic followers is all right by them. They may suspect privately that accounts of Trump’s plot against America are exaggerated, but the fabricator of 30,573 falsehoods over the last four years is scarcely in a position to criticise his opponents for departing from the strict truth. They argue that he is an unprecedented threat to American democracy, even as it becomes clear that what actually happened in the Capitol on that day was radically different from the way elements of the media reported it.
But what is reported matters and particularly so when it risks exaggerating violence or deepening fear and a sense of threat. If the US government really was the target of an armed insurrection, then this will be used to justify repression, as it was after 9/11, and not just against right wing conspiracy theorists. By becoming partisan instruments for spreading fake news, the media undermines its own credibility.
A problem with a giant news story like the Capitol invasion is that at first it is over-covered before we know the full facts, and then it is under-covered when those facts begin to emerge. This has been true of US media coverage. But even at the time it seemed to be a very peculiar armed insurrection. Only one shot appears to have been fired and that was by a police officer who killed Trump supporter Ashil Babbitt who was involved in the storming of the Capitol. In a country like the US awash with guns, this absence of gunfire is remarkable.
Five people died during the takeover of the Capitol building and this is the main proof of deadly intent by the rioters. But one of the dead was Babbitt, killed by the police, and three of the others were members of the pro-Trump mob, who died, respectively, from a stroke, a heart attack and from being accidentally crushed by the crowd.
This leaves just one person, Capitol policeman Brian Sicknick, as the sole victim of the Trump supporters who allegedly beat him to death with a fire extinguisher. On 8 January, the New York Times ran two stories about his death, quoting anonymous law officers as describing how pro-Trump rioters had struck him on the head with a fire extinguisher causing “a bloody gash on his head”. He is then reported to have been rushed to hospital, placed on life support but to have died the following day.
This graphic story went around the world and was widely picked up by other news outlets - including The Independent, the BBC and USA Today. It was also separately reported by the Associated Press. It gave credibility to the idea that the pro-Trump mob was willing to kill, even if they only killed one person. It also gave credibility to the idea that vice president Mike Pence, House speaker Nancy Pelosi and senator Mitt Romney had only escaped being lynched by seconds.
Yet over the last seven weeks – without the world paying any attention – the story of the murder of Officer Sicknick has progressively unravelled. Just how this happened is told in fascinating detail by Glenn Greenwald, the investigative journalist and constitutional lawyer, who concludes that “the problem with this story is that it is false in all respects”.
It was always strange that, though every event that took place during the riot was filmed, there is no video of the attack on Sicknick. He texted his brother later that day and sounded as if he was in good spirits. No autopsy report has been released that would confirm his alleged injuries. Conclusively, the New York Times quietly “updated” its original articles about the murder of Sicknick, admitting that new information had emerged that “questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police”.

> https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/cap...04752.html

[Rundumblick]

Senatsanhörung: Geheimdienst-Panne ermöglichte den Kapitol-Einbruch

[Rundumblick]

The Truth Is Coming Out And It Looks Like Capitol Breach Narrative Was Hijacked By Politicians
Members of Congress were evacuated on Jan. 6 because of the pipe bomb that was discovered outside the Republican National Committee headquarters, not the breach of the Capitol, a former police official announced Tuesday.
U.S. Capitol Police discovered the bomb at 12:45 p.m. before the violence began at the Capitol. Shortly after, authorities found another device at the Democratic National Committee headquarters.

[nereus]

Bei Danisch geklaut.

Könnt Ihr Euch noch an die Berichte zu Toten beim Sturm auf das Capitol erinnern?

Eine Frau ist erschossen worden, aber nicht von denen, die gestürmt haben, sondern umgekehrt von Sicherheitskräften, und wie man auf einem Video sah, ohne Not und meines Erachtens unberechtigt, denn es bestand keine Bedrohung oder Gefahr.
Dann war von drei Toten die Rede, die aber irgendwie außerhalb des Capitols an Herzinfarkt und sowas gestorben sind.

Bleibt nur der tote Polizist, dem mit einem Feuerlöscher von Trump-Anhängern der Schädel eingeschlagen wurde. Daraus wollte man ja die Amtsenthebung Trumps machen.

Nun sagt die Mutter dieses Polizisten, dass ihr Sohn nicht an einem Feuerlöscher, sondern an einem Schlaganfall gestorben sei, und es mit dem Sturm aufs Capitol genaugenommen eigentlich gar nichts zu tun hat.
Also, genau weiß man es nicht, sie nehmen an, dass es ein Schlaganfall war. Aber ein Feuerlöscher sei es nicht gewesen. Weil er schlicht nicht von irgendwas am Kopf getroffen worden war.
..
Das heißt, dass die Story, dass er mit einem Feuerlöscher auf den Schädel geschlagen, dann eilig ins Krankenhaus gebracht und dort für tot erklärt worden sei, von der New York Times und Nancy Pelosi frei erfunden worden war.
Unsere Medien lutschten zur Trump-Hetze die Nachrichten rauf und runter. Aber dass sie nicht stimmt, wurde nie erwähnt.

Quelle: https://www.danisch.de/blog/2021/03/01/p...-zu-trump/

Doch warum soll der 42-Jährige einen Schlaganfall bekommen haben?
Hat das Versprühen von Reizgas zu diesem Problem geführt?

Unconfirmed reports suggest that investigators are now considering an adverse reaction to the bear spray with which rioters sprayed cops as a potential factor.
A research paper into the health hazards of capsaicin, the active ingredient in both pepper and bear spray, uncovered by DailyMail.com and published by the University of North Carolina, found that one potentially lethal side effect of inhalation was, ‘acute hypertension (similar to ammonia inhalation), which in turn can cause headache and increase the risk of stroke.’
But pepper spray – used by both cops and rioters - has a higher percentage of this active ingredient than bear spray, rioters reported seeing cops sprayed with their own pepper spray amid the confusion and Sicknick told his brother he had been sprayed twice by pepper spray.

Quelle: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...troke.html

Das bedeutet, daß es eine potenziell tödliche Nebenwirkung der Inhalation gewesen sein könnte, die den Schlaganfall – soweit das überhaupt stimmt – verursacht hat.
Auch ein weiterer Toter (Benjamin Phillips) soll einen Schlaganfall erlitten haben.
Wurde der etwa auch besprüht?

Doch wen interessiert das jetzt noch? 

mfG
nereus