Proof the January 6th made for TV event is a joke

originally posted by: network dude
I know, you don't need any proof other than that which we have all seen. But I did listen to the event yesterday, and everyone was frantically calling for support from someone, anyone. They wanted the guard, the police, anybody to come to their rescue.

Well, days before, when Trump was planning his speech and rally, he was also concerned about violence. His reasoning is irrelevent, he asked for troops for protection.

www.reuters.com...

May 12 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.

Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.

not only did he want them:

According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.

Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."

At that point, Trump thought that he had put in place the protection necessary. Why wasn't the order followed? Who in the chain of command stopped it?

But it doesn’t answer questions around why requests from D.C. officials and House leadership to activate the unit were initially rejected and delayed by the Department of Defense. That comes amid reporting that President Trump was initially unwilling to approve the request.

At a Thursday press conference, Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) referenced the mystery — and Miller’s authority — saying that the acting Secretary of Defense “has to answer for where the National Guard was yesterday.”

talkingpointsmemo.com...

I think it's clear that the January (Shamuary)6th committee has/had an agenda that had nothing to do with finding the truth, and everything to do with trying to find something to pin on Trump.

Once the House is back in the Republican's hands, I sincerely hope that an investigation is done that focuses on the real aspects of that day. Find out what Ray Epps was doing there for real, find out why the guard was not on site as ordered by Trump directly to the secretary of Defense, who is in charge of the guard in DC. Find out who in power pulled strings and made backroom deals to ensure that we had violence that day.

And sadly, this seems like it has to be said, as dipsh!ts seem to have a knack for not understanding reality, The violence that day was horrific and should have never happened. Anyone who used violence that day, should be punished. And those who instigated that violence should be made an example out of, in a very public way. None of the events justify Trump supporters using violence, and Thank God most of them understood that and didn't seem to want to contribute to the mob violence.

Mayor Bowser, Paul Irving and General Michael Flynn all played critical parts in the national kerfuffle. They were the most decisive links in the chain of command.

www.documentcloud.org...

a reply to: network dude

Because 45 was the only one not in the circle. Pelosi called EVERYONE except the President that day and it should have been her first call.

The Mayor declined protection for that day.
Pelosi declined protection for that day.

Look further and you will see the head of he Joint Chiefs of Staff also instructed his people to stand down and not sent information to the POTUS.

It is all treasonous and the true insurrection. The heads of Congress, the military and the mayor allowed this to play out so they could use it. We all know there were provocateurs in the crowd. Anyone who does not watch CNN knows they were at the Capitol preparing before his speech ended. What about the two bombs? You can find a protestor from the portico but you cannot find a person who planted 2 bombs?

This is what 45 said regarding the 1/6 rioting.

I know your pain, I know you're hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don't want anybody hurt.

It's a very tough period of time. There's never been a time like this where such a thing happened where they could take it away from all of us — from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You're very special. You've seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.

If he wanted an insurrection he would have called for it then. The other piece we should all remember is this...Biden said this on 1/6.

“At their best, the words of a president can inspire,” Biden said. “At their worst, they can incite.”

I guess he was not thinking about this when he called half the country domestic terrorists...

Now tell me who is dividing us because it was not 45.

a reply to: network dude

I believe the fbi knew and warned ahead of time. Trump's words have consequences and constantly telling his voters that their vote and voices were stolen instigated the riot on jan 6th.

At best, Trump and his admin failed to address credible threats and showed incompetence.

Trump has blame he should apologize for. I don't fault those who wanted to do something because they felt their country had a fake election and installed Biden under fraudulent circumstances.

This would have never occured if Trump behaved differntly.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: network dude

Did you miss the part where Trump, on January 3, was asking for troops to protect his demonstrators? He wasn't asking for troops to protect Congress FROM his demonstrators. That kind of says which side he was rooting for.

Some of the deleted texts from the Secret Service that managed to be recovered show that Trump was still planning on joining the group at the Capitol after his speech when he returned to the WH. His trip was finally called off at about 2pm. So we definitely know he was actively supporting the group at the Capitol. His WH counsel had already warned him before this that if he went as planned into the Capitol bldg with the group and into the chambers he could face legal charges. He was undeterred by that.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I knew it was fake and poorly done after watching the accidentally fired in the face teargas shot, then laughing guy, Elizabeth from Knoxville rubbing onions on her eyes, saying she's in a revolution and was maced, the police ushering in people and the sketchbag "Ashley" bloodpill chewing scene.

Those facts don't count do they? 😎

If Troops were in DC who ordered them other than The President ?

😎

a reply to: frogs453

Trump could have been tipped off about a Democrat covert plot 😎

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: network dude

Did you miss the part where Trump, on January 3, was asking for troops to protect his demonstrators? He wasn't asking for troops to protect Congress FROM his demonstrators. That kind of says which side he was rooting for.

Some of the deleted texts from the Secret Service that managed to be recovered show that Trump was still planning on joining the group at the Capitol after his speech when he returned to the WH. His trip was finally called off at about 2pm. So we definitely know he was actively supporting the group at the Capitol. His WH counsel had already warned him before this that if he went as planned into the Capitol bldg with the group and into the chambers he could face legal charges. He was undeterred by that.

"obstruction of peaceful transfer" or some such legalese, I assume?

a reply to: frogs453

He wanted to go somewhere so he is actively supporting them? Hahahaha. OK, and then you are also trying to also say he was going to lead them into the Rotunda but was told no?

You all are way too funny and seriously should be looking at the state of the county today and the 1/6 riot did not create it.

5 hours after the insurrection started they were in chambers voting. This was a show.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: 1947boomer
a reply to: network dude

Did you miss the part where Trump, on January 3, was asking for troops to protect his demonstrators? He wasn't asking for troops to protect Congress FROM his demonstrators. That kind of says which side he was rooting for.

Some of the deleted texts from the Secret Service that managed to be recovered show that Trump was still planning on joining the group at the Capitol after his speech when he returned to the WH. His trip was finally called off at about 2pm. So we definitely know he was actively supporting the group at the Capitol. His WH counsel had already warned him before this that if he went as planned into the Capitol bldg with the group and into the chambers he could face legal charges. He was undeterred by that.

"obstruction of peaceful transfer" or some such legalese, I assume?

You would have to ask WH counsel Cipollone. I don't know.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: frogs453

He wanted to go somewhere so he is actively supporting them? Hahahaha. OK, and then you are also trying to also say he was going to lead them into the Rotunda but was told no?

You all are way too funny and seriously should be looking at the state of the county today and the 1/6 riot did not create it.

5 hours after the insurrection started they were in chambers voting. This was a show.

That seems to be the indication, he had planned to invite the protestors and MAGA voters into the capitol building to participate in public debate.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

yes, protect them from themselves. a protest becomes a mob, and national guard are there to make sure it doesn't get out of control. Had they been there protecting the protesters, the mob would never have breached the perimeter, would never have breached congress, and people would not have died. Yes protect the people to make sure they have a right to formally protest and not break the law in the process.

Camain

a reply to: network dude

I fail to see why that matters. If a thousand NG troops were there "to protect Trump voters", they would also be there to protect the Capitol from whomever was trying to breach it.

Precisely. And that is exactly the reasoning behind the scenario I suggested.

One
Trump publicly stated he wanted troops there that day to protect his ''good protesters.''

Two

Trump did NOT put in a command for troops to be marshalled as pointed out in an earlier post

Three, and this is the conjecture, not the result of psychic or remote viewing skills

He put on the face of protector yet did not provide leadership to follow through on providing that.
Why?
Either
because he was talked out of it by his counselors and aids

because he forgot about it

or

he didn't want those troop present to do what they would have done as you suggest, protect the capital because he knew the plan for that afternoon was to storm the capital and disrupt the peaceful transfer of power.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: frogs453
Per the NG themselves:

District of Columbia officials knew of the planned protests and had requested some assistance when the "First Amendment demonstrations" were planned for Jan. 5 and 6, McCarthy said. Based on this request, officials called up 340 National Guardsmen to help. The Guardsmen were assigned mainly to traffic control, Metro crowd control, some logistics support and a 40-member quick reaction force to be based at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

National Guard

And in contrast to over 5000 heavily armed NG and law enforcement including air support in DC for a BLM march, Miller sent a memo to the few NG that were there for the 6th again blocks from the Capitol on traffic duty.

The memo stated:

Without my subsequent, personal authorization, the DCNG is not authorized the following:

To be issued weapons, ammunition, bayonets, batons, or ballistic protection equipment such as helmets and body armor.

To interact physically with protestors, except when necessary in self-defense or defense of others, consistent with the DCNG Rules for the Use of Force.

To employ any riot control agents.
To share equipment with law enforcement agencies.

To use Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets or to conduct ISR or Incident, Awareness, and Assessment activities.

To employ helicopters or any other air assets.

To conduct searches, seizures, arrests, or other similar direct law enforcement activity.

To seek support from any non-DCNG National Guard units.

Miller memo pdf

Yes, Miller did state one thing in Fox news interviews but when under oath with a risk of perjury he stated differently.

Yesterday also contrary to statements the Secret Service made publicly that they were not aware of any specific planned violence, the recovery of deleted texts and emails show they were very aware of violent,specific threats.

OMG -- FACTS

In writing.

🤣🤣🤣
Now you’re an expert on facts after denying every fact for the last 6 years?

a reply to: camain

Hmm not really, the Miller memo I posted did not allow them to interfere with the protesters, only use self defense, not employ any riot measures and not perform any types of arrests or seizures.

In that case, the group was free to break the windows, and doors and enter as they did and following those rules, the NG had their hands tied and wouldn't have been able to stop them. They also had absolutely no protective gear at all, no weapons. They would be doomed in that mob.

originally posted by: camain
a reply to: Sookiechacha

yes, protect them from themselves. a protest becomes a mob, and national guard are there to make sure it doesn't get out of control. Had they been there protecting the protesters, the mob would never have breached the perimeter, would never have breached congress, and people would not have died. Yes protect the people to make sure they have a right to formally protest and not break the law in the process.

Camain

That scene also sends a message to our nation that the capitol is no longer an administrative office serving the republic, but a fortress designed to elevate and isolate our leaders from their communities.

This is NOT the Mud Pit!!!

All rules for POLITE political debate will be enforced.
Members must also Stay on Topic!!!
Go after the ball not the player.

Trolling, And What To Do About It


Reaffirming Our Desire For Productive Political Debate (REVISED)





You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

All I know is that day ruined the last two years of my life.

Nothing else at all. No other thing to be mad at or perplexed about. Pretty sure it was worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor put together.

Edit: if only we could get to the bottom of this thing! I mean c’mon man it’s a HEARING. What do you want? A trial?

originally posted by: slatesteam
All I know is that day ruined the last two years of my life.

Nothing else at all. No other thing to be mad at or perplexed about. Pretty sure it was worse than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor put together.

Worse than 5,000 souls tragically lost to terror attacks? Melodramatic much?