January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[Peter Brown]

The discussion was about why democrats / media keep him in "their" news cycle, which is what we were commenting on. Not sure I could be any clearer that I am done with him.

How about you provide some insight on why you believe the d party and 90% of the news media that impeached the man 2x, still wants to discuss him? Marketing 101....any press is good press; “Advertising is what you pay for, publicity is what you pray for,” says the popular business proverb. And it’s true! Publicity can be positively priceless.

As I mentioned, your side and the media is keeping this man relevant. In an era where where everything is us vs them, the more you shi*t on the other party, the more they fight back. Change the narrative. My goodness, the man is not even allowed on social media and yet, the left is doing his bidding for him.....AGAIN!

youth, is Fox "done with him"?
OAN, NewsMax?
Seems to me we can critique mainstream and left leaning media when right wing media fully and thoroughly repudiates Trump, and he's deemed "irrelevant" by them going forward.

Same re Dems...
Heck, the RNC, McCarthy, the GOP caucus...they're doubling down on Trump.

McConnell's trying to not have to directly repudiate him...providing cover.

But back to the thread topic, what do 41 million Americans think happened in the election? Who won? Oh yeah, that guy you're "done with". Was Jan 6 just a tourist visit? Or a First Amendment protest? Or was it a violent insurrection fomented by the then sitting POTUS (oh yeah, that guy).

As a Republican, I sure as heck wish the GOP was fully done with him, but it's not.

As to Petey's "love America"...no, a whole bunch of R's clearly don't love America, or at least don't love an America that actualizes its democratic ideals. Starting with DJT. And, like Petey, they actually despise the majority of fellow Americans.

I’d love to know who I ‘despise’?!

My only bigotry is obesity (sorry folks), and Antifa (that should be true for all of you).

And not basic middle age beer bellies, but the morbidly obese in America who clearly have zero control.

Outside that, I have nothing but love for most Americans even the ones who vote D. My mindset is everyone can teach me things I don’t know. Doesn’t matter who you voted for.

[old salt]

Gonna need OS, complicit armchair attorney and flak for MAGA, to rescue here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... itol-riot/

The court papers obtained by The Washington Post detail Klein’s alleged conduct throughout the siege of the Capitol, tracing his apparent movements and actions from using a police shield to try to pry a door open, to calling for reinforcements from the crowd...

Robertson was not charged with doing anything that serious or violent on Jan 6th, yet still a felony obstruction charge.

There's no reporting that Robertson confronted or assaulted police or engaged in violence.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/ex ... wn-better/
The D.C. Circuit recently remarked that ‘those who actually assaulted police officers and broke through windows, doors, and barricades, and those who aided, conspired with, planned, or coordinated such actions, are in a different category of dangerousness than those who cheered on the violence or entered the Capitol after others cleared the way,’”...quoting from the Munchel decision.

Not saying that Roberston should skate, just looking for consistency in charging, as AG Garland has called for.

The Feds offered them both a plea deal Friday - the details of the deal were not made public. They have until August 11 to accept or decline the deal. Robertson remains in custody in solitary confinement at a Federal lockup.

https://roanoke.com/news/local/crime-an ... d5546.html

https://www.wdbj7.com/2021/07/30/plea-d ... ol-attack/

This piece may shed some light on why the obstruction charge was added based upon additional FBI evidence submitted to the U.S. Attorney after the initial charges were filed.

https://wset.com/news/local/fbi-release ... s?src=link

Yes -- that additional evidence accounts for the increased severity of the charges. Thank You.

[MDlaxfan76]

The discussion was about why democrats / media keep him in "their" news cycle, which is what we were commenting on. Not sure I could be any clearer that I am done with him.

How about you provide some insight on why you believe the d party and 90% of the news media that impeached the man 2x, still wants to discuss him? Marketing 101....any press is good press; “Advertising is what you pay for, publicity is what you pray for,” says the popular business proverb. And it’s true! Publicity can be positively priceless.

As I mentioned, your side and the media is keeping this man relevant. In an era where where everything is us vs them, the more you shi*t on the other party, the more they fight back. Change the narrative. My goodness, the man is not even allowed on social media and yet, the left is doing his bidding for him.....AGAIN!

youth, is Fox "done with him"?
OAN, NewsMax?
Seems to me we can critique mainstream and left leaning media when right wing media fully and thoroughly repudiates Trump, and he's deemed "irrelevant" by them going forward.

Same re Dems...
Heck, the RNC, McCarthy, the GOP caucus...they're doubling down on Trump.

McConnell's trying to not have to directly repudiate him...providing cover.

But back to the thread topic, what do 41 million Americans think happened in the election? Who won? Oh yeah, that guy you're "done with". Was Jan 6 just a tourist visit? Or a First Amendment protest? Or was it a violent insurrection fomented by the then sitting POTUS (oh yeah, that guy).

As a Republican, I sure as heck wish the GOP was fully done with him, but it's not.

As to Petey's "love America"...no, a whole bunch of R's clearly don't love America, or at least don't love an America that actualizes its democratic ideals. Starting with DJT. And, like Petey, they actually despise the majority of fellow Americans.

I’d love to know who I ‘despise’?!

My only bigotry is obesity (sorry folks), and Antifa (that should be true for all of you).

And not basic middle age beer bellies, but the morbidly obese in America who clearly have zero control.

Outside that, I have nothing but love for most Americans even the ones who vote D. My mindset is everyone can teach me things I don’t know. Doesn’t matter who you voted for.

uh huh, you'd vote for Trump...who we know is as as about as low a human being as we could imagine as POTUS...over ANY Democrat...

I just don't buy that you don't despise these folks, Petey.
Don't consider them 'real Americans"...

[old salt]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

[seacoaster]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

[Peter Brown]

The discussion was about why democrats / media keep him in "their" news cycle, which is what we were commenting on. Not sure I could be any clearer that I am done with him.

How about you provide some insight on why you believe the d party and 90% of the news media that impeached the man 2x, still wants to discuss him? Marketing 101....any press is good press; “Advertising is what you pay for, publicity is what you pray for,” says the popular business proverb. And it’s true! Publicity can be positively priceless.

As I mentioned, your side and the media is keeping this man relevant. In an era where where everything is us vs them, the more you shi*t on the other party, the more they fight back. Change the narrative. My goodness, the man is not even allowed on social media and yet, the left is doing his bidding for him.....AGAIN!

youth, is Fox "done with him"?
OAN, NewsMax?
Seems to me we can critique mainstream and left leaning media when right wing media fully and thoroughly repudiates Trump, and he's deemed "irrelevant" by them going forward.

Same re Dems...
Heck, the RNC, McCarthy, the GOP caucus...they're doubling down on Trump.

McConnell's trying to not have to directly repudiate him...providing cover.

But back to the thread topic, what do 41 million Americans think happened in the election? Who won? Oh yeah, that guy you're "done with". Was Jan 6 just a tourist visit? Or a First Amendment protest? Or was it a violent insurrection fomented by the then sitting POTUS (oh yeah, that guy).

As a Republican, I sure as heck wish the GOP was fully done with him, but it's not.

As to Petey's "love America"...no, a whole bunch of R's clearly don't love America, or at least don't love an America that actualizes its democratic ideals. Starting with DJT. And, like Petey, they actually despise the majority of fellow Americans.

I’d love to know who I ‘despise’?!

My only bigotry is obesity (sorry folks), and Antifa (that should be true for all of you).

And not basic middle age beer bellies, but the morbidly obese in America who clearly have zero control.

Outside that, I have nothing but love for most Americans even the ones who vote D. My mindset is everyone can teach me things I don’t know. Doesn’t matter who you voted for.

uh huh, you'd vote for Trump...who we know is as as about as low a human being as we could imagine as POTUS...over ANY Democrat...

I just don't buy that you don't despise these folks, Petey.
Don't consider them 'real Americans"...

Lost Americans. They’re desperate for leadership. All they’ve ever been told in life is they need the government and the government will help. Both are false.

Doesn’t make them less American. Just not bright enough to see through the lies they hear every day from dishonest leftist politicians.

Now, so far as antifa types and dishonest leftist politicians, no, I don’t consider them Americans. I prefer to see them as traitors.

[old salt]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

[MDlaxfan76]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

When you're planning to declare martial law, you need the troops ready...

[old salt]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

When you're planning to declare martial law, you need the troops ready...

...& the troops were demonstrably not ready anytime after the Mem Day/early June deployment to the DC riots,
...thus no plans to declare martial law.

Now you & Congress want Trump to answer for why he didn't have thousands of troops in position to flood the streets of DC on the day he planned a massive rally & mob action to take control of the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of power. THAT's what a coup would have looked like.

You (& the critics) apparently seem to think Trump should have mobilized the DC NG & brought in NG troops from other states before for his rally, after the DC Mayor & CPB declined DoD's numerous urgings & standing offer.

[MDlaxfan76]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

When you're planning to declare martial law, you need the troops ready...

...& the troops were demonstrably not ready anytime after the Mem Day/early June deployment to the DC riots,
...thus no plans to declare martial law.

Now you & Congress want Trump to answer for why he didn't have thousands of troops in position to flood the streets of DC on the day he planned a massive rally & mob action to take control of the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of power. THAT's what a coup would have looked like.

You (& the critics) apparently seem to think Trump should have mobilized the DC NG & brought in NG troops from other states before for his rally, after the DC Mayor & CPB declined DoD's numerous urgings & standing offer.

Nope, you're still clinging to the notion that they should have been "ready" for the martial law declaration...not me.

They came slowly because the orders to go didn't come quickly.
And you don't want to know why that was.

[old salt]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

When you're planning to declare martial law, you need the troops ready...

...& the troops were demonstrably not ready anytime after the Mem Day/early June deployment to the DC riots,
...thus no plans to declare martial law.

Now you & Congress want Trump to answer for why he didn't have thousands of troops in position to flood the streets of DC on the day he planned a massive rally & mob action to take control of the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of power. THAT's what a coup would have looked like.

You (& the critics) apparently seem to think Trump should have mobilized the DC NG & brought in NG troops from other states before for his rally, after the DC Mayor & CPB declined DoD's numerous urgings & standing offer.

Nope, you're still clinging to the notion that they should have been "ready" for the martial law declaration...not me.

They came slowly because the orders to go didn't come quickly.
And you don't want to know why that was.

That's bogus. The request came too late to matter. There's no way the NG could have mobilized & arrived in time to matter, without advance tasking & preparation. As Gen Milley pointed out -- the NG are not first responders. Additional Fed, state & local police & Fed agents, arriving as reinforcements, cleared & secured the Capitol. After they finally mobilized & arrived, the NG guarded the lamp posts of DC for 3 mos & Congress has yet to fund that deployment, forcing the Guard to curtail training & drill periods for the rest of FY21.

I'm very interested in the tick-tock which lead to the total security failure of Jan 6th, rather than focusing soley on the frantic request for NG troops which came too late to matter. Maybe Cheney or Kinzinger will ask about that.

Quoting Gen Milley :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
Military response was sprint speed.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5413 ... super-fast
U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the military response to the deadly rioting by former President Trump's supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 “super fast” in his first public comments since the siege.
Milley on Monday stood by the military’s actions before and during the breach of the Capitol, saying officials acted in a “sprint speed,” The Washington Post reported.
He told reporters traveling with him in Colorado that Pentagon leaders approved requests for help in about an hour, and the D.C. National Guard members took several hours to be fully deployed.
This is the D.C. National Guard that went from a cold start, and they had troops there in two and a half, three hours. They reacted faster than our most elite forces from a cold start,” Milley told reporters, according to the Post.
“For the Pentagon, that’s super fast. That’s like sprint speed,” he said.
Current and former police officials, including those from Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, have chastised the Pentagon for what they said was a delayed response as their officers were being overtaken on the ground.
But the chairman noted that he could see why the Pentagon’s reaction would be perceived as slowed by those responding in real time to the raid.
“If you were down there and you’re in the Capitol being attacked, an hour is a lifetime. So I can clearly understand their feelings that that was a very slow response,” he said, according to the Post. “But from a technical military standpoint, from the receipt of the phone call, to alerting National Guard forces from a cold start, to them being on the scene, was very fast.”
“I think it’s a bit of a mischaracterization or a misunderstanding of response times for the military,” he added.

[youthathletics]

Damned shame: https://apple.news/AC_WxAjTEQHihMRt4t1G88Q

[MDlaxfan76]

I tend to believe SecDef's Esper & Miller & Gen Milley

Parking this here for future ref when it comes up again :
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... ps-jan-6-/
According to a Jan. 22 Vanity Fair article, Christopher Miller, then the acting defense secretary, said he met with Trump the night before the attack about a matter unrelated to Trump’s rally the next day. But then Trump asked Miller how many troops the Pentagon planned to deploy the next day in D.C., according to Miller’s account.

There is no clear evidence that Trump made a request for 10,000 National Guard troops, but based on what Miller told the magazine, it appears Trump wondered aloud about what was planned:

The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking nonsense. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God."

A Defense Department spokesman said the department "has no record of such an order being given" by Trump.

"He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said."

Miller's comments are suggestive that the then-President knew that there was an excellent -- perhaps even certain -- chance that there would be significant civil unrest. Couple this with his comments -- and Brooks's and DJT, Jr.'s and Giuliani's -- and you have a pretty good armchair understanding that the purpose of the Ellipse rally was to move people in that direction, and obstruct the certification vote and the business of the Congress on January 6.

The Ellipse rally appears, then, to have had a single purpose (apart from the ever-present Trump Family Grift): to encourage unrest. Trump and allies had reached the the end of the line of legitimate inquiries and obstacles to Biden's election as the President. All the recounts failed; all the audits failed to show any problems; all the court cases were deemed insufficient by the very courts he peppered with so-called supporters over the prior four years, and are now being exposed as completely sham litigation. No effort was made to explain the problematic down ballot success of the GOP in Congress on the same ballot as the Presidential race. So the rally was nothing more or less than the unlawful Hail Mary from an administration that turned to criminal incitement to overturn an election. How this doesn't disqualify the people involved from elected office is genuinely beyond me. But I actually like democracy.

More relevant -- this is what SecDef said on Jan 4th -- ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000...". ....& Trump did not tell him not to respond to any requests.

Blame Trump for scheduling the rally & inciting the crowd, but no evidence (yet) to blame him for the failure to protect & defend the Capitol building & grounds.

Leave the rest to him kind of guy….

When you're planning to declare martial law, you need the troops ready...

...& the troops were demonstrably not ready anytime after the Mem Day/early June deployment to the DC riots,
...thus no plans to declare martial law.

Now you & Congress want Trump to answer for why he didn't have thousands of troops in position to flood the streets of DC on the day he planned a massive rally & mob action to take control of the Capitol to disrupt the transfer of power. THAT's what a coup would have looked like.

You (& the critics) apparently seem to think Trump should have mobilized the DC NG & brought in NG troops from other states before for his rally, after the DC Mayor & CPB declined DoD's numerous urgings & standing offer.

Nope, you're still clinging to the notion that they should have been "ready" for the martial law declaration...not me.

They came slowly because the orders to go didn't come quickly.
And you don't want to know why that was.

That's bogus. The request came too late to matter. There's no way the NG could have mobilized & arrived in time to matter, without advance tasking & preparation. As Gen Milley pointed out -- the NG are not first responders. Additional Fed, state & local police & Fed agents, arriving as reinforcements, cleared & secured the Capitol. After they finally mobilized & arrived, the NG guarded the lamp posts of DC for 3 mos & Congress has yet to fund that deployment, forcing the Guard to curtail training & drill periods for the rest of FY21.

I'm very interested in the tick-tock which lead to the total security failure of Jan 6th, rather than focusing soley on the frantic request for NG troops which came too late to matter. Maybe Cheney or Kinzinger will ask about that.

Quoting Gen Milley :
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html
Military response was sprint speed.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5413 ... super-fast
U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called the military response to the deadly rioting by former President Trump's supporters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 “super fast” in his first public comments since the siege.
Milley on Monday stood by the military’s actions before and during the breach of the Capitol, saying officials acted in a “sprint speed,” The Washington Post reported.
He told reporters traveling with him in Colorado that Pentagon leaders approved requests for help in about an hour, and the D.C. National Guard members took several hours to be fully deployed.
This is the D.C. National Guard that went from a cold start, and they had troops there in two and a half, three hours. They reacted faster than our most elite forces from a cold start,” Milley told reporters, according to the Post.
“For the Pentagon, that’s super fast. That’s like sprint speed,” he said.
Current and former police officials, including those from Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, have chastised the Pentagon for what they said was a delayed response as their officers were being overtaken on the ground.
But the chairman noted that he could see why the Pentagon’s reaction would be perceived as slowed by those responding in real time to the raid.
“If you were down there and you’re in the Capitol being attacked, an hour is a lifetime. So I can clearly understand their feelings that that was a very slow response,” he said, according to the Post. “But from a technical military standpoint, from the receipt of the phone call, to alerting National Guard forces from a cold start, to them being on the scene, was very fast.”
“I think it’s a bit of a mischaracterization or a misunderstanding of response times for the military,” he added.

I'm fine with a full tick tock analysis revealing whatever may be. Let's have the full investigation.

The issue, IMO, is less about the military slow walking as it was the failure of the POTUS to make ANY call.

[old salt]

The issue, IMO, is less about the military slow walking as it was the failure of the POTUS to make ANY call.

Then stop b!tchin' about a supposedly delayed response.
You're p.o.'d because Trump failed to forsee what might transpire, just like everyone else who was in a position to prevent it, in advance.

With no NG troops standing by, Trump had no immediately available forces to deploy. He probably expected (like everyone else in a position to do something) that the Capitol Police, backed up by the DC Metro Police, could defend the Capitol building, if needed.

For the Mem Day BLM protests, Trump had received stubborn pushback from Esper & Milley on the deployment of NG & active duty troops, which is why he'd turned to AG Barr to muster & deploy all those Fed police forces. He'd taken so much heat for the "optics" of that "overly militaristic response" that he could not do it again. Then you'd have accused him of positioning forces to intimidate Congress, to stage a coup & to the block the certification of the election.

On Mem Day, the WH & Laf Park were his responsibility to defend from the statue rioters, staging from now BLM Plaza.
On Jan 6, he'd have had to overrule Congress (the CPB) & the DC Mayor to prepare, then deploy, more forces than they had requested.

That's why I maintain that it was envisioned to be a large scale show of support for Trump by his supporters, to propel the narrative that he was cheated & to fuel his 2024 campaign to win back the Presidency.

Like many big decisions, Trump grossly miscalculated. His crowd of supporters devolved into an angry mob which stormed a negligently undefended Capitol building.

Had Trump not scheduled the rally, then fired up the crowd, OR had the Capitol been competently defended, the supposed "insurrection" would not have taken place.

[MDlaxfan76]

The issue, IMO, is less about the military slow walking as it was the failure of the POTUS to make ANY call.

Then stop b!tchin' about a supposedly delayed response.
You're p.o.'d because Trump failed to forsee what might transpire, just like everyone else who was in a position to prevent it, in advance.

With no NG troops standing by, Trump had no immediately available forces to deploy. He probably expected (like everyone else in a position to do something) that the Capitol Police, backed up by the DC Metro Police, could defend the Capitol building, if needed.

For the Mem Day BLM protests, Trump had received stubborn pushback from Esper & Milley on the deployment of NG & active duty troops, which is why he'd turned to AG Barr to muster & deploy all those Fed police forces. He'd taken so much heat for the "optics" of that "overly militaristic response" that he could not do it again. Then you'd have accused him of positioning forces to intimidate Congress, to stage a coup & to the block the certification of the election.

On Mem Day, the WH & Laf Park were his responsibility to defend from the statue rioters, staging from now BLM Plaza.
On Jan 6, he'd have had to overrule Congress (the CPB) & the DC Mayor to prepare, then deploy, more forces than they had requested.

That's why I maintain that it was envisioned to be a large scale show of support for Trump by his supporters, to propel the narrative that he was cheated & to fuel his 2024 campaign to win back the Presidency.

Like many big decisions, Trump grossly miscalculated. His crowd of supporters devolved into an angry mob which stormed a negligently undefended Capitol building.

Had Trump not scheduled the rally, then fired up the crowd, OR had the Capitol been competently defended, the supposed "insurrection" would not have taken place.

BS last sentence. "competently defended" (by your definition) would have meant extraordinary measures of fencing and deployment, unlike ANY time in our history, for ANY other event. (I'm critical of the lack of imagination of those involved, given that there certainly were those like me who thought there was an extreme risk, though I didn't expect a direct assault on the Capitol. I expected some sort of explosion, violence between counter protestors and protestors, and the declaration of martial law. But big risk.)

No, Trump simply didn't send the NG. Never gave the order.
His purview in DC (else give it to the Mayor).

Instead, he reportedly was gleeful at the violence, didn't respond in shock or horror, but rather glee. Others kept prevailing upon him to call off his dogs, the insurrectionists, but he refused. Instead, he tweeted to his followers another insult at Mike Pence, at the very time that Pence was under direct physical threat.

I don't know that the someone in the military chain of command wasn't complicit in slow walking, but I sure as heck hope not. And I currently expect not. But it really does need to be investigated to be sure. I'd like to see them fully cleared of any complicity if that's correct.

Indeed, I want to see a full investigation and analysis and public airing of the actual tick tock of what went on that day, and the period leading up to it, who knew what and when, who communicated to who and when, who took what actions and when.

Don't get the sense you want any of that.

Nope, you want to claim that somehow Pelosi (not McConnell) and the Mayor were the problem.

4 suicides, very likely in response to the trauma experienced that day, the violence and the epithets, being called 'traitors'... and the subsequent lack of support... and your say "competently defended".

[Brooklyn]

Damned shame: https://apple.news/AC_WxAjTEQHihMRt4t1G88Q

Remember a few years ago when right wingers said Obama created a "war on cops"?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ ... JpdVV5U9A7 IKBPRk6Ow17UNg80LEuHWB4SU


I wonder what these geniuses are thinking now since they suddenly became so silent.

[youthathletics]

Damned shame: https://apple.news/AC_WxAjTEQHihMRt4t1G88Q

Remember a few years ago when right wingers said Obama created a "war on cops"?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ ... JpdVV5U9A7 IKBPRk6Ow17UNg80LEuHWB4SU


I wonder what these geniuses are thinking now since they suddenly became so silent.

Your logic is very poor, no wonder you are so far left...the center did not even want you.

[Brooklyn]

Damned shame: https://apple.news/AC_WxAjTEQHihMRt4t1G88Q

Remember a few years ago when right wingers said Obama created a "war on cops"?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ ... JpdVV5U9A7 IKBPRk6Ow17UNg80LEuHWB4SU


I wonder what these geniuses are thinking now since they suddenly became so silent.

Your logic is very poor, no wonder you are so far left...the center did not even want you.

Funny how all of a sudden, to you right wingers the cops are now the enemies.

[youthathletics]

Damned shame: https://apple.news/AC_WxAjTEQHihMRt4t1G88Q

Remember a few years ago when right wingers said Obama created a "war on cops"?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ ... JpdVV5U9A7 IKBPRk6Ow17UNg80LEuHWB4SU


I wonder what these geniuses are thinking now since they suddenly became so silent.

Your logic is very poor, no wonder you are so far left...the center did not even want you.

Funny how all of a sudden, to you right wingers the cops are now the enemies.

What the heck are you talking about. Nothing I said or posted implied that, quite the opposite.