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

[PizzaSnake]

That won't happen, a fan, in ten years with a history the troops will have a record to go on and won't consider themselves lab rats.

And the next pandemic? Wait another ten?

You chose to join the military, you have chosen to circumscribe your rights.

Is this news to anyone? Seems pretty straightforward. And yes, the NG is part of the military. Period.

[a fan]

That won't happen, a fan, in ten years with a history the troops will have a record to go on and won't consider themselves lab rats.

And the next pandemic? Wait another ten?

You chose to join the military, you have chosen to circumscribe your rights.

Is this news to anyone? Seems pretty straightforward.

I had NO idea that American conservatives would be telling me that our military personnel don't have to take vaccines if they don't want to.

Here we are. I certainly learned my lesson. Color me wrong. I'll know for next time.

[DMac]

That won't happen, a fan, in ten years with a history the troops will have a record to go on and won't consider themselves lab rats.

And the next pandemic? Wait another ten?

You chose to join the military, you have chosen to circumscribe your rights.

Is this news to anyone? Seems pretty straightforward. And yes, the NG is part of the military. Period.

Right. Circumscribe...restrict (something) within limits.
Same people claiming follow orders no questions asked would be screaming about when a soldier followed orders to kill civilians/children. Kent State, anyone?
Yes, the NG is part of the military, period. Part of the part time military who serve maybe forty days a year. It's a side gig and treated as such by most. If needed they're one step ahead of John civilian in military readiness, and most of them would drop the gig in heartbeat if push came to shove. Not the same in many respects.

If you're referring to me as a conservative, a fan, I think you're off the mark.

[a fan]

That won't happen, a fan, in ten years with a history the troops will have a record to go on and won't consider themselves lab rats.

And the next pandemic? Wait another ten?

You chose to join the military, you have chosen to circumscribe your rights.

Is this news to anyone? Seems pretty straightforward. And yes, the NG is part of the military. Period.

Right. Circumscribe...restrict (something) within limits.
Same people claiming follow orders no questions asked would be screaming about when a soldier followed orders to kill civilians/children. Kent State, anyone?
Yes, the NG is part of the military, period. Part of the part time military who serve maybe forty days a year. It's a side gig and treated as such by most. If needed they're one step ahead of John civilian in military readiness, and most of them would drop the gig in heartbeat if push came to shove. Not the same in many respects.

If you're referring to me as a conservative, a fan, I think you're off the mark.

No....i kept your quote to make PizzaSnake's post make sense.

Apologies if that was implied....

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... en-budget/

We can downsize and save on benefits if these guys don’t want to comply.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammitt ... ation/amp/

Paradigm shift (antiquated term).

https://themilitarywallet.com/join-mili ... ownsizing/

That sounds great in theory. The problem comes when a mission arises and there ain't enough soldiers to effectively complete the mission. Then whatta do?

We're at 98% of active duty that have been vaccinated.

Pretty sure we'll get to over 90% of Guard as well, but time will tell.

IDK what the rate is for NG soldiers that serve in critical MOS. I understand the situation is different for regular Army and NG. I honestly don't know where the line of demarcation is for RA and NG/AR units.

“Critical” MOS? Ouch. If every MOS isn’t critical why do we staff them?

If you don't have enough combat engineers you have a problem. The same is true for medical people. Your smart guy, you understand what I'm saying. It becomes an issue when a NG unit is called up and is too short handed to be effective.

[seacoaster]

Back to January 6:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/20/us/p ... erral.html

"When the House formed a special committee this summer to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol assault, its stated goal was to compile the most authoritative account of what occurred and make recommendations to ensure it never happens again.

But as investigators sifted through troves of documents, metadata and interview transcripts, they started considering whether the inquiry could yield something potentially more consequential: evidence of criminal conduct by President Donald J. Trump or others that they could send to the Justice Department urging an investigation.

That move — known as sending a criminal referral — has no legal weight, as Congress has little ability to tell the Justice Department what investigations it should undertake. But it could have a substantial political impact by increasing public pressure on Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who in his first year in office has largely sidestepped questions about what prosecutors are doing to examine the conduct of Mr. Trump and his aides as they promoted baseless allegations of voter fraud.

The questions of criminality go far beyond the contempt of Congress referrals that the House has sent to the Justice Department for Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon, and his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, for their refusal to cooperate with the investigation. (Federal law requires prosecutors to bring contempt of Congress charges before a grand jury upon receiving such a referral.)

According to people briefed on their efforts, investigators for the committee are looking into whether a range of crimes were committed, including two in particular: whether there was wire fraud by Republicans who raised millions of dollars off assertions that the election was stolen, despite knowing the claims were not true; and whether Mr. Trump and his allies obstructed Congress by trying to stop the certification of electoral votes.

It is not clear what, if any, new evidence the committee has that might support a criminal referral, when and how it will determine whether to pursue that option and whether the committee could produce a case strong enough to hold up against inevitable accusations that it acted in a partisan manner.

Behind the scenes, the committee’s day-to-day work is being carried out by a team of 40 investigators and staff members, including former federal prosecutors. The panel has obtained more than 30,000 records and interviewed more than 300 witnesses, including about a dozen last week whom committee members say provided “key” testimony.

In recent weeks, the committee has publicly signaled its interest in the question of criminality. Shortly after obtaining from Mr. Meadows 9,000 pages of documents — including text messages and a PowerPoint presentation — the panel’s top Republican, Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, read from the criminal code at a televised hearing.

She suggested that Mr. Trump, by failing to stop the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, might have violated the federal law that prohibits obstructing an official proceeding before Congress.

“We know hours passed with no action by the president to defend the Congress of the United States from an assault while we were trying to count electoral votes,” Ms. Cheney said, adding: “Did Donald Trump, through action or inaction, corruptly seek to obstruct or impede Congress’s official proceeding to count electoral votes?”

The question is one of the most significant to emerge in the first six months of the investigation.

The panel has nine House members — including two Republicans — and is modeling itself on the commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The committee plans to produce the authoritative report about Jan. 6.

It plans to hold televised hearings early next year to lay out for the public how the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” movement helped lead to the Capitol riot. And it ultimately may propose changes to federal laws, toughening statutes to rein in a president’s conduct and overhauling the Electoral Count Act, which Mr. Trump and his allies sought to exploit in his attempt to cling to power.

One of the challenges the committee faces is that so much has been reported about Mr. Trump’s efforts to hold onto power and the attacks themselves. So far, the numerous disclosures about the role of Mr. Trump, his aides and others who promoted the baseless idea that the election had been stolen from him have had little impact on his Republican support in Congress.

But a credible criminal referral could provide the committee an opportunity to underscore the gravity of what happened while potentially subjecting Mr. Trump and others to intensified legal scrutiny.

Although congressional investigators have no powers to charge a crime, their ability to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify allows them to reveal new details about events. At times, that process leads to witnesses disclosing potential criminality about themselves or others.

When that occurs, Congress can make a criminal referral to the Justice Department — often in the form of a public letter — that can increase pressure on the department to open investigations. Sometimes members of Congress, amid partisan squabbling, overstate the evidence of criminality and make referrals to the Justice Department that are ignored because they appear political.

Congressional investigations also create problems for witnesses because it is against the law to make false or misleading statements to Congress. The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, indicted Roger J. Stone Jr. in 2019 for lying to congressional investigators examining Russia’s interference in the 2016 election and for obstructing that inquiry. Mr. Stone was ultimately convicted and then pardoned by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Stone appeared before the Jan. 6 committee on Friday to face questions about his role in the “Stop the Steal” movement. But rather than answer questions, he repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination because he said he feared that Democrats would again accuse him of lying under oath.

At a hearing this month, Ms. Cheney suggested that the committee could subpoena Mr. Trump to answer questions and that criminal penalties would hang over his head if he lied.

“Any communication Mr. Trump has with this committee will be under oath,” she said. “And if he persists in lying then, he will be accountable under the laws of this great nation and subject to criminal penalties for every false word he speaks.”

Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and a member of the committee, said it was “certainly possible” that the panel would make criminal referrals before the investigation concluded.

“Most of the criminal referrals that I’m aware of, judging from experience in the Russian and Ukrainian investigations, were perjury-related or witness intimidation-related,” he said. “But it’s not unprecedented for Congress to make referrals when we are aware of evidence that people engage in other criminal activity. I wouldn’t exclude that possibility.”

One option being examined by the committee, as Ms. Cheney revealed, is whether there is evidence to make a referral of Mr. Trump or others based on an obscure obstruction charge that federal prosecutors have been using to pursue rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6: the disruption of Congress’s duty to certify the final stage of a presidential election.

That charge, which has been used in lieu of more overtly political counts like sedition or insurrection, has been brought against more than 200 rioters.

As part of their effort to weigh whether the charge would be warranted, the committee is trying to glean what it can about what Mr. Trump was saying behind closed doors about what he believed from those who were working with him in the months after Election Day last year, the people briefed on the inquiry said.

The committee is also examining whether there is enough evidence to make a wire fraud referral over how Mr. Trump’s campaign and the Republican Party raised $255.4 million from donors as he and his allies fund-raised off the false claim that the election had been stolen.

The line of inquiry has already created questions about whether people associated with the campaign have criminal exposure and created tension between witnesses and investigators. In November, the committee subpoenaed the chairman of Mr. Trump’s campaign, Bill Stepien, to testify. Along with the subpoena, the committee sent Mr. Stepien a letter raising the possibility that he was aware that the campaign was raising money by making false claims about election fraud.

“As manager of the Trump 2020 re-election campaign, you oversaw all aspects of the campaign,” the letter said. “You then supervised the conversion of the Trump presidential campaign to an effort focused on ‘Stop the Steal’ messaging and related fund-raising. That messaging included the promotion of certain false claims related to voting machines despite an internal campaign memo in which campaign staff determined that such claims were false.”

The letter led Mr. Stepien to push back on the committee, claiming that it had unfairly tainted him. His lawyer, Kevin Marino, said in response to questions that the committee’s chairman, Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, “has expressly advised us that it was never the select committee’s intent to directly or indirectly suggest that Bill Stepien was involved in criminal activity.”

Mr. Marino said that Mr. Thompson “has since informed us that Mr. Stepien was subpoenaed not because the committee has any evidence that he did anything wrong, but based solely on his status as the head of the” campaign. The committee, Mr. Marino said, has since withdrawn its subpoena for Mr. Stepien to testify.

The committee is also looking at Sidney Powell, one of the lead lawyers in Mr. Trump’s attempts to overturn the election, who leads an organization that raked in money as she and Mr. Trump spread the lie of widespread election fraud. Her organization, Defending The Republic, raised $14.9 million between December 2020 and July. Ms. Powell’s group has more than $9.3 million in funds on hand, according to an independent audit filed with Florida, which investigated the organization and alleged multiple violations of state law.

So far, Mr. Garland has avoided making substantive public statements about the issue. In a House hearing in October, he declined to answer questions about whether the Justice Department was investigating Mr. Trump and his allies for their role in the Capitol attack.

The Justice Department’s prosecutions stemming from its vast investigation of Jan. 6 — an inquiry that has resulted in slightly more than 700 arrests — have so far concentrated almost exclusively on those who were on the ground at the Capitol that day, breaching barricades, breaking windows or fighting with the police.

The department appears to be building its cases from the ground up, starting with those it can accuse of definable crimes and looking for potential links to others. But it remains unclear whether prosecutors are trying to build cases against people further up the political hierarchy or connecting the attack to Mr. Trump and the aides and supporters who worked with him to overturn the results."

[tech37]

But I will say there's some truly ridiculously dumb stuff getting spouted on the School Closings thread, so Salty's has some time stiff competition. But yeah, "lab rats" is pretty darn dumb. Which is disappointing, because Salty himself ain't dumb.

Where did that School Closings thread go? You must have been meddling with moderators once again Unbelievable.

I guess you realized you were the poster who hijacked the thread and caused it to go off rails

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... en-budget/

We can downsize and save on benefits if these guys don’t want to comply.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/vikrammitt ... ation/amp/

Paradigm shift (antiquated term).

https://themilitarywallet.com/join-mili ... ownsizing/

That sounds great in theory. The problem comes when a mission arises and there ain't enough soldiers to effectively complete the mission. Then whatta do?

We're at 98% of active duty that have been vaccinated.

Pretty sure we'll get to over 90% of Guard as well, but time will tell.

IDK what the rate is for NG soldiers that serve in critical MOS. I understand the situation is different for regular Army and NG. I honestly don't know where the line of demarcation is for RA and NG/AR units.

understood...I'm simply saying that while your general point that we may actually need these folks is fair, it's pretty darn clear that active duty folks aren't having much difficulty deciding to follow orders. They're ready...And over 60% of Guard don't seem to have an issue either...and I suspect that if there weren't these other folks trying to stir them up politically, the proportion of vaxxed would be similar to active duty military.

I was active duty RA and i never had any problems following orders. i said before when my unit deployed to Panama in 1980, we lined up for all kinds of vaccines to protect us from whatever illness might be lurking over there. Getting vaccinated was never an option for us and nobody refused. It gets a little more complicated for members of the NG. They are called citizen/soldiers for a reason. One weekend a month they do training drills as soldiers. The rest of the month they work their normal jobs. Are you a soldier when you are training or are you a soldier still when your driving a forklift at your day job? I don't know the answer. My belief would be if you are ordered by your chain of command to be vaccinated, then you should be vaccinated. It is not then about about individual rights but what is good for your unit and your fellow soldiers. If your sick and can't deploy, well someone else has to do your job.

[jhu72]

Court decides insurrection or normal tourist question. Insurrection it is!

[MDlaxfan76]

But I will say there's some truly ridiculously dumb stuff getting spouted on the School Closings thread, so Salty's has some time stiff competition. But yeah, "lab rats" is pretty darn dumb. Which is disappointing, because Salty himself ain't dumb.

Where did that School Closings thread go? You must have been meddling with moderators once again Unbelievable.

I guess you realized you were the poster who hijacked the thread and caused it to go off rails

Nope, we had some total nut jobs posting diatribes rife with political statements and clear medical misinformation...not me. My only contributions were predictions that the schools would likely figure out with a bit more data on omnicron that having super high % of vaccinated students and staff PLUS boosters would address the issue such that they could keep schools open and sports playing. Require booster. My hope is that's what will happen with schools. On topic.

But yes, a post I made on that thread suggesting that it no longer belonged in the Lacrosse area of the forum may well have resulted in that thread's removal. I had suggested moving to the Politics area, though as I also suggested, it had become primarily a thread full of "Putinesque misinformation solely for the purpose of inflaming" so should be considered "trolling" under the forum's definition.

Looks like Admin agreed.

[Kismet]

Admin moved the school closings thread to the General Chatter forum and explained the rationale

[tech37]

Admin moved the school closings thread to the General Chatter forum and explained the rationale

Thanks Kismet. I did check Hamsterdam but not GC.

[MDlaxfan76]

Admin moved the school closings thread to the General Chatter forum and explained the rationale

Thanks Kismet. I did check Hamsterdam but not GC.

+1
Hadn't looked there either.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentag ... 021-12-21/

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentag ... 021-12-21/

Tiptoeing.

But important.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentag ... 021-12-21/

Tiptoeing.

But important.

This is the crazy part:

“avoided weighing in on specific scenarios, like a soldier's view of the legitimacy of Biden as president.” Some soldiers may not see him as CinC. That’s Banana Republic territory….wait until “AOC” is elected POTUS in 20 years.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentag ... 021-12-21/

Tiptoeing.

But important.

This is the crazy part:

“avoided weighing in on specific scenarios, like a soldier's view of the legitimacy of Biden as president.” Some soldiers may not see him as CinC. That’s Banana Republic territory….wait until “AOC” is elected POTUS in 20 years.

It's indeed very, very dangerous...as the generals in the WAPO article this weekend addressed.

conservative Republican...General...https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/202 ... of-vpx.cnn

[RedFromMI]

Crisis of Command: The Pentagon, The President, and January 6

[url]https://www.justsecurity.org/79623 ... january-6/[/url]

by Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix

First part of article (my bolding):

One of the most vexing questions about Jan. 6 is why the National Guard took more than three hours to arrive at the Capitol after D.C. authorities and Capitol Police called for immediate assistance. The Pentagon’s restraint in allowing the Guard to get to the Capitol was not simply a reflection of officials’ misgivings about the deployment of military force during the summer 2020 protests, nor was it simply a concern about “optics” of having military personnel at the Capitol. Instead, evidence is mounting that the most senior defense officials did not want to send troops to the Capitol because they harbored concerns that President Donald Trump might utilize the forces’ presence in an attempt to hold onto power.

According to a report released last month, Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of the Defense on Jan. 6, told the Department’s inspector general that he feared “if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.” In congressional testimony, he said he was also cognizant of “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner” and that “factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification.”

Miller does not specify who held the fears that Trump would invoke the Insurrection Act, and he wasn’t asked by Congress. However, it’s now clear that such concerns were shared by General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as former CIA Director and at the time Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Before Nov. 3, Milley and Pompeo confided in one another that they had a persistent worry Trump would try to use the military in an attempt to hold onto power if he lost the election, the Washington Post’s Carol Leonnig and Philip Rucker reported. “This military’s not going to be used,” Milley assured Pompeo.

After Trump issued a Dec. 19, 2020 call to action to his supporters to come to DC to protest the certification of the electoral college vote on Jan. 6 (“Be there, will be wild!”), “Milley told his staff that he believed Trump was stoking unrest, possibly in hopes of an excuse to invoke the Insurrection Act and call out the military,” and that he sought to stay ahead of any effort by the President to use the military in a bid to stay in office, Leonnig and Rucker write.

Milley, according to multiple reports, “feared it was Trump’s ‘Reichstag moment,’ in which, like Adolf Hitler in 1933, he would manufacture a crisis in order to swoop in and rescue the nation from it.”

The top officials’ fears were warranted: Donald Trump, his close aides and a segment of Republican political figures had openly discussed the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act or using the military to prevent the transfer of power on the basis of false claims that the election was “stolen.” But the Pentagon’s actions with respect to the National Guard suggest a scenario in which, on the basis of such concerns, a potentially profound crisis of command may have played out on Jan. 6.

Close observers of the events of Jan. 6 have mainly posited two reasons for the delay in mobilizing the Guard. The first explanation is one of bureaucratic failures or managerial weaknesses in the military’s procedures that day. A second explanation is that the military was deliberately serving Trump’s effort to interfere with the election by withholding assistance.

We identify a third explanation: that senior military officials constrained the mobilization and deployment of the National Guard to avoid injecting federal troops that could have been re-missioned by the President to advance his attempt to hold onto power.

With respect to planning for Jan. 6, the publicly available evidence to date very strongly suggests that the senior defense officials’ concerns led them to impose unprecedented constraints on the authorizations and substantive conditions for use of the Guard – Miller admitted as much. Those constraints help explain the substantial delay in sending a first group of Guardsmen to the Capitol. What’s more, the evidence also indicates that the same concerns potentially explain why the Pentagon did not approve deployment of the National Guard in sufficient time – and, indeed, authorized the deployment only after President Trump eventually made a public announcement (at 4:17 pm) that he was not in favor of continued occupation of the Capitol.

This third scenario, if true, raises fundamental constitutional questions about the transfer of power:

Under what conditions might the U.S. military try to subvert the will of the President (even if one ethically agrees with the difficult choices the Pentagon made before and on Jan. 6)?
What information did senior officials have concerning President Trump’s potential use of the military to hold onto power and who else did they believe was participating in such a scheme?

In reply to a request for comment, a Defense Department spokesman stated, “The Department has been transparent with regard to the planning and execution timeline for its response to the events of Jan 6,” and pointed to “the complete timeline” published on Jan. 8. “Given that the events leading up to and including the incident at the Capitol are still under investigation by Congress, it is not appropriate for the Department to comment further at this time,” he added.

[cradleandshoot]

But yeah, "lab rats" is pretty darn dumb.

Yeah, it is really outrageous to require a serviceman to step up and take worldwide dose tonumber 9,000,000,001. That's crazy shirt right there!

I mean until we are over 20 years into it and over 1 trillion doses, well you just don't really know...

Thank god people were not this forking stupid back in the 1950s. Because if they were, we'd still be swimming in seas of polio, measles, smallpox, etc. etc. etc.

FYI, the first vax mandate in the USA for servicemen was issued by Gen George Washington in 1777.

When did we become the United States of MAGA Dumb-Fork-istan?

P.S. Even Trump knows enough to get triple vaxed. But Sarah Palin will only take her shot "over her dead body." That's turning the mouth breathing dumb assery up to 11.

“Over her dead body.”

One can only dream…

What a mysygonistic statement. Do you hate and degrade all women or just Sarah Palin? Why are you so angry and full of hate? Why do you hate women? Have you stopped beating your wife finally? Because you probably don't understand sarcasm.. the font is on.

[Kismet]

Where's the reference to the Proud Boys ?
Protect who, from who ? I speculated nothing.
I pointed out one plausible alternative to your speculation.
In the USA report, all the committee weasels said was :
The report doesn't identify the recipient of the message or detail why protection would be needed.
Meadows sent the message the day before Trump spoke at a rally near the Capitol...

And yes, there's emerging evidence that groups like the Proud Boys etc were told that the National Guard would be on their side when it went down. They came prepared for violence.

Link ? Source ? ...plz share this emerging evidence that the National Guard would side with the protesters.

Email from Meadows saying so.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 497829001/

You're right, this is just "emerging" and is certainly incomplete.
Testify Mark. Watcha hidin' '?

But yes, protect the "pro-Trump people"...Bannon and Stone were talking with the Proud Boys, that too is "emerging".
Testify Steve and Roger. Watcha hidin' '?

Again, you keep ignoring that I also said that I very much doubt that the NG were actually 'in on' any such plan to side with the Pro-Trump" protestors.

But I do think that the 'plan' was to have the Proud boys types clash with counter protestors, declare a state of emergency and martial law, call in the NG to enforce, and declare the election for Trump. Heck, there's a powerpoint circulated to that effect. Meadows, Reps and Senators, who else was 'working the plan'?

But that doesn't mean the NG was actually on board with any of that. But would they have followed orders?
I don't buy that Miller is 100% straight, but I doubt he was actually complicit, at least not consciously so...hope that's right.

Except the DoD (aka the Pentagon) was dead set against using the NG for crowd control, from SecDef Miller & Gen Milley on down.
Read the Army report. They questioned using the NG before all police forces were deployed, even as the Capitol was under siege.

Trump was briefed on the pre-planned minimal DC NG deployment by SecDef. Trump questioned it's adequacy. If he was planning martial law. he would have deployed more -- repeating what he did in June -- recall & deploy the entire DC NG, have the Old Guard on alert to deploy from Arlingtion, & preposition the 82nd Airborne right across the river at Ft Belvoir.

THAT is how to enforce martial law & stage an armed insurrection. Trump ordered none of that, but it was well within his powers, had recent precedent, & could have been used as an excuse to protect all of DC & Fed territory, including the Capitol.

Then again, there's this theory about deployment of the NG by DoD and a potential alternative explanation
https://www.justsecurity.org/79623/cris ... january-6/

Crisis of Command: The Pentagon, The President, and January 6
"One of the most vexing questions about Jan. 6 is why the National Guard took more than three hours to arrive at the Capitol after D.C. authorities and Capitol Police called for immediate assistance. The Pentagon’s restraint in allowing the Guard to get to the Capitol was not simply a reflection of officials’ misgivings about the deployment of military force during the summer 2020 protests, nor was it simply a concern about “optics” of having military personnel at the Capitol. Instead, evidence is mounting that the most senior defense officials did not want to send troops to the Capitol because they harbored concerns that President Donald Trump might utilize the forces’ presence in an attempt to hold onto power."

BTW, Congress unanimously passed and Biden signed a new law which empowers "the Chief of the United States Capitol Police to unilaterally request the assistance of the DC National Guard or Federal law enforcement agencies in emergencies without prior approval of the Capitol Police Board."