Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said that? I said Biden won but I didn't say there wasn't irregularities. Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao but I never said it wasn't questionable. You really want to continue this?
I want to know why the security in Congress was non-existing and why does Pelosi wants to hide that from the hearing?
I don't think the Executive Branch can send troops to the legislative branch without permission. Division of powers. Is that too much to ask in a real hearing?
Trump controlled the D.C. National Guard as CIC. We’ve been over tat exhaustively in this thread, and you have been a part of the conversation.
Running for President Won’t Save Trump from Jan. 6 Investigation, Justice Department Says
The Justice Department will continue investigating Donald Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 Capitol attack even if he runs for reelection, a department official said Tuesday.
“We’re going to continue to do our job, to follow the facts wherever they go, no matter where they lead, no matter to what level,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, according to a Bloomberg report. “We’re going to continue to investigate what was fundamentally an attack on our democracy.”
Nope...but feel free to keep checking in. When you have the DOJ publicly stating It Won't Save Trump from The Jan 6 investigation even if he is running for election...that's generally not a good sign....but please keep checking in. Thank you.
DOJ wont stop investigation over Jan 6th even if Trump declares he will run. This public release given prior memos means that Garland has signed off on investigating Trump I think.
Well, this kinda is and isn't big news. I feel that we did know already (or common sense should infer) that DOJ was investigating Trump. I mean, they've been sharing materials with the Committee, it's been talked about here and there in HCR's daily letters for instance that, "DOJ requested xyz from the Committee" and so on. We know that DOJ isn't sitting on their hands waiting for their turn to start working. And the hearings have established that all roads lead to Trump, so if they are even half...hell, a quarter...correct about anything, then of course DOJ has to be investigating his involvement and actions.
This statement you share here implies that even if he announces a Presidential run, if they decide to indict him, they're going to indict him. What it does not tell us, is whether they will decide to indict or not. I can see rationale for that one going either way, so we'll just have to wait and see...though that's a phrase that I know I'm sick to death of and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Good to know that they do not consider a campaign announcement to be a shield against possible indictment, though, I guess. It's something.
I would also be curious to know more about the deployment of Capitol Police assets on 1/6, because I concur that from all of the videos we've seen, security does appear strangely thin. They had to know that there was an elevated risk of SOMETHING going down. I wonder if the reason it looks that way, is that instead of guarding the building against the mob, they attached a bunch of them to the congresscritters and personnel as protection during the evac? I mean, they did not, for obvious reasons, release any footage of what the "undisclosed location" looked like and who was there...
But I think I have an idea of why National Guard was not already there providing supplemental security. Why they'd prefer that forces that even LOOKED like "military" would be held off from being summoned for as long as possible. There were tons and tons of rumors that Trump would declare martial law, and that was something that his goobers were really excited about and talking about, they figured that any such forces that showed up would be on their side. So I figure that before the chaos actually broke out, while there was still any kind of a chance of it being a peaceful protest, or at least one that remained outside the building, those who planned the security probably wanted to head off even the appearance of a "martial" (military) presence, out of concern that it could be a catalyst that might escalate things.
Also, the optics would be really bad, of having a transfer of political power going on in a building with what looks like military troops stationed all around facing off against angry citizens. I mean, we see imagery of that kind from third world banana republic type countries, and it would be too easy to turn that into a narrative that the new guy took control of the military and that it was a coup on Biden's part.
So it makes total sense to me why they did not have more National Guard personnel already there in the first place. But I would have thought that Capitol Police would have more people there to provide security. And one day when this is all dusty history, I hope that details about how many Police personnel were positioned where doing what, is part of the record.
I want to know why the security in Congress was non-existing and why does Pelosi wants to hide that from the hearing?
First you people complain that a rioter gets shot leading a mob through a broken window, then you claim security was non-existing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SanJuanStar
I don't think the Executive Branch can send troops to the legislative branch without permission. Division of powers. Is that too much to ask in a real hearing?
Are you not aware? The District of Columbia is not like a state, it's governor can not unilaterally call out the National Guard.
(This was not a case of Executive Branch vs Legislative Branch. All Federal Property would be treated the same. There was some testimony to the possibility of the mob being directed to the Supreme Court after it attacked the Capitol Building. Protecting everything in the district is the job, without regard to 'branch'.)
As a matter of fact, two days before the expected MAGA crowd, the DC National Guard was disarmed by the acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller (recent replacement for Mark Esper, appointed by Trump but not confirmed by the Senate).
“All military commanders normally have immediate response authority to protect property, life, and in my case, federal functions — federal property and life. But in this instance I did not have that authority.”
Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard
Interestingly, according to testimony under oath by Christopher Miller (acting SOD) before the House investigating panel, he was told by Trump personally on January 3 to “do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators”. So on January fourth, he DISARMED THE NATIONAL GUARD. How could he protect the demonstrators with a disarmed National Guard?
In other words, Miller interpreted his instructions to protect the demonstrators as an order to remove protection from the District Of Columbia. This is the stuff movies are made of ...
Last edited by Hesychios; 07-20-2022 at 09:49 AM..
Reason: spelling and grammar
The Secret Service provided only a single text exchange to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol in response to a request seeking a month’s worth of records.
The single text in response to the inspector general’s subpoena from last year has been handed over to the Jan. 6 committee. The lack of messages raised concerns among officials in the Department of Homeland Security, who accused the Secret Service of failing to maintain records crucial for the committee’s investigation.
“The Secret Service submitted the responsive records it identified, namely, a text message conversation from former US Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to former Secret Service Uniformed Division Chief Thomas Sullivan requesting assistance on January 6, 2021, and advised the agency did not have any further records responsive to the DHS OIG’s request for text messages,” Ronald Rowe, assistant director for the Office of Intergovernmental and Legislative Affairs, wrote in a letter to the Jan. 6 committee.
Well, this kinda is and isn't big news. I feel that we did know already (or common sense should infer) that DOJ was investigating Trump. I mean, they've been sharing materials with the Committee, it's been talked about here and there in HCR's daily letters for instance that, "DOJ requested xyz from the Committee" and so on. We know that DOJ isn't sitting on their hands waiting for their turn to start working. And the hearings have established that all roads lead to Trump, so if they are even half...hell, a quarter...correct about anything, then of course DOJ has to be investigating his involvement and actions.
This statement you share here implies that even if he announces a Presidential run, if they decide to indict him, they're going to indict him. What it does not tell us, is whether they will decide to indict or not. I can see rationale for that one going either way, so we'll just have to wait and see...though that's a phrase that I know I'm sick to death of and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Good to know that they do not consider a campaign announcement to be a shield against possible indictment, though, I guess. It's something.
I would also be curious to know more about the deployment of Capitol Police assets on 1/6, because I concur that from all of the videos we've seen, security does appear strangely thin. They had to know that there was an elevated risk of SOMETHING going down. I wonder if the reason it looks that way, is that instead of guarding the building against the mob, they attached a bunch of them to the congresscritters and personnel as protection during the evac? I mean, they did not, for obvious reasons, release any footage of what the "undisclosed location" looked like and who was there...
But I think I have an idea of why National Guard was not already there providing supplemental security. Why they'd prefer that forces that even LOOKED like "military" would be held off from being summoned for as long as possible. There were tons and tons of rumors that Trump would declare martial law, and that was something that his goobers were really excited about and talking about, they figured that any such forces that showed up would be on their side. So I figure that before the chaos actually broke out, while there was still any kind of a chance of it being a peaceful protest, or at least one that remained outside the building, those who planned the security probably wanted to head off even the appearance of a "martial" (military) presence, out of concern that it could be a catalyst that might escalate things.
Also, the optics would be really bad, of having a transfer of political power going on in a building with what looks like military troops stationed all around facing off against angry citizens. I mean, we see imagery of that kind from third world banana republic type countries, and it would be too easy to turn that into a narrative that the new guy took control of the military and that it was a coup on Biden's part.
So it makes total sense to me why they did not have more National Guard personnel already there in the first place. But I would have thought that Capitol Police would have more people there to provide security. And one day when this is all dusty history, I hope that details about how many Police personnel were positioned where doing what, is part of the record.
There are personalities in the Liberal media that are doing what I call "playing the ref" it's a tactic that coaches use in sports to let the referees and umpires know they are paying close attention to the calls they are making.....it's actually quite effective. It prompted the DOJ to make a public statement on the matter and it sent a clear message to Trump that just because you announce your running doesn't mean squat....and I imaging this is giving a sense of relief to GOP operatives that Trump gets this message. The biggest threat to the GOP in the midterms is....Trump announcing he's running.
The next hearing is on Thursday Night Prime Time....which is the Prime Time of the Prime Time...so gauging how these hearings to many have lived up to and exceeded their expectations so far....I imagine they will present some highly pertinent information of what actually transpired. Sworn testimony and depositions under oath are really powerful and difficult to push back on...the only defense is that these people are all lying under oath...and that just ain't going to fly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said Biden won but I didn't say there wasn't irregularities. Bradley beat Manny Pacquiao but I never said it wasn't questionable. You really want to continue this? 
This is the stuff movies are made of ...
