First felony sentencing for Jan 6th DC riot. How does it compare to the 2020 riots?

[BansheeOne]

Not necessarily synonymous, as a republic in its widest sense merely means a state not ruled by a monarch or aristocracy but which is, per the original Latin meaning, a public matter. A constitutional monarchy can thus be still a democracy, but a republic can also be a dictatorship. Though at the point the latter becomes hereditary like North Korea, we're arguably back to an absolute monarchy ... 

I think the confusion is between representative democracy, which is widely associated with republics, and the original direct democracy of Greek city states and such, which however doesn't exist in its pure form among modern nation states. Switzerland has some elements, but even if all government issues were decided by plebiscite (obviously impractical), they would still be a republic since they lack a monarch. In fact, a hypothetical absolute democracy where officials execute only the expressed majority will of the populace rather than making their own decisions would also be the ultimate republic. 

Of course we might also argue that since modern monarchs don't personally "own" their countries anymore, the UK et al are "public matters", too, but at that point the term of republic becomes essentially meaningless as a descriptor. Well again, except maybe to distinguish everyone else from North Korea. 

[17thfabn]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Being Tanknets token lefty, ive not really gone out my way to celebrate the Monarchy. And yet, the best argument ever made to me for it as an insitituion was that the monarchy ensures there will never be a President Blair. I might add, it ensures there will never been a President Trump or President Clinton here. For all its evident imperfections, Im very content with that. It diminishes Borish, and we are all delighted with that.

I try hard not to follow the British royal family, but if you follow the news it is hard to be unaware of them. With my limited knowledge of them I don't see them as paragon's of virtue. I think of them as the British branch of the cardassian family. Another group I try hard not to follow but are hard to avoid.

I have relatives in England. My impression is that support for the continuation of the support of the monarchy is not based on a left right split.

Conservatism is not about opposition to change. It is about preserving the BEST in society . Values such as hard work, getting a good education and the family.

[RETAC21]

47 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I try hard not to follow the British royal family, but if you follow the news it is hard to be unaware of them. With my limited knowledge of them I don't see them as paragon's of virtue. I think of them as the British branch of the cardassian family. Another group I try hard not to follow but are hard to avoid.

I have relatives in England. My impression is that support for the continuation of the support of the monarchy is not based on a left right split.

Conservatism is not about opposition to change. It is about preserving the BEST in society . Values such as hard work, getting a good education and the family.

Monarchies are symbols around which the nation rallies, that's why it's a bad idea to do a documentary on the day to day of a King/Queen, as the people realises they are just normal people. The British monarchy nowadays is not particularly scandalous compared to its predecessors, but then this stuff was swept under the rug. Their main role is to provide a moral compass to the nation, they may not do they right thing, but they need to say the right thing in times of trouble.

[rmgill]

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, but everyone attacks the White House. Even the British Army.

That's a bull crap answer and you know it.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id argue the Capitol attack was far more significant. Its the home of your consitution,

No, that's the State House over in Pennsylvania.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

the central hub of your democracy.

Of the legislative seat of our democracy. We have two other parts, that are ALSO central, it's a 3 legged stool, NOT a single wheel with everything revolving around the legislators.

10 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The significance of it is far, far higher than just one guy. After all, the 911 attackers dont seem to have had an intent to attack the White House (probably because they knew it was so well defended) but they did have plans on the Capitol building.

Huh? You've never been to DC have you? Air defense at the White House would also likely protect the Capitol building under it's umbrella. Drive down Constitution Avenue and you'll see the White house up the lawn on your left and the Capitol straight ahead. It's about as far away as Kensington Palace is from Buckingham Palace. The Trick with shooting down an airliner over DC is that it's a VERY short flight from where flights go in and out of Reagan National Airport.


 

 

[rmgill]

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

That might be the intent, but seemingly it doesnt work. After all, they have to come to washington to get the serious work done dont they?

No. You send it to Washington if you want it done nationally and if you want it to take decades to come to fruition. You want it to happen quickly you do it at the state and local level. Do you go to London to talk to the home office about things on your street? I hope not.

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If the hub is of no relevance, then why do they go to it?

Because the Seat of the Legislature doing the work at issue is there.

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

They could just as easily vote from home via Skype. The poltical power base that increasingly seems to matter is the Left/Right divide, not the 50  states which to me seem to have less and less relevance.

This is why the Democrats are pushing HR1 to ram down their control of state level elections from a federal level in direct contradiction of the Constitution.

But of course the Democrats WANT centralized control from DC because that's where it's most obfuscated and the national news mostly only pays attention to that level.

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

This was brought home to me in and episode of House of Cards, where Frank Underwood resents being called away to his home state to deal with an accident caused by a giant peach (!) whilst an important vote is going down in Washington.

Can I base opinions on how things work in the UK at MI5 on Danger Mouse now? (1)

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I could point out the cultural gap works in the other direction. The rest of the world look at the senate

The Senate? We have a bicameral legislature. A Senate and a house. They're in the same building. Pelosi is Speaker of the HOUSE.

If I referred to Parliament just by way of the House of Lords but ignored the House of Commons...

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And when some more clueless members of the senate consider anyone arrested during he assault as a  'political prisoner', such terms are going to be lapped up by the likes of the PRC or Russia, or any enemy of democracy, who see it as yet more justification for their assault the international rules based order.

They're not looking at the arrests themselves as being why they are political prisoners. It's the handling of the cases themselves that make it political.

Note, The sitting president of the US was advocating her people paying Bail for the BLM Rioters. Former VP Mike Pence has not done that. See the departure there yet?

 

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Can anyone really look at a guy in Hong Kong arrested for flying a free Hong Kong Flag and seriously conflate them with someone trying to beat a policeman to death?

But the beating of a policeman isn't the sole example. You have plenty of folks, and you've pointed them out, who walked into the building with a flag and that's it. The fact that you skate past that is more of your disingenuous crap. You bloody well know that some of the arrested had flags and that was it.

1. Huh. I think I just figured it out. Stuart, you're Tank Net's Penfold!

[Ivanhoe]

58 minutes ago, RETAC21 said:

Monarchies are symbols around which the nation rallies, that's why it's a bad idea to do a documentary on the day to day of a King/Queen, as the people realises they are just normal people.

The fact that the higher echelon royals spend a ridiculous amount of time in boring meetings and mundane ceremonies is something that would cause commoners to lose all respect. Kind of like "You were born wealthy, why do you put up with that shyte?"

 

[RETAC21]

1 hour ago, Ivanhoe said:

The fact that the higher echelon royals spend a ridiculous amount of time in boring meetings and mundane ceremonies is something that would cause commoners to lose all respect. Kind of like "You were born wealthy, why do you put up with that shyte?"

 

No, actually these ceremonies are highly important, as they show the commoners that the Monarchy cares about their lives and highlight the best face of society

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, 17thfabn said:

I try hard not to follow the British royal family, but if you follow the news it is hard to be unaware of them. With my limited knowledge of them I don't see them as paragon's of virtue. I think of them as the British branch of the cardassian family. Another group I try hard not to follow but are hard to avoid.

I have relatives in England. My impression is that support for the continuation of the support of the monarchy is not based on a left right split.

Conservatism is not about opposition to change. It is about preserving the BEST in society . Values such as hard work, getting a good education and the family.

As retac suggests, they don't have to be a paragon of virtue. That isn't what they are for. Some scholars say their main virtue is creating stability, and their lack of politicisation make them ideal for that. Nobody selects them, so nobody can feel cheated.

I'm of the left, but I agree, it's only the lunatic far left that wants to remove them. The rest of the left think they consume too much money but are content to keep them. it's difficult not to have sympathy with Charles, who has cut the civil list extensively. They have done a lot to that end in recent years.

Oh I've seen all sorts of Conservatism In my 48 years.In my world it's usually cutting things or shutting them down entirely. Usually Defence or Transport.

[nitflegal]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yeah, but everyone attacks the White House. Even the British Army.

Id argue the Capitol attack was far more significant. Its the home of your consitution, the central hub of your democracy. The significance of it is far, far higher than just one guy. After all, the 911 attackers dont seem to have had an intent to attack the White House (probably because they knew it was so well defended) but they did have plans on the Capitol building.

The only ones who seem to refuse to see its significance are, interestingly, Americans.

But here is where it gets more interesting.  We live in a time of the imperial presidency.  I think if you talked with most partisans on both sides they would trade the congress for the presidency every day of the week.  

To your point, that's a lovely talking point but if you had flipped the parties involved in the attack on the white house and the attack on the Congress every last elected official and pundit would claim that the opposite one was the more/less important.  Have Obama in the white house when a far right mob burned buildings and breached the fence and that would be the worst attack in US history and the mob invading the Republican congress was just good natured BLM folks who had legitimate axes to grind.  And vice versa.

Here is where I feel I am on former ground than our Democrat opponents (and much of our Republican "leaders" as well).  I have no interest in being the sole adult in the room and I want things to be held to a uniform standard.  If the elites consider an armed attack on the house of the president as no big deal and I have to accept that, I will, with the caveat that I will use that filter on all such occasions.  If the attack on the white house is no big deal than neither is the attack on the Congress.  One set of rules for everybody.

I suspect that all of this is exacerbated by the fact (or at least it seems so) that the vast majority of Americans don't respect or much like their leaders.  The knee jerk response to support our leaders has been thoroughly squandered.

[rmgill]

30 minutes ago, nitflegal said:

But here is where it gets more interesting.  We live in a time of the imperial presidency.  I think if you talked with most partisans on both sides they would trade the congress for the presidency every day of the week.  

To your point, that's a lovely talking point but if you had flipped the parties involved in the attack on the white house and the attack on the Congress every last elected official and pundit would claim that the opposite one was the more/less important.  Have Obama in the white house when a far right mob burned buildings and breached the fence and that would be the worst attack in US history and the mob invading the Republican congress was just good natured BLM folks who had legitimate axes to grind.  And vice versa.

I heard a number of folks wishing that Obama would get assassinated. I objectively observed that assassination is NOT the way a republic should be dealing with political stress and that was a bad road to go down. They usually paused, thought a bit and agreed that such was very true. 

I've noted before, and I'll note it again. We've seen for decades that barging into a government building to speak truth to power was reasonable and proper and an example of brave! We saw more than a year of rioting that was described as 'protesting' and 'demonstrating'. The right goes off the reservation once and it's the worst day since 1860. 

There's a massive consistency issue here. 

I'll be happy to see the Jan 6 rioters and vandals properly prosecuted. But I want to see the leftist shut the hell up about how their own are pure as the driven snow when at the same time they're arguing that rioting is reparations and thus entirely justified. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by rmgill

[nitflegal]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

I heard a number of folks wishing that Obama would get assassinated. I objectively observed that assassination is NOT the way a republic should be dealing with political stress and that was a bad road to go down. They usually paused, thought a bit and agreed that such was very true. 

I've noted before, and I'll note it again. We've seen for decades that barging into a government building to speak truth to power was reasonable and proper and an example of brave! We saw more than a year of rioting that was described as 'protesting' and 'demonstrating'. The right goes off the reservation once and it's the worst day since 1860. 

There's a massive consistency issue here. 

I'll be happy to see the Jan 6 rioters and vandals properly prosecuted. But I want to see the leftist shut the hell up about how their own are pure as the driven snow when at the same time they're arguing that rioting is reparations and thus entirely justified. 

I think we also have the issue that for a year the same elites that had police officers arrest parents at parks with their kids and deny people the ability to go to their loved one's funeral encouraged large groups of rioters to burn federal buildings, assault law enforcement and civilians, burn businesses to the ground, murder people, and even temporarily secede from the union.  In the face of that it is extremely hard to feel bad for Congress critters complaining about their PTSD.  Probably about half the country see their elected legislators as incompetent at best and adversarial at average.  

[Stuart Galbraith]

8 hours ago, nitflegal said:

But here is where it gets more interesting.  We live in a time of the imperial presidency.  I think if you talked with most partisans on both sides they would trade the congress for the presidency every day of the week.  

To your point, that's a lovely talking point but if you had flipped the parties involved in the attack on the white house and the attack on the Congress every last elected official and pundit would claim that the opposite one was the more/less important.  Have Obama in the white house when a far right mob burned buildings and breached the fence and that would be the worst attack in US history and the mob invading the Republican congress was just good natured BLM folks who had legitimate axes to grind.  And vice versa.

Here is where I feel I am on former ground than our Democrat opponents (and much of our Republican "leaders" as well).  I have no interest in being the sole adult in the room and I want things to be held to a uniform standard.  If the elites consider an armed attack on the house of the president as no big deal and I have to accept that, I will, with the caveat that I will use that filter on all such occasions.  If the attack on the white house is no big deal than neither is the attack on the Congress.  One set of rules for everybody.

I suspect that all of this is exacerbated by the fact (or at least it seems so) that the vast majority of Americans don't respect or much like their leaders.  The knee jerk response to support our leaders has been thoroughly squandered.

Yeah, I can see that. The parties are distinctly secondary to the Presidency. For your system to work as advertised, it would presumably need to be the other way around.

But surely thats been largely the case ever since Lincoln? With a few exceptions. Looking back on the Roosevelts, Imperial is the word Id use to describe it. I dont believe its a new problem.

Look, I entirely get why Americans hate their media. I watch CNN, they even managed to get me to say 'That isnt fair' in Trumps defence, which really meant going out on a limb on their part. Equally I dont need a journalist to tell me that people wearing Nazi T shirts and flying confederate flags assaulting the national legislature is really not sending out a great message. It would equally be sending a very bad message if it was done by guys wearing Che Guevara T shirts, waving the Soviet flag and singing the Internationale. The message for me is less who did it (which is not insignificant) than the message that the US cannot defend one of its holy of holy's.

Lets put it this way, if an armed group chanting 'lynch the President' had stormed the Oval office and took a shit on the resolute desk, attempting to beat to death every secret serviceman along the way, I would way that it is, in every respect just as bad as what happened at the Capitol. But they didnt. And it says something of a worrying set of priorities that the US Government are happy to surround the President with a ring of steel to stop it ever happening, but nobody, even Post 911, ever saw the Senate as worthy of just the same security.

As you said, the Imperial Presidency.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

the message that the US cannot defend one of its holy of holy's.

I thoroughly despise the conflation of religion with politics.

"Demanding respect"? I could get behind this (although respect is always given, not taken)

Buildings for politicians to meet and discuss should be free of thre threat of violence from an angry mob (or the might of the executive), but it's not an "inner sanctum", "holy" or whatever. Please, don't.

[Ssnake]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

a worrying set of priorities that the US Government are happy to surround the President with a ring of steel to stop it ever happening, but nobody, even Post 911, ever saw the Senate as worthy of just the same security.

1, a single person is much easier to protect than 100 senators and their staffers

2, ask the Capitol Hill police why they didn't do their job and refused to accept backup that was offered

 

It doesn't excuse what happened, but it's equally true that the events were extremely beneficial for Team D, and Team D members were in charge of the Capitol Hill PD during those days.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

Lets put it this way, if an armed group chanting 'lynch the President' had stormed the Oval office and took a shit on the resolute desk, attempting to beat to death every secret serviceman along the way, I would way that it is, in every respect just as bad as what happened at the Capitol. But they didnt.

No. They've just been running rampant across the country doing this more or less to the rest of the citizenry and with the tacit approval of the left. That's worse. 

We're not supposed to be a class of royalty and the plebians. In fact that's specitically prohibited by the constitution. Making an end run around it and conflating it all with the special annointed people who deserve greater protection than everyone else might fly in your neck of the woods, but it doesn't fly in ours. 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

And it says something of a worrying set of priorities that the US Government are happy to surround the President with a ring of steel to stop it ever happening, but nobody, even Post 911, ever saw the Senate as worthy of just the same security.

As you said, the Imperial Presidency.

Our system is meant to be resilient and redundant. Even the president is not beyond loss if the situation warrants. That's why he goes into places that are somewhat risky in the first place. Also congress, they have similar if less broad protection depending on their station in the national continuity chain. Stay in a hotel in Arlington (Key Bridge Marriott) on the river and you'll see the small fleet of helicopters flying in every day bringing congressmen down from Maryland. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

1, a single person is much easier to protect than 100 senators and their staffers

2, ask the Capitol Hill police why they didn't do their job and refused to accept backup that was offered

 

It doesn't excuse what happened, but it's equally true that the events were extremely beneficial for Team D, and Team D members were in charge of the Capitol Hill PD during those days.

1 Out and about, yes, I dont disagree. Inside a building? No, I dont believe it is any more difficult. Its arguably no different from the square root law that determined the defence of convoys. You could defend large convoys with the same number of ships as a small one, because the external perimeter is not much bigger. I would suggest you could defend the Senate just as easily as the White House with the same number of people, particularly if you gave them the same rules of engagement and weapons.

The operative word is 'If'.

2   The problem was not the Capitol Hill Police. As one policeman at the inquiry said, there was an email going around showing that the rioters were going to try and storm the building, even showed some of their planning. The problem was the leadership of the Capitol Hill Police that didnt seem to realise it, the Pentagon that didnt seem to think it was a possiblity, and the White House, that didnt insist on the National Guard going to the building to protect it.

There is a well known photograph that used to be easy to find on the internet, from about 1970 or 71, the Nixon Presidency. And there was some riots in Washington (bad ones, it didnt start with ANTIFA), and Nixon rushed the National Guard down to the Capitol building. The photograph showed an M60 gunner and his assistant taking up a position on the senate steps. Whatever anyone might say about Nixon, he knew the impression it would create in the country, and worldwide, if the mob storm the building. That could be done 50 years ago. Are we seriously saying communications and decision making is worse now that such things are no longer possible?

The events were extremely beneficial to the democrats, and presumably would have remained so if someone had gotten killed. As you said yourself, it doesnt defend incompetence, or make it unworthy of investigation when it happens.

 

5 hours ago, Ssnake said:

I thoroughly despise the conflation of religion with politics.

"Demanding respect"? I could get behind this (although respect is always given, not taken)

Buildings for politicians to meet and discuss should be free of thre threat of violence from an angry mob (or the might of the executive), but it's not an "inner sanctum", "holy" or whatever. Please, don't.

Its a political center of gravity, whatever you wish to call it.

[Ssnake]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The photograph showed an M60 gunner and his assistant taking up a position on the senate steps. Whatever anyone might say about Nixon, he knew the impression it would create in the country, and worldwide, if the mob storm the building.

Had Trump givent the same order, the headlines would have been that he tried to intimidate the Capitol.

Like I wrote, I'm not defending the protesters, but that the Capitol could be breached falls squarely on the feet of the Capitol Police leadership. They had the necessary information, they had the means to prevent it, they chose inaction. Whether out of incompetence or because of some sociopathic partisan deliberation I'll leave to anyone's guess.

[Stuart Galbraith]

11 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

Had Trump givent the same order, the headlines would have been that he tried to intimidate the Capitol.

Like I wrote, I'm not defending the protesters, but that the Capitol could be breached falls squarely on the feet of the Capitol Police leadership. They had the necessary information, they had the means to prevent it, they chose inaction. Whether out of incompetence or because of some sociopathic partisan deliberation I'll leave to anyone's guess.

Probably. And im sure the reason that photo was taken was to make Nixon look like a Tyrant too. But it would have been right, and that would have been seen in time. After all, the media were lambasting Trump for keeping out the Chinese back when the Pandemic started. But I think few would stand by that criticism now, they would rather prefer nobody remember they ever made it.

There is a lot to blame in the police leadership, thats certain. But having seen the police fold from sheer numbers, why the delay in getting the National Guard to the building? The police leadership certainly asked for them and kept being fobbed off.  Does anyone think it would have took several hours if a Squad of Arabs with assault rifles had stormed the place? I frankly have to doubt it, dont you?

Edited July 29, 2021 by Stuart Galbraith

[Ssnake]

I wouldn't be surprised if incompetence is the answer. It usually boils down to preparation, contingency plans - in short, to get into the right mindset. Some are more agile in this than others. If Capitol Hill police was unprepared, it is because their leadership chose to be unprepared that day. There was overwhelming evidence in plain sight that this could happen and they decided that they didn't need to do much about it. Were they stupid? Overly confident? I don't know. What I do know is that leaders of large organizations, especially if they rarely have to deal with highly dynamic situations, usually flounder when faced with rapidly developments. Somehow everybody decides that they now have to wing it rather than to execute contingency plans with minimal improvisation. And here we go with multiple organizations caught pants down - CH PD, NG, Secret Service, FBI and who else might possibly have been involved with it.

Fish starts stinking from the head. It doesn't need a conspiracy to explain the events of Jan 6th. Bad leadership is absolutely sufficient.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well what you said is thoughtful and its wise to keep an open mind. But I really want to hear what the National Guard leadership says about the command process before nailing my colours to the mast.

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1980s-far-left-female-led-domestic-terrorism-group-bombed-us-capitol-180973904/

[nitflegal]

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well what you said is thoughtful and its wise to keep an open mind. But I really want to hear what the National Guard leadership says about the command process before nailing my colours to the mast.

I think this is where the secretive nature is inadvertently or purposefully extending the drama.  There are reports that Trump tried to call in the NG and got refused, that he tried to alert the capital police, etc.  If that's the case, there would be documentation and I want to see all of it.  If he didn't see the risk and was derelict in his duties than bring it up in a third impeachment (and it should have been hammered with dates/times/transcripts at his second).  If he tried to raise the alarm and he was shut down I want to know exactly who did what and when so they can be held responsible.

My gut says that if Trump had made that decision we would have seen all the evidence already release so I lean towards he didn't make that mistake.  However, a lack of evidence and suspicion aren't an answer and if this BS in the House was actually for anything beyond posturing that is exactly what would be currently in discussion.

Put another way, if this was the biggest domestic terrorist event in US history than it warrants a sober commission to identify the gaps and deficiencies and fix the damned things.

[17thfabn]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

. But I really want to hear what the National Guard leadership says about the command process before nailing my colours to the mast.

How is the National Guard involved? They were not called in.

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, 17thfabn said:

How is the National Guard involved? They were not called in.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/
 

Quote

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

Quote

 

Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law.

 

https://www.propublica.org/article/before-mob-stormed-the-capitol-days-of-security-planning-involved-cabinet-officials-and-president-trump

Quote

 

President Donald Trump met with top military officials and gave his approval to activate the D.C. National Guard three days before he encouraged a mob of angry protesters to take their grievances to the U.S. Capitol.

A Pentagon memo released Friday offers these insights, as well as the first detailed timeline of the bungled law enforcement response to Wednesday’s insurrection.

The timeline shows that the planning started at least as far back as Dec. 31 and included discussion with select Cabinet members of the potential need for Pentagon reinforcements.

But it also leaves many questions unanswered, including why the U.S. Capitol Police declined repeated offers of assistance from military officials and the full extent of how much Trump knew about the security planning or was involved in decision-making.

 

Pro Publica is rather left-wing, yet their tack is that the USCP dropped the ball, not the Trump administration.

https://nbc-2.com/news/2021/03/16/washington-post-army-memo-considered-rejecting-dcs-request-for-national-guard-ahead-of-jan-6/

Quote

 

WASHINGTON / CNN — The US Army initially considered denying a request from Washington, DC government for a National Guard deployment ahead of the January 6 riots at the Capitol, the Washington Post reported.

An internal memo obtained by the Post argued the US military shouldn’t be required to help law enforcement with traffic and crowd control unless more than 100,000 demonstrators were expected at the National Mall that day. It’s not known when the memo was drafted.

In a letter dated December 31, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser requested support and personnel from the DC National Guard on January 5 and 6.

Ultimately, the Army approved the mission, but the memo underscores the hesitancy ahead of that day among some within the Pentagon’s top ranks to involve the military in security on January 6.

 

I think you can get a hint of things from the following story;

https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/03/04/the-capitol-polices-request-to-retain-the-national-guard-took-dc-officials-by-surprise/
 

Quote

 

Capitol Police requested today that National Guard members remain stationed at the Capitol for the next 60 days. It was a request that took DC officials by surprise.

“It was our expectation that the additional forces would be leaving…now,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said in a press conference today. “The Capitol Police have had very little…public interaction….We don’t know why additional forces have been requested until May.”

 

White House, Capitol Police (i.e. Pelosi), and DC mayor (and DC Metro Police); 3 different perspectives, 3 different plans, no coordination.

 

 

 

 

[rmgill]

But still Trump's fault...