Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Jan 2nd: Trump's DOD reached out to capitol police asking they planned on calling up national guard for January 6th. Was not requested at this time. Shortly thereafter security assessments were issued that radicals we're planning violence. Quote: "due to tense environment surrounding the election, violence can not be ruled out" Jan 4th: based on above security intelligence, Steve Sund changed his mind and seeked permission from office of Pelosi and Chuck to deploy national guard for the 6th. Request was denied. Why aren't they being questioned on this by this committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: Even with that said, it's fact that Pelosi was in charge of security, This has been debunked, I believe. The people with the authority to call the National Guard include the President and the Secretary of Defense. . https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542 CLAIM: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked the National Guard from coming to the Capitol during the Jan. 6 insurrection. AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. As Speaker of the House, Pelosi does not direct the National Guard. Further, as the Capitol came under attack, she and the Senate Majority leader called for military assistance, including the National Guard. Edited June 10, 2022 by Burgold 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, China said: Your previous post was talking about security for elected officials. Supreme court justices aren't elected. And your whole argument deflects and avoids the whole issue of Trump and his supporters trying to overturn a free and fair election and subvert democracy in a acts of sedition and treason. Pretty serious stuff to ignore. I said elected officials and supreme court justices. I take it you don't find it important to protect judges as well? It's very much on the same topic. Elected or appointed, they need to be protected at all costs. I think this is a pretty rational bi-partisan take, don't you agree? Edited June 10, 2022 by Forever A Redskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: I said elected officials and supreme court justices. I take it you don't find it important to protect judges as well? No scotus justices were hurt, guilty party was arrested. How is this not an acceptable outcome? Edited June 10, 2022 by The 12th Commandment 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: Pence was his VP. You don't think they spoke about the national guard? Just saying. I don't think you are a troll I just think that you reallly think you know what you are talking about, but you don't. This is a perfect example. "Pence was his VP. You don't think they spoke about the National Guard? Just Saying." is such a amateurish response. Let me make it more clear for you. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/06/10/pence-not-trump-asked-guard-troops-to-help-defend-capitol-on-jan-6-panel-says/ Quote “Not only did President Trump refuse to tell the mob to leave the Capitol, he placed no call to any element of the United States government to instruct that the Capitol be defended,” said Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., during the panel’s wide-ranging Thursday night hearing on the event. “He did not call his secretary of defense on Jan. 6. He did not talk to his Attorney General. He did not talk to the Department of Homeland Security,” Cheney added. “President Trump gave no order to deploy the National Guard that day. And he made no effort to work with the Department of Justice to coordinate and deploy law enforcement assets.” In contrast, Milley said, Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows told Milley that military officials needed to “kill the narrative that the Vice President is making all the decisions” and worked against sending personnel to help with the escalating situation. This is from testimony under oath. You have nothing to contradict this. Saying silly **** like "Well duh of course they spoke to each other" Is so lame and uneducated, it actually makes me mad you tried it. Read this and educate yourself. Please. Your ignorance is painful. Then come back and tell me how Trump had the National Guard ready and its all Peloci's fault. Cause I already read your talking points yesterday. I await your more educated response on the matter. Edited June 10, 2022 by Llevron 2 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, Burgold said: This has been debunked, I believe. The people with the authority to call the National Guard include the President and the Secretary of Defense. "The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress. Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday" https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 minute ago, Forever A Redskin said: I said elected officials and supreme court justices. I take it you don't find it important to protect judges as well? The protecting issue is like hardening schools and arming all teachers. It's sleight of hand. Besides, it's another side of the "free speech zones" idea that the right occasionally likes to push. Remember when they said, "They should not be allowed to march because it interferes with traffic!" "They should not be able to protest in public places, because no one should have their lunch disturbed." "They should not be able to protest in front of homes because a protest that is heard may be listened to!" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, Burgold said: This has been debunked, I believe. The people with the authority to call the National Guard include the President and the Secretary of Defense. It is debunked. The Speaker of the House has no authority to call in the National Guard. Trump was repeatedly asked to do anything in his power to stop the rioters and calm the situation. He didn't, and in fact apparently raged at people who were pushing for him to do so. Forever A Redskin is just doing his best to deflect and distract. Notice he never answered my question about whether he watched the hearing (just like he never answered my repeated question about whether or not he read the Mueller report). He's more or less a MAGA bot who just comes in and does drive by posts with what are essentially sound bites handed out by right wing media. 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 5 minutes ago, mistertim said: It is debunked. The Speaker of the House has no authority to call in the National Guard. Trump was repeatedly asked to do anything in his power to stop the rioters and calm the situation. He didn't, and in fact apparently raged at people who were pushing for him to do so. Forever A Redskin is just doing his best to deflect and distract. Notice he never answered my question about whether he watched the hearing (just like he never answered my repeated question about whether or not he read the Mueller report). He's more or less a MAGA bot who just comes in and does drive by posts with what are essentially sound bites handed out by right wing media. Wonder how many times in his life he's uttered the phrase, "do your own research". Lol 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 @Forever A Redskin And just because I know you are going to go on about this dumb ****ing Nancy Pelosi **** -- The National Guard takes order from the President Of the United States. Not ****ing Nancy Pelosi. Check the ****ing source and, again, learn some **** today. Im doing all the work for you. No reason for you to continue to make dumb ass posts about this topic after this. https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/ Quote Today’s D.C. National Guard remains strong with more than 2,700 Soldiers and Airmen available to execute its missions. D.C. National Guard Soldiers and Airmen resides within the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, and are proud to be from the communities in which we protect and serve. The D.C National Guard was formed in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to defend the newly created District of Columbia. As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President. The D.C. National Guard provides mission-ready personnel and units for active duty in the armed services in the time of war or national emergency. The D.C. National Guard also retains the mission as protector of the District of Columbia 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, mistertim said: It is debunked. The Speaker of the House has no authority to call in the National Guard. Trump was repeatedly asked to do anything in his power to stop the rioters and calm the situation. He didn't, and in fact apparently raged at people who were pushing for him to do so. Forever A Redskin is just doing his best to deflect and distract. Notice he never answered my question about whether he watched the hearing (just like he never answered my repeated question about whether or not he read the Mueller report). He's more or less a MAGA bot who just comes in and does drive by posts with what are essentially sound bites handed out by right wing media. I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes of the gong show.... Because it's a waste of time. It will do nothing as far as them attempting to keep Trump from running again. And the Mueller Report proved there was no Russian collusion. Not sure why you keep bringing it up. Yes I've read it. What's funny is I'm not even a huge Trump fan. I'm just way less of a fan of the current Democratic party. Believe it or not people like me exist. See communities of former Democrats like Tim Pool/Timcast, The Quartering, etc. Fact of the matter is, Democrats will be very foolish to keep focusing so much on January 6th. If they stand any chance of winning re-election they should focus on things that the American people are most worried about. The Democrats don't actually care about riots. They're just obsessed with Trump. If they truly cared about riots they wouldn't have supported the riots of summer '20 and have committees investigating the perpetrators of billions of dollars worth of damage. Edited June 10, 2022 by Forever A Redskin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 hour ago, Forever A Redskin said: Just like all the other Trump impeachment attempts, this January 6th commission is a nothing-burger. They aren't addressing the real issue at hand, which is security surrounding our elected officials. The riot was horrible, just like all riots. But why aren't they investigating the fact that national guard was refused to support capital police? They had intel that their were people planning on storming the building but thought a few perimeter cops (that ended up waving people in) was sufficient? If the argument is that the BLM riots were "mostly peaceful"... That left 12 people dead and 100s of police officers injured, then you're opening the door for people like Jack Del Rio to make the comments he did about Jan. 6th. It doesn't make sense to the average American. Thinking that they are going to convict trump of "insurrection" after he said verbatim said "many of you will PEACEFULLY March to the capitol"... They are wasting time. Mind you, he also had the national guard at the ready to support, which was refused. Does someone planning an insurrection do that? He certainly wouldn't want extra security if he genuinely was hoping for insurrection. Our elected officials should be protected at all costs. Including our supreme court justices, one of which just had an attempt on his life. Extremism exists on both sides and what they should be focusing on is security. Unfortunately I don't think we will hear a peep about the security blunders that were made. It's a prime time media gong show witch hunt for trump, that will fail yet again. Its been a year and a half. The average American doesn't care, that's the reality of the situation. When polled of the Top 10 issues that will influence their vote... January 6th didn't crack the top 10. ^^^^ This right here is 100% what is wrong with a lot of the Republican party. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 hour ago, China said: You don't know what Garland is doing, although we're all frustrated at the slow pace at which he's doing it. Joe does not just want it to go away, he wants justice. The NYT has reported that he's frustrated with Garland: No but I don’t think Garland wants to go after politicians in office and Trump. Those politicians will drag out until Jan 25; when a gop president takes over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
86 Snyder Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 The shame of all of this is, as horrifying as the scene at the Capitol was, it has distracted attention from the literal coup that was being attempted. The rioting idiots was just window dressing. There was a very real plan developed to overturn the election and the fell like 2 or 3 people short of the requisite compliance to actually pull it off. Really hope the committee spends lots of time on that in future episodes. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Llevron said: @Forever A Redskin And just because I know you are going to go on about this dumb ****ing Nancy Pelosi **** -- The National Guard takes order from the President Of the United States. Not ****ing Nancy Pelosi. Check the ****ing source and, again, learn some **** today. Im doing all the work for you. No reason for you to continue to make dumb ass posts about this topic after this. https://dc.ng.mil/About-Us/ You excite easily. Well even if what you say is true, how do you explain the following? "Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows" https://www.google.com/amp/s/mynbc15.com/amp/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald "Liberal “fact-checkers” like The Washington Post and PolitiFact argued the claim about National Guard assistance coming from Meadows and other top Trump administration officials was false, but an official timeline of the events leading up to Jan. 6 apparently shows differently. According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6." I will wait to see the outcome of the committee to see if you guys are right. Maybe you are. That's the point of this whole thing right? They've had a year and a half, they should have some juicy stuff. I can't wait until the TV ratings of the Jan 6th committee are released. It's been a year and a half. They think waiting until close to midterms is going to help them. Meanwhile gas is 5 dollars a gallon and people can't find baby formula and people are being told to just buy an electric car. Edited June 10, 2022 by Forever A Redskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Forever a Redskin is a prime example of why nothing will come from this. just read what he thinks. his entire world view is built to insulate his thoughts from criticism, he has an easy out for everything including why he doesn’t bother to actually learn any of this information. can he actually speak to the specifics in factual way? Or course not. does he care? Hah. Does he even realize it? Probably not lol 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: I couldn't watch more than 30 minutes of the gong show.... Because it's a waste of time. It will do nothing as far as them attempting to keep Trump from running again. And the Mueller Report proved there was no Russian collusion. Not sure why you keep bringing it up. Yes I've read it. What's funny is I'm not even a huge Trump fan. I'm just way less of a fan of the current Democratic party. Believe it or not people like me exist. See communities of former Democrats like Tim Pool/Timcast, The Quartering, etc. Fact of the matter is, Democrats will be very foolish to keep focusing so much on January 6th. If they stand any chance of winning re-election they should focus on things that the American people are most worried about. The Democrats don't actually care about riots. They're just obsessed with Trump. If they truly cared about riots they wouldn't have supported the riots of summer '20 and have committees investigating the perpetrators of billions of dollars worth of damage. The Mueller report said no such thing. It never mentioned "collusion". Collusion isn't even a legal term. The only people talking about "collusion" were Trump and his handlers, including Bill Barr who Trump had try and preempt the Mueller report by going out and holding a press conference saying it found "no collusion". Again, it never said such a thing. What it did show, via a ton of evidence, was that the Trump campaign had myriad ties to Russia. All they said was that they didn't believe they had enough evidence to bring criminal conspiracy charges. That doesn't mean there wasn't "collusion". There was plenty of it, as they showed. But there wasn't enough to present an overwhelming case of criminal conspiracy that would likely result in a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal conviction. The Feds are pretty notoriously conservative when building a case for criminal charges. So I think you're straight up lying about reading the report, because all you're doing is regurgitating right wing media talking points about it (that they got directly from the Trump administration). 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purbeast Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 2 minutes ago, tshile said: Forever a Redskin is a prime example of why nothing will come from this. just read what he thinks. his entire world view is built to insulate his thoughts from criticism, he has an easy out for everything including why he doesn’t bother to actually learn any of this information. can he actually speak to the specifics in factual way? Or course not. does he care? Hah. Does he even realize it? Probably not lol They are too dumb/ignorant to even realize how dumb/ignorant they are. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 1 minute ago, mistertim said: The Mueller report said no such thing. It never mentioned "collusion". Collusion isn't even a legal term. The only people talking about "collusion" were Trump and his handlers, including Bill Barr who Trump had try and preempt the Mueller report by going out and holding a press conference saying it found "no collusion". Again, it never said such a thing. What it did show, via a ton of evidence, was that the Trump campaign had myriad ties to Russia. All they said was that they didn't believe they had enough evidence to bring criminal conspiracy charges. That doesn't mean there wasn't "collusion". There was plenty of it, as they showed. But there wasn't enough to present an overwhelming case of criminal conspiracy that would likely result in a "beyond a reasonable doubt" criminal conviction. The Feds are pretty notoriously conservative when building a case for criminal charges. So I think you're straight up lying about reading the report, because all you're doing is regurgitating right wing media talking points about it (that they got directly from the Trump administration). I'm sorry, but I think my reading comprehension is pretty good. If you are right, then trump would've been impeached. If you're so upset about Russia, I'd be curious to know how you feel about Bidens own business dealings in foreign countires. But this isn't the Russia thread, so I don't want to de-rail discussion too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: how do you explain the following? "Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows" https://www.google.com/amp/s/mynbc15.com/amp/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald Easily. That is quoting Mark Meadows. The very same Mark Meadows who we just heard the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America say (under oath and threat of perjury) was more interested in the optics. Specifically that we need to change the narrative to make is seem 'Donald Trump was in control'. Meadows Lied for political gain. And you feel for it. You could have come to this conclusion yourself by just reading the stuff I sent you. Hell I even sent you a video. Its less than 3 minutes. Watch it. Edited June 10, 2022 by Llevron 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 36 minutes ago, TradeTheBeal! said: Pelosi strikes again!!! Hilarious. Thought the troll knows Pelosi doesn’t control the national guard. Only Trump or Pence could send them. As for the hearing having an impact in the election; no it likely won’t. Just like when roe v Wade is overturned in 3 weeks; no impact. Still, what happened should be known. It would be nice if the pols involved lost re-election and went to jail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, tshile said: does he care? Hah. Does he even realize it? Probably not lol Dude replied to my post saying the Mark Meadows lied about the national guard with "Well how do you explain this!" and an article that is headlined by Mark Meadows' lie lol. At least give me 'I don't believe Mark Milley' So I can give up on using facts and just troll you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever A Redskin Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 Just now, Llevron said: Easily. That is quoting Mark Meadows. The very Same Mark Meadows who we just heard the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America say (under oath and threat of perjury) was more interested in the optics. Specifically that we need to change the narrative to make is seem 'Donald Trump was in control'. Meadows Lied for political gain. And you feel for it. You could have come to this conclusion yourself by just reading the stuff I sent you. Hell I even sent you a video. Its less than 3 minutes. Watch it. Maybe you guys are right. We will see what comes of this committee. That's what it's all about right? I'm just saying, in the court of public opinion... The American people don't really care about this. And I'd be willing to bet the TV ratings will reflect that. I personally feel it's a partisan smear campaign that they waited a year and a half (with midterms around the corner) for. If the the Dems think this is their big smoking gun that's gonna win the public favor... I personally think they are mistaken. Looking forward to the outcome of the committee! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: You excite easily. Well even if what you say is true, how do you explain the following? "Trump admin was ready to deploy National Guard on Jan 6, Capitol Police timeline shows" https://www.google.com/amp/s/mynbc15.com/amp/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald "Liberal “fact-checkers” like The Washington Post and PolitiFact argued the claim about National Guard assistance coming from Meadows and other top Trump administration officials was false, but an official timeline of the events leading up to Jan. 6 apparently shows differently. According to the timeline, a DOD official reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher four days before the attack on the U.S. Capitol to inquire about whether Capitol Police anticipated they would request National Guard troops be deployed to prepare for Jan. 6." I can't wait until the TV ratings of the Jan 6th committee are released. It's been a year and a half. They think waiting until close to midterms is going to help them. Meanwhile gas is 5 dollars a gallon and people can't find baby formula and people are being told to just buy an electric car. You're linking to one right wing news article who's source is Mark Meadows. So you take that seriously but not all of the evidence and on the record under oath testimony of countless other people who said that Trump ignored requests for the National Guard to be deploy on Jan 6th? Figures. And they need to stop talking about Pelosi and the House Sergeant at Arms. Neither of them have the authority to order in the National Guard. That lies with Governors and the Executive branch. Edited June 10, 2022 by mistertim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llevron Posted June 10, 2022 Share Posted June 10, 2022 3 minutes ago, Forever A Redskin said: I'm sorry, but I think my reading comprehension is pretty good. If you are right, then trump would've been impeached. Bro 😆 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now