The Trump Riot Aftermath (Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes found guilty of seditious conspiracy. Proud Boys join the club)

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Simmsy]

6 hours ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Didn't he run in 2020? There was talk here on ES of a possible presidential campaign. 🤔

 

That would be "half eaten, moldy potato".

[Dan T.]

2 hours ago, airborneskins said:

Since I do not work for the Capital Police, nor am I familiar with their policies, I cannot comment on what I would do. I know it seems like a cop out.  However, the discussions that you do hear are not about physical security.  What I do know is that it is extremely difficult to walk the line of security and politics.  Even at the White House, convenience trumps (no pun intended) security.

 

Physical Security improvements were (and continune to be) improved after the Garfield incident.  Unfortunately, protection can sometimes be more reactionary then proactive.

 

 

Yes.  Procedure, and how to react to events are very important, and sometimes more important than having barriers.  However, if you do not have the physical measures in place (not manpower related) to counter (or deter) something, your procedures can sometimes be thrown out the window.  Having a CDU team (or multiple teams) on call at any given time is a good thing, however, with CDU teams being limited in size, how does that help when "attacks" are coming from all different directions?  Physical Security measures should be in place to direct an attack of that nature to areas where you can better utilize your CDU teams.

 

 

The right to peacably assemble and peacefully protest is one of the reasons that America is great.  However, you need to be prepared in case things do go sideways.  In this day and age, with crazy extremists on both sides,  and counter protestors just wanting to cause havoc (on both sides),  Increasing physical security is just one way to be prepared.  If we allow something like this to occur again, without increasing the physical security of the most vulnerable locations, the next time could have a much different outcome.

 

Again, I am not bashing the capital police and their security.  I know first hand how difficult it is to protect the leaders of this country when they choose convenience over security.  It is extremely difficult.  I just hope that there is a legitimate conversation occuring about how to keep this from happening again, and how to be ready for it if it does.  Because all that I seem to see / read / hear is people (from both sides) bashing the other political party about an insurrection and who is at fault, not about how to stop it from occuring again.

 

 

One suggestion I've heard if this ever happens again in the future is to Ashli Babbitt the first MAGA chud who climbs through a broken Capitol window, and any other ignorant fool who follows.

 

As for the question of improving security and lessons learned from the events of January 6, that is part of the mandate of the Select Committee, so why don't we wait and see what they have found and what their recommendations are.

[airborneskins]

4 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

One suggestion I've heard if this ever happens again in the future is to Ashli Babbitt the first MAGA chud who climbs through a broken Capitol window, and any other ignorant fool who follows.

 

As for the question of improving security and lessons learned from the events of January 6, that is part of the mandate of the Select Committee, so why don't we wait and see what they have found and what their recommendations are.

 

I am pretty sure that you were being sarcastic, but who is to say that it will be a "MAGA chud"?  There are all types of whackos in this country.  And how would opening fire on anybody that tries to break into the capital (en masse) play in the news cycle?  "Today on Capital Hill, the Capital police opened fire killing 50 unarmed trespassers that were chanting some awful stuff and breaking things".  That sounds an aweful lot like something that North Korea or China would do.

 

If making actual security recomendations is part of the mandate, then why is it that they arent actually doing so?  Granted, they may still get to that point, but absolutely NOTHING that they have brought to the table so far has indicated that they are doing such.  It all seems to be aimed at the former president and his followers.  I honestly havent seen one recomendation as to how to prevent it from occuring again.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

everybody is picking on you but they don’t understand and have never been in a position to understand. they simply don’t care. 
 

When my house was broken into, the biggest concern the police had was to sit me at a table in a dimly lit room and repeatedly ask me for hours why I only had ADT and didn’t also have a fence around my yard, flood lights, a guard dog, and automated hair fire torch for when they kick the door open ala Home Alone. After all, the police correctly understand the biggest question that needs to be asked when a break in in occurs is “why didn’t you stop it better” and the fault always lies with the victim and not the burglar 

 

silly libs

 

I do want to point out that I think this line of thinking is unfair and actually just stupid.

 

To my knowledge, any time something like this in my life time there has been an investigation looking into the why and how the government could have done better.  Things like the 9/11 report and the Reagan shooting report go into great detail about what we could have done better/different to prevent it.

 

If the government didn't look into what went wrong from the government/security end that would be a massive failure by the government.

 

(Now since they have, then it isn't an issue.  Which I think raises an issue for @FLSkinz83 as to why he seemed to (strongly) believe that those questions haven't been asked when they have been.

 

Which then is relevant to @CousinsCowgirl84 point, and I think a more general point is that it is important to recognize what you don't actually know vs. what you've heard, been told, or thing.  And especially for something like this, like I said a 5 minute google search would have provided the answer.)

 

 

[PeterMP]

12 minutes ago, airborneskins said:

 

I am pretty sure that you were being sarcastic, but who is to say that it will be a "MAGA chud"?  There are all types of whackos in this country.  And how would opening fire on anybody that tries to break into the capital (en masse) play in the news cycle?  "Today on Capital Hill, the Capital police opened fire killing 50 unarmed trespassers that were chanting some awful stuff and breaking things".  That sounds an aweful lot like something that North Korea or China would do.

 

If making actual security recomendations is part of the mandate, then why is it that they arent actually doing so?  Granted, they may still get to that point, but absolutely NOTHING that they have brought to the table so far has indicated that they are doing such.  It all seems to be aimed at the former president and his followers.  I honestly havent seen one recomendation as to how to prevent it from occuring again.

 

Again, this has been done already.  That isn't what these hearings are about.  I believe there are actual several reports that deal with recommendations.

 

But the Senate report that I posted before has a section on recomendations.

 

"II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS"

 

https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf

 

There are even other reports that also deal with recommendations. The GAO:

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104829

 

That isn't the focus of these hearings and has been covered by previous hearings.

 

I have to ask, how have you come to comment in this thread asking why they haven't done recommendations when 5 minutes google search would have shown that it was done?

Edited June 14, 2022 by PeterMP

[TK]

8 hours ago, Ball Security said:

Took a minute to watch Fox coverage.  Whew boy.  “Take away what Trump and Giuliani said about election security, Americans have questions about the electoral process.”  Well, no ****.  We as a country are pretty ignorant.  Hell, mother****ers thought they were in the White House on 1/6.

FYI

 

For those I've gone back over the last 6 pages & given Rule 6 warnings to, this is how you do it.

 

Perfect example. Ball Security spelled it out & let the filters do their job. And because of that, when I quoted him, they still did their job.

 

Props to @Ball Security for knowing & following the Rule. 👍

[airborneskins]

30 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Again, this has been done already.  That isn't what these hearings are about.  I believe there are actual several reports that deal with recommendations.

 

But the Senate report that I posted before has a section on recomendations.

 

"II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATIONS"

 

https://www.rules.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Jan 6 HSGAC Rules Report.pdf

 

There are even other reports that also deal with recommendations. The GAO:

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104829

 

That isn't the focus of these hearings and has been covered by previous hearings.

 

I have to ask, how have you come to comment in this thread asking why they haven't done recommendations when 5 minutes google search would have shown that it was done?

Thank you for the links. All of the recomendations in those reports are good, but most revolve aorund inteligence failures.   I am actually looking for some solid  physical security recomendations.  The HSGAC report had the following:

Quote

Recommendation 20: Coordinate with personnel from the Architect of the Capitol to resolve physical access issues.

That is literallythe only physical security recomendation that they provided.  Nothing regarding other ways to stop this from happening again.

 

To answer your question about why I came here.  It was more to start a discussion about physical security issued that still plague the Capitol complex.  

[PeterMP]

46 minutes ago, airborneskins said:

Thank you for the links. All of the recomendations in those reports are good, but most revolve aorund inteligence failures.   I am actually looking for some solid  physical security recomendations.  The HSGAC report had the following:

That is literallythe only physical security recomendation that they provided.  Nothing regarding other ways to stop this from happening again.

 

To answer your question about why I came here.  It was more to start a discussion about physical security issued that still plague the Capitol complex.  

 

That's not true.  People provide physical security.  There are lots of recommendations about improving the equipment and the people that provide the physical security.  There are also recommendations about locks and things like that:

 

e.g.

 

"Recommendation 21: Ensure that FRU management are held accountable for completing and documenting remote locking device drills."

 

"Recommendation 15: Explore options to secure ballistic helmets and vests at FRU posts."

 

"Recommendation 16: Train and provide FRU officers with additional less lethal weapon systems."

 

"Recommendation 4: Update Standard Operating Procedure regarding noise flash diversionary devices."

 

The GAO report talks about:

"revising policies and procedures to provide guidance on deployment and staging for less-lethal devices (e.g., compressed air launchers) during CDU operations"

 

"pre-staging shields at doors and barricades before operational events"

 

Shields and barricades are physical security.

 

If you are looking for them to lock down the Capitol like they have the White House over something that has been deemed largely an intelligence, training, and man power issue, then I just think you are looking at the wrong thing as compared to most of the security experts in the field seem to think.

 

And it isn't like those are the only two studies that have been done.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-riot-security-review-changes-police/

 

(e.g. retractable fencing)

 

A couple of minutes on google would have provided answers to your questions.

 

Better intelligence, better trained people, better equipped people with some changes to the infrastructure will (help) prevent this from happening again. At least that's what the experts that have looked into it have concluded.

 

If you want to say that isn't enough, then that's your right.  But it isn't like it hasn't been addressed.

Edited June 14, 2022 by PeterMP

[Fergasun]

@airborneskins

Yes, because the people jumped the barricades that the police put up to keep them out. 

 

If you have metal detectors, a crazy person could run through or jump through.  This flaw is what we call "open society". A group of armed people could take the Capitol and storm it with guns firing.  Any where you are in America you are pretty vulnerable. Pretty much we don't take precautions against things because the likelyhood of them happening is very remote. 

 

Again, I posted the 6 incidents of violence at the Capitol throughout the past 60 or so years. 

 

People blatently bypassing physical security measures... did you not remember the video of the House or Senate chambers where armed police were barricading it?  Would you prefer more shooting?  

[NoCalMike]

I watched some of the FOX reaction to today's hearing in the morning, (meaning from the actual morning show, not primetime shows) and was surprised that it somewhat sounded reasonable, the hyper-partisan panel member's best attempt at deflection was saying "yeah, but.....we already knew all this"  LOOOOL, We? WE....no buddy, people outside the conservative media bubble maybe, but not "we."

Edited June 14, 2022 by NoCalMike

[Fergasun]

... 

and quite frankly this "intelligence failure" is silly.  Go look at contemperaneous news on January 5.  The concern was violence between protestors and counter protestors.  No one really was concerned they would march to the Capitol building and stop the regular order and process of our democratic government.  Honestly that's why there is some plausible deniability with the House members giving tours.  They are trying to fund raise, make money and grift -- even Proud Boys have money -- I don't think they thought "gee, maybe I could get Pelosi or Pence killed."  

 

Unless there is evidence of malice I am willing to give them a benefit of doubt.

[Dan T.]

@Bangposted this Look-a-Like suggestion…

 

Barr's attorney, on the right:

 

Hair Club guy from Seinfeld:

Edited June 14, 2022 by Dan T.

[NoCalMike]

The people saying "but didn't Hillary think that the 2016 election was...." sure, I can cede ground there, but the major difference is she just went and pouted about it after conceding the same night.  That is a far stretch from thinking it was rigged and actually being part of a plan to overturn the results. 

[tshile]

@NoCalMikeshe wasn’t the only one. Some called him illegitimate among other things. 

Edited June 14, 2022 by tshile

[Dan T.]

Chef Jose Andres has announced that he will be opening a restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue in the hotel that used to be the Trump Hotel.  He previously pulled out of a contract for a restaurant in the Trump Hotel after the namesake made some blatantly racist remarks in public, and stayed out despite being sued by Trump. 

 

 

[Larry]

28 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The people saying "but didn't Hillary think that the 2016 election was...." sure, I can cede ground there, but the major difference is she just went and pouted about it after conceding the same night.  That is a far stretch from thinking it was rigged and actually being part of a plan to overturn the results. 

The fact that the polling data showed her winning, by a decent EC count, contributed, too. 
 

Yes, several states were "within the margin of error". But for ALL of them to go to Trump was - mathematically unlikely. 
 

As opposed to 2020, where even Trump knew, well before the election, that he was going to lose. And their reaction was to begin planning for HOW they were going to ignore the results. 

[FLSkinz83]

1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

The people saying "but didn't Hillary think that the 2016 election was...." sure, I can cede ground there, but the major difference is she just went and pouted about it after conceding the same night.  That is a far stretch from thinking it was rigged and actually being part of a plan to overturn the results. 

 

She did think it was rigged.  Russian collusion, etc.

[Llevron]

The Jan 6 committee is giving local and national news orgs hella material. Every news show I have watched has had some of it on. This Trump playing the rubes for a quarter billion dollars thing is getting plenty play. 
 

That and drunk Rudy lol

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

She did think it was rigged.  Russian collusion, etc.

 

To me, there's a fundamental difference between thinking the election was "rigged" and thinking the other side might have won based on the actual vote count but gotten that many votes partly due to influence through illegal assistance from a foreign power affecting the thinking and voting of voters.

 

Especially in the context of the Biden-Trump election where it wasn't that close really. 

 

Trump is claiming a pretty large conspiracy that realistically would have had to involved people across multiple states and across party lines vs. Russian assistance in terms of Americans could have been just a few people in the Trump campaign.

 

One suggest that the whole system is rotten and doing something like storming the Capitol is reasonable.  The other suggest that a few people are corrupt (and probably should be in jail e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/trump-campaign-chief-paul-manafort-employee-kilimnik-gave-russia-election-data.html).

 

I think Hillary thinks one thing and Trump thinks the other.  And I don't think they are equivalent at all.

Edited June 14, 2022 by PeterMP

[Simmsy]

Another troll!?

 

[Llevron]

51 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Trump is claiming a pretty large conspiracy that realistically would have had to involved people across multiple states and across party lines vs. Russian assistance in terms of Americans could have been just a few people in the Trump campaign.

Don’t forget the Hugo Chavez zombie

[TradeTheBeal!]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Don’t forget the Hugo Chavez zombie

Don’t forget “Italygate”!!!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italygate

[Momma There Goes That Man]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

I do want to point out that I think this line of thinking is unfair and actually just stupid.

 

To my knowledge, any time something like this in my life time there has been an investigation looking into the why and how the government could have done better.  Things like the 9/11 report and the Reagan shooting report go into great detail about what we could have done better/different to prevent it.

 

If the government didn't look into what went wrong from the government/security end that would be a massive failure by the government.

 

(Now since they have, then it isn't an issue.  Which I think raises an issue for @FLSkinz83 as to why he seemed to (strongly) believe that those questions haven't been asked when they have been.

 

Which then is relevant to @CousinsCowgirl84 point, and I think a more general point is that it is important to recognize what you don't actually know vs. what you've heard, been told, or thing.  And especially for something like this, like I said a 5 minute google search would have provided the answer.)

 

 

I don’t disagree. For one, reviewing that dynamic is how you improve and are better prepared in the future. But the focus should not be “why didn’t you stop this” especially not as an alternative to actually investigating and punishing those responsible for the crime. the poster has no interest in that, and the desire to discuss why they didn’t stop it is a bad faith attempt to shift blame onto Pelosi, Bowser and any Democrat possible 

[Momma There Goes That Man]

7 hours ago, FLSkinz83 said:

 

She did think it was rigged.  Russian collusion, etc.

that’s fine, but she also conceded immediately. Obama invited and met with president-elect Trump at the WH on 11/10/16 and there was never any doubt that a transfer of power would take place and Trump would become president. 
 

hardly the same thing, but you know that