Pentagon lied about role of Michael Flynn's brother in delaying response to insurrection

[The Barbarian]

The U.S. Army repeatedly and falsely denied that the brother of Michael Flynn — the former Trump national security adviser, who has become a prominent conspiracy theorist — was involved in its response to the deadly Capitol riot. At least until Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training, admitted to The Washington Post that he was present during a meeting about whether to deploy the National Guard to quell the mob.


It's unclear why the Army denied that Charles Flynn, attended the meeting, in which one official (it's not clear who) described the Capitol rioters as "peaceful" and several officials resisted deploying additional troops. The Army's delay in sending National Guard troops to assist Capitol Police and Washington, D.C. officers who were overrun by the pro-Trump mob has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers. National Guard backup did not arrive at the Capitol until nearly four hours after the then-president's supporters had breached the complex, after most of the violence was already over.
Army falsely denied Flynn brother's role in riot response: report

 

[tz620q]

The U.S. Army repeatedly and falsely denied that the brother of Michael Flynn — the former Trump national security adviser, who has become a prominent conspiracy theorist — was involved in its response to the deadly Capitol riot. At least until Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training, admitted to The Washington Post that he was present during a meeting about whether to deploy the National Guard to quell the mob.


It's unclear why the Army denied that Charles Flynn, attended the meeting, in which one official (it's not clear who) described the Capitol rioters as "peaceful" and several officials resisted deploying additional troops. The Army's delay in sending National Guard troops to assist Capitol Police and Washington, D.C. officers who were overrun by the pro-Trump mob has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers. National Guard backup did not arrive at the Capitol until nearly four hours after the then-president's supporters had breached the complex, after most of the violence was already over.
Army falsely denied Flynn brother's role in riot response: report

I have been laughing at CNN and MSNBC's coverage of this. They have been obsessing over a 3 hour delay. I hate to tell them this; but National Guardsman are usually otherwise employed. They are not sitting around in a barracks waiting on a mission. So it takes a while for a Guardsman unit to receive their orders to deploy, collect, organize transport, and move into position. 3 hours actually seems like a very reasonable response time. A more reasonable question on deployment of Guardsman is why it didn't happen last summer to stop the rioting in our cities that happened night after night. Then there was certainly longer than 3 hours to deploy; but it seems like our representatives are only incensed about this when it affect themselves personally and the rest of us can go to hell.

 

[BobRyan]

Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time

"Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time"

Rebuked by who? the Pentagon?

Questions were raised as to why was it so easy to breach the Capitol that day. How come security around the building was so lax? Many speculated that the Democrats wanted something to happen so that they could do exactly what they are doing now. The Sgt at Arms for the House reports directly to the Speaker of the House or Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). The Sgt at Arms for the Senate reported directly to the Senate Majority Leader, which at the time was Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY). Where were they and how come they turned down National Guard troops when Trump deployed them after the riot started? Who gave them the order to turn the Guard away?

We come to find out that former President Donald Trump had offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in to the area of the Capitol in Washington DC before January 6, according to Mark Meadows the former White House chief of staff.

...

So, in the end, we discover that Trump offered to move troops in, and if the Democrats hadn’t rejected the offer made multiple times there would not have been a riot and five Americans would not have lost their lives. Sounds like we got the wrong people on trial.

hmm

We come to find out that former President Donald Trump had offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in to the area of the Capitol in Washington DC before January 6, according to Mark Meadows the former White House chief of staff.


Meadows told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo that even though Trump was vocal about offering Capitol Police and National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions prior to January 6, his offers were rejected “every time.”

Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Drops a BOMB on Power-Drunk Democrats - Trump Offered Assistance Multiple Times to DC Officials Before January 6th (VIDEO)

"Former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows Drops a BOMB on Power-Drunk Democrats – Trump Offered Assistance Multiple Times to DC Officials Before January 6th (VIDEO)"

 

[Jake Arsenal]

When someone lies to me, but later apologizes and repents, I forgive them. When someone does this often, I lose trust in their word, and it usually takes a long time to rebuild that trust. When someone lies to me, but refuses to confess or repent, I do NOT trust them; if they do this often, I may even assume everything they say is a lie.

 

[pescador]

I have been laughing at CNN and MSNBC's coverage of this. They have been obsessing over a 3 hour delay. I hate to tell them this; but National Guardsman are usually otherwise employed. They are not sitting around in a barracks waiting on a mission. So it takes a while for a Guardsman unit to receive their orders to deploy, collect, organize transport, and move into position. 3 hours actually seems like a very reasonable response time. A more reasonable question on deployment of Guardsman is why it didn't happen last summer to stop the rioting in our cities that happened night after night. Then there was certainly longer than 3 hours to deploy; but it seems like our representatives are only incensed about this when it affect themselves personally and the rest of us can go to hell.

CNN, MSNBC, and others have been doing a great job. In case you didn't see it, there were people attacking our Capitol with the intent of a) preventing the certification of the electoral college votes and b) killing legislators and staff, including the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. The National Guard were actually sitting in buses waiting for "the word" which was inexplicably delayed for hours while the attack was going on.

Your changing the subject to the deployment of Guardsman to "stop the rioting in our cities that happened night after night" shows your "true hand". Why should anyone consider your obviously biased post seriously?

 

[BobRyan]

CNN, MSNBC, and others have been doing a great job.

Republicans keep saying that -- but I think the Democrats may be right in doubting at times.

 

[Jamsie]

Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time

"Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time"

Rebuked by who? the Pentagon?

PolitiFact - No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it

 

[CatsRule2020]

Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time

"Trump Offered 10,000 National Guard Troops To Protect Capitol Multiple Times Before Jan 6 and His Offer was Rebuked Every Time"

Rebuked by who? the Pentagon?

djhjmedia is an extreme right wing site whose sources are questionable and biased.

 

[The Barbarian]

I have been laughing at CNN and MSNBC's coverage of this. They have been obsessing over a 3 hour delay. I hate to tell them this; but National Guardsman are usually otherwise employed.

Well, that's a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

D.C. National Guard Commander Testifies About "Unusual" Delay in Getting Approval to Send Troops to Secure Capitol
D.C. National Guard Commander Brigadier General William Walker testifies before a joint Senate committee hearing on the January 6 attack and the delay in receiving Pentagon authorization to send in National Guard troops to help secure the Capitol perimeter, which he says was "unusual."
D.C. National Guard Commander Testifies About "Unusual" Delay in Getting Approval to Send Troops to Secure Capitol | C-SPAN.org

Remember when everyone was trying to figure out why Trump was suddenly appointing loyal followers to key Pentagon positions, after he lost the election. This is why.

 

[The Barbarian]

PolitiFact - No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it

Is anyone really surprised?

 

[Jamsie]

Is anyone really surprised?

No rational person however, .....

 

[BobRyan]

djhjmedia is an extreme right wing site whose sources are questionable and biased.

I try to never read any biased news -- so its getting down to things like djhjmedia in an effort to avoid all bias

Apparently djhjmedia did know about this

=============
from: President Trump requested 10k National Guard at Capitol before Jan. 6th riot, was DENIED by Pelosi

Trump said he “gave the number” to the Department of Defense that 10,000 members of the National Guard would be needed.
“They took that number, from what I understand, they gave it to people at the Capitol, that is controlled by Pelosi, and I heard they rejected it because they didn’t think it would look good,” said Trump.

Meanwhile, according to Jane Campbell, the president and CEO of the U..S. Capitol Historical society, Capitol Complex security is the direct responsibility of a four-member Capitol Police Board, which includes both the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms, who report to the leaders of those chambers, reports PolitiFact.

Paul Irving, who had been the House sergeant-at-arms at the time of the attack, Michael Stenger, the Senate’s sergeant-at-arms, and Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund all resigned after the attack.

According to reports from The Washington Post and The New York Times, Irving told Sund he didn’t want troops at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because of “bad optics.”

Trump: Request for 10K Guard Troops Rejected Days Before Riot

============================ end quote

The Lost Hours: How Confusion and Inaction at the Capitol Delayed a Troop Deployment
Chief Sund did not hear back for 61 minutes after he called for help from the National Guard. And even then, there was a catch: Though Capitol security officials had approved his request, the Pentagon had the final say. During a tense phone call that began 18 minutes later, a top general said that he did not like the “visual” of the military guarding the Capitol and that he would recommend the Army secretary deny the request.

Pentagon approval finally came at 3:04 p.m. The first deployment of National Guard troops arrived at the Capitol two and a half hours later.

then it ends with

Yet it appears that Mr. Irving, who had told Chief Sund days earlier that he did not want National Guard troops at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because of bad “optics,” waited 30 minutes after hearing from the Capitol Police chief before approaching Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff. Neither Mr. Irving nor Mr. Stenger, who both resigned after the riot, responded to multiple requests for an interview. Mr. Sund resigned on Jan. 7, after pressure from congressional leaders.

The Lost Hours: How Confusion and Inaction at the Capitol Delayed a Troop Deployment

hmmm

Jamsie said: ↑
PolitiFact - No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it

Is anyone surprised that Pelosi denied it??

 

[tz620q]

CNN, MSNBC, and others have been doing a great job. In case you didn't see it, there were people attacking our Capitol with the intent of a) preventing the certification of the electoral college votes and b) killing legislators and staff, including the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. The National Guard were actually sitting in buses waiting for "the word" which was inexplicably delayed for hours while the attack was going on.

Your changing the subject to the deployment of Guardsman to "stop the rioting in our cities that happened night after night" shows your "true hand". Why should anyone consider your obviously biased post seriously?

Bias? I will state categorically, like most Republicans that both events were illegal, bad, in need of investigation and punishment. It seems the Democrats want to focus only on one and ignore the other. In fact, what type of outcry would be happening right now if Trump was working to fund bail for the rioters at the Capitol. So which side is biased? CNN and MSNBC are not wrong to report on the Senate investigation, though truly how unbiased can the Senate be as they were the targets of this riot. That is like letting the family of a murder victim serve as jurors in the trial of the defendant. What they are wrong about in denying that they are a biased news source, just as biased as Fox is on the other side. Do you think that this sort of polarized news media through sensationalizing every event through a political ideology does not impact the every day Joe in the streets?

 

[BobRyan]

Bias? I will state categorically, like most Republicans that both events were illegal, bad, in need of investigation and punishment. It seems the Democrats want to focus only on one and ignore the other.

That may be true - but look at the bright side -- at least they are now thinking up laws making all the riots of 2020 illegal even for Democrats - the same as Republicans were claiming all along.

 

[The Barbarian]

In fact, what type of outcry would be happening right now if Trump was working to fund bail for the rioters at the Capitol.

Why would he do that? They loyally followed his directions; he has no more need for them. So he walks away, letting them take the hit for trusting him.

 

[cow451]

PolitiFact - No proof Trump requested 10,000 Guard troops for Jan. 6 or that Pelosi denied it

Oops

 

[The Barbarian]

That may be true - but look at the bright side -- at least they are now thinking up laws making all the riots of 2020 illegal even for Democrats

I'm seeing that police rounded up lots of Trump supporters for those riots, but I don't see where they found any democrats involved. Got a link?

Members of far-right groups conspired to incite violence and start a civil war during protests of George Floyd’s killing, according to the FBI.
FBI: White Supremacists Coordinated Riots After George Floyd’s Killing

White Supremacists pretending to host a protest to honor Floyd George on Facebook to whip up violence in San Diego were posted on the BLMSD social media warning people not to go and that it was a white supremacist organized rally. People attending demonstrations remarked on the fact that the demographics were wrong, in places like Oakland where the majority of the destruction was perpetrated by young Caucasian men has inspired not just people on social media but reporting in the mainstream media to properly question whether this is a form of infiltration by outside extremist elements.
...
A report by Vice News about right-wing infiltrators in the protests notes “hardcore ‘accelerationists’ … are encouraging their neo-Nazi followers to go to the protests and carry out acts of violence against black people.”

Accelerationists follow the blueprint laid out by neo-Nazi James Mason in The Siege (not the film with Denzel Washington) whose writing inspires Charles Manson types of killing sprees. Mason, living in obscurity in Denver until he was brought out of retirement by Atomwaffen, a right wing Neo Nazi group. The goal of accelerationism is to burn everything down and to use violence both to target enemies and instigate an overt and extreme response from the government. Their strategy echoes Gustavo Gorriti’s writings about the Shining Path terrorist group that the movement’s “goal was to provoke blind, excessive reactions from the state… Blows laid on indiscriminately would also provoke among those unjustly or disproportionately affected an intense resentment of the government.”
Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists

In coordination with the violence, the plan requires social media campaigns to blame BLM and other minority organizations for it.

 

[RDKirk]

The U.S. Army repeatedly and falsely denied that the brother of Michael Flynn — the former Trump national security adviser, who has become a prominent conspiracy theorist — was involved in its response to the deadly Capitol riot. At least until Lt. Gen. Charles Flynn, the Army's deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training, admitted to The Washington Post that he was present during a meeting about whether to deploy the National Guard to quell the mob.


It's unclear why the Army denied that Charles Flynn, attended the meeting, in which one official (it's not clear who) described the Capitol rioters as "peaceful" and several officials resisted deploying additional troops. The Army's delay in sending National Guard troops to assist Capitol Police and Washington, D.C. officers who were overrun by the pro-Trump mob has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers. National Guard backup did not arrive at the Capitol until nearly four hours after the then-president's supporters had breached the complex, after most of the violence was already over.
Army falsely denied Flynn brother's role in riot response: report

Without regard to the overall issue, there's no point to trying to make a point out of Charles' Flynn's presence at that meeting. He's a 3-star general, just barely safe from being sent out for coffee at that level of meeting. The Army didn't deny his presence, the Army denied he shaped the response.

Considering that we know the position of the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, Flynn's role at the meeting was merely to nod his head.

 

[The Barbarian]

Without regard to the overall issue, there's no point to trying to make a point out of Charles' Flynn's presence at that meeting. He's a 3-star general, just barely safe from being sent out for coffee at that level of meeting. The Army didn't deny his presence, the Army denied he shaped the response.

Considering that we know the position of the Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, Flynn's role at the meeting was merely to nod his head.

Still, it's odd why Trump's people denied that he was there. Shouldn't have been any reason to do that, if he had no impact on the meeting.

 

[The Barbarian]

Is anyone surprised that Pelosi denied it??

Since there is no evidence that she did, we can't assume that.