Trump's offer of National Guard troops not acted upon--select committee has not provided explanation

[Ana the Ist]

Looting a shoe store is just the same as attacking the Capitol. Yep. Sure is.

No....it's not the same. There's a point to attacking the Capitol, even if it's dumb.

What's the point of looting a shoe store?

 

[rturner76]

No....it's not the same. There's a point to attacking the Capitol, even if it's dumb.

What's the point of looting a shoe store?

What's the point of breaking the law?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I feel pity for anyone on the right that justifies the actions of Jan 6

What needs justified?

Haven't they charged the people involved? Haven't they gone to jail?

What exactly do you think will come of this show that's being put on?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's the point of breaking the law?

Proving your a criminal? Showing that your movement was always bogus? Making it clear that the reason why you hate cops is because you're a criminal?

 

[rturner76]

What needs justified?

Haven't they charged the people involved? Haven't they gone to jail?

What exactly do you think will come of this show that's being put on?

Perhaps the racists, xenophobics, and anti-LGBTQ will be exposed

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, if the Jan 6 protest was peaceful, why all the hub-bub?

Who said it was peaceful?

I called it a riot.

 

[rturner76]

Proving your a criminal? Showing that your movement was always bogus? Making it clear that the reason why you hate cops is because you're a criminal?

And how does that help your cause?

 

[rturner76]

Who said it was peaceful?

I called it a riot.

That's a new view from the right.......

 

[Ana the Ist]

Perhaps the racists, xenophobics, and anti-LGBTQ will be exposed

There's no LGBTQ...that's not a thing anymore.

If you can't tell me what a man or woman is....then what's the LGB stand for?

If this person...

Is attracted to this person...

Are these a couple of gay men?

A couple of lesbians?

A hetero couple?

If they can change minute to minute....day to day....

Then what exactly do you mean by LBGTQ?

The left annihilated that movement...not the right. You're going to have to explain what a man and a woman is first before we can even have a conversation about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a new view from the right.......

Go ask the right....I've never voted for a republican or conservative candidate.

I'm just pointing out facts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And how does that help your cause?

What cause?

What's this mysterious cause you think I have?

 

[Ana the Ist]

As CINC of DCNG, who exactly could, much less would deny him?

He delegates control of the National Guard in DC....as all presidents do.....to the Secretary of Defense.

In regards to the situation in question, that would be the person Gen. Milley claimed said there was a plan in place.

 

[Pommer]

It's not an allegation. It's not testimony.

It's political theater.

In an actual court of law....she wouldn't be able to testify about anything she spoke on.

It's all hearsay.

In a court of law its worthless.

This last little vignette?
Yup, pure hearsay.
The other two hours of her testimony?
I guess we can throw that out too because…

 

[Pardon Maoi]

He delegates control of the National Guard in DC....as all presidents do.....to the Secretary of Defense.

In regards to the situation in question, that would be the person Gen. Milley claimed said there was a plan in place.

Incorrect and no.

Delegation does not do away with the chain of command. There's only one top of that chian and it's the President.

And whenever Gen Milley was referring to had no veto power over DCNG because, again, if the CINC lawfully orders a deployment, then those beneath him are obligated to follow through. In fact anyone in uniform who didn't (like a general) would be facing sanction under UCMJ.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This last little vignette?
Yup, pure hearsay.
The other two hours of her testimony?
I guess we can throw that out too because…

I'll readily admit that I didn't watch her 2 hours of testimony...

I suppose unlike the part everyone is talking about, it's filled with deeply relevant 1st hand information.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Incorrect and no.

That's 100% correct, I looked it up before I answered you.

Do you want a citation? I can provide it....but if I'm going to the trouble of looking up easily accessible information for you, I'd like you to acknowledge that you're wrong once I do....

Sound fair?

 

[Pardon Maoi]

That's 100% correct, I looked it up before I answered you.[\quote]

Again, no. You might have misunderstood what you read when you looked it up, but there is no planet where SECDEF has more control over DCNG than CINC.

Do you want a citation? I can provide it....but if I'm going to the trouble of looking up easily accessible information for you, I'd like you to acknowledge that you're wrong once I do....

Sound fair?

I would love one. It will just make showing that you're repeating talking points rather than speaking from a position of authoritative knowledge. Before you do, I'll just state again: the commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United States are under the command of the President. No political appointee, general or elected official can override a lawful order from CINC.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The interesting thing here is.
1. Trump did not offer to send in National Guard troops.
2. If the IG report is true, Trump just asked a question, rather than offering resources.
3. At no point does it say that Trump offered 10,000 troops. This seems to be a bit of false propaganda running in right wing circles and right wing propaganda media.
4. What does this have to do with Nancy Pelosi? Seems to be that the idea that Nancy Pelosi rejected a request for 10,000 Troops is again right wing nonsense, spread by propaganda personalities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-not-order-10000-troops-secure-capitol-jan-6/
The reporter, Adam Ciralsky, asked Miller why Trump threw out such a big number: “The president’s sometimes hyperbolic, as you’ve noticed. There were gonna be a million people in the street, I think was his expectation.” (It was just thousands of people.)

In other words, 10,000 troops was a guesstimate based on Trump’s inflated belief in his ability to draw a crowd. The statement did not come as part of a meeting to discuss how to handle the event. Instead, it appears to have been an offhand remark. That’s not the same thing as a “request.” (Trump certainly knew how to order the deployment of National Guard troops in June 2020.)

In fact, the Defense Department never acted on Trump’s remarks, according to our reporting, as department officials did not regard the offhand comment to be a “direct order,” as Meadows claimed.

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said officials checked the records after Trump’s remarks about ordering 10,000 National Guard troops. “We have no record of such an order being given,” Kirby told The Fact Checker.

So it seems to me that D Trump, made an offhand comment at a meeting that had nothing to do with the Jan 6 event. And now Trump supporters are claiming that this comment was an official request and that it was Nancy Pelosi that denied that official request.
This is of course inaccurate, misleading, and a gross distortion of facts. All because they were hoping that Trump had actually made this request.

What exactly is the difference between an "offhand comment" requesting National Guard support for a rally....and a "direct order" for National Guard support for a rally?

Because I can't imagine a way off just offhandedly suggesting that perhaps, if someone has the time, send a bunch of National Guard troops to keep a rally civil.

I suppose it's possible, but I don't see it happening.

Instead, it seems like the support was requested, and this was either deliberately ignored or unintentionally ignored....because it's the request of a lame duck president. You don't need to worry about the wrath of a guy about to loss his office.

The whole "offhand remark" is the sort of thing one says when they don't want to take the blame for not doing what they were told.

"Oh that was an order? My mistake....I thought you were just spitballing out loud possible ways to ensure the safety of everyone at the rally...I didn't realize you actually wanted the troops you requested."

I'm not going as far as suggesting, as some have, that the request was denied because some people were scared these troops would be used in an attempted coup...aka a real insurrection.....although that's certainly possible.

It seems just as likely that the acting Secretary of Defense simply didn't want to throw fuel on the fire....and figured as long as he didn't get involved, he wouldn't be blamed. Trump would be gone soon...and he didn't have to worry about any repercussions.

But am offhand comment? Requesting National Guard support for security during a rally?

Try and type out whatever you think that sounds like. I can't make a request like that look like an "offhand comment"....it always comes out looking like a request for National Guard troops.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You seem to have messed up your quotations....

However, let's start with the basics....

Delegate.
Definition of DELEGATE

Now hopefully you understand what delegate means.

As for being the head of the Executive Branch....yes, technically every single actor in the many departments and probably hundreds of agencies in the Executive Branch all fall under the authority of the president....all of them.

What does this look like? Here's a chart....

Zoom in...that's a lot of departments.

What do those departments look like? Let's take a peek...

That's just the department of energy.

Since it's literally impossible for 1 person to oversee all of these departments, agencies, offices, etc....the president delegates these responsibilities. It's called the federal government. It's fun to learn stuff, isn't it?

So remember when posters on here were discussing "dereliction of duty"? The president oversees the Department of Homeland Security. Under this department are the agencies of the border patrol and customs....who are currently under a crisis.

Now, President Biden has delegated the responsibility of dealing with the crisis to Kamala Harris and judging the panic in DC mayor Bowser's call for help dealing with a pitifully small number of illegals (only around 4000 of the over 4 million who entered under Biden) would you say this is the fault of Mayorkas (who oversees the agencies) Harris (who has been delegated responsibility for the crisis) or Biden (because he is ultimately in charge of hundreds of thousands if not millions of government employees)?

You either accept that presidents delegate authority.....or you hold them responsible for every single failure of nearly everyone in the federal government that is in any way involved with enforcing a law. The failures of all those departments are all on Biden....or not really.

As for a citation....there was already one on page three of this thread but I can provide a fresh one showing this particular task falls on the Secretary of Defense if you have trouble reading page three well enough to find it.

 

[stevil]

What exactly is the difference between an "offhand comment" requesting National Guard support for a rally....and a "direct order" for National Guard support for a rally?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-not-order-10000-troops-secure-capitol-jan-6/

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said officials checked the records after Trump’s remarks about ordering 10,000 National Guard troops. “We have no record of such an order being given,” Kirby told The Fact Checker.

There are two main things to consider
1. Did Trump or anyone put in an official request for 10,000 Troops in the lead up to Jan 6?
Answer: No

2. When the capital was breached did Trump contact anyone to try to stop it, or to bolster the defenses?
Answer:No, certainly not until over three hours after the attack started.

then the third question, "So how took control and called in for reinforcements?
Answer: Mike Pence.