Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Looting a shoe store is just the same as attacking the Capitol. Yep. Sure is.
What's the point of breaking the law?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?
I feel pity for anyone on the right that justifies the actions of Jan 6
What's the point of breaking the law?
Perhaps the racists, xenophobics, and anti-LGBTQ will be exposedWhat 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?
Well, if the Jan 6 protest was peaceful, why all the hub-bub?
And how does that help your cause?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?
That's a new view from the right.......Who said it was peaceful?
I called it a riot.
Perhaps the racists, xenophobics, and anti-LGBTQ will be exposed
That's a new view from the right.......
And how does that help your cause?
As CINC of DCNG, who exactly could, much less would deny him?
This last little vignette?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.
Incorrect and no.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.
This last little vignette?
Yup, pure hearsay.
The other two hours of her testimony?
I guess we can throw that out too because…
Incorrect and no.
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.
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-not-order-10000-troops-secure-capitol-jan-6/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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?