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

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

stevil said:
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.

Yeah, the 10,000 troops thing seems to be either an exaggeration or fabrication of the actual words said in a discussion.

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

No....the real question is if he requested any troops.

It doesn't really matter if he requested 10,000 or some unspecified number to be ready to provide security.

The question that matters is whether or not he made the request at all.

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.

I don't think that's a question....we don't seem to have anyone contradicting that fact.

The better question might be....since Secretary of Defense Miller had the authority to deploy troops, even if he failed to do so beforehand as asked, why didn't he do so during those 3 hours?

stevil · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
The better question might be....since Secretary of Defense Miller had the authority to deploy troops, even if he failed to do so beforehand as asked, why didn't he do so during those 3 hours?

Are you saying that the president (the commander in chief) has no obligations with regards to commanding various federal agencies concerning defending the country/the democracy or official government proceedings from large scale domestic attacks?

Even if the attackers are carrying hats and banners with the memes and slogans of the president and are under the impression they are doing the president's bidding? And have been called upon by the president to decent upon the capital?

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

stevil said:
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.

I mean why wouldn't we look at Christopher Miller's words themselves....

‘You’re Ridiculous!’: Lawmakers Shred Defense Secretary for Jan. 6 About-Face

He seemed to have faced criticism for his slow response...

Miller previously has been criticized for waiting too long to authorize National Guard troops amid the insurrection and for ignoring pleas from D.C. leaders for help.

And his excuse for his slow response was...

Defending his own actions, he said in his prepared remarks that he was concerned about sending U.S. troops into the Capitol out of the “possibility of a military coup or that advisers to the President were advocating the declaration of martial law.”

So he didn't deploy troops quickly out of fear that they would engage in a military coup....

Which when taken in the larger context, explains why Biden did a purge of the military of suspected Trump loyalists upon assuming office.

It seems even Democrats were aware that Trump had requested support from NG troops.

Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) also tore Miller to shreds on the crucial “1.5-hour gap” between D.C. Mayor Muriel Bower’s request for National Guard backup at about 1:30 p.m. and Miller’s authorization at 3:04 p.m. on Jan. 6. He noted that Trump had told Miller on Jan. 3 to grant Bowser’s request for resources.

Now keep in mind....this is back in May of 2021....well before it the Democratic Party realized that their president was a failure and well before they realized that they couldn't leverage holding Miller responsible for any sort of political gains.

To get anything out of these hearings, they need to hold Trump responsible. Sadly, it's obvious to anyone who cares to look that they were aware Trump requested additional security well before January 6th and for whatever reason, this request was denied.

Let's not pretend that it's because Miller didn't realize it was a serious request....not some "offhand comment". He chose to disobey and if anyone is responsible for not providing adequate security or responding with adequate security....it's him.

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

Of course, many here may have forgotten the ideological purge and indoctrination of the military following the whole January 6th debacle....

Biden Administration Orders Ideological Purge Of U.S. Military Academies

So perhaps the flip flop testimony of Christopher Miller is simply him following orders. It does appear that there's at least some truth to the idea that the left didn't trust the military and if so....it's certainly possible that they played a part in delaying the response on January 6th.

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

stevil said:
Are you saying that the president (the commander in chief) has no obligations

I'm saying that it appears that Democratic Party reps were aware that Trump had requested support from the NG way back in 2021.

Why wasn't it given?

rturner76 · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
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...

View attachment 319296

Is attracted to this person...

View attachment 319297

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.

Man vs Woman is gender. Male and Female is sex. You can change your gender but not your sex is what I believe they go by.

rturner76 · Aug 1, 2022

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

I'm just pointing out facts.

That's funny because you seem to come out for the right on just about every topic you post in.

stevil · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
I'm saying that it appears that Democratic Party reps were aware that Trump had requested support from the NG way back in 2021.

Why wasn't it given?

Is this a Dems vs Reps thing?

In my opinion we should be focusing on individuals rather than blanket groups.

It seems there was no request for support.
And I don't know, given that the Republicans were in power, why the Dems would have been in control of security, the national guard and the likes?

It seems on the day that Mike Pence took up the reigns of Commander in Chief in the absence of action by the President.

rjs330 · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
Who said it was peaceful?

I called it a riot.

Yeah me too.

rjs330 · Aug 1, 2022

rturner76 said:
That's a new view from the right.......

No it's not. The right has overwhelming called what happened a riot. There's of course a few knuckle heads who didn't, just like there were some knuckle heads who didn't call the BLM riots, riots.

stevil · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
So perhaps the flip flop testimony of Christopher Miller is simply him following orders. It does appear that there's at least some truth to the idea that the left didn't trust the military and if so....it's certainly possible that they played a part in delaying the response on January 6th.

The flip flopping of Christopher Miller needs to be understood in context.
When Chris was on Fox news not under oath, when lying isn't a criminal offense, he says one thing, and says to Fox news viewers that this is what he said under oath.

But when his under oath testimony is released we see that, when he was under oath, when lying is a criminal offense, then he says the complete opposite of what he said on Fox News.

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

rturner76 said:
Man vs Woman is gender. Male and Female is sex. You can change your gender but not your sex is what I believe they go by.

You don't have a clue what they go by.

You think if they call it "female sports" trans women will be fine with being excluded? If we just relabel restrooms male and female....problem solved?

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

rturner76 said:
That's funny because you seem to come out for the right on just about every topic you post in.

If the facts support them it would seem that way.

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

stevil said:
The flip flopping of Christopher Miller needs to be understood in context.

If you actually read the post, or the article linked in the post, or the written statement made by Miller during the January 6th investigation last year....you'll notice none of these things have anything to do with some Fox news interview.

If you don't think Miller is obligated to tell the truth during an official investigation then I don't see why you imagine he has to tell the truth during a congressional testimony.

It's not a court after all.

Ana the Ist · Aug 1, 2022

stevil said:
Is this a Dems vs Reps thing?

Of course it is lol....

Get it straight.

Democrats do not care about January 6th. They don't consider it a threat or insurrection.

They're running a failed administration. They're set to lose big during elections. They want to give the impression they are doing something meaningful or useful so they have something to show for the past 2 years other than a bunch of bungled embarrassments like Afghanistan and a destroyed economy.

Remember when the Obama administration was stonewalled by Republicans and those same Republicans had nothing to run on except preventing the Democrats from doing anything? Remember how they held like 8 investigations into benghazi? That's to make it look like they're doing something.

Same thing.

stevil · Aug 1, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
Of course it is lol....

Get it straight.

Democrats do not care about January 6th. They don't consider it a threat or insurrection.

I don't divide the world up in this way. I have no time for such nonsense.

But I totally recognise that Trump and many helpers tried very hard to overthrow the votes and remain in power.
The fake electors scheme in particular was very bizzare, and the idea that the VP can just choose to throw out electorates and declare himself the winner is very, very odd and very dangerous and very undemocratic. It seems to be very fortunate that Pence wasn't stupid enough to go along with it.

rjs330 · Aug 2, 2022

stevil said:
I don't divide the world up in this way. I have no time for such nonsense.

But I totally recognise that Trump and many helpers tried very hard to overthrow the votes and remain in power.
The fake electors scheme in particular was very bizzare, and the idea that the VP can just choose to throw out electorates and declare himself the winner is very, very odd and very dangerous and very undemocratic. It seems to be very fortunate that Pence wasn't stupid enough to go along with it.

Did Trump though? It was my understanding that he wanted Pence not to certify the votes. That's quite different than throw them out and declare him the winner. Or am I mistaken?

Ana the Ist · Aug 2, 2022

stevil said:
I don't divide the world up in this way.

I don't know what you're saying here.

But I totally recognise that Trump and many helpers tried very hard to overthrow the votes and remain in power.

If you want to rig an election....you do it before the election, not after.

It may be that Trump or others said or did something illegal post election....but if there was enough evidence to charge him, I'd like to imagine they'd have it by now.

The fake electors scheme in particular was very bizzare, and the idea that the VP can just choose to throw out electorates and declare himself the winner is very, very odd and very dangerous and very undemocratic. It seems to be very fortunate that Pence wasn't stupid enough to go along with it.

Yeah I haven't heard a whole lot about the fake electors thing....I remember reading that they were trying to use some legal loophole to elect Trump but I haven't paid it much attention.

After a quick look....I haven't found any of them sentenced to prison yet.

Are they guilty of a crime or not? If so...what's the holdup? It seems like a slam dunk if they were committing a crime.

If you want to believe that this is something significant which will have some sort of meaningful outcome....ask yourself why it's well over a year and these people aren't sitting in jail serving a sentence or awaiting trial. They got the people who actually were at the riot quickly enough.....why the slow movement on everyone else?

Edit- I don't know if you saw my earlier posts....but the Democratic Party has been donating millions to the campaigns of people they are calling a threat to democracy. That's awfully irresponsible if they genuinely believe what they are saying.

stevil · Aug 2, 2022

Ana the Ist said:
I don't know what you're saying here.

I don't look at the world as being Democrat vs Republican, or Right vs Left.

When I consider who was trying to overthrow the electoral vote, I look at the individuals.
The Hearings, although mostly run by Democrats has been a show of mostly Republicans testifying about the activities of some specific Republicans. In a way similar to the Russian collusion thing where it was Republicans testifying against some Republicans, but that one was started and officiated and investigated by Republicans. It was not a show of Democrats vs Republicans.

Ana the Ist said:
If you want to rig an election....you do it before the election, not after.

Apparently there was a large play to deal with trying to overturn the election rather than rig it. They also tried very hard to slow down mail in votes with all the shenanigans that went on in the US Postal Service.

It seems possible they will try again next time with the same playbook and they are also putting in a strong showing on voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the like to disadvantage minorities and the poor. They are leaving no stone unturned.

Ana the Ist said:
It may be that Trump or others said or did something illegal post election....but if there was enough evidence to charge him, I'd like to imagine they'd have it by now.

It seems that the US legal system is very very slow, especially when it comes to investigating political suspects, and especially presidential suspects.

Ana the Ist said:
Yeah I haven't heard a whole lot about the fake electors thing....I remember reading that they were trying to use some legal loophole to elect Trump but I haven't paid it much attention.

It's been all over the media for months. It wasn't trying to exploit a legal loophole. It was wholeheartedly illegal. Many of Trump's lawyers were telling Trump it was illegal. It was really only Eastman and Giuliani that were pushing to give it a go. Eastman has kept denying that he was giving advice on this. Many of those people that signed the fake electors forms are now under official investigation.

Ana the Ist said:
Edit- I don't know if you saw my earlier posts....but the Democratic Party has been donating millions to the campaigns of people they are calling a threat to democracy. That's awfully irresponsible if they genuinely believe what they are saying.

I have not heard any of this.
Is this from the Federallist or from Fox News Opinion show hosts or have legitimate media been reporting on this?

Ana the Ist · Aug 2, 2022

stevil said:
I don't look at the world as being Democrat vs Republican, or Right vs Left.

Neither do I....but in this instance we're talking about a political issue in the US.

When I consider who was trying to overthrow the electoral vote, I look at the individuals.

When I hear that someone tried to "overthrow the electoral vote"....

I end up with a bunch of questions that require answers before proceeding.

The Hearings, although mostly run by Democrats has been a show of mostly Republicans testifying about the activities of some specific Republicans. In a way similar to the Russian collusion thing where it was Republicans testifying against some Republicans, but that one was started and officiated and investigated by Republicans. It was not a show of Democrats vs Republicans.

I'm sorry....did you say that the Russian collusion investigation was run by Republicans?

Apparently there was a large play to deal with trying to overturn the election rather than rig it. They also tried very hard to slow down mail in votes with all the shenanigans that went on in the US Postal Service.

What's the large play?

It seems possible they will try again next time with the same playbook

I find that unlikely since it would violate the law against a president serving more than twice.

nd they are also putting in a strong showing on voter suppression,

Disagree.

gerrymandering,

Both sides do this.

and the like to disadvantage minorities and the poor.

Aren't there more poor whites than any minority group?

It seems that the US legal system is very very slow, especially when it comes to investigating political suspects, and especially presidential suspects.

Well it's an issue of what someone can prove.

It's been all over the media for months. It wasn't trying to exploit a legal loophole. It was wholeheartedly illegal. Many of Trump's lawyers were telling Trump it was illegal. It was really only Eastman and Giuliani that were pushing to give it a go. Eastman has kept denying that he was giving advice on this. Many of those people that signed the fake electors forms are now under official investigation.

What do you mean they're under investigation.

They either did something illegal or didn't.

Have any of these fake electors been charged with a crime?

I have not heard any of this.
Is this from the Federallist or from Fox News Opinion show hosts or have legitimate media been reporting on this?

There's no legitimate media....that's where your problem lies.

There's no outlet that's just telling you the truth or just the facts.

The link I used was from npr.

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

Aggressively serene!

Godless and without morals

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Domine non-sum dignus

Domine non-sum dignus

Godless and without morals

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Godless and without morals

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

Godless and without morals

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

Godless and without morals

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency