Red flags suggest police could have prevented Jan. 6, and that Capitol security remains lax

Are you telling me protesters were unaware police were being beaten?

 

They had opened the gates out front and then the doors.

The violent persons were in the wrong, they should not have fought with the police to gain entry they should not have done any damage to do so. And they have been properly arrested and are being properly prosecuted.

The police on the ground did the best they could in a situation they should never have been in. There should have been adequate security there in the first place. And as the former Captain of the CP stated under oath, had that been there there as he requested multiple times before Jan 6 there never would have been the breach and riot inside the Capitol.

The question this committee is does appear to be interested in at all is the failure to have prepared for what they, the Capitol and DC leadership, had been repeatedly and specifically warned about. Who made those final decisions and why.

 

I have been quite clear in what I have stated try responding to it.

 

As I've stated before, I would like to see ALL of the aspects of Jan 6th investigated, and let the chips fall where they may.

 

What "facts" are you on about ? The FACT that the right all said it was a "peaceful protest" ?

The letter to the Capital Police Chief WAS a letter to the person who could get help. The problem you have is that your again trying to blame Pelosi when you have been shown numerous times that Nancy didnt have the power to get the national guard. No mater how you try to frame it, she did NOT have the power.

AGAIN, you are playing the game that somehow she had the power, yet leaving out that the "Capital Board" is made up of The House SAA and the Senate SAA. BOTH denied the original requests prior to Jan6th, but both approved the request the day of. BUT....and this is a the catch, The Pentegon has to approve that request, and they didnt until late in the day. So AGAIN, how is this Nancy Pelosi's fault ?

And she HAS been asked, and both her and the house SAA Paul Irving both had asked for the NG in that day. There is a very clear, DOCUMENTED record of this.

 

And it's quite clear who was in charge. The house and senate sergeant at arms both rejected the capitol police chiefs request for more support.

 

He didn’t offer troops or instruct anyone to offer troops.

According to the transcript, he “commented” that “they” would need 10,000 troops. Seems like he knew there was going to be trouble. And he went ahead with his rally anyway. That makes him responsible.

 

Why did the CEO of the dam keep smashing it with a hammer when he new it was cracked?

 

Moving the goal post noted are your fail.

So why wasn't there the proper security at the Capitol that day after the repeated warnings it should be there?

 

And who do they report to when they told the Capitol Police Chief they would run it up the chain? Why did Pelosi fire the Capitol Police Chief?

Let's see her communications and those of her staff concerning those warnings.

 

For the vast majority it was, it was only those who attacked and entered the capitol at the beginning of the riot that it wasn't. There were 10,000's there that day, how many were arrested for rioting in the Capitol? And the rally before was completely peaceful.

What letter are you talking about? Pelosi had full power to order her Sargent at Arms to have to the National Guard just as she ordered they remain there for months and that fencing remain around the Capitol. Are you saying the the top person in charge was left out of the loop in all the preparations and warnings from the FBI, DOJ, HSA and DoD and her own Capitol Police to have more security there? Is that your contention? Let's have a full investigation and find out that would absurd if they had not discussed IN FULL with her.

And who does the Capitol Board report to. The prior request and advisories are a matter of fact. And here's the catch, the Pentagon had been telling them to request them and did not hold up the process on that day when it was FINALLY approved by the Capitol officials.

That day at 2PM was far too late to stop the riot that was going on and would continue. And it wasn't the NG arriving that even ended it, by the time they were ordered in and mustered, and got into their uniforms and equipment and loaded up their equipment and got their convoy going and arrived at the Capitol all the did was maintain an outside perimeter as DC police finished clearing out the few who remained inside.

The burden to have the Capitol properly secured that day is on the Capitol and no one else and that buck stops with Pelosi.

So let's have a full investigation, let's see her and her staff's communications on the matter and have them all testify. If she was cut out of the loop and never informed of the possible danger let's find out why. If she was informed and agreed to not have that additional security let's find out why. Why shouldn't we?

 

This is the only thing I know that hasn't been. What else hasn't been investigated?

 

So trump have repeated warnings that there would be trouble, but went ahead and riled up the crowd anyway?

 

Do you have a source they said they would run it up the chain?

 

How do you know it hasn't been investigated? How do you know it won't come up at a future hearing?

 

Of course he testified before Congress to it did you miss it? You don't know what happened that day?

Outgoing Capitol Police chief: House, Senate security officials hamstrung efforts to call in National Guard

...Sund immediately called Contee, who sent 100 officers to the scene, with some arriving within 10 minutes. But at 1:09 p.m., Sund said he called Irving and Stenger, telling them it was time to call in the Guard. He wanted an emergency declaration. Both men said they would “run it up the chain” and get back to him, he said...."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...2ce7d4-5384-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

 

Oh please point me to something showing this committee is investigating Pelosi's office especially when the chairman declared she would be off limits. They have no intention of investigating her office spare me.

 

My suspicion is that they'll feel they have to address it in some way, because the lack of defence of the Capitol is obviously a crucial aspect of the whole story. When did the chairman declare Pelosi was off-limits, by the way? Link?

 

They don't feel anything but their vengeance of Trump. They don't care about what was or was not the security at the Capitol all the care about is Trump and trying to find a way to get him charged with a crime which makes their little partisan committee unconstitutional.

""Well, if you look at the charge that we have in the resolution, it says the facts and circumstances around January 6. I don't see the speaker being part and parcel to that," Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the Democratic chairman of the committee, told CNN. "It's a free country, and people can say what they want. As to whether or not it has a place in this committee remains to be seen.""
https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/20/politics/january-6-probe-republican-strategy/index.html

Off limits they ain't going there. Pelosi knew the Republicans would go there that is why she took total control of the committee with her lapdogs in charge.

 

The bolded bit directly contradicts what you say.

 

Trump stopped speaking at 1:10
Capitol steps breached at 1:45

You were saying?

 

The rest of his comments can be read here:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/202...ntagon-leadership-in-trumps-chaotic-last-week

They were meeting with President Trump on “an Iran issue,” Miller told me. But then the conversation switched gears. The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. “We’re like, ‘We’re going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,’” Miller responded. “And [Trump] goes, ‘You’re going to need 10,000 people.’ No, I’m not talking bullshit. He said that. And we’re like, ‘Maybe. But you know, someone’s going to have to ask for it.’” At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, “‘You do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.’ He said, ‘You’re going to need 10,000.’ That’s what he said. Swear to God.”

I’ll point out the “You do what you need to do” comment which he reiterated. On what grounds do you assert a man who told the person in charge of getting national guard troops to defend the Capitol to do whatever he needs to do and suggests 10,000 National guard troops is planning to overthrow the government?

That’s gotta be one of the single most retarded arguments in history.

 

No actually according to intelligence there were no indications of any kind of mass violence.

 

Get your story straight. Did trump know there was going to be trouble so he offered to make more troops available, and that offer was rejected?

Or did he not know there was going to be trouble, so there was no reason to accept any offer he might have made?

 

You understand when anyone says Jan6 was a peaceful protest that it’s a JOKE making fun of Dems calling the summer of love peaceful protests. You don’t get that? NO ONE is denying violence occurred. We have video. We saw it. But most people in the building were NOT violent. They were armed with phones. The only one shot crawled right next to police. Passed by many cops without incident attacking no one. There’s video of that too.

Everyone that entered the capitals was an idiot. But the vast majority stayed outside. Around 200 entered and most of the 200 were trespassing. Some damaged some property. Many took video. Sat in chairs. Went into offices. No one was armed in a way to control anything or anyone. They was zero chance of them maintaining control of anything. And they didn’t. It was over in 2 hours and it was business as usual.