Still cant believe dems tried to push this idiot

[PiratePride]

It's not. That is a made up narrative to make you think they are hiding something.



Another BS narrative that is completely made up and was debunked months ago... as if Pelosi could overrule the president! please... That is just completely absurd honestly. You think Trump called the national guard and they responded "Sorry Sir, Pelosi won't let us."

As I understand it Pelosi and the sergeant at arms of the house have to agree to it. If I'm mis-informed then I stand corrected. I thought that the local jurisdictions had to agree to National Guard presence, like in Seattle when Trump wanted to bring in the Guard to protect federal buildings. the local jurisdictions shot him down.

How can it have been debunked as you say if Nancy Pelosi's emails and communications re: 1/6 have been declared "OFF LIMITS" to the committee.

 

[Merge]

As I understand it Pelosi and the sergeant at arms of the house have to agree to it. If I'm mis-informed then I stand corrected.

No, that is not correct.

I thought that the local jurisdictions had to agree to National Guard presence, like in Seattle when Trump wanted to bring in the Guard to protect federal buildings. the local jurisdictions shot him down.

Each state has their own guard. The difference in DC since it is not a state, It is the only area where the president has the authority over the national guard for local missions.

In Maryland, the governor has the authority over their national guard, and Larry Hogan tried to send troops into DC but was originally denied by the DOD. Not Pelosi.

How can it have been debunked as you say if Nancy Pelosi's emails and communications re: 1/6 have been declared "OFF LIMITS" to the committee.

Because Trump never requested them in the first place. You're just buying into a made up narrative.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

No, that is not correct.



Each state has their own guard. The difference in DC since it is not a state, It is the only area where the president has the authority over the national guard for local missions.

In Maryland, the governor has the authority over their national guard, and Larry Hogan tried to send troops into DC but was originally denied by the DOD. Not Pelosi.



Because Trump never requested them in the first place. You're just buying into a made up narrative.

Hogan would be my pick for Republican nomination in 2024. Central, sensible, won a blue state. It makes too much sense to ever happen.

 

[Merge]

Hogan would be my pick for Republican nomination in 2024. Central, sensible, won a blue state. It makes too much sense to ever happen.

Yep. Exactly what the party needs next cycle in my opinion.

 

[HALL85]

Hogan would be my pick for Republican nomination in 2024. Central, sensible, won a blue state. It makes too much sense to ever happen.

Agree on Hogan. I also like Governors as Presidential candidates in general because they have experience managing a budget.

 

[shu09]

Hogan would be my pick for Republican nomination in 2024. Central, sensible, won a blue state. It makes too much sense to ever happen.

His response to corona was very poor and overreactive. That's borderline disqualifying in my view. But he has some good things in his background and I like that he opposes Build Back Better.

I would be somewhat concerned about his age and health though. Overall I think there are better options.

 

[HALL85]

His response to corona was very poor and overreactive. That's borderline disqualifying in my view. But he has some good things in his background and I like that he opposes Build Back Better.

I would be somewhat concerned about his age and health though. Overall I think there are better options.

I’d prefer Nikki Haley and Pat Toomey over Hogan.

 

[PiratePride]

It's not. That is a made up narrative to make you think they are hiding something.



Another BS narrative that is completely made up and was debunked months ago... as if Pelosi could overrule the president! please... That is just completely absurd honestly. You think Trump called the national guard and they responded "Sorry Sir, Pelosi won't let us."

No, that is not correct.



Each state has their own guard. The difference in DC since it is not a state, It is the only area where the president has the authority over the national guard for local missions.

In Maryland, the governor has the authority over their national guard, and Larry Hogan tried to send troops into DC but was originally denied by the DOD. Not Pelosi.



Because Trump never requested them in the first place. You're just buying into a made up narrative.

This from factcheck.org

Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol - FactCheck.org

On the day of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the first National Guard members arrived to assist at about 5:40 p.m. Here, we present a timeline about the efforts to deploy those troops.

www.factcheck.org

Draw your own conclusions. Suffice it to say it is a bit of a tangled web. Trump did, according to fact check, agree to deploy Guardsmen, but House (Nancy) declined. The stated rationale was that it would not provide "good optics"

It's a mess. I don't know if the public will EVER get the straight scoop given the politicization of the commission.

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

This from factcheck.org

Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol - FactCheck.org

On the day of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the first National Guard members arrived to assist at about 5:40 p.m. Here, we present a timeline about the efforts to deploy those troops.

www.factcheck.org

Draw your own conclusions. Suffice it to say it is a bit of a tangled web. Trump did, according to fact check, agree to deploy Guardsmen, but House (Nancy) declined. The stated rationale was that it would not provide "good optics"

It's a mess. I don't know if the public will EVER get the straight scoop given the politicization of the commission.

Wasnt the commission going to be an equal split of Ds and Rs with equal subpoena power until McCarthy didnt agree because trump was against it?

McCarthy bending the knee to Don seems political by McCarthy.

 

[Merge]

This from factcheck.org

Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol - FactCheck.org

On the day of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the first National Guard members arrived to assist at about 5:40 p.m. Here, we present a timeline about the efforts to deploy those troops.

www.factcheck.org

Draw your own conclusions. Suffice it to say it is a bit of a tangled web. Trump did, according to fact check, agree to deploy Guardsmen, but House (Nancy) declined. The stated rationale was that it would not provide "good optics"

It's a mess. I don't know if the public will EVER get the straight scoop given the politicization of the commission.

The problem is that is what republicans wanted from you from the beginning. That is why they nominated people for the commission that they knew Pelosi would object to. Jordan and Biggs did not deserve to be anywhere near that commission. Pelosi said she would accept replacements for them and agreed to the 3 other republicans. (Davis, Armstrong and Nehls)

Instead they walked away entirely JUST to cast doubts about the integrity.. and you're eating that right up.

and no... That link you posted does not suggest Nancy opposed Trump sending the guard at all. It says that the capital police board (the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the architect of the Capitol) did not agree to declaring an emergency which would have given the capital police the authority to use the national guard. Trump ALWAYS had the authority over the national guard. He did not need approval from anyone if he wanted them there.

 

[PiratePride]

Wasnt the commission going to be an equal split of Ds and Rs with equal subpoena power until McCarthy didnt agree because trump was against it?

McCarthy bending the knee to Don seems political by McCarthy.

No, that is not correct. I think it was 7 dems and 5 repubs. But Nancy rejected two of the Republican nominees and McCarthy pulled out after Jordan and banks were rejected. So you basically have a stacked deck at the moment with the two replacements for Banks and Jordan and 7 Dems.

I'm pretty sure the dems would not give the republicans subpoena power and I'm not even sure if they can call their own witnesses. But with Cheney and Kinziger on the committee those are moot points. I have to check on the subpoen powere and ability to call witnesses.

 

[shu09]

Liz Cheney has some gall. Parachuting in as the GOP savior after all the destruction her father wrought on this country and its reputation.

 

[ed odowd]

Merge house sergeant at arms and chief admin officer report to Pelosi .WSJ reported that republican member of committee requested documents from these 2 and was told they wouldn’t provide them.Maybe you can explain if they report to Pelosi and they wouldn’t provide documents why This isn’t considered off limits ?

 

[PiratePride]

The problem is that is what republicans wanted from you from the beginning. That is why they nominated people for the commission that they knew Pelosi would object to. Jordan and Biggs did not deserve to be anywhere near that commission. Pelosi said she would accept replacements for them and agreed to the 3 other republicans. (Davis, Armstrong and Nehls)

Instead they walked away entirely JUST to cast doubts about the integrity.. and you're eating that right up.

and no... That link you posted does not suggest Nancy opposed Trump sending the guard at all. It says that the capital police board (the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the architect of the Capitol) did not agree to declaring an emergency which would have given the capital police the authority to use the national guard. Trump ALWAYS had the authority over the national guard. He did not need approval from anyone if he wanted them there.

A couple things.
1. Can I ask you why the Democrats should have the power to reject the Republican commission members? So much for any semblance of bi-partisanship. They should have appointed Kinzinger and Cheney from the get go because that is who they wanted. Your use of poetic license to read mcCarthy's mind is noted here. The gamesmanship on both sides was evident.

2, Do you think that the House Sergeant at arms did not consult with Nancy since he reports to her???? If you believe in transparency you should demand that Nancy turn over her documents and communications regarding Jan 6.

 

[Merge]

No, that is not correct. Two Republicans vs I think 9 (??) Dems were to be on the committee and Jim Jordan and another conservative republican were McCarthy's choices and they were rejected by the dems and two never Trump republicans Adam Kinszger and Liz Cheney were chosen by her eminence Nancy. So you basically have a stacked deck with the likes of Swallwell and Schiff part of the dem ranks.

I'm pretty sure the dems would not give the republicans subpoena power and I'm not even sure if they can call their own witnesses. But with Cheney and Kinziger on the committe those are moot points.

Nope. 100% incorrect.
Original commission was to be 7 dems and 4 republicans.

Republicans objected and asked for an even committee and equal subpoena power. Pelosi said yes.
McCarthy offered 5 republicans (Cheney was already 1) - Pelosi said yes to three of them and objected to two (because they played a role in casting doubts on the election) McCarthy walked away with all 5 instead of finding two replacements.

Pelosi offers concessions on bipartisan Jan. 6 Capitol attack commission

Marking 100 days last week since the attack, Pelosi reiterated her call for a 9/11-style commission to investigate what unfolded.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Merge]

Merge house sergeant at arms and chief admin officer report to Pelosi .WSJ reported that republican member of committee requested documents from these 2 and was told they wouldn’t provide them.Maybe you can explain if they report to Pelosi and they wouldn’t provide documents why This isn’t considered off limits ?

They said they were preserving data and would provide to the relevant committees to be established to investigate the attack.

https://cha.house.gov/sites/democrats.cha.house.gov/files/documents/Preservation%20Request%20Response%20CAO_SAA%202.1.21.pdf

 

[Merge]

1. Can I ask you why the Democrats should have the power to reject the Republican commission members? So much for any semblance of bi-partisanship. They should have appointed Kinzinger and Cheney from the get go because that is who they wanted. Your use of poetic license to read mcCarthy's mind is noted here. The gamesmanship on both sides was evident.

Because they have the majority, and again... Jordan and Biggs were a part of what lead up to that day.
Of course they should object and they did appoint Cheney from the get go.

Did you object when the Benghazi committee wasn't a split D & R as well, or is it only when dems are in power that you object?

Do you think that the House Sergeant at arms did not consult with Nancy since he reports to her???? If you believe in transparency you should demand that Nancy turn over her documents and communications regarding Jan 6.

I think you go where the evidence leads you. If the evidence says you need Nancy's email, get it.

But your entire premise here is based on a lie that she prevented Trump from using the national guard... That never happened, but you're till hunting for an out.

 

[PiratePride]

Nope. 100% incorrect.
Original commission was to be 7 dems and 4 republicans.

Republicans objected and asked for an even committee and equal subpoena power. Pelosi said yes.
McCarthy offered 5 republicans (Cheney was already 1) - Pelosi said yes to three of them and objected to two (because they played a role in casting doubts on the election) McCarthy walked away with all 5 instead of finding two replacements.

Pelosi offers concessions on bipartisan Jan. 6 Capitol attack commission

Marking 100 days last week since the attack, Pelosi reiterated her call for a 9/11-style commission to investigate what unfolded.

www.nbcnews.com

Be advised that I had realized I was spit balling and checked an on line source and edited the post you are quoting before I saw this response, My edited post and your version are close. you must have been salivating with your "100% incorrect". LOL I admit I was incorrect... my memory is good but its getting shorter,

 

[PiratePride]

Because they have the majority, and again... Jordan and Biggs were a part of what lead up to that day.
Of course they should object and they did appoint Cheney from the get go.

Did you object when the Benghazi committee wasn't a split D & R as well, or is it only when dems are in power that you object?



I think you go where the evidence leads you. If the evidence says you need Nancy's email, get it.

But your entire premise here is based on a lie that she prevented Trump from using the national guard... That never happened, but you're till hunting for an out.

You don't know she didn't prevent Trump from using the Guard. Neither of us know the total protocol that goes along with this The SGt at arms rejected the offer... that was made after Milley, the acting DOD and Trump consulted and the troops were "offered". Maybe if we knew that Trump "ordered" the guard you may have a point. My assumption from the fact check statement is that Trump went along with the military assessment and the offer was tendered. Was it tendered by the DOD or did it come from Trump? . If the Sgt at Arms rejected it. Pelosi HAD to have a hand in that decision. Nancy has been declared off limits for the investigation so we will never know. You call it a "lie" that she prevented Trump from using the guard. It is more like an assumption based on facts we know. ie, the sgt at arms rejected the guard. You need to be able to investigate the truth which we are prevented from doing in this case by the Committee chair. It is disingenuous of you to call it a "lie". There is so much we do not know to throw around the "lie" word with impunity.

The fact check noted that 5 people were killed during the riot including a police officer who the fact check states was injured during the riot. Now that would be a lie. As has been public knowledge since shortly after Jan 6 the officer died of natural causes after the riot. So four died of natural causes; the police officer and three of who were reportedly Trump supporters and the woman, Ashli Babbit,, SHOT by a DC police officer. The only shooting in the "insurrection".

Merge says "Did you object when the Benghazi committee wasn't a split D & R as well, or is it only when dems are in power that you object?" I wasn't awaere of the makeup of the Benghazi committee nor was I objecting to the 7 vs 5 original proposed makeup of the committee. I objected to Nancy rejecting the two Republicans. I was objecting to the 7 vs 2 that we have now but that was before I realized that McCarthy pulled out of the committe formation for what I thougt were pretty good reasons.

 

[Merge]

You don't know she didn't prevent Trump from using the Guard. Neither of us know the total protocol that goes along with this The SGt at arms rejected the offer...

Again, she can not overrule Trump here. If he asked for the guard beforehand, the would have been there. They did not reject an offer from Trump. There is nothing to support the idea that Trump wanted the national guard there that day, not sure why you’re convinced he did.

The house Sargeant at arms testified under oath that he did not discuss the national guard with house leadership.

and that "offer" wasn't for thousands of troops. The national guard offered 125 members for traffic control. That was the offer that was rejected because of the optics of declaring a state of emergency.

You can read the transcript for yourself.

Senate Hearing on January 6 Capitol Attack Transcript February 23 | Rev

Top Capitol security officials testified before the Senate on February 23, 2021 about the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Read the transcript of the full briefing here.

www.rev.com

You call it a "lie" that she prevented Trump from using the guard. It is more like an assumption based on facts we know. ie, the sgt at arms rejected the guard. You need to be able to investigate the truth which we are prevented from doing in this case by the Committee chair. It is disingenuous of you to call it a "lie". There is so much we do not know to throw around the "lie" word with impunity.

No. It is absolutely a lie because she would not have the authority over Trump. Literally would not be possible for her to prevent Trump from sending Troops. It's entirely disingenuous to pretend that was even a possibility. That is just all made up as your fictional version of what happened that day so Trump isn't complicit.

 

[Pirata]

You think Trump called the national guard and they responded "Sorry Sir, Pelosi won't let us."

Chief Sund requested the guard and was turned down by the SOAs of the House and Senate.

While the DC guard reports to the President, their website says the authority to deploy has been delegated to the DOD. The SOAs would have made the request to the DOD.

One question is whether Pelosi and Schumer had any influence over the SOAs to turn down the request due to "optics".


Sund, who resigned his post the day after the riot, told The Washington Post he had been concerned that the protest planned for Jan. 6 would be larger than expected. Sund said he asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the National Guard be placed on standby.

Sund said House and Senate sergeants at arms told him they were not comfortable with the “optics” of declaring an emergency days before the protest and suggested Sund should informally ask Guard officials to be on alert. Both have since resigned.

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund's request for National Guard backup was denied, he says in interview

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund says his requests for National Guard assistance before and during the riot were repeatedly turned down.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Merge]

While the DC guard reports to the President, their website says the authority to deploy has been delegated to the DOD. The SOAs would have made the request to the DOD.

That is not quite correct. The SOAs do not need to be involved in the deployment of troops if Trump and his DOD wanted it. Just saying the narrative that Trump wanted the guard there but was denied is not correct. No one has the authority to stop him from sending the guard.

The capital police need an emergency to be declared for them to request the guard. That is why they turned down the request. Again, the offer from the reserve was 125 unarmed troops for traffic control. They did not determine that the emergency declaration for that was warranted so they asked the the troops be on standby and ready to go if needed.

One question is whether Pelosi and Schumer had any influence over the SOAs to turn down the request due to "optics".

The question was asked specifically during the hearing by Ted Cruz. They testified that they did not discuss with congressional leadership. I'm wondering why you think "optics" of declaring an emergency has more to do with the democrats when it wasn't their supporters showing up that we would need to defend against?

 

[Pirata]

hat is not quite correct. The SOAs do not need to be involved in the deployment of troops if Trump and his DOD wanted it.

I did not say that the SOAs HAD to be involved. Please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Pirata]

Just saying the narrative that Trump wanted the guard there but was denied is not correct.

I did not say that either.

 

[Pirata]

I'm wondering why you think "optics" of declaring an emergency has more to do with the democrats when it wasn't their supporters showing up that we would need to defend against?

You continue t put words in my mouth. It is annoying.

I did not say that.

The article had this in it:

Sund said House and Senate sergeants at arms told him they were not comfortable with the “optics” of declaring an emergency days before the protest and suggested Sund should informally ask Guard officials to be on alert. Both have since resigned.

I simply asked if the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader had any influence on the SOAs. They just happened to be Democrats. If they were Republicans, I would ask the same question.

 

[Merge]

I did not say that either.

But that is the conversation you are chiming in on.

Pride was saying that Pelosi blocked Trump from using the national guard. I replied that is a lie because she does not have the authority to do so.

You replied that chiefs sund request was turned down and that if it was not turned down. Really has nothing to do with the premise from Pride that I was replying to.

 

[Merge]

You continue t put words in my mouth. It is annoying.

I did not say that.

The article had this in it:

Sund said House and Senate sergeants at arms told him they were not comfortable with the “optics” of declaring an emergency days before the protest and suggested Sund should informally ask Guard officials to be on alert. Both have since resigned.

I simply asked of the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader had any influence on the SOAs. They just happened to be Democrats. If they were Republicans, I would ask the same question.

Except of course that the Senate Majority leader on January 6th 2021 was Mitch McConnel.

 

[Pirata]

Except of course that the Senate Majority leader on January 6th 2021 was Mitch McConnel.

I'm wondering why you think "optics" of declaring an emergency has more to do with the democrats

Then all the more reason for to stop telling people what they are thinking.

 

[Merge]

Then all the more reason for to stop telling people what they are thinking.

lol...I didn't say what you were thinking. I asked you why you pointed out 2 dems because it seemed odd to point them out. I assumed you realized that Schumer was not majority leader at the time. Apparently the answer is that it was because you made a mistake didn't realize Mitch was majority leader on Jan 6th.

 

[Pirata]

One question is whether Pelosi and McConnell had any influence over the SOAs to turn down the request due to "optics".

Feel better now?

 

[Merge]

One question is whether Pelosi and McConnell had any influence over the SOAs to turn down the request due to "optics".

and to that I would have responded that they testified that they did not discuss security with congressional leadership until the 6th. So it does not appear that the concern over optics was due to Pelosi or McConnel.

 

[Pirata]

The 6th started at midnight. So it's possible they discussed it the day of and turned down request?

 

[Merge]

The 6th started at midnight. So it's possible they discussed it the day of and turned down request?

Not according to their testimony.

Senator Cruz: (03:35:45)
And let me ask both Mr Irving and Mr Stenger, did y’all have conversations with congressional leadership, either Democratic or Republican leadership on this question of supplementing law enforcement presence, bringing in National Guard either on January 4th or realtime in January 6th?

Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving: (03:36:09)
On January 4th, no. I had no followup conversations. And it was not until the sixth that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request. And that was the end of the discussion.

Senator Cruz: (03:36:22)
Mr Stenger?

Mr Stenger: (03:36:25)
For myself, it was January 6th that I mentioned it to [Leader McConnell 03:36:32] [inaudible 03:36:32]

 

[Pirata]

Senator Cruz: (03:36:22)
Mr Stenger?

Mr Stenger: (03:36:25)
For myself, it was January 6th that I mentioned it to [Leader McConnell 03:36:32] [inaudible 03:36:32]

Senator Cruz: (03:36:34)
So there’s been some disagreement about what time phone calls occurred. I know Senator Portman asked earlier. Presumably everyone has phone records. I think it would be helpful if each of you could forward the relevant phone records to this committee.

Senator Cruz: (03:36:48)
And Chief Sund, you also referenced in your testimony that you sent an email to congressional leadership. If you could forward that to the committee as well, I think that would be helpful. Thank you.

 

[Pirata]

Not sure why he didn't ask what McConnell's response was.

And we have not seen the emails to my knowledge.

 

[Merge]

Not sure why he didn't ask what McConnell's response was.

And we have not seen the emails to my knowledge.

It appears those discussions were informing them that they could be making a request.
It does not appear that house leadership held them up at all.

https://media.defense.gov/2021/Nov/16/2002893918/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2022-039.PDF

Sund called Maj. Gen. Walker at 1:49 requesting the guard. Called again at 2:10 with police board approval.

Are you suggesting something specific with this path that you're on?

 

[Pirata]

I am suggesting that the testimony does not completely rule out influence by McConnell or Pelosi. I also recognize that there is nothing to show that they did. To me it is an unanswered question.

Stenger's statement that he did not discuss it with Leadership may have been a literal statement. In other words, he did not have a direct discussion with Pelosi. While speculative on my part, he could of had discussion with aids. I just think more direct questions could have been asked.

You were adamant to point out that Pelosi could not overrule Trump. That is true but immaterial. The request was originating from the Capital. They have the ability to go directly to the DOD to request help. Trump could overrule that but Pelosi or McConnell could overrule before it gets to DOD.

It sure sounds like Sund wanted help and did not get it. I don't think the testimony fully answers why.

 

[Merge]

You were adamant to point out that Pelosi could not overrule Trump. That is true but immaterial. The request was originating from the Capital. They have the ability to go directly to the DOD to request help. Trump could overrule that but Pelosi or McConnell could overrule before it gets to DOD.

It sure sounds like Sund wanted help and did not get it. I don't think the testimony fully answers why.

Again, I am adamant in my response to Pride. He said Trump would have sent the troops but was blocked by Pelosi. That is just not true because it’s not possible.

To your point. Yes, anything is possible I suppose. Nothing to suggest it’s true, and I don’t think it makes much sense but not really worth arguing.

 

[Pirata]

He said Trump would have sent the troops but was blocked by Pelosi. That is just not true because it’s not possible.

That us exactly what I said in my response.

You sold your vacuum cleaner. Lol

 

[Merge]

What?