Below is my column in the Hill on how the second Trump impeachment could become a trial over reckless rhetoric in America. The House managers may be playing into that very danger by selecting some managers who have been criticized in the past for their own over-heated political rhetoric. As managers were replaying the comments of former President Donald Trump from prior years to show how his words fueled divisions, critics were pointing to similar statements from the managers themselves. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the leading impeachment manager, was chided for using “fight like hell” in a 2019 interview with The Atlantic — the very words replayed repeatedly from Trump. He also used that phrase repeatedly in prior years to ramp up his supporters in fighting for Democratic control of Congress. Speaker Nancy Pelosi blundered by appointing managers like Eric Swalwell who is notorious for his inflammatory rhetoric, in a trial where such rhetoric would be the focus of the managers. Swalwell’s comments not only include disturbing legal claims, but highly personal and offensive remarks like mocking threats against Susan Collins, R-Maine. Swalwell declared “Boo hoo hoo. You’re a senator who police will protect. A sexual assault victim can’t sleep at home tonight because of threats. Where are you sleeping? She’s on her own while you and your @SenateGOP colleagues try to rush her through a hearing.” Pelosi picked not only a member who has viciously attacked Republicans but one of the Republicans most needed by the House in this trial. If this trial boils down to irresponsible political rhetoric, the public could find it difficult to distinguish between the accused, the “prosecutors” and the “jury.” That is the problem with a strategy that seems focused not on proving incitement of an insurrection but some ill-defined form of political negligence.
Here is the column:
Yes, Trump is guilty of inciting a violent mob. It began the moment he announced his run for President and the mob even set up an insurance policy to prevent it. it escalated once he was inaugurated and the mob has worked feverishly since to remove him from office, by any means necessary.
So true, Olly.
How are those $2000 stimulus checks coming along, as the Dems waste yet another week on a PR sideshow designed to do nothing other than belittle everyone who didn’t vote for Biden?
It’s that they willfully voted for Trump knowing how unfit and incompetent he really was. He hired the worst of the worst, he failed to protect the American public with his non-action of covid. Would this many be out of work if he would have taken his job seriously? He was to busy playing golf to care about anything but himself. And the public seen it and had enough.
Wrong again Fishmeister.
Trump’s administration was averaging over 900,000 vaccines per day and averaging more than that during the final week of his administration. To say Trump “did nothing” on Covid and left “no plan” for vaccine distribution is a total and intentional lie being repeated daily by the fake news media and just another un-fact-checked lie coming out of Joe Biden’s lying mealy mouth.
How many would STILL have good paying union jobs, right now, if Joe Biden hadn’t killed off thousands of jobs on DAY ONE of his illegitimate presidency?
Too busy playing golf? All the man did was work….and for free…..on behalf of the American workers. What a flatout lie.
Oh and today, Fishmonger, ol’ Joe said he spoke with Chairman Xi on the telly for 2 hours last night. Then Joe says about China, “If we don’t get moving they’re going to eat our lunch.”
Whaat? Isn’t that what President Trump was saying for 4 years? To which Joe Biden would laugh and say, “Come on, man,” China isn’t our competitor, it’s one of our allies.
Whaat??
What trouble are we in as a country wtih the demented corrupt owned-by-China-sell-out now illegitimately occupying the Oval Office? A heck of a lot. China has ALREADY eaten lunch, Joe, and YOU are the dessert. God help America.
Strange how the total US death count for 2020 is unchanged.
Yet the percentage of deaths from the usual causes decreased in 2020 in almost the exact same percentages as deaths attributed to covid.
Also, blaming covid on Trump is something that an 8 year old would do.
Why didn’t the Republicans agree to the $2000 EIPs last fall?
‘If Trump is responsible for the violent behavior of a mob of thousands of people just because they share some common political goals, then every Democrat is responsible for the murder, arson, and looting of Black Lives Matter, and should be criminally charged.’ @joelpollak
There are so many constitutional scholars in this country, and Turley is just one, and in my opinion a mediocre one at that.
Republican, conservative, and others disagree with him.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/05/us/politics/trump-impeachment-defense.html
Turley decided to be a political operative for Trump, the rest is history.
Good example of an ad homonym fallacy.
Swalwell: “Where are you sleeping?”
Probably not with a Chinese spy.
You don’t seem intelligent
This isn’t about reckless rhetoric. It’s about a reckless plan hatched by Trump, John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani whereby Trump would steal the 2020 election from Biden/Harris, their 81,000,000 voters and the Democrats. In short, it was to get VP Pence to reject the EC Certificates of enough states to deny Biden the 270 EC votes, which would then throw the election into the House where Trump would win another 4 years.
Had Mike Pence gone along with this, can you imagine the confusion, chaos and violence that would ensue?
We’d essentially have warring camps BOTH claiming their President be Inaugurated on Jan 20th. The Secret Service would splinter off into 2 warring camps, each defending who they believed was the legitimate winner.
You would have armed rebellion in the streets, with the US Government and its Law Enforcement Officers genuinely confused over who should be Inaugurated.
Such a reckless plan was entertained, and was still being pursued by the WH as late as 3pm on Jan 6th, with Trump and Rudy making phone calls to shore up commitment to “the plan”, even after VP Pence rejected the idea twice publicly.
That was the Impeachable Offense…..the plot to steal the election by extra-Constitutional connivance.
Turley’s what-aboutism is becoming pathetic. Which of these people told followers that they wouldn’t have a country if they didn’t “fight like hell”? Which of these people began lying even before Election Day, that the only way they could lose their election would be if it was stolen from them? Which of these people set a record for low approval ratings, was predicted to lose the election, and when they did lose the election, committed felonies by first cajoling, and then threatening, Secretaries of State to “find” them votes? Which of these people tried to coerce a Vice President into invalidating the will of the American people by rejecting certified election results? Which of these people went on vainglory “Stop the Steal” tours that were calculated to whip up the disciples into anger and a belief that their rights had been violated, despite recounts, re-recounts, signature match validations and rejection by 60+ courts of baseless arguments? Which of these people, as a last-ditch effort to maintain power he cheated to get in the first place, exhorted his followers to march on the Capitol and “fight like hell”?
This is false equivalency. Context is everything, the issue here isn’t rhetoric, and you do know better, Turley. Your job as a paid mouthpiece for Trump is confirming that you are now just a paid shill, Turley.
He really sounds like a total fool here.
Would you say the former president has received “Due Process” in all of this sham-peachment show trial?
The answer is obvious, btw.
The stupidity of the left is beyond the pale. Better we had turned the military loose on them before they were sold out BUT the important point has to do with the Presidential Oath of Office. No matter how the socialist try to twist it they cannot get around the FACT that they have no case due to the six words ‘to the best of my ability.’ No matter how hard they try they can only reinforce that six word phrase was not breached no matter how hard they try to reinforce it… it just gets stronger.
Who are these Anti Constitutionalists who themselves could not stand to that requirements fo that six word phrase … except they don’t have it and besides on the socialist side have failed themselves to meet the requirements of their oath of office. If that is or is not true it has matters a total of zero. It’s just a case of spoiled and erroneously elected and seated anti US Constitution, anti constitutional republic whining and crying and as a result failing to to the job for which they were elected. So how long before they are taken to task for spitting on our Constitutional Republic with their socialist based manifesto?
They cannot get around ‘to the best of my ability’ having proved to at least their standards it was for four years meritoriously high.
To do so automatically makes them guilty under their own oath of office which of course has been true for the same four year.i
And they call themselves lawyers and attorneys?
Fakes charlatans not eve to the standard of the two bit Chicago ham’n’egger we got rid preferring an untutored in politics outsider. I suggest they are themselves incapable and they don’t have that six word phrase to save them.
Senator Mike Lee just told Glenn Beck that Justice Roberts was NEVER invited to preside over the Impeachment trial….
Anon.:
Well, when you know you’re … er … acting extra-constitutionally why would you call the constitution cop to preside?
Wasn’t aware Roberts needed a special invitation. Where is that requirement written?
There is no requirement that the Chief Justice be invited to preside over any impeachment trials, except the impeachment trial of the sitting president. Trump is no longer the President.
Do you also complain that he wasn’t invited to preside over the impeachment of Judge Porteous in 2011?
That’s highly debatable. There are 2 interpretations of Article I Sevtion 3 Clause 6:
1) “the President” in reference to the person named in the Articles of Impeachment
2) “the President” in reference to the person currently holding the Office (could be different from person Impeached)
From an originalist standpoint, since no person had yet Occupied the Office of President, it’s unlikely that they were thinking about 2), since that obliges a mental framework thinking about someone who had already served and left office.
1) Makes more sense, since the topic is Impeachment of the President — the trial being pursuant to Articles of Impeachment,
the person being tried in the Senate is named in the Articles, and that could be a recently departed President.
No, “the President” refers to the person in office. That’s who it refers to throughout the Constitution.
Your argument that “since no person had yet Occupied the Office of President, it’s unlikely that they were thinking about 2)” makes no sense. No one had been impeached under the articles either. The reason that the Justice presides when it’s the President is that otherwise the VP could preside of the impeachment of someone he might want removed, so that he’d become President. This was even more the case originally, when the President and VP didn’t run on a ticket and were competitors for the presidency.
Roberts chose not to preside. If he was constitutionally required to, he wouldn’t have to be invited, dumdum.
If the constitution required Roberts to preside, he’d be there, Historically, he was not required to be there and everyone know it, and you hound have known it. That was reported widely
Don’t be so uninformed.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/roberts-will-not-preside-over-impeachment-trial/
“The Senate will focus on words from Trump’s Jan. 6 speech that could be viewed as criminal incitement or as political exhortation. The House will ask the Senate to convict on how Trump’s words were interpreted, even if those did not actually call for violence.” Is JT even paying any attention to the trial? The House Managers did not focus on the Jan 6 speech and did show how Trump whipped up his base over months, praised them for previous violence, worked with organizers who previously organized violent protests, and then praised the rioters while they were rioting. The Managers have already pee-empted the defense of “Well everyone tells their supporters to go fight.”
Turley probably wrote this before yesterday? Not sure. Either way, the House Managers seem to have game planned out a ‘how would Turley defocus?’ line of approach. Neguse did it by calling out JT for his own past words just as Turley was starting to blaze on him on Twitter during his presentation on the first day. The managers also pre-empted and trolled on a likely Turley deflection response in their presentations yesterday as they built the case for trump’s ongoing fanning of the flames for a riot over months, dating back pre-election.
EB
Anonymous EB, +10
Maybe someone should do a film presentation of the things people like Maxine Waters have had to say.
No one died because of anything Maxine Waters had to say. BTW: did your fat hero even send a sympathy card to Brian Sicknick’s family or show up to pay him homage?
No one died because of anything Maxine Waters had to say.
And you know that how?
“BTW: did your fat hero even send a sympathy card to Brian Sicknick’s family or show up to pay him homage?”
The BLM/Antifa riots killed 33 police officers and injured another 700+ officers.
Where is your “homage” to them? Conversely, you wanted the police defunded, and were all for the police being physically attacked and villainized.
But now you pretend to care about Officer Brian Sicknick?!
Where’s the “proof” of Sicknick’s “cause” of death?
There is none.
“Where’s the “proof” of Sicknick’s “cause” of death?”
One thing is probable, another certain.
The probable: That he did not die from a fire extinguisher blow to the head. There is no evidence of blunt force trauma, and he did not mention such a blow when he texted his brother later that night. Though he did mention having been pepper sprayed.
The certain: That the Left is callously using his death to score propaganda points.
MollyG, Turley obviously is ignoring context in its entirety. That means he’s aware of what trump really did. But like Rand Paul, Turley has become more of a “textualist” in making arguments without regard for context.
His argument, along with many trump supporters, insist that any interpretation of Trump’s speeches be as impossibly narrow as they can be. Leaving out any insinuating or reading between the lines as unacceptable. The only way trump can be convicted in their view is if he literally says “go assault the Capitol, or I order you all to go disrupt the process because my victory was stolen” etc.
They only seem to be able to read between the lines when it comes to democrats or liberals. That means they CAN make such interpretations. They just don’t want to when it comes to their own party or when it comes to accepting responsibility for their own rhetoric. The party of “personal responsibility” actively avoids personal responsibility, but expects it of everyone else.
The GOP Senators won’t convict because they too are part of the problem. They are just as guilty as Trump. It’s about self political preservation rather than leadership. They are more concerned about their political future than that of the country.
“That means he’s aware of what trump really did.”
***********************
Yeah what Trump really did was say (without contest) was to “peacefully and patriotically” protest. Facts are stubborn things, Sevvy. Pointing out context is typically subjective especially when you have a demonstrated ax to grind, facts are objective. Sorry about that reality thingy.
If you were to watch the trail you would know that Trump did way more then that.
My favorite things to see were the edited tapes presented that removed statements that Trump had made and as a result twisted the truth of what went on. And to that, the time lines don’t gel. Get the hour and minute marks from Youtube for the then President’s January 6th speech and then line up the hour and minute marks for the rowdy groups that were acting out at Congress. Those active people obviously were not in the area where the speaking went on because they started before he was finished. To that, it was a 45 minute walk for those who were in the audience for those at the speech to get to Congress.
Another odd piece was on Youtube but was removed. It showed what looked like a fire door that could only be opened from inside and it was – by a Congressional guard. He let another bunch walk right in and down a hallway where there were more guards not lifting a finger to stop them. Not very pleasant considering what they were seeing.
To that, several people from Antifa/BLM have been found in those film clips and the Congressional Police Special Agent, D. Bailey, has also been identified as a member of BLM by reading his twitter or facebook remarks as well as comparing photos. He shot the woman veteran who died almost instantly. No verbal warning and certainly wasn’t an accident. And that film was made by another BLM member posing as a protester and his last name is Johnson. Odd that he knew exactly what spot to film because Bailey was hidden until he put his arm out and then pulled the trigger. Most people would have been filming the young woman who was shot dead.
Trump has bad lawyers and apparently research isn’t what they consider to be parts of their jobs.
And I am an Independent who did not vote for either the D or R candidate.
1. It has been established that Trump worked to incite the mob before Jan 6. The focus on the Jan 6 speech is one that Rs use to ignore everything else he did.
2. There are many videos of the mob breaking windows and breaking down doors and beating up cops to get in. To say they were let in is a lie.
3. It was Trump supporters that attacked the capital. Denying that is just lying.
Molly:
“It has been established that Trump worked to incite the mob before Jan 6.”
*****************************
The issue is incitement. Your argument is: Trump incited because he incited.
Your circular reasoning is making everyone dizzy.
10+ Molly G, and, let’s all not forget that Fox News put out the lie that the Trump Insurrection was the doing of ANTIFA, dressed up like Trump supporters, and further, that Fox attacked mainstream media for not reporting that ANTIFA was really responsible. The ANTIFA story was yet another big, fat lie. I lost a casual friend over the ANTIFA lie because she used Facebook to go after mainstream media and I responded to her. So now, she’s mad at me. I told her I felt sorry for her gullibility.
Antifa was in the crowd wearing MAGA gear.
The vast majority of those arrested have been Trump supporters.
Correct. But make no mistake who the handful of intigators were. There is video of a man strategically going around cutting the fencing wire, then pulling up the stakes that held the fencing in place. Has he been identified and questioned yet? The video is out there for the FBI to do its facial recognition on.
Why are you asking me? Look it up for yourself if you want to know.
Right On!!! It’s the timeline, stupid! What about the, what I call, “Right this way.” video where —not 5th grade field trippers — were led to and welcomed into the Capitol building? What about the horned guy — I thought he was a Vikings fan (Go Pack!) — being escorted by Capital Police into the House chamber where he sat in Pelosi’s chair — all while Trump was still speaking — “Peacefully and Patriotically” — at least a half hour away??? My take — and my CT? It was a pre-planned set up. Hawley and Cruz were about to claim, not voter or ballot fraud, but “Constitutional fraud” by the States. That had to be disrupted! Did Trump’s “speech fans” join in when they arrived at the Capitol. Likely. And that messed up the plan.
This has the feel of a Col. Jessup lie to it. If Private Santiago was to be transferred off the base the following morning, then why wasn’t he packed? Why the two orders?
If President Trump incited people long before January 6th, or even on Jan 6th, why didn’t Pelosi increase security? Because she knew well in advance anarchist groups were going to do something and she wanted something to blame on the President for one final snap impeachment.
Yep, he said “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But he didn’t know that, and he could see that they weren’t doing that, and he made no effort to intervene for hours. Not only did he not intervene, he inflamed the situation by tweeting criticism of Pence while insurrectionists were looking for Pence and chanting “hang Mike Pence.”
Facts are indeed stubborn things.
Mespo, cherry-picking a phrase without any context is exactly what Turley is doing. How come you can’t argue on the totality of the entire speech in context with previous tweets and calls of. “A big surprise on Jan. 6”?
Trump literally told his followers where and when to meet and they did.
Sevvy:
“Mespo, cherry-picking a phrase without any context is exactly what Turley is doing. How come you can’t argue on the totality of the entire speech in context with previous tweets and calls of. “A big surprise on Jan. 6”?
Trump literally told his followers where and when to meet and they did.”
****************************
So did Antifa leadership. See them in the docks? And because Sevvy we’re a legal blawg. We don’t go with your or anyone’s feelings. We go on facts. Hard ones with no emotion. You hate Trump and made that clear. Your interpretation is thus tainted.
His prior actions have both an innocuous and treacherous interpretation so the context is a wash.That means you go on the exact wording of the charge and hence the speech: “[Trump] addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.” He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”
You might as well say “Trump Bad” with that kitchen sink charge. So by the breadth of the charge you are curtailing yourself since you have NO specifics and cite no offending language other than “fight like hell.” That has numerous meanings when coupled with the other unreferenced line that you “peacefully and patriotically” protest. So instead of the classic: “Hey, go burn down the ROTC building,” you have an ambiguous statement no fair-minded person would conclude is a call to imminent violence. Still, you take the Molly approach and say Trump incited because he incited.
That’s why in a nutshell.
Mespo, for a guy whose all about “ hard facts” you sure got all emotional over your “hard facts”.
Cherry-picking and splitting hairs on meanings of what Trump said in his speech only shows you have no real argument.
The context of Trump’s intent was clear. Trump spent months riling up his supporters and telling them about “the big surprise” on the 6th. He even declared to their faces that he would go with them to the Capitol. He didn’t. He left them to do the dirty work for him.
Sevvy:
No I made an argument from the facts. You made a bray.
+10
EB
EB:
I bet you look great in knee socks and a pleated skirt blowing a megaphone! Boola, boola! LOL
Oh look, a mutant cackles at his own jokes maniacally.
Elvis
Aninny:
Pro Tip: It’s not the joke I’m laughing at — or at least not the literary one.
+100
Stop the Steal. A rigged election
https://thepostmillennial.com/georgia-senator-warnock-under-investigation-for-voter-registration-misconduct
Georgia Senator Warnock under investigation for voter registration misconduct
Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) is now under an investigation for voter registration misconduct for his involvement with an organization founded by Georgia Democratic operative Stacey Abrams.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: “The State Election Board voted Wednesday to move forward with a case against U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock and the New Georgia Project based on an allegation that the organization was slow to deliver over 1,200 voter registration applications to election officials in 2019. The board referred the case to the attorney general’s office for further investigation and potential prosecution. Warnock, a Democrat elected last month to the U.S. Senate, is named as a respondent in the case because he was listed as the CEO for the New Georgia Project at the time. The organization has said its corporate document filings with the state misidentified Warnock as its CEO when his actual position was board chairman. … Republican Attorney General Chris Carr’s office will now investigate the case and decide whether to bring charges or seek fines against Warnock and the New Georgia Project.”
After Republicans take back the House in ’22, they should name Marjorie Taylor Greene as the lead House Manager to prosecute the impeachment case against Biden in the Senate.
Here’s hoping that she’s primaried in 2022.
It’s my first real visit of assessment here and I’ve got to say Mr Turley (actually, Mr Turley’s site operator): why the heck do you allow the multitude of trolls free rein – eliminate the majority of these deadheads, most of them parroting the same talking points, and the comments section would be more enjoyable.
The articles are good, though 🙂
mcdundas:
“why the heck do you allow the multitude of trolls free rein…”
**********************************
We’re a free speech pasture. Thus we allow every tramp, vagabond, buffoon and all the other varieties of wack leftist weeds in the garden. It’s fun to trample them down but ultimately we’re pretty Parable of the Tares (Matthew 13:24–43) about them.
Interesting that Democrats are fully convinced President Trump incited an insurrection, yet no one took any action to increase security. Whether it was his Jan. 6th speech, and/or everything he has said or done prior to that, no preparations to secure against an obvious oncoming insurrection, means one of two things: 1. They wanted the Capitol breached, or 2. President Trump didn’t incite anything.
Which is it?
My guess is this is just another case of Democrats projecting. They know what inciting unrest looks like. And Trump makes them feel incited to action. And as we’ve learned, their feelings are equal to facts.
While enduring yesterday’s Senate proceedings I was struck by some of what was said (plainly the Democrats assume if something is said repeatedly it will in time come to be believed) and that they do not have a grasp of the truth.
Five People were not “killed” in the “Riot”.
Only a very small number of people engaged in “Riot”.
Far more did not than did…by huge margins…thus Trump was a failure had he intended to “incite an insurrection”.
The one nice Lady told us of her cowering in the Balcony before fleeing the Chamber while still looking for a gas mask…..to wind up in a secure area under guard by the Capitol Police.
I recall back during the Summer….a real Riot was going on in the immediate vicinity of the White House which prompted the Secret Service to move the President to a secure area within the White House.
The fact prominent Democrats did incite that violence and continued to call for yet more Rioting and assisted in paying for the Bail/Bond of those arrested….which shows me a coordinated effort to incite, support, and encourage more Rioting.
Yet here we are…with an Ex-President being Tried by the Senate for far lesser acts than by some of those actually going to vote on his innocence or guilt.
Olly sees through all as do so many others.
The Democrats better hod onto the House in 2022 or the shoe shall be on the other foot….just like when Pinky Reid changed the Rules in the Senate and we see how that worked out for the Democrats.
They were warned then….and they’re warned again this time.
Only takes a couple people to actually hang someone at a lynching. The crowd was just extra.
thus Trump was a failure had he intended to “incite an insurrection”.
Isn’t that the point? They’ve impeached a President for inciting an insurrection that no one saw coming, because no one took additional security measures to stop it. So either Trump didn’t incite anything to warrant additional security, or additional security was warranted and no steps were taken to provide it. The latter point is most likely true, as there have been reports of preplanning by activists. The defense team should be asking that question. Why didn’t the Speaker of the House demand additional security for the threatened violent protests received pre-Jan 6th, or once she believed the President had incited protesters to assault the Capitol?
“no one saw coming”, you say? Then what were the “Stop the Steal” rallies all about? What losing presidential candidate has ever done that? Why were the Proud Boys told to “stand by”? Why did Trump, after an historic run of low approval ratings and polling showing he would lose, begin predicting even before Election Day, that the election would be stolen from him, because the only way he could lose would be if there was fraud involved? What about al of the tweets, telling the faithful to show up on January 6th, that it would be “wild” and why January 6th? Because that was the day that Congress would accept the certified election results. Why did he tell his disciples that he hoped Pence would “do the right thing” after being told repeatedly that Pence had no authority to reject certified votes? Why, after the Trump Insurrection, did he tell the faithful that they were “special’ and that he “loved them”, and how can you ignore the fact that the insurrectionists were quoting Trump while they were desecrating the Capitol?
Why didn’t the Speaker of the House demand additional security for the threatened violent protests received pre-Jan 6th, or once she believed the President had incited protesters to assault the Capitol?
Hmm?
Because that’s not her job, nor would she have the authority. In fact, Trump was BEGGED to bring in the National Guard, but did nothing for hours, relishing the last shreds of power and glory. Pence is the one who called in the Guard because Trump wouldn’t, BTW. And, you haven’t responded to the questions I asked, either.
“Because that’s not her job, nor would she have the authority.”
You’re either a liar, or you’re a gullible idiot.
“Pelosi-McConnell refused to increase security! Capitol emergency began before Trump finished speaking”
https://www.independentsentinel.com/pelosi-mcconnell-refused-to-increase-security-capitol-emergency-began-before-trump-finished-speaking/
“The Washington Post reported late Sunday night that the outgoing Capitol Police Chief, Steve Sund, believes his efforts to secure the premises were undermined by a lack of concern from House and Senate security officials who answer directly to Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate leader Mitch McConnell.”
Also, Trump offered to have Nat Guard troops there ahead of the rally, and was told that wasn’t necessary.
Their declination of having Guard troops in DC that day is further buttressed by all of the video showing capitol police opening the doors to the capitol building and welcoming people inside.
Only a blind idiot cannot see that the entire episode was planned.
Natacha – name one Democrat politician who has accepted the result of the 2016 election. Name one. Name one Democrat who condems Antifa/BLM violence, specifically calling it out by name.
All rational thinking people can see the hypocritical Democrats are accusing Trump and Republicans of what they, themselves are doing!
Ralph, your moral blindness and inability to understand even simple cause and effect reactions – a coup attempt, announced, planned, and executed in broad daylight and featuring rioters decked out in clothes and flags with the coup leader’s name is not the same thing as anonymous rioters who may or may not have been inspired by brief comments of other leaders taken out of context – is consistent with the overall confusion and really poor ability to judge character exhibited by someone who presumably voted twice for Trump.
More importantly, their votes are equal to a loser just getting one term.
According to Mark Meadows, then President Trump offered ahead of time to call up 10,000 members of the National Guard to be ready on January 6th.
I read that too.
Trump doesn’t need anyone’s permission to call the DC National Guard. If he had concerns, why didn’t he just order them to be there? And once the riot started, why didn’t he immediately order them to the Capitol?
If you knew what you were talking about, you’d realize that the DC National Guard was ordered to the Capitol. (See the National Guard’s statement about it.)
The more important question is why the Capitol Police were not sufficiently prepared and present in sufficient numbers. There is now evidence that the FBI (and other law enforcement agencies) knew *in advance* that there might be a riot at the Capitol Building. The Capitol Police is under the jurisdiction of Congress. It is Congressional leaders who should be investigated for that debacle — for allowing a riot to happen.
By the non-standards of today, perhaps inaction equals insurrection.
Because this whole “attack on the Capitol” was a Democrat/Deep State setup. The “coup” these protestors were responding to was a coup from within the government.
The DC National Guard was EVENTUALLY ordered to the Capitol, nor did I suggest otherwise. I was pointing out that they weren’t sent ahead of time, and Trump could have done that if he’d wanted to.
“The more important question is why the Capitol Police were not sufficiently prepared and present in sufficient numbers.”
I agree and hope there’s a public hearing about it.
False dichotomy, Olly.
The rally organizers didn’t have a permit to march to the Capitol, so the Capitol Police weren’t expecting a huge crowd to march to the Capitol. Trump told the attendees to march to the Capitol and that he’d go with them.
False dichotomy, Olly.
Not at all. There were threats prior to Jan. 6th. The charge is the President incited the crowd to violence, in his speech. It’s obvious if that were true, additional security would at a minimum have been on standby and then deployed once the alleged inciteful statements were made. For what you said to be true, those responsible for security didn’t perceive Trump as inciting an insurrection.
“For what you said to be true, those responsible for security didn’t perceive Trump as inciting an insurrection.”
No, for what I said to be true, those responsible for security didn’t EXPECT Trump to incite an insurrection.
And because he didn’t, they deployed accordingly.
He did incite. He even told the rioters he’d go with them to the Capitol. Of course he was lying to them about that.
Your opinion is noted. BTW, how do you know he lied when he said he was going with them? It’s just as likely he meant it and his Secret Service detail told him no.
So you think he was stupid and inconsiderate enough to tell them that he was going with them without having checked with his Secret Service detail first? That’s possible. He is a stupid and inconsiderate person. I could be wrong that he lied. He lies so much that when he makes yet another false claim, I often assume he’s lying instead of just avoidably mistaken.
So you think…
Nope, that’s obviously you projecting what you think. Thanks anyway.
Well, there are only 2 possibilities: either Trump did check with the Secret Service first or he didn’t.
Since you’ve just told me that you DON’T “think he was stupid and inconsiderate enough to tell them that he was going with them without having checked with his Secret Service detail first,” that implies you think he DID check with them first. In that case, if the Secret Service detail told him no, then he lied to the crowd in telling them he’d go with them.
Olly, there already was security established. DHS warned Capitol police about the potential for violence. Capitol police didn’t take the warnings seriously. By the time the mob got to the Capitol it was too late to increase security.
The FBI only found out this was planned after it occurred.
Then you propose two false choices as the only reasons.
Trump literally told his supporters where and when to meet. For weeks leading up to the 6th Trump tweeted “a big surprise is coming”. Trump already put the idea in his supporters heads long before he made that speech.
Your…guess is just a guess, and a bad one.
So Trump’s DHS warned the Capitol police. And you believe no one told the FBI or that no one in the FBI had advance knowledge of potential threats? And you believe that’s reasonable? On top of that, you would have to believe no one within Congress hierarchy was briefed about security threats for that day? Capitol police disregarded the threats and did not monitor the situation around the Capitol that day? One more thing; how is it possible that President Trump incited an insurrection to take place on January 6th and according to, no one in the FBI, Congress or Capitol police either knew about it or ever considered it a thing, but the rioters somehow managed to figure it out?
You’d have to believe President Trump did some sort of Jedi mind-trick to make all that happen.
You mean RECKLESS LIES?? The Clown show going on now, is making America the laughingstock of the Banana Republics.
They selected these people as a demonstration of contempt.