Trump did nothing to stop his supporters as they attacked Congress, threatened Pence, witnesses tell Jan. 6 committee

[placeholder]

43 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

And what would have happened if the National Guard would have sided with the protestors ?

   Could have began a civil war . 

Also, the National Guard  were called into action during the protests , but it was the Pentagon that didn't authorise their deployment .

 

 

"William Walker, then the District of Columbia’s National Guard commander, told senators during a hearing in March that Pentagon officials took more than three hours to approve a request by the U.S. Capitol Police for National Guard troops to back up police under attack by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

'

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-refines-dc-national-guard-approval-authority-after-capitol-riot-2021-12-30/

You have any evidence at all that soldiers would have rebelled against their orders and sided with insurrectionists? Into fantasy fan fiction much?

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

You are correct.  However the point still is that this was a "civil unrest" not any different than those that happened in Minneapolis, Seattle and a host of other cities.  Mayor Bowser a Democrat has 3,500 armed policeman 'TRAINED" to deal with law enforcement.  She chose not to dispatch them and somehow escapes criticism.  

The National Guard is a part time military force. Trained in certain weapons but not in law enforcement.  One way or another in order for Trump to "legally" call for federal troops against civilians was for the action to be deemed an insurrection.  Who would delcare it to be an insurrection, and how long after that would it take to have the national guard personnel mobilized.  The entire protest was over in 6 hours.

Having a thousand people, enter the capital building is hardly an insurrection.  It is a civil "unrest"  Now if I was CNN and this was a protest following the George Floyd incident, I would term them "completely peaceful protests" 
 

If it was just a "civil unrest" as you call it why have charges of insurrection being placed on some of the militia members who broke into Capitol Hill? 

 

Why were the Oath Keepers and their associates working as if they were going to war, discussing weapons and training days before the attack? Why did they storm past police barriers and smashed windows, injuring dozens of officers and sending lawmakers running. Why were the rioters shouting hang Mike Pence? 

 

"Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, and 10 other members or associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy in the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol." The 

 

The leader of the Proud Boys has also been charged with seditious conspiracy

 

 It was a blatant attempt at stopping the certification of President Joe Biden, not a "civil unrest".

[Mac Mickmanus]

21 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If it was just a "civil unrest" as you call it why have charges of insurrection being placed on some of the militia members who broke into Capitol Hill? 

 

 

 

As far as I am aware, no one had actually been charged with "insurrection" , but do correct me if I am wrong .

   The allegation seems to be part of media manipulation  of the facts 

[Bkk Brian]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

 

As far as I am aware, no one had actually been charged with "insurrection" , but do correct me if I am wrong .

   The allegation seems to be part of media manipulation  of the facts 

Did you read the link in my post to the report?

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Did you read the link in my post to the report?

I did yes , and your link  didnt mention anyone being charged with "insurrection" 

[Jingthing]

38 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

If it was just a "civil unrest" as you call it why have charges of insurrection being placed on some of the militia members who broke into Capitol Hill? 

 

Why were the Oath Keepers and their associates working as if they were going to war, discussing weapons and training days before the attack? Why did they storm past police barriers and smashed windows, injuring dozens of officers and sending lawmakers running. Why were the rioters shouting hang Mike Pence? 

 

"Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, and 10 other members or associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy in the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol." The 

 

The leader of the Proud Boys has also been charged with seditious conspiracy

 

 It was a blatant attempt at stopping the certification of President Joe Biden, not a "civil unrest".

Indeed and a first for me -- Dick Cheney is right!

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I did yes , and your link  didn't mention anyone being charged with "insurrection" 

Yes corrected: "sedition conspiracy" Which often means similar

 

Seditious conspiracy is a crime in various jurisdictions of conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. As a form of sedition. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. 

[Bkk Brian]

Here's some more with the same charges

 

Proud Boys charged with seditious conspiracy in Capitol riot

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-siege-biden-congress-proud-boys-government-and-politics-7b27b6550bd0f400aa61893df3386f38

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Yes corrected: "sedition conspiracy" Which often means similar

 

Seditious conspiracy is a crime in various jurisdictions of conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. As a form of sedition. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. 

Yes, but no one has actually been charged with "insurrection " 

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, but no one has actually been charged with "insurrection " 

The whole point was this was not "just a civil unrest" as the poster claimed. It was much more than that.

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

The whole point was this was not "just a civil unrest" as the poster claimed. It was much more than that.

Your point was that because people have been charged with insurrection , then it was an insurrection .

   My point was that no one has been charged with insurrection .

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Your point was that because people have been charged with insurrection , then it was an insurrection .

   My point was that no one has been charged with insurrection .

I already corrected that in my acknowledgment to you, so stop the games. My point was made very clear to the poster I was replying to that this was not just a civil unrest. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

I already corrected that in my acknowledgment to you, so stop the games. My point was made very clear to the poster I was replying to that this was not just a civil unrest. 

Yes, it was a protest by a group of people who believed that they were defending democracy .

[Bkk Brian]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, it was a protest by a group of people who believed that they were defending democracy .

with militia members charged with "Seditious conspiracy" a crime in various jurisdictions of conspiring against the authority or legitimacy of the state. As a form of sedition. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or insurrection against, established authority. 

[candide]

On 8/4/2022 at 7:28 AM, Longwood50 said:

It is not irrelevent.  Note it says "invited" by that states governor. Washington DC has no governor. It has a mayor.  

Also it specifically states that the use of federal forces is limited.  The disturbance would have to be declared an insurrection.  That is why the left is hanging on the word insurrection.  As if somehow 1,200 people with only 5 carrying guns represented a threat of insurrection to the USA. 

The fact is, the Mayor of Washington had 3,500 police used to quell civil disturbances and she chose not to engage them.  The Capital under the direction of Pelosi has 2,500 Capital Hill Police.  But somehow only "Trump" could call on federal troops to quell this outbreak that lasted all of 6 hours. 

If there was an insurrection it was in Seattle where the Mayor and Governor allowed a section of the city to be taken under force barricaded and renamed. 

This entire charade is nothing but a dog and pony show the same as the Russian Collusion and Stormy Daniels.  It is intended to keep portraying in the media Trump in a bad light even if the charges proved to be unfounded or untrue, the damage is done. 

Also it is like the magician who tells you to watch that he has nothing up his sleeve getting your attention focused exactly where he wants you while his other actions go unnoticed  

They don't want you focused on the inflation, high gas prices, and the crime rampant in the street.  They want the news media to devote full attention elsewhere. 

 

This is section 251 of the insurrection act. There are other sections:

"Section 252 permits deploy­ment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebel­lion” whenever “unlaw­ful obstruc­tions, combin­a­tions, or assemblages, or rebel­lion” make it “imprac­tic­able” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordin­ary course of judi­cial proceed­ings.”

Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the pres­id­ent to use the milit­ary in a state to suppress “any insur­rec­tion, domestic viol­ence, unlaw­ful combin­a­tion, or conspir­acy” that “so hinders the execu­tion of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhab­it­ants are deprived of a consti­tu­tional right and state author­it­ies are unable or unwill­ing to protect that right. Pres­id­ents Dwight D. Eisen­hower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provi­sion to deploy troops to deseg­reg­ate schools in the South after the Supreme Court’s land­mark decision in Brown v. Board of Educa­tion.

The second part of Section 253 permits the pres­id­ent to deploy troops to suppress “any insur­rec­tion, domestic viol­ence, unlaw­ful combin­a­tion, or conspir­acy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execu­tion of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/insurrection-act-explained

 

The truth is that Trump did not want to call the N.G., not that he wasn't allowed to.

[Credo]

5 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

You are correct.  However the point still is that this was a "civil unrest" not any different than those that happened in Minneapolis, Seattle and a host of other cities.  Mayor Bowser a Democrat has 3,500 armed policeman 'TRAINED" to deal with law enforcement.  She chose not to dispatch them and somehow escapes criticism.  

The National Guard is a part time military force. Trained in certain weapons but not in law enforcement.  One way or another in order for Trump to "legally" call for federal troops against civilians was for the action to be deemed an insurrection.  Who would delcare it to be an insurrection, and how long after that would it take to have the national guard personnel mobilized.  The entire protest was over in 6 hours.

Having a thousand people, enter the capital building is hardly an insurrection.  It is a civil "unrest"  Now if I was CNN and this was a protest following the George Floyd incident, I would term them "completely peaceful protests"
 

So many falsehoods in one post.  But I'll give it a go and give you some clarification:

 

Civil unrest is, by definition, civil unrest or civil disturbance means acts of violence and disorder detrimental to the. public law and order.  This escapade went well beyond that definition and better meets the definition of an insurrection, which is a violent uprising against an authority or government.

So, it fits an insurrection and that's what it was.   It was violent, they had weapons on site and more stashed nearby.   

Trump had already asked that National Troops be on standby.  He wanted them to protect his rioters, not the capitol.  Since he had them ready and since this was known, he was responsible to call them up or make the call to have them engage.  He made no call to anyone.  They mayor of DC is way out of her league in calling troops into a federal facility when those in charge are available nd make the call.   

 

Having a thousand violent, armed people ILLEGALLY enter a federal building for the purpose of impeding the function of those inside is an insurrection.

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

This escapade went well beyond that definition and better meets the definition of an insurrection, which is a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Trump was POTUS at the time and the demonstrators were not protesting  against  Trump or the Government 

[Credo]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump was POTUS at the time and the demonstrators were not protesting  against  Trump or the Government 

False.  What they were doing went far beyond demonstrating or protesting.  They illegal entered the grounds, they illegally broke into the Capitol, both were restricted areas.  They threatened to kill (hang) people and they were trying to prevent the legal certification of a president.   

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed. 

 

[candide]

51 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump was POTUS at the time and the demonstrators were not protesting  against  Trump or the Government 

To ensure a separation of powers, the U.S. Federal Government is made up of three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. To ensure the government is effective and citizens’ rights are protected, each branch has its own powers and responsibilities, including working with the other branches.

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/branches-of-government#:~:text=The legislative branch is made,controls taxing and spending policies.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Yep the "left" now judge someone guilty of crime for "something they did not do"  

Lets add to the list. 

Trump did not put up a billboard telling protestors not to attack the capital - guilty.

Trump did not have a motorcade dragging, do not protest signs - guilty

Trump did not put up a wall around the capital building to prevent protestors from entering - guilty

Trump did not dig a moat around the capital building to bar entry to protestors. - guilty

Oh and it has also been reported that one of the staffers "unamed" of course said they personally saw Trump tear out the  Do Not Remove label from one of the Whitehouse matttresses. 

The entire event lasted 6 hours and he is lambasted.  The Washington Police are there to quell civil disturbances and are domiciled in Washington DC.  

The National Guard is a group of part time group not housed on some military base in Washington DC.  Even assuming Trump called them out the minute the disturbance started by the time they were contacted and assembled the 6 hour "INSURRECTION" would have been over.  

Thank you for making it clear that Trump's base didn't care if Trump did his job.

 

"Yep the "left" now judge someone guilty of crime for "something they did not do"  "

 

Two of the police officers convicted of felonies in the George Floyd murder were convicted of failing to stop the murder and render medical assistance.  The UCMJ makes Dereliction of Duty a serious crime and imposes stiff penalties on those convicted of it. 

 

People who take an oath to defend the law and the Constitution have a legal requirement to do their duty.  Trump could have ended the attack on the Capitol with a single tweet, but he did nothing.  Dereliction of Duty is a serious offense, and you are ok with it.   That says a great deal about your and Trump's lack of patriotism.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

You are correct.  However the point still is that this was a "civil unrest" not any different than those that happened in Minneapolis, Seattle and a host of other cities.  Mayor Bowser a Democrat has 3,500 armed policeman 'TRAINED" to deal with law enforcement.  She chose not to dispatch them and somehow escapes criticism.  

The National Guard is a part time military force. Trained in certain weapons but not in law enforcement.  One way or another in order for Trump to "legally" call for federal troops against civilians was for the action to be deemed an insurrection.  Who would delcare it to be an insurrection, and how long after that would it take to have the national guard personnel mobilized.  The entire protest was over in 6 hours.

Having a thousand people, enter the capital building is hardly an insurrection.  It is a civil "unrest"  Now if I was CNN and this was a protest following the George Floyd incident, I would term them "completely peaceful protests" 
 

"However the point still is that this was a "civil unrest" not any different than those that happened in Minneapolis, Seattle and a host of other cities."

 

The "civil unrest" that happened in the cities mentioned resulted in 62,000 National Guard being deployed.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexandrasternlicht/2020/06/02/over-4400-arrests-62000-national-guard-troops-deployed-george-floyd-protests-by-the-numbers/?sh=ea4c4bfd4fe1

 

Clearly calling up the National Guard is standard practice when protests turn into riots and exceed the ability of the police to contain them.

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

And what would have happened if the National Guard would have sided with the protestors ?

   Could have began a civil war . 

Also, the National Guard  were called into action during the protests , but it was the Pentagon that didn't authorise their deployment .

 

 

"William Walker, then the District of Columbia’s National Guard commander, told senators during a hearing in March that Pentagon officials took more than three hours to approve a request by the U.S. Capitol Police for National Guard troops to back up police under attack by rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

'

 

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/pentagon-refines-dc-national-guard-approval-authority-after-capitol-riot-2021-12-30/

You have an insultingly low opinion of the patriotism and professionalism of the National Guard.  They were not going to side with the protesters.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Trump was POTUS at the time and the demonstrators were not protesting  against  Trump or the Government 

Not protesting against the government?  ????

 

They stormed the Capitol building chanting "hang Mike Pence" and forcing Congress and the Vice President to evacuate to safe locations.  They attempted to prevent the legal certification of the 2020 election.  That sure seems like a protest against the government that degenerated into a riot attempting to topple it.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

You have an insultingly low opinion of the patriotism and professionalism of the National Guard.  They were not going to side with the protesters.

It has been reported that some of a staff at Capitol hill sided with the protestors and there have been suggestions that the Police sided with Kyle Rittenhouse at the other protests (by not shooting him, or arresting him and letting him walk home) , its possible that the NG may have sided with the protestors 

[Excel]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It has been reported that some of a staff at Capitol hill sided with the protestors

Please provide a link to these reports

[candide]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It has been reported that some of a staff at Capitol hill sided with the protestors and there have been suggestions that the Police sided with Kyle Rittenhouse at the other protests (by not shooting him, or arresting him and letting him walk home) , its possible that the NG may have sided with the protestors 

How many Capitol staff "sided" with the protestors?

How did they do it? Attack the other defenders?

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, candide said:

How many Capitol staff "sided" with the protestors?

How did they do it? Attack the other defenders?

They opened the buildings outer doors to allow the protestors into the building 

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

They opened the buildings outer doors to allow the protestors into the building 

Just because a bank teller hands over money to the robber pointing a gun at him does not make the teller "sympathetic" to the robber's cause.

[Mac Mickmanus]

Just now, heybruce said:

Just because a bank teller hands over money to the robber pointing a gun at him does not make the teller "sympathetic" to the robber's cause.

Oh, the Trump supporters forced their way into the Capital hill building by threatening to shoot the people inside unless they opened the doors and let them in ?

   Fair enough, I didnt realise that .

I was led to believe that the staff inside the building willingly let the protestors in, I didnt realise the protestors  forced their way in at gunpoint