The truth about the National Guard and Jan 6

Posse Comitatus

Contrary to Liz Cheney’s statements, President Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to help keep order on Jan 6, several days prior to the rally. By law, he could not deploy troops within the United States without a request for assistance by local authorities.

Written offers were sent to the Mayor of DC and the Capitol Police Chief, both of whom refused the offer.

Statements made by Cheney, and here, that Trump should have deployed the National Guard on his own were incorrect, as he did not have the authority to do so.

So, that pretty much puts the lie to claims Trump wanted an insurrection.

104 thoughts on “The truth about the National Guard and Jan 6

  1. Sucker!

    2000 Mules Redux.

    Your statement of the powers of the President shows an amazing degree of ignorance for someone who is so cocksure of himself on this and every other subject. The President CAN summon the National Guard on his own authority under various conditions one of which is…

    “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States;”

    The grain of truth behind these LIES is that there was a little bit of vague contingency discussion that never amounted to a decision, a plan, or to action. On the day, Trump COULD have summoned the DC National Guard but refused to do so. Mike Pence, without actual authority, took that step.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. So, Pence broke the law and Trump followed it.

      Unless there is actual rebellion, the President cannot deploy troops within the US absent a request from local government. That is the law.

      Trump notified both the DC Mayor and Capitol police that he was willing to send 20,000 troops to assist them on request. Both declined the offer.

      That is absolute proof Trump was not encouraging insurrection. You don’t offer troops to suppress your own rebellion.

      Those are the facts, you just don’t like them.


      1. “Trump notified both the DC Mayor and Capitol police that he was willing to send 20,000 troops to assist them on request. Both declined the offer.”

        No, he did not. There were at most some contingency discussions between DOD bureaucrats, the DC Mayor, and the Capitol Police several days before January 6th.

        You are mindlessly channeling Sean Hannity’s lies. Always a stupid thing to do.

        And, on the day, the DC National Guard on its own initiative prepared itself to be called. It wasn’t called until Mike Pence did so because Trump would not.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Still refusing to acknowledge that Trump offered the National Guard days ahead of the rally.

          The offer was made to the DC Mayor and the Capitol Police, not Pelosi directly so the Politifact article refutes a claim not made.

          You simply don’t offer troops to suppress a rebellion you are a party to, so the allegations that Trump wanted an insurrection rather than a peaceful protest are factually disproven.

          You just don’t like the facts.


          1. I do not like the “facts” that you make up. I never do. And I have had plenty of practice.

            Trump offered nothing. Contingency discussions at much lower levels are not an offer. You can weasel all day long. The fact is that Trump refused to call on the DC National Guard to protect the Congress. Even when begged to do so for hours. In the end, Pence had to do it. Spin that away, why don’t you?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Still refusing to acknowledge”…

            Oh, the irony. And you telling Paul about not liking facts is the icing on the cake. You are presented with ACTUAL facts on a daily basis and when that happens you find some way to go to Libertarian Heaven and ramble about things that are unrelated. Or maybe tangentially related.

            But it is SOOOOO ironic. Alanis Morrisette would like royalty payments.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Unless there is actual rebellion, the President cannot deploy troops within the US absent a request from local government. That is the law.”

        What a joke you are. I just linked to the law. You are full of shit.

        Here it is again. Read it this time. And try to grasp this concept – the National Guard and the serving armed forces are different organizations. Really, it is not hard. Try.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. From your link

          “Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.”

          The President, absent an existing invasion or rebellion, cannot use the National Guard for law enforcement purposes other than which the authorization of the State or local authority.

          Do you only read the first line of your own links?


          1. OMG are you stupid!

            Can’t you read? As laws go, this one is short and easily understood. It says the opposite of the bullshit you have been spreading.

            Read it again. The law says nothing about requiring local approval. It just says the orders given to units of the NG are to be channeled through the governors. And in the most relevant case of the DC National Guard the order is to be transmitted through its commander. And that commander reports to the President. Not the mayor. Not Nancy Pelosi. Duh!

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Did Pence, or Trump, have the authority to use the National Guard for law enforcement absent a request from state or local government?

          Check the Posse Comitatus act.

          Which one followed the law?


          1. They can call the guard for rebellion. Armed militia members leading a few thousand rabid folks to attack Congress, hang the VP, and overturn an election fits that pretty well.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Armed with sticks? There was nothing that would legally qualify as a rebellion.

            Even if there were. there would not have been time to mobilize the guard between the time people entered the Capitol and the time they left.

            TO use the guard, the offer issued on the 2nd would have had to be accepted as troops from nearby states would have had to be used.


          3. Armed with sticks? And chemical disabling

            sprays, knives, spears, clubs, brass knuckles, climbing gear, tactical vests, gas masks and, yes, guns according to video and testimony by participants. Throw in plastic cuffs and there was no question that violence meant to disable, wound, even kill and capture.

            Christopher Miller testified under oath that there was no request for NG. If anybody should have known or been very much in the loop, it would be Miller.

            25,000 were ordered for the inauguration about a week in advance. Could have done the same for the president’s own, planned rally, had he bothered to go through the proper procedures. But, he didn’t.

            Few even thought the president planned to lead, or at least send, a huge crowd to March on the Capitol. But he did.

            His Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and other assorted scum were ready to deploy, as ordered, including weapons caches nearby.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. I refer you to the ET article for the copy of Capitol Police Chief Bowser’s letter declining the assistance.

            (Correction, DC MAYOR Bowser)


          5. She didn’t reject anything. She just did not request additional forces. But she did say, twice, that “any requests for additional assistance be coordinated with MPD with the same process and procedures”. And “discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway.”

            Sound like if Trump really wanted more troops, fine, but do it with coordination and consultation through the MPD. I.e., tell my police what you are doing before you do anything.

            So rejection is not true. At all.

            Bottom line, Trump was lying, EP was lying and you have bought into it.

            The bubble may be comfortable, but it is still a bubble.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. I read it, and commented. You should read it also. No rejection, just coordinate with MPD if you do deploy more troops.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Not in DC…that is a separate issue for just DC. The only people in the chain are the president and the commander of the DC guard.


            Trump never officially authorized or ordered the Guard as was his duty and responsibility to defend the US. Period.

            Stone and Bannon were his closest confidants outside the White House and they both had strong ties to the gangs. Stone being initiated into one of them was videotaped. So they knew “all hell was going to break loose” on 1/6. No doubt in my mind, Trump knew also. With all the legal firepower at his disposal, he also knew the empty gesture of going through the mayor was bogus. The mayor was not the “local” official needed in DC. Just the commander of the guard needed to be told by the president.

            And she, properly, said if deployed let her police department know.

            This seems clear to me.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. “3rd time and it still requires a local request for assistance

            Are you just too lazy to verify whether that imaginary world in your head matches reality? This is the third time you demonstrate your willful stubborn ignorance. Who sold you this bullshit? Sean Hannity, maybe?

            From the governing law…

            “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws. ”

            AS HE CONSIDERS NECESSARY. DUH! Nothing about ANY requirement for a local call for assistance.

            The Posse Comitatus Act is short and sweet…

            “Whoever, except in cases and under circum­stances expressly author­ized by the Consti­tu­tion or Act of Congress, will­fully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comit­atus or other­wise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

            The NG is neither the Army nor the Air Force but even if it were, the act carves out circumstances where it does not apply and that is the case here. Suppressing rebellion is an expressly authorized Presidential use of the National Guard.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I think the problem is that the “smoking gun” that some think exists in this Guard story is really just a dripping water pistol.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Just imagine if Trump had illegally deployed troops to DC on Jan 6. The same people complaining he didn’t do enough would be claiming a military coup attempt.


      1. “ “There was no direct, there was no order from the president,” Christopher Miller said in video from his deposition released Tuesday by the House select committee investigating last year’s violence.

        Miller also denied a suggestion by former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows in February 2021 that 10,000 National Guard troops were at the ready before Jan. 6.

        “I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,” Miller said. “So I was surprised by seeing that publicly but I don’t know the context or even where it was.”

        Christopher Miller was Trump’s handpicked DoD Secretary.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. But, Len. Just because an order was never given, doesn’t mean SEC Miller … Quoted statements never mean anything to these people. Or they mean something they WANT it to mean.


    2. “It also raises the possibility that someone among the never-Trumpers did want an insurrection.”

      OK. You have raised the possibility. Now let’s see how far down a rabbit hole you would like to go.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

    If Trump did not want an insurrection what, precisely, did he want? He had lost every peaceful attempt to overturn the election. He summoned a crowd of his supporters, including groups known to endorse violence, to the Capitol. He told them that Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to “do the right thing,” and he sent them to the Capitol to “hang Mike Pence.” He watched on TV as the crowds stormed the Capitol, attacked the police, broke down doors and windows, smeared blood and feces on the walls of the building, took down the American flag and replaced it with a Trump flag, and came within feet of reaching Mike Pence. When everybody from his lawyers to his children begged him to call off the mob, he said “Mike Pence deserves it.” It wasn’t until the National Guard actually showed up that he told his supporters to “go home” and “we love you.”

    It was an insurrection. If he didn’t want an insurrection, he failed miserably… again.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Trump’s comment that Pence lacked the courage, while petty and wrong, came after the Capitol had already been breached.

      I know it is hard to let go of a fantasy you have clung to for over a year, but the facts are before you, and it is time to accept them.


      1. “Trump’s comment that Pence lacked the courage, while petty and wrong, came after the Capitol had already been breached.”

        What point do you think you are trying to make? That tweet came at 2:24pm and the mob was still rampaging through the Capitol. Instead of urging them to stand down and go home it was further incitement to people who had already been chanting “Hang Mike Pence.” That tweet was so wrong that two senior Trump White House appointees decided then and there to resign.

        The fantasist in all of this is you. What you have repeatedly called trespassers and a handful of bad guys misbehaving was, in fact, a deadly running battle that lasted for hours involving hundreds of organized terrorists. It was so bad that Mike Pence’s security detail used their radios to leave last words for their families. They thought they were going to die.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “Are you still trying to claim Trump planned a violent insurrection in the face of these facts?”

            What facts? That people down the chain of command were worried about what he was organizing and discussed security options?

            Trump was not looking for an all-out war. His seditious plan needed just enough violence to stop the counting and create a Constitutional crisis out of which he would – with the help of a corrupt SCOTUS – emerge still in power. The evidence that this was the seditious plan is overwhelming. As you would know if you had corked your hatred, showed some loyalty to the Constitution, and paid attention to what the Republicans involved testified to. But you didn’t. Instead, you take another of Trump LIES as gospel. And you parrot Sean Hannity’s dishonesty.

            As mentioned in another post, you people seem to never tire of embarrassing yourselves.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Exactly what is conspiratorial about what Paul said? Just saying it is a conspiracy theory means nothing if you can’t back it.

            Paulk’s statement is based on evidence presented (with more coming every day, it seems). A lot more credible than some of the other things that have been on this forum and called conspiracy. Pizzagate, Benghazi, etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. “Qanon would not publish such an outrageous conspiracy theory.”

            Says the doctrinaire partisan who refuses to see the evidence for himself.

            What you call an “outrageous conspiracy theory” is a documented timeline of what happened. And the evidence for it comes exclusively from Trump loyalists that he appointed to the positions they held. They have proved more loyal to the Rule of Law than to Trump which seems to greatly upset him as evidenced by his name-calling after they testify.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “Paul’s statement is based on reading multiple minds.”

            Bullshit. It is based on paying attention to the evidence – something you are clearly unwilling to do.

            We know what is in people’s minds by what they say. Things like … “They are not here to hurt me.” or “Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republicans in Congress.” or “Just find 11,780 votes.”

            Liked by 1 person

      2. And when he made that comment, it was immediately passed around to the mob and fueled their fire even more. Yeah, timing is everything.

        The man sat in a dining room watching things unfold and may have actually been giddy about it. It took countless people in his administration and FAMILY to convince him to FINALLY tell them to go home. He was getting all he wanted and more during that afternoon. And yet you refuse to admit that his rhetoric and election denial weren’t criminal.

        The only fantasy, Mr. Rourke, is the one where TFG isn’t in jail.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “He had lost every peaceful attempt to overturn the election.”

      Trump had one last play, which was in progress at the time the riot started. Senators from six states had agreed to question the electoral votes those states had certified, which would have required the states to re-certify their electoral slates after addressing specific objections raised in the Senate. Technically, the riot was against Trump’s interests, since it thwarted his last chance to have election irregularities investigated.

      Whatever Trump’s motives may have been, the facts don’t support the fantasy that he wanted an insurrection.


      1. Laughable.

        “Trump had one last play”

        Which depended on the vote count not proceeding. Duh.

        The facts do not support any other interpretation except that he wanted the mob to “Stop the Steal.” He knew they were heavily armed, he sent them to the Capitol, and he wanted to lead them. “They are not here to hurt me,” he said in response to concerns about weapons. Okay, then who were the weapons to be used on?

        Liked by 2 people

          1. “I see no evidence of anything illegal.”
            Tell that to the survivors and the maimed.

            Leaving aside the many well-documented crimes committed by your hero leading up to the insurrection, what about his failure to act on the day? You have called for criminal punishment for the police who failed to act in Uvalde. What about a President who not only failed to act but offered further incitement while his people rampaged through the Capitol attacking the police and looking for people to murder?

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “FAKE” electors as discussed IN WRITING by those working towards the aim of keeping an autocrat who refused to accept the results of the election after over 60 lawsuits, his own AG, election staff and FAMILY, told him he lost.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Nonsense.

          There is no peaceful process to stop the national certification. That FACT was pointed out to the architect of this fake Electors plan – John Eastman – and he brushed its lawlessness aside. He has now taken the Fifth Amendment on every question.

          Liked by 2 people

      2. “Senators from six states had agreed to question the electoral votes those states had certified,”

        You mean with the “FAKE” electors that have come to light?

        Another ship has sailed.


      3. In order for that ploy of House and Senate objections to work, there was also a vote by each chamber as to accepting or rejecting the electors from a state. The House was Democrat and the Senate had enough Republicans that acknowledged Biden was the president-elect. The objections alone were not enough to force states to re-certify.

        So it never had a chance. At best, the ceremonial procedure would have been delayed maybe 12 hours.

        So the plan was to “be wild” and for all hell to break lose according to Trump’s and Bannon’s own messaging.

        PS: If the president really wanted the NG he could have taken care of that through proper channels days before to make sure. 10-20,000 would require NG from other places since DC only had around 6000, so that alone belies Trumps story.

        As the attacks were taking place, he could have called out the guard since it was a rebellion, not a picnic. But he called his fav Senators instead to see how they could still obstruct the ceremony.

        Sorry, but Don and you are just diving into a rabbit hole…again.

        I would give Epoch Times 4 Pinocchios.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. If it were a rebellion, they would have brought their rifles.

          Trump did approach the local government days ahead of time through proper channels, and the offer was rejected.


          1. “If it were a rebellion, they would have brought their rifles.”

            Didn’t need them. The NG was on the sidelines until Pence called for soem action.

            You have used that phrase many times in defense of what happened. What exactly did the MOB want on Jan 6th, moving to the Capitol after a rally titled “Stop the Steal”? A meeting with their representatives? A little lynching among friends? Bash in or put a couple of holes in he heads of those who were doing their Constitutional duty?

            Exactly what did the mob want? And more importantly, WHY did they want it?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I don’t know if there were some among them who wanted a violent confrontation, maybe there were. But do you have evidence that Trump coordinated with them, or even knew their intent?

            Trump wanted Pence to stop the count for a time. That’s all I actually know of Trump’s intent. Your speculations beyond that are not knowledge.

            And we do know that Trump offered the National Guard on the 2nd. The copy of Bowsers letter declining the assistance is printed in the ET article.


          3. “And we do know that Trump offered the National Guard on the 2nd.”

            A bad interpretation of what happened. You stick to it though. It is as legitimate as your election predictions.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “That’s all I actually know of Trump’s intent. ”

            Three words for you to consider the next time you claim TFG only …”wanted Pence to stop the count for a time.”

            STOP THE STEAL.

            That’s not a call for a delay; it is a call to overturn the election, the Electoral College and a peaceful transfer of power.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. You keep saying that. His own DoD chief knew nothing of it.

            Hard to distinguish a rebellion from an insurrection from a riot from a terrorist attack when security is fighting for their lives.

            A few thousand breached the Capitol, the violence was incredible and the search for legislators and the VP was relentless and very close to successful.

            An attempted rebellion, insurrection, autogolpe, etc. you name it.

            Liked by 2 people

  3. You haven’t answered my question. If Trump didn’t want an insurrection, what did he want? What was his motive for holding a rally that day?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. He thought, incorrectly, that Pence and the Senate could delay the counting of the electoral college votes and that some states would be convinced there was enough fraud for their legislatures to substitute other electors.

      It was a poorly thought out legal strategy, but not an insurrection.


      1. Issue 1. And I will type slowly so all can understand. THERE WAS NO FRAUD!. How many people have testified that they were forceful in their words to TFG that there was no fraud, he lost and it was time to move on.

        “Legal strategy”? Sorry, but when lawyers are saying things like, “We have lots of theories, just no evidence.” , then a fraud is being committed. And that fraudulent behavior led to an ATTEMPTED insurrection, you call it “a poorly thought out legal strategy”? Sorry, Don. It is CRIMINAL, IMO. And I hope that the DOJ finds the same thing. And proves it in a court of law. (The court of public opinion will be another issue.)

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “Poorly thought out?” Not really, it was well thought out , planned and almost executed.

        Eastman presented detailed reasoning. Except when pressed by White House counsel, he agreed it was completely bogus and SCOTUS, if asked, would reject it 9-0.

        Extorting the VP through intimidation and violence, even during the attack while Pence’s security detail feared for their own lives, is illegal.

        Liked by 2 people

      3. “It was a poorly thought-out legal strategy”

        Bullshit. It was the mask they were going to put on their coup. If you had lowered yourself to listen to the testimony you would not still be making such a fool of yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. OK. smart guy. What is there to consider?

      I consider that you and many others here don’t like facts so you make shit up. Or in your case, repeat what others have made up and posted as fact. Even though they have been shown to be lies, mistruths, obfuscations, and straight up BULLSHIT.

      Consider that.


  4. According to Patel, both the Mayor and Capital Police refused authorized National Guard troops via letter so it should be pretty easy to prove. The kangaroo commission doesn’t like facts that refute their politicslly motivated narrative but instead prefer sensationalism and hearsay as truth. Literally all of Hutchinson’s “bombshell” testimony was hearsay. Even Judgd Judy would have tossed her out. I suspect the DOJ knows the narrative won’t fly in court so they aren’t so quick to take up the kangaroo commission crusade because facts get to be presented in court not hearsay and ennuendo.


    1. Read the letter. There is no refusal.

      Simply a request that if National Guard troops are brought in to coordinate with Metro Police.

      In other words, the “refusal” is a lie. Just like all the lies from Trump and his band of not so merry men.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Did you not read the letter from Mayor Bowser imbedded in the article? It clearly states”To be clear, the District of Columbia is NOT requesting any other federal law enforcement personnel…” Unrefutable evidence is a lie?


        1. Read the whole letter.

          She says that if the decision is to bring in additional security then coordinate with Metro Police.

          She did NOT say no.

          “ She didn’t reject anything. She just did not request additional forces. But she did say, twice, that “any requests for additional assistance be coordinated with MPD with the same process and procedures”. And “discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway.”

          As I wrote earlier:

          Sound like if Trump really wanted more troops, fine, but do it with coordination and consultation through the MPD. I.e., tell my police what you are doing before you do anything.

          That is really a very good idea. Just bringing in troops without coordinating with the local police would be a source of confusion in tactics and communication. And she so stated clearly.

          DoD Secretary, Trump’s own hand picked man, Miller, testified under oath that he never got the order to deploy troops. That would be kind of important, don’t you think?

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Are you missing something ? The point is SHE has to request the National Guard for Trump to deploy them. She clearly said NO. That is the point of this whole thread. She refused any further federal law enforcement period.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “The D.C. National Guard is the only U.S. military force empowered to carry out federal functions in a state or, in this case, a district. Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law when local law enforcement officials can no longer maintain civil control. The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the president or Congress.”


            In addition go to the Cornell Law link and see the mayor is not even in the chain of command in DC. It is the president and the commander of the guard. Mayor, not so much.


            The president did not need a request from the mayor at all.

            So, if Trump was truly concerned for the safety of “his” people he just needed to officially authorize the use of the guard himself, period. It made no difference what the mayor may or may not have suggested or requested. And she said if the guard is deployed just let her police department know. She never said “don’t call the guard”.

            This has been posted and shown many times, but for some reason, some folks refuse to acknowledge.

            In other words, the Epoch Times is wrong and part of the Trump BS package.

            What am I missing?

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “Are you missing something? The point is SHE has to request the National Guard for Trump to deploy them.”

            Uh, that would be incorrect. The President has specific authority from the Congress to deploy the National Guard to suppress rebellion. A violent attack on the Congress is a rebellion. That Trump needed approval from the mayor of DC is one of those “alternative facts” that you people are conned into believing.

            Besides, how would the mayor have known that there was a violent seditious conspiracy afoot that would involve Americans attacking the Capitol. As far as she knew, it was just going to be another political gathering – a frequent occurrence in her city.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. Crickets finally. An admission that the Epoch Times might have been right wing propaganda, lies, and just plain wrong with the intent of stirring up more conspiracies would be too much.

            But, as I, and selected others, have admitted mea culpa or “I learn something new everyday” in the past, I can only suggest the naysayers do the same.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. ” Literally all of Hutchinson’s “bombshell” testimony was hearsay.”

      Sorry, but the reality is most of her testimony has been corroborated by others. And the SS agents who have said she was lying refuse to testify under oath.

      Judge Judy is a reality court room judge. I am grateful that she had to move to streaming services because her model couldn’t be sustained at over $10 million per year she is making. And don’t forget that she endorsed Michael Bloomberg in 2020. GREAT judge of … anything legitimate.

      …”DOJ knows the narrative won’t fly in court” That explains why he are conducting their own CRIMINAL investigation. Getting even more cooperation that the Jan 6th Committee. Another search warrant granted for a Trump-aligned lawyer issued last night. The noose intended for Pence seems to be tightening around TFG.


      1. Hearsay to corroborate hearsay is…..hearsay. The secret service agents in the vehicle leaving the capital deny Hutchinson’s account and are willing to testify again. Why aren’t they being called back and why isn’t their prior sworn testimony included in the narrative? Spoiler alert, the kangaroo committee doesn’t like facts.


        1. They have been called back, but they both got lawyers. So…we will see eventually.

          I wouldn’t think lawyers would be necessary to relate what happened in the vehicle.

          Then again, one would think the Secret Service wouldn’t have erased texts from that day either.

          Liked by 2 people

        2. You need a better understanding of “Hearsay.”

          If she testified that Mr. X told me that he heard the President say “They are not here to hurt me.” That would be “hearsay.” If she testified that SHE heard the President say “They are not here to hurt me.” that is NOT hearsay.

          Because a lot of the evidence she testified to was gathered using her ears, lying liars protecting Trump have spread the word that it is ALL hearsay. It isn’t.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Did you read the ad signed and published in WAPO?

      Trump wanted to use the military to seize voting machines, among other treasonous actions.

      There is no evidence that Trump officially ordered the Commander of the DC National Guard to provide troops at 1/6 rally. That is how it is done. By law and statute.

      Not the mayor or Pelosi or McConnell. A direct order from the president to the commander. And he had a house full of lawyers that knew that.

      Your opinion piece is wrong and where it is not wrong outright, it makes up for with vague “appears”, “seems”, etc. Rehashing lies for the vulnerable.


      1. Read the cite more carefully.

        The President can call up the guard on his own only if there is active insurrection and/or the law cannot be enforced. Neither of those was the case on Jan 2. Calling up the guard prior to the existence of a crisis requires local request.

        This, BTW, was the same problem Bush had with Katrina. FEMA provided the forms for LA governor Blanco to sign but she would not. Then blamed Bush because the guard was late.


        1. Again, for the 2nd or is it the third time,

          “ The D.C. National Guard is the only U.S. military force empowered to carry out federal functions in a state or, in this case, a district. Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law when local law enforcement officials can no longer maintain civil control. The National Guard may be called into federal service in response to a call by the president or Congress.”

          It was up to Trump and only Trump to officially order troops in this scenario. Only he knew that the call to be “wild” and his minion’s “all hell will break loose” meant just that.

          Again, “… range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law…” He could have set all that up officially with written orders days in advance. But he did not.

          Why do you keep saying he needed local request? DC is not Louisiana.

          Really, this is not hard to grasp, just hard to accept apparently.


          1. “Those functions range from limited actions during non-emergency situations to full scale law enforcement of martial law when local law enforcement officials can no longer maintain civil control.

            Further, the offer was for 20,000 troops. DC only has 8000. Other states Guard would have had to be called as well.

            On what basis would Trump have called up the guard form DC and neighboring states on Jan 2nd when no unrest had yet occurred.

            Traffic control?

            Should he have consulted an astrologer?


          2. The range is from non-emergency to full scale martial law.

            If Trump was really concerned about the rally, he could have called “non-emergency status” long before the rally. Also, it would be obvious to the president if the mob got out of control and he would need the Guard. No need for local appeal or approval.

            (And when it was obvious during the attack, he didn’t do anything except enrage the mob with his attack tweet on Pence.)

            You are the one who is insisting that he did want 10-20K Guard troops. Why? And if so, he could have ordered the commander of the Guard to prepare. No local appeals needed.

            And no astrologer either.


          3. You refuse to see the obvious.

            It is clear, based on his making the offer, that he expected a large, emotionally charged crowd, the might require assistance in managing.

            But making the offer also shows that Trump did not anticipate anyone attempting an insurrection or other violent action. You wouldn’t both incite a riot and also provide the force to suppress it.

            And, because Trump did not overrule the local authorities and send the guard over their objections, that Trump didn’t know there would be a breach.

            That he could have done other things isn’t relevant, what he did do makes it clear that he did not expect a riot or a breach of the Capitol.


          4. You are lying.

            Local officials are NOT needed to approve Guards in DC. The president did not need approval from anyone. And coming to a rally is a non- emergency reason that is within the range of reasons. After the attack he could have ordered them immediately also.

            Is this really so hard to accept?

            You keep repeating those lies. So I think is not a matter of not understanding.

            Also there was no objection by anyone. The mayor even said just to let MPD know if the did decide to call Guards.


          5. Again read the article completely.

            Several others have come forward to confirm Patel’s account.

            That Trump COULD HAVE done other things does not change what he did do, and that confirms that he did not anticipate the riot.


          6. “It will be wild” and “All hell is going to break loose.”

            He knew exactly who was coming, that they were armed and that he would send them to the Capitol. He didn’t want the Guard or he would have gotten them. No other permission needed.

            Your assertion that he was clueless is BS. His sitting on his hands for 3+ hours and tweeting about Pence’s lack of courage during the violence is very telling. A real patriot would have been appalled by the violence and called it off immediately. He relished it. He praised the attackers.

            You are in a rabbit hole and I am sorry to see it.


          7. So, he offered 20,000 guardsmen for crowd control. magically knowing they would be turned down?

            You know Trump better than that, If he had known they would be turned down he either would not have offered or been shouting the refusal from the rooftops on Jan 7


          8. Who turned him down?

            The only other person in the chain is the commander of the DC Guard.

            She said no?


          9. This is like discussing the weather from inside a box.

            The president needs no approval. Is that hard to understand?

            According to Miller and friends, Trump mentioned 10-20K Guard troops ostensibly to protect his people. Nothing more was done. The president needed to officially order the troops himself. He didn’t. The mayor, Pelosi, McConnell, the sergeant at arms, my aunt Tillie did not need to approve or request anything.

            The president officially orders the commander in DC to get the troops for his rally. Period.
            He obviously didn’t care much one way or the other, or, more likely, he was covering his ass in case his gangs went nuts. And even then he did nothing for 3 hours. Except heighten the threats against his own VP.

            Dereliction of duty at the very least. Aiding and abetting the attackers is more like it.


          10. DC only has 8000 NG members, many of them not deployable.

            The 20,000 total would mostly come from other states.

            Again, what would be the justification for overruling the local authorities?

            Maybe Trump COULD have, but it would very likely be unlawful unless he could have known ahead of time there would be an attack on the Capitol and not just a boisterous rally.


          11. Overruling what local authorities? Who ruled?

            The president DID NOT need anyone’s permission to mobilize the Guard in DC.

            Why are you insisting it was necessary? He can mobilize the Guard for a parade if he wanted to. The range of reasons is broad, and no one has to approve, request, deny except the president.

            Again, what part of “it will be wild” and “all hell is going to break loose” as promised by Trump and his minions do you have a hard time understanding?


          12. That’s crowd control, not suppressing rebellion.

            And as other state’s NG units would have been required, local requests would have been necessary to mobilize them for law enforcement use when actual need did not yet exist and could not be anticipated

            And again, what Trump might or might not have had the authority to do does not change what he did, and that indicated no prior knowledge, or desire for, a riot instead of a demonstration.


          13. First, crowd control might have been what was needed. The gangs might have been hesitant to actually face the Guard. If, in fact, that is what the president wanted.

            You say that Trump wanted 10-20K troops. And that proves he was not trying to “hang Mike Pence”.

            Then you say he could not have gotten them. The commander was not even notified by the president, so how do you know who or what would have had to approve additional troops from nearby states?


          14. Wow, one note Johnny.

            The president did not need their requests or rejection to mobilized the DC Guard. Why do you keep saying that?

            Really, Don, you are at variance with the facts.

            Over and over. Repeating a lie does not make it true despite what Republicans say.

            “Why would he?” If he felt he needed thousands more, why wouldn’t he. The mayor had no say, and she knew that. So she advised that if he wanted the Guard, please coordinate with the MPD.


          15. You’re not hearing the note then,

            Regardless of what Trump could, or could not, have done, what he DID do is inconsistent with prior knowledge of, or desire for, a violent insurrection.

            We need go no further,

            But by all means do so, I think Adams may be on to something.


          16. Ending this debate is a good idea. I don’t have your mind reading capability to discern what Trump may or may not have been thinking.

            It is a gift, I guess.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s