Revisionist history focusing on 1/6 is getting louder.

[Marener]

Tell us who has benefited from that day?

No one. Literally no one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Video footage shows Capitol Police ESCORTING buffalo guy around, not asking him to leave.
Better luck next time.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jan+6+breach+washington+post

 

[OldFlame]

Not that much of a coincidence. The FBI and DHS both reached the same conclusion as to the “seriousness” of the threat. It’s easy to see why they wouldn’t take the threats seriously. Trump’s supporters have not been known to commit widespread violence.

All the documents were reviewed by the Congressional committee investigating and indicated that Capitol Police did receive intelligence of an attack but they too did not take it seriously.

Again, because they’re all working on the same assumption that Trump’s supporters aren’t violent.

We don’t have recordings of the phone calls Sund made on January 6th. We know who he called when but we don’t know what he said, and there is contradictory claims about that.

The military especially is blaming each other for their lack of responsiveness.

'Absolute liars': Ex-D.C. Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6

In a 36-page memo to the Capitol riot committee, Col. Earl Matthews also slams the Pentagon's inspector general for what he calls an error-ridden report.

www.politico.com

at the bolded part. It just shows how completely clueless you are as to how intel operations are handled, they just all 'made assumptions' is the most asinine thing I think I've ever seen anyone post on this board.

You've got an answer for everything, you're never going to convince anyone with your opinion, especially me. I've watched his interviews and the testimony, he was not given the intel that the other agencies had, period. You're welcome to believe in your little fantasy world that the entire US government just decided to not take threats of violence seriously that day. Thanks for the laugh. lol

 

[Marener]

And the Sergeant at Arms makes the request to who?

The House Sergeant at Arms made the request to Pelosi who approved it immediately.

The Senate Sergent at Arms did likewise.

Both were required.

The Capitol Architect probably needed to approve too but no one seems to have cared.

 

[OldFlame]

No one. Literally no one.

Okay.

 

[Billiejeens]

That's why it's truly a waste of time even going back and forth with these idiots.

The desperately want to say that Pelosi/McConnell had nothing to do with NG troops being delayed, they will turn themselves into pretzels to obfuscate and go down every rabbit hole. The facts don't align with their opinions, and nothing you show to them or tell them will convince them otherwise. It's just a complete waste of time.

I don't think that McConnell had a real role.

Everything else, yeah.

 

[OldFlame]

I don't think that McConnell had a real role.

Everything else, yeah.

He also withheld permission to call in the NG. It is what it is.

 

[Marener]

at the bolded part. It just shows how completely clueless you are as to how intel operations are handled, they just all 'made assumptions' is the most asinine thing I think I've ever seen anyone post on this board.

You've got an answer for everything, you're never going to convince anyone with your opinion, especially me. I've watched his interviews and the testimony, he was not given the intel that the other agencies had, period. You're welcome to believe in your little fantasy world that the entire US government just decided to not take threats of violence seriously that day. Thanks for the laugh. lol

Maybe assumption isn’t the right word. Their assessment was informed by history, though.

Trump supporters did not have a history of engaging in widespread violence like we saw in January 6th.

Dont you agree?

 

[Billiejeens]

Maybe assumption isn’t the right word. Their assessment was informed by history, though.

Trump supporters did not have a history of engaging in widespread violence like we saw in January 6th.

Dont you agree?

They still don't

 

[Marener]

Okay.

You tell me who benefited.

 

[Billiejeens]

You tell me who benefited.

Biden

 

[OldFlame]

Maybe assumption isn’t the right word. Their assessment was informed by history, though.

Trump supporters did not have a history of engaging in widespread violence like we saw in January 6th.

Dont you agree?

You make that comment as though it has any bearing on how US intelligence operations work.

 

[Marener]

Biden

How?

 

[OldFlame]

You tell me who benefited.

The entire democrat party and the apparatus in control of our federal government,

 

[Marener]

You make that comment as though it has any bearing on how US intelligence operations work.

Of course it has bearing on the intelligence assessment. Why wouldn’t it?

Historical information matters. You’d be more worried about a threat from someone with a history of violence than from someone with no history of violence.

It’s common sense.

 

[Marener]

The entire democrat party and the apparatus in control of our federal government,

How did they benefit?

 

[OldFlame]

How?

How? Gee, maybe all the constant press about the evil Trump and his supporters, maybe the indictments of Trump in an effort to ruin any chances for a second term in office so the D's can retain power, and the list goes on.

 

[OldFlame]

Of course it has bearing on the intelligence assessment. Why wouldn’t it?

Historical information matters. You’d be more worried about a threat from someone with a history of violence than from someone with no history of violence.

It’s common sense.

I'm sure US Intelligence agencies would enjoy your assessment of their work.

I guess if I made some threat to someone in office, they would just ignore me cause I have no history of violence.

 

[elektra]

The Chief of Police is on the board but does not have voting capacity and serves under the board.

The Capitol Police Board has a chairman but the chairman does not have any unilateral authority. Everything must be approved by the board.

where do you see, that the board votes on anything, that is the 3 people?

and how would that work during an emergency

No matter what your argument is, there are operating procedures for the Board and the Chief of Police that we do not have access to. Without those, you can not say definitively what is the course of action.

Yet, what we do know, is that the Chief of Police does not go the the Board, that the Chief is a member of, during an emergency to ask what to do, then have to wait while the board convenes, and then as someone else said, go to another board to ask what to do during said emergency.

During an emergency, whatever we call that happened on jan 6th, the action taken is not determined by waiting for committees to discuss what course of action takes place. At the very least, Nancy Pelosi is notified.

 

[Marener]

How? Gee, maybe all the constant press about the evil Trump and his supporters, maybe the indictments of Trump in an effort to ruin any chances for a second term in office so the D's can retain power, and the list goes on.

And yet Trump is the favored to win the election in November.