Revisionist history focusing on 1/6 is getting louder.

[elektra]

elektra -- post #403

as one body of Congress

Thanks for proving you're an idiot.

Yes, the House is ONE body of Congress. There's another. That means Nancy was a member of Congress -- she was NOT Congress. You're trying, and failing, to give her powers she never had.

Why are you doing that?

You must love constructing a house of cards and putting other people's names on it. We all know who Nancy Pelosi is, thee most powerful member of Congress

here, chew on this awhile

The speaker of the house is, one body of congress.

Deschler's Precedents, Volume 1, Chapters 1 - 6 - Chapter 6. Officers, Officials, and Employees

In one sense, he represents the House as one body
of Congress. For example, he signs all acts and joint resolutions for
the House.(6) In another sense he represents the House as a
single entity acting separately from any Senate action.

 

[Marener]

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.

Actually we do have access to the procedures because the investigations after the riot talked about how dysfunctional they are and recommended fixes for them.

To be fair, it’s not like the Capitol Police were used to being overrun by supporters or a failed presidential candidate. The fact that there was a lot of confusion about policies and procedures stems from the unprecedented nature of the crisis.

 

[Marener]

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.

It’s not my assessment. It’s the assessment of the Congressional investigation based on the testimony from people who worked in the intelligence agencies.

People make violent statements online all the time, especially right wingers. That’s the nature of the internet. Very few of those threats are ever recorded or followed up on.

 

[the watcher]

You tell me who benefited.

Anyone who had reason to not want any questions asked about election anomalies greatly benefited from getting this narrative out.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There was no committee -
A legitimate committee would have disagreement, dissent.

See today where Republican House members and Democrat House members went at each other while Joey's bagman watched the proceedings.

Exactly.

The were a group of amateur TV executive producers who literally hired a professional producer named Jon Goldston to make an evening drama - starring themselves of course.

 

[OldFlame]

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

Yes, their schemes aren't working out very well for them. Don't worry, I'm sure they have more up their sleeves.

 

[OldFlame]

It’s not my assessment. It’s the assessment of the Congressional investigation based on the testimony from people who worked in the intelligence agencies.

People make violent statements online all the time, especially right wingers. That’s the nature of the internet. Very few of those threats are ever recorded or followed up on.

Which congressional 'investigation'? And it is your assessment.

 

[Marener]

Yes, their schemes aren't working out very well for them. Don't worry, I'm sure they have more up their sleeves.

You won’t say it but what you’re alluding to is a conspiracy by the DHS, FBI and the intelligence community to harm Trump by keeping the Capitol Police in the dark about the potential for violence.

This is absurd and not based on any credible information. It’s just another loony conspiracy theory.

 

[OldFlame]

You won’t say it but what you’re alluding to is a conspiracy by the DHS, FBI and the intelligence community to harm Trump by keeping the Capitol Police in the dark about the potential for violence.

This is absurd and not based on any credible information. It’s just another loony conspiracy theory.

Hey, good for you, you finally said it!!

Of course you don't think it's 'credible' cause it implicates your democrats, and we couldn't have that. We all know they're as pure as the driven snow and would never resort to corruption.

 

[Marener]

Which congressional 'investigation'? And it is your assessment.

There were several and I already linked one report. A more recent report came out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Secirony.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/230627_HSGAC-Majority-Report_Jan-6-Intel.pdf

Analysis didn’t take the threats seriously.

 

[OldFlame]

You won’t say it but what you’re alluding to is a conspiracy by the DHS, FBI and the intelligence community to harm Trump by keeping the Capitol Police in the dark about the potential for violence.

This is absurd and not based on any credible information. It’s just another loony conspiracy theory.

Your belief that they all assumed credible intel that indicated violence on 1/6/21 was not worth paying attention to is by far the biggest conspiracy theory I've ever heard.

 

[Marener]

Hey, good for you, you finally said it!!

Of course you don't think it's 'credible' cause it implicates your democrats, and we couldn't have that. We all know they're as pure as the driven snow and would never resort to corruption.

Well, if you want it to be credible, then please provide any substantive evidence to support it.

It’s weird I have to tell you what you think.

 

[OldFlame]

There were several and I already linked one report. A more recent report came out of the Senate Committee on Homeland Secirony.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/230627_HSGAC-Majority-Report_Jan-6-Intel.pdf

Analysis didn’t take the threats seriously.

Iow, the January 6th committee?

 

[OldFlame]

Well, if you want it to be credible, then please provide any substantive evidence to support it.

It’s weird I have to tell you what you think.

And here we go, round and round and round and round. There is no 'credible' evidence that you would accept as 'credible' evidence. Sworn testimony from Steven Lund, Chief of Capitol Police and in charge of security for the Capitol Building on 1/6/21 isn't 'credible' to you.

 

[Marener]

Iow, the January 6th committee?

Huh? No. I said the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. It says this on the first page of the link.

That’s not the January 6th committee.

 

[Marener]

And here we go, round and round and round and round. There is no 'credible' evidence that you would accept as 'credible' evidence. Sworn testimony from Steven Lund, Chief of Capitol Police and in charge of security for the Capitol Building on 1/6/21 isn't 'credible' to you.

If you’re saying Sund is accusing the FBI and DHS of wanting the riot, please tell me how he came to this conclusion.

 

[elektra]

<crickets>

gee, I cant post when I have time? A break from work?

I get it, you are most likely validating your opinion with a quick google search vs trying to see if the Standard Operating Procedure is online. You obviously are not reading the law from a government website.

yes, you have crickets for a brain

 

[MagicMike]

They do operate under Standard Operating Procedures, nobody will find them, I am sure they are classified. At best you can quote laws.

Either way, the leadership of the Legislative Branch is responsible for the security of the Capitol.

This doesn't have anything to do with Trump's false claim that Pelosi "refused" his call for more National Guard troops.
That was a lie.
Trump was the ONLY one in charge of The NG on that day.

 

[WTH_Progs?]

 

[berg80]

At this point, given the direction the thread has taken, I'd like to reiterate the observation I made in post #1.

One would think, with all we know about 1/6, these comical attempts to deflect blame would receive the derision they so richly deserve. The same could be said for the endless stream of unproven allegations directed at Old Joe for all manner of wrongdoing. But, in very discouraging ways, they work. The lies work. If only to cast some degree of doubt by virtue of the sheer number and repetition of them. Which is why we can expect the pumping up of the volume will continue.

Lot's of attention is being focused on Pelosi's responsibility for Capital security on the thread. Following a theme that began, not coincidentally, right before the 1/6 hearings.

Ms. Pelosi has considerable influence as the speaker, but she is not responsible for the security of Congress. That is the job of the Capitol Police, an agency Ms. Pelosi only indirectly influences. Most decisions about securing the Capitol are made by the Capitol Police Board, a body that consists of the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the Architect of the Capitol.

Ms. Pelosi shares control of the Capitol with the Senate majority leader, who at the time was Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky. Republicans have made no attempt to blame Mr. McConnell for the security breach or for failing to prepare for attack.

That charge also contradicts a bipartisan report produced by a pair of Senate committees that found evidence of systematic failures across American intelligence, military and law enforcement agencies, which misjudged the threat leading up to Jan. 6 and were not properly trained to respond to it.

Pelosi does not control National Guard requests for the Capitol.​

Mr. McCarthy and others said that Ms. Pelosi had refused pleas by the Capitol Police to provide backup, like the National Guard, ahead of Jan. 6.

But the speaker of the House does not control the National Guard. And while Congress could have requested support in advance, that decision lies with the Capitol Police Board, not the speaker.

Members of the Capitol Police board have provided conflicting accounts of a debate that occurred on Jan. 4 over whether to request the help in advance. Steven A. Sund, then the chief of Capitol Police, has said he asked the board for the pre-emptive assistance but was rebuffed.

Among the reasons cited, Mr. Sund said, was a concern by the House sergeant-at-arms, Paul D. Irving, about the “optics” of bringing in reinforcements. Ms. Stefanik falsely attributed that concern to Ms. Pelosi, whose aides have said she only learned of the request days later.

Republicans are blaming Nancy Pelosi for the Jan. 6 attack. Their claims don’t add up. (Published 2021)

Their claims amounted to an audacious attempt to rewrite the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries.

www.nytimes.com

The disclaimer being, I realize all too well some folks are vested in the RWM/Trump lies to the point no factual refutation of their beliefs will persuade them to accept the truth. It's another example of the post factual world Trump helped usher in.