Author Topic: Assault on the Capitol  (Read 1136 times)

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #30 on: January 07, 2021, 08:10:24 PM »
Now that I have had a little time to think about it, I guess the “soft” option is the best. I don’t care if it’s against the rules. Everyone has to understand that they take the orders from Pence. The nuclear “football” needs to accompany Pence. Every diplomat in the world has to inform every government in the world that during the next two weeks, Pence is firmly in charge.

Trump needs to be isolated in the White House until the early hours of January 20. Like a mentally sick man. No access to Twitter, or Facebook or the internet. No speaking appearances of TV.

This should prevent a coordinated assault by his devoted followers.

P. S. It would also help if the Senators and Congressmen realized that we are in a new era. The voting in Georgia is a strong indication that the Trump era is over. Trump has lost a fraction of his supporters. Not a large fraction, but enough. Just losing a few percent of the people who would vote for him or for the people he endorses is very bad. If I was a politician, I wouldn’t want his endorsement, not for the General Election. And probably not for the primary either because the voters will remember in the following November. I think my best chance would be to ask Trump to stay out of it and hope that doesn’t make him mad.

Just glancing at the ceremonies last night, it appears that maybe the realization is settling in. There were early objections to the accepting, with a couple of hours of debate, for many of the states, like Arizona and Pennsylvania. But by the time they got to Wisconsin, no Senator supported the objection. Not even Ted Cruz. It may be that he is starting to wise up.
Trump still is THE lawfully elected president; if his cabinet circumvents his authority isn't this sort of a "soft" coup? We condemn the attempted insurrection yesterday, the attempt to subvert the Constitution and then we advocate a different type of circumvention of the Constitution. Aren't we?

The differences are obvious. But both are rejecting the rule of law. This is why I said above that we are hamstrung: how do we legally respond to Trump? We can't illegally do so; then we are like him. We have to - must - use the law.

Remember the scene from "Man for All Seasons"? Roper tells Thomas More that he, More, needs to "arrest that man". More says, "For what reason? He's broken no laws." More later says that he'd even give the Devil the benefit of the law. Because if you ignore all of the laws, destroy them, then where do you turn when the Devil comes after you? You have no laws anymore to defend yourself. More concludes: "Yes, I'd given the Devil the benefit of the law for my own safety's sake."

So if we allow this Cabinet to take over power, how do we prevent the next one from doing so? For the wrong reasons? 


« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 12:16:05 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #31 on: January 07, 2021, 08:22:08 PM »
MAGA hats on sale at Walmart. Half priced. Don’t miss the deal.

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #32 on: January 07, 2021, 08:24:11 PM »
On January 20, we will make America great again. Or at least a lot less ridiculous.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2021, 12:45:21 AM »
The head of the Capitol Police just turned in his resignation. Speaker Pelosi called for him to step down yesterday.

"Chief Steven Sund said Thursday that police had planned for a free speech demonstration and did not expect the violent attack. He said it was unlike anything he’d experienced in his 30 years in law enforcement."

Well, that's a complete failure of preparation. It was obvious for several weeks that there was a significant potential for violence.

story/link: https://apnews.com/article/trump-25th-amendment-schumer-capitol-992705542ceebba6596f2d6682b476e7

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2021, 01:12:17 AM »
Vice President elect Harris now makes things worse (somehow) with this absurd claim:

“We witnessed two systems of justice when we saw one that let extremists storm the United States Capitol, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protesters last summer. The American people have expressed rightly outrage. We know this is unacceptable. We know we should be better than this."

Who "let extremists storm the United States Capitol", Madame Vice President? Let? Did you see the videos? The police were unprepared and overwhelmed by the mob. They didn't "let" this happen.

The police fought the mob off using tear gas, pepper spray, flash bang devices and night sticks and police inside the building actually shot and killed a member of the mob.

Okay, so you're referring to Trump. I get it. But we don't need this type of speech; we're trying to get rid of someone who uses it all of the time. This is campaign rhetoric and the election is over.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 02:01:24 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2021, 01:26:11 AM »

Trump has been publicly calling for this attack for weeks, with hints even back in September. Easily the most brazen, well telegraphed coup in history. I mean Trump was an idiot to come up with such a plan but it came damm close to working, to some extent. Get him some revenge against Pence and others who “betrayed” him, if nothing else.
The Pentagon asked the U. S. Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. On multiple occasions. And were always turned down, most recently as of last Sunday.
The FBI has been monitoring the situation and seen clear signs of trouble, but the Capitol police turned them down.
As the mob approached the Capitol the FBI made one last plea to allow all available agents to come but they were turned down one last time.

On Wednesday, after barely escaping with her life, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called upon Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to resign, immediate.
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund: Hmmm. I don’t know. I’ll have to sleep on that.
Today, he submitted his resignation.

I am credulous that Sund could not see this coming. With all the public messages from Trump. “Be there”. “It will be wild”. “Don’t miss it”.

Question:

Is Sund a Trump supporter?

Did he leave his officers, the Vice President, the Senators and the Congressmen in obvious danger because he thought it was Trump’s best chance at remaining as President?


For now, I am not satisfied with Sund being fired. I would like this looked into.

Never mind my criticism of the Mayor or the head of the National Guard in Washington D. C. Everything points to two men who made this happen. Trump and Sund. Was Sund just a dunce or is there more to this?

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2021, 02:23:17 AM »
From the AP: "Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter."

And this was reportedly the reason (or one of them):
"Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans."

We're getting all sorts of conflicting reports. If this is true, this indicates that it wasn't the White House that held back protection, it was the Capitol Police that rejected the offer of additional security/personnel.

And the chief security officer for the House of Representatives has resigned. Speaker Pelosi asked for his resignation.

This appears to me to be old fashioned incompetence and nothing conspiratorial.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2021, 02:26:42 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Joe Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1046
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2021, 03:34:40 AM »
From the AP: "Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter."

And this was reportedly the reason (or one of them):
"Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans."

We're getting all sorts of conflicting reports. If this is true, this indicates that it wasn't the White House that held back protection, it was the Capitol Police that rejected the offer of additional security/personnel.

And the chief security officer for the House of Representatives has resigned. Speaker Pelosi asked for his resignation.

This appears to me to be old fashioned incompetence and nothing conspiratorial.

I agree. Nothing conspiratorial. But maybe Sund giving minimum protection in the hopes of helping Trump. But probably just a series of bad decisions by Capitol Police Chief Sund. It would be unlikely that both Trump and Sund would be equally delusional and both think that this could work.

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2021, 05:59:58 PM »
There's lots of finger pointing and fanny covering here so it's hard to discern what happened. Clearly though the Capitol Police were simply unprepared for this. Just in terms of having enough force - officers - on the scene. Sund didn't need approval, I don't believe, from anyone to put more officers out.

This reminds me a bit of James Hosty's account of the assassination. He was the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds (both of them). He said in his book ("Assignment Oswald") that two days - two - before the visit he was informed by his superiors of the details of the President's visit. He claimed there was almost no coordination between the FBI and Secret Service and that the SS provided the agency with "very restrictive criteria for threats to the President." That's his account, of course; so take it with a large dose of skepticism.

Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent in charge in Dallas, said that if he had been told about Oswald that they would have taken him in before the visit for questioning. But they were never informed.

So the FBI is pointing its finger at the SS, the SS back at the FBI. The DPD criticized the FBI and on and on. That sounds like what is happening here. "I didn't mess up, they did."
« Last Edit: January 09, 2021, 01:19:59 AM by Steve M. Galbraith »

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4227
  • 'Pristine'..yeah, sure
Re: Assault on the Capitol
« Reply #39 on: January 10, 2021, 05:49:04 AM »
There's lots of finger pointing and fanny covering here so it's hard to discern what happened. Clearly though the Capitol Police were simply unprepared for this. Just in terms of having enough force - officers - on the scene. Sund didn't need approval, I don't believe, from anyone to put more officers out.

This reminds me a bit of James Hosty's account of the assassination. He was the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds (both of them). He said in his book ("Assignment Oswald") that two days - two - before the visit he was informed by his superiors of the details of the President's visit. He claimed there was almost no coordination between the FBI and Secret Service and that the SS provided the agency with "very restrictive criteria for threats to the President." That's his account, of course; so take it with a large dose of skepticism.

Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent in charge in Dallas, said that if he had been told about Oswald that they would have taken him in before the visit for questioning. But they were never informed.

So the FBI is pointing its finger at the SS, the SS back at the FBI. The DPD criticized the FBI and on and on. That sounds like what is happening here. "I didn't mess up, they did."


 

Mobile View