• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liz Cheney, January 6 Committee Suppressed Exonerating Evidence Of Trump’s Push For National Guard

Sand Castle said:
Hmmmm, trump would be fully exonerated if the week prior to 1/6 he just said:

Thank you MAGA for your support, following investigations, recounts, audits, court cases Joe Biden is our next President.

I'm cancelling the rally at DC. Good luck Joe and I will be getting together with you for a smooth transition. No National guard needed

Easy, huh!
Click to expand...

Exonerated of what?
Mr. Trump is not being charged with causing the riot, or anything to do with the riot.
Nor is he being charged with believing he won the election but for fraud.
 
bongsaway said:
Question. Why were meadows and trump suggesting troops for a peaceful picnic day at the capitol? These folks were mostly peaceful by your own descriptions.
Meadows 'suggested' and trump was silent for hours and yet y'all are still trying to blame democrats for the riot that day. Gop reasoning, I will never understand.
Click to expand...

There is actually still no evidence that Trump requested National Guard troops, and that was his responsibility.
 
VySky said:
Fiz Cheney, the disgraced former Republican Senator, withheld information during her 1/6 Kangaroo Court type fAiL

The machine is doing its best to avoid having to do what the left is starting to make noise about.

Even with the myth called global warming, there are still grassy knolls in their wet dreams.

We are even seeing some (used to be) here at DP with sick fantasies of the unthinkable.

And day now.......... any day now..... they'll get Trump.

But they have to hide the truth to get any traction

========================



thefederalist.com

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump-Exonerating Evidence

Cheney and her Jan. 6 committee falsely claimed they had 'no evidence' the Trump White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
Click to expand...

The Federalist is fake news.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That troops were offered by Trump prior to Jan 6 was a story that was being kicked around at the time, and in the days after the riot.

It was often cited by progressives who were concerned that they could have been used by Trump to support the rioters and to prevent those who would try to stop the 'insurrection.'

It's why Miley basically said that he would not obey Trump.
Click to expand...
Indeed and to the welcoming relief of Gen. Milley and the Joint Chiefs the Acting SecDef Christopher Miller sent a prepared in advance memo to the DC NG colonel commanding the standby force, listing a dozen confounding steps the colonel must do before he could state his NG troops were ready to deploy to the Capitol in a strict compliance with Miller's memo. By the time the NG colonel -- who had no clue of what was going on Constitutionally and just wanted to go go go -- could state he had complied with Miller's dilatory memo, the worst was over and the Guard was deployed.

Miller turned out to be on the side of the angels which put he and Gen. Milley working together to thwart the Guard being deployed at the height of the insurrection, thereby precluding any possibility of Trump trying to Trumpize the Guard to support his insurrection -- indeed, Trump had wanted 10,000 troops for him to try to Trumpize. Of course the NG colonel would have been ordered by Miller to stand fast against being Trumpized which would have created a Constitutional crisis that would have severely tested the resiliency of the democratic republic that is the United States.

Also and unpublicized, the entire joint force of all services in the Military District of Washington was on ready standby alert to secure the Capitol and the Capital against any armed insurrection should arms be actively introduced. This is tightly commanded and controlled too as only two officers of the government can issue orders to the armed forces, those being the SecDef and the Potus/CinC. Had active weapons been introduced Miller would have given the order to suppress 'em predicated in existing civil disorder provisions of law without a need of Trump invoking the insurrection act. Indeed, the fact was Trump wasn't going to do anything against an insurrection no matter.
 
Paradoxical said:
No, I mean someone here suggests he was supposed to know that a few people would break into the Capitol building. Is that what The Libs of DP think?
Click to expand...

Well, he did send them there, without a permit and without warning anyone, and he knew they were armed.

Did he really need to be psychic? I don't think so.
 
Paradoxical said:
No, I mean someone here suggests he was supposed to know that a few people would break into the Capitol building. Is that what The Libs of DP think?
Click to expand...
A few people, and you wonder why 'libs' on dp laugh at your posts. You gotta' fight or else you won't have a country left trump told the feverish crowd. Don't look up.
 
VySky said:
Fiz Cheney, the disgraced former Republican Senator, withheld information during her 1/6 Kangaroo Court type fAiL

The machine is doing its best to avoid having to do what the left is starting to make noise about.

Even with the myth called global warming, there are still grassy knolls in their wet dreams.

We are even seeing some (used to be) here at DP with sick fantasies of the unthinkable.

And day now.......... any day now..... they'll get Trump.

But they have to hide the truth to get any traction

========================



thefederalist.com

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump-Exonerating Evidence

Cheney and her Jan. 6 committee falsely claimed they had 'no evidence' the Trump White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
Click to expand...
We know what Trump did regarding the National Guard and it was insufficient. The President MUST ORDER the guard in. Claiming that "you can have the Guard if you want it" suffices as calling in the Guard may play in hayseedville where they don't have a clue......but not anywhere else.
 
Eriech said:
The January 6th committee was formed to supress the truth and protect the narrative. The narrative is unravelling now.
Click to expand...
In a speech after that vote, McConnell said: “there is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day,” and that “a mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.”

www.pbs.org

McConnell says Jan. 6 Capitol attack was 'provoked' by Trump and others in power

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is explicitly pointing his finger at President Donald Trump for helping to spur the attack on the Capitol by the outgoing president’s supporters.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org

This is all anyone needs to understand. All the rest of the hyperbole coming from RW hacks is just a smoke screen. We all saw what happened. You, nor anyone else, can revise history.
 
Tangmo said:
Indeed and to the welcoming relief of Gen. Milley and the Joint Chiefs the Acting SecDef Christopher Miller sent a prepared in advance memo to the DC NG colonel commanding the standby force, listing a dozen confounding steps the colonel must do before he could state his NG troops were ready to deploy to the Capitol in a strict compliance with Miller's memo. By the time the NG colonel -- who had no clue of what was going on Constitutionally and just wanted to go go go -- could state he had complied with Miller's dilatory memo, the worst was over and the Guard was deployed.

Miller turned out to be on the side of the angels which put he and Gen. Milley working together to thwart the Guard being deployed at the height of the insurrection, thereby precluding any possibility of Trump trying to Trumpize the Guard to support his insurrection -- indeed, Trump had wanted 10,000 troops for him to try to Trumpize. Of course the NG colonel would have been ordered by Miller to stand fast against being Trumpized which would have created a Constitutional crisis that would have severely tested the resiliency of the democratic republic that is the United States.

Also and unpublicized, the entire joint force of all services in the Military District of Washington was on ready standby alert to secure the Capitol and the Capital against any armed insurrection should arms be actively introduced. This is tightly commanded and controlled too as only two officers of the government can issue orders to the armed forces, those being the SecDef and the Potus/CinC. Had active weapons been introduced Miller would have given the order to suppress 'em predicated in existing civil disorder provisions of law without a need of Trump invoking the insurrection act. Indeed, the fact was Trump wasn't going to do anything against an insurrection no matter.
Click to expand...

Glad the concession that lack of security during the riot was not due to Trump.

Unhappy to know it was due to politicized military brass.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Exonerated of what?
Mr. Trump is not being charged with causing the riot, or anything to do with the riot.
Nor is he being charged with believing he won the election but for fraud.
Click to expand...
And IMHO, that was a huge mistake on Jack Smith's part. Had he been charged with incitement to insurrection, it may have made a big difference in the SC view of the Colorado decision.
 
bongsaway said:
A few people, and you wonder why 'libs' on dp laugh at your posts. You gotta' fight or else you won't have a country left trump told the feverish crowd. Don't look up.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you missed my posts before.

How many people does it take to break a window?
 
The AntiDonald said:
And IMHO, that was a huge mistake on Jack Smith's part. Had he been charged with incitement to insurrection, it may have made a big difference in the SC view of the Colorado decision.
Click to expand...

It would have.
However, Trump would have been acquitted (even in DC) which would have sent progressives in a panic..
 
VySky said:
Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato’s first transcribed interview with the committee was conducted on January 28, 2022. In it, he told Cheney and her investigators that he overheard White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows push Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser to request as many National Guard troops as she needed to protect the city.

He also testified President Trump had suggested 10,000 would be needed to keep the peace at the public rallies and protests scheduled for January 6, 2021. Ornato also described White House frustration with Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s slow deployment of assistance on the afternoon of January 6, 2021.


thefederalist.com

Exclusive: Jan. 6 Committee Hid Trump-Exonerating Evidence

Cheney and her Jan. 6 committee falsely claimed they had 'no evidence' the Trump White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
Click to expand...
(above snipped to address)

First of all the Mayor cannot request the National Guard; only the President can.

Just because someone gives an interview does not make the person credible. Rules of evidence 101. When a person lies they just throw out the testimony because it holds no weight to a jury (in this case the Jan 6 committee)

The Legal Framework: A Local Militia Under Federal Control​

There are fifty-four National Guard organizations in the United States: one for each state as well as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia. Of these, only the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) is never under local control. Instead, under § 49–409 of the D.C. Code—which was enacted by Congress and predates the creation of D.C.’s local government—the president is at all times the DCNG’s commander-in-chief. By contrast, all other National Guard units report to their state or territorial governor unless and until they are federalized. Moreover, the DCNG is federally funded, while other Guard units are state funded unless they are federalized or performing a federal mission under Title 32.
www.brennancenter.org

Why DC’s Mayor Should Have Authority Over the DC National Guard

The delayed response to the assault on the Capitol vividly illustrates the need for reform.
www.brennancenter.org www.brennancenter.org



Pray tell me what stopped the orange one from securing the National Guard the day of -- they were on stand by and Pence wound up doing it as the orange one watched the violence on TV gloating over the fact that these people were there to "help him' subvert the peaceful transfer of power.

Also not sure why Tony Ornato's version of events could even be deemed credible not to mention he was proven a liar.
No secret he was in the orange one's pocket.

 
Last edited:
The AntiDonald said:
And IMHO, that was a huge mistake on Jack Smith's part. Had he been charged with incitement to insurrection, it may have made a big difference in the SC view of the Colorado decision.
Click to expand...
The whole Sec 3 of the 14th gambit was a Hail Mary pass.

Federal Prosecutors Indict for what they believe they can get a Jury to convict for. An Insurrection charge would made for a more complicated case and it is not clear to me that a Jury would have reached all the way to Insurrection regarding Trump.

The whole Sec 3 argument never should have been made because there was never any chance that it would succeed in a ruling from the SC that would get Trump off ballots.

I said that from the first moment I heard of that train wreck of an effort which in the end only gives Trump more fodder for his victimization narrative.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Post 29
Click to expand...
Yes , 29 is a good post, especially the last sentence. But I'm asking about the meeting before J6. The OP is about that meeting but I'm not sure who understands what happened.

How about you?


Do you know why his mention of NG was not ordered?

Do you know why trump was asking for the NG?
 
soap box said:
Yes , 29 is a good post, especially the last sentence. But I'm asking about the meeting before J6. The OP is about that meeting but I'm not sure who understands what happened.

How about you?


Do you know why his mention of NG was not ordered?

Do you know why trump was asking for the NG?
Click to expand...
That is correct......Trump's rational for discussing the NG was full of shit. What else is new.

Still does not change the fact that "discussing" the NG is not calling in the NG. The President MUST ORDER the Guard in. Trump didn't.....the end.
 
More utter nonsense from ZeroHedge, the issue of Trump and the National Guard was addressed by the committee. Just not to the result the MAGA Republicans wanted.
 
jnug said:
The whole Sec 3 of the 14th gambit was a Hail Mary pass.
Click to expand...

jnug said:
Federal Prosecutors Indict for what they believe they can get a Jury to convict for. An Insurrection charge would made for a more complicated case and it is not clear to me that a Jury would have reached all the way to Insurrection regarding Trump.
Click to expand...

Because the facts do not support an allegation there was an 'insurrection.'
jnug said:
The whole Sec 3 argument never should have been made because there was never any chance that it would succeed in a ruling from the SC that would get Trump off ballots.
Click to expand...

jnug said:
I said that from the first moment I heard of that train wreck of an effort which in the end only gives Trump more fodder for his victimization narrative.
Click to expand...

So-- there was no insurrection and thus Trump was not part of one.
There was no incitement to riot by Trump. Thus he was not charged for that.
He wasn't charged for 'fake electors' (by Smith).

Smith is arguing is that Trump knowingly made false claims of election fraud, and knowingly made false claims as to the power of the VP during his counting of electoral votes. Given the banality of this, why shouldn't Trump complain he is the victim of politicized prosecution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom