Here is the 10-minute video that, I believe, was shown the other day at the Congressional hearings on the January 6 Capitol invasion. It’s an excellent piece of filmmaking, juxtaposing the violence at the building with Donald Trump’s infuriating words. And, to me, at least, it conveys a sense of how violent the invasion was, and how crazed the invaders were. “Lock ’em up” was my response to a lot of the video, and, indeed, many will be.
I believe one reader the other day took me to task for saying that this was an “insurrection.” Well, it looks, sounds, and smells like an insurrection to me.
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) June 10, 2022
As a supplement, here’s a 40-minute video, produced by the New York Times, on the events of that day. The YouTube description is below:
The Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was perhaps the most widely documented act of political violence in history. The New York Times obtained, analyzed and mapped out thousands of cellphone videos, police bodycam recordings and internal police audio to provide the most complete picture to date of what happened — and why. Our Oscar-shortlisted documentary “Day of Rage” charts in chilling detail how the peaceful transition of power was disrupted by rioters who stormed a seemingly impenetrable seat of government.
It’s more thorough but not as powerful as the shorter video above.
102 thoughts on “The January 6 assault on the Capitol”
Although I won’t be able to watch the upcoming hearings live, I’m looking forward to see how the Select Committee fills in the complete story. A key takeaway from the first night is that they are going to place Trump clearly at the center of a larger plan to overturn the results of an election, with the assault on the capitol being just (albeit very important) piece. It will be interesting to see how Garland and the DOJ proceed once the overall picture has been present. And oh yes – from the GOP? Crickets.
The thing about the Jan. 6 committee is that it is all one-sided. There are no members arguing any other interpretations of the carefully selected evidence, like the highly edited video. The committee clearly wants to make another Trump, even another Republican, administration impossible. That hardly sounds like a situation that would lead to truth-finding, which is rare enough in Congressional hearings as it is. There premise is that this was an insurrection and that Trump was behind it, and no one should be surprised if they make it look that way. But this isn’t a court, and it may turn out that there is no more substance to this than there was to the Russian collusion, especially given the participation of some of the same antagonists. Boy. Dems sure are sore winners.
All one-sided like your comments? 😉
Okay, I’ll bite. But first, did you watch the video? If so, what (if not insurrection) would you call what is shown?
If the committee bases their investigation on sworn testimony, the interpretation is mostly on the audience. If some of the GOP politicians out there dispute what the others are saying, they can always testify. For example, one of those named as asking Trump for a pardon has claimed that it’s lie. I was heartened by the many tweeted replies that told him that he should offer to testify to set the record straight. Unsurprisingly, we haven’t seen a response.
Although the public hearings represent a sort of culmination of their work, they’ve stated up front that the work continues. Anyone out there that wants to “set the record straight” can certainly offer to do so with sworn testimony. Fox and friends have been pushing the “one-sided” meme but they stop short of hinting at what exactly is wrong with the story being told in the hearings. No surprise there either.
Prior to the establishment of the House January 6th committee, Democrats and Republicans in the House had agreed on a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection. But, guess what? McConnell killed the legislation in the Senate. The current committee was established because of this. So, once again right wingers’ memory is short.
This is the main point. The Republicans had a chance to be a part of the investigation, but almost all of them have refused. Then theycan claim that Republicans were excluded. I roll my eyes.
To them I would say: Do your own investigation. Use all available recordings, testimony, and all manner of other records available get to the bottom of this. I bet the result would be very heavily edited and redacted since that is the only way they spin the fiction they are now telling their base.
They can still be part of the process! Just offer to testify under oath.
You may recall, DrBrydon, that the original proposal regarding an investigation into the Jan. 6th insurrection did not involve a congressional committee at all. It was to be done by a non-partisan commission, modeled on the nonpartisan commission that investigated the 9/11 attacks. Republicans agreed to such a commission in principle, and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy sent Republican NY congressman John Katko to negotiate the composition of the commission with Homeland Security committee chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss). Thompson gave Katko everything he asked for regarding the proposed 1/6 commission — an equal number of commissioners to be named by Republicans and Democrats, equal numbers of investigators and staff, equal subpoena powers, the works.
Then, Kevin McCarthy took a trip to Mar-a-Lago and let Donald Trump grab him by the pussy (because Trump is a star and, as Trump told Billy Bush, stars get to do that). After that, McCarthy cut his own negotiator, John Katko, off at the knees and withdrew Republican support for a 9/11-style commission.
As a result, House Democratic leadership was left with no alternative for investigating 1/6 but to go forward with a select committee for that purpose. McCarthy and Republicans had the right to name five members to that select committee. Instead of acting in good faith, however, McCarthy sent Democrats a list of names containing two poison pills — Jim Jordan and Jim Banks (since the conduct of Jordan and Banks on Jan. 6, 2021, would itself constitute part of what the select committee would be investigating). When Democrats rejected these two for the obvious reasons, instead of choosing two others from the 210 Republican congressmen in the House, McCarthy — the most spineless, maladroit politician ever to be in the running for the House speakership (and remember that that group includes former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a convicted pedophile) — acted like a little putz by taking his ball and going home, refusing to name any Republicans to serve on the select committee.
The select committee still contains two of the staunchest conservatives currently in the House — Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger — although those two have essentially been run out of the Republican Party because they incurred Donald Trump’s wrath by voting against him at his second impeachment.
All of which is to say that Republicans have no one to blame for not having coequal representation in the investigation of the Jan. 6th insurrection except for themselves and Kevin McCarthy.
I don’t know why DrBrydon continues with his shallow and inane political comments, but I always appreciate when you come to the rescue and set the conservatives on this site straight. Thank you, sir!
DrBrydon merely parrots whatever Sean Hannity said fourteen dozen times yesterday.
As for the Russian collusion story, neither DrBrydon nor Hannity nor anybody else outside of the Justice Dept. has any idea whether or not there was any substance there, since the report produced by the only investigation has never been released. We do know for a fact that several Trump administration officials and associates lied about meeting with Russians. Why?
Yes, not being able to prove Russian collusion is NOT an exoneration. There are many things lacking adequate explanation. Like the identity of Deep Throat, we may learn them someday. Someone who knows will feel the need to write a book about it.
Defend Trump’s phone call to Georgia asking for 11,780 votes. Defend the number of states who had “alternate” electors. Defend the Green Bay Sweep plan. Defend the GOP members of Congress who asked for a presidential pardon due to the January 6 insurrection.
DrBrydon, I find that comment uninformed, to put it nicely. It was the Republican leader Kevin McCarthy that refused to cooperate, because two of his proposed candidates for the strictly bipartisan investigation (Jim Jordan and Jim Banks) were suspected to be involved, and hence rejected. You cannot have suspects investigating a crime they are probably, or even possibly, involved in. All other five Republican candidates were accepted. No problems there.
Instead of replacing them with two good, conservative, but non-suspect Republicans, McCarthy decided to throw a tantrum, withdrew them all and refused to participate any further.
Ms Pelosi then accepted two Republicans , one conservative and one ultra- conservative on the Committee. And note the ultra-conservative is the Committee’s vice-chairperson. I cannot find fault there.
Also note that when there are thousands of hours of video evidence, editing is inevitable. But the videos don’t lie. This did happen. This was an insurrection, and in all probability an attempted coup indeed.
“This was an insurrection, and in all probability an attempted coup indeed.”
If this was an attempted coup, it was quite a pathetic attempt indeed. Congress was back in business by the evening of Jan6.
Not so pathetic, it was, in fact, quite clever (so clever I doubt Trump designed it himself). The rioters did not get hold of Pence and/or Pelosi, but that wasn’t strictly needed (can you imagine if pence and/or Pelosi would have been held hostage?). They didn’t go in guns blazing, but were obviously threatening enough (“Hang Mike Pence”) to have chased Pence from the Capitol, preventing certification. With Pence out, a longer delay, many Republicans would probably not have approved of the elector lists, throwing Biden’s certification into limbo.
The two great heroes of the day were Eugene Goodman, who lured the insurrectionist mob away from the lawmakers, and Mike Pence, who refused to leave the Capitol, despite being prodded by the Secret Service. Those two destroyed the plotter’s quite clever plan.
Tell me how the “quite clever plan” would have worked out
1) If Pence and/or Pelosi would have been held hostage.
2) If they had actually hung Mike Pence.
What I find sadly disgusting and really frightening is that so many in this country, including the leadership of a major political party, want to align with the likes of the proud boys and oath keepers.
And, yes, DrBrydon, January 6 was an insurrection. Sometimes there is only one side to a story — truth!
When I last looked none of the people arrested for the January 6 riot had been charged with insurrection. Which suggests to me that the burden of proof was too high for such charges to be brought.
Recently, at least 15 people, including the leaders of the oath keepers and proud boys, have been charged with seditious conspiracy. This charge is worse than a charge of insurrection. So yeah, they weren’t charged with insurrection, because what they did was far worse.
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
That pretty much encompasses much of the protest activity since at least disruptJ20, which was pretty clear about their goals- “We are planning to shut down the inauguration”
In a couple of days, there is a plan in place to stop the Supreme Court from meeting, with the intent of stopping some anticipated rulings-
Those folks have published their intentions to “prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of” the laws of the US. They do so quite openly, but feel that their political affiliation will protect them from any serious consequences. I know for a fact that if your political affiliations are correct, you can set a bomb off in the senate, or even sneak guns into the Capital and fire down on the congress (wounding five of them) while shouting revolutionary slogans, and you can expect to find your sentence commuted, and be treated as a hero upon your release.
The situation at issue in this thread involves an incumbent US president endeavoring to subvert US democracy and to stay in office contrary to the clearly expressed will of US voters by deploying the powers inherent to his position to, inter alia, lean on the secretary of state of Georgia to simply “recalculate” the election results so as to “find” him one more vote than needed to defeat Joe Biden (Lordy, there are tapes!); lean on the top Justice Department officials to declare the election results “corrupt,” even though those officials had told him there was no evidence to support that claim (Lordy, there are notes!); conspire to send slates of bogus “alternative” electors to the Capitol (Lordy, there are texts, emails, and memoranda!); browbeat his vice-president to declare him the winner of the election on the basis of these bogus “alternative” electoral-college votes; and, as a last resort, summons a mob to Washington, DC, to march on the US Capitol.
The situations you cite were awful and unlawful, and I don’t think anyone here would attempt to justify them. (I certainly wouldn’t.) But they are in no way comparable to what happened in the circumstance under consideration here.
Thanks for fleshing this out, Ken. I read Max’s comment this morning, and the first thing that popped in my head was “apples and oranges”. But your description was far better than my fruit-analogy cliché.
I was actually addressing the issue of insurrection or seditious conspiracy, as it pertains to the proud boys and other assorted hooligans at the Capital on 1/6.
You are talking about Trump, which is, as Mark R. reminds us, “apples and oranges”. Trump was acquitted of “incitement of insurrection” on 2/13/21.
I was really referring to the 654 people still to be tried for their actions on 1/6, as well as others who might bear some responsibility for the crowd getting out of hand. There are a number of people who can be seen on the videos leading the crowd, directing them with loudspeakers, and removing barriers, but who are not among those arrested.
I guess it is the FBI and DOJ who are actually investigating and prosecuting those folks, or declining to prosecute them. So the committee might be better utilized to address the failures in security and crowd control that led to the demonstration getting out of hand, with the goal of preventing such an event from recurring.
I brought those examples up specifically as examples of groups organizing attempts with the publicly stated goals of disrupting the basic functions of government. The disruptj20 people tried to stop the “peaceful transfer of power” through actual violence, and by blockading access to the inauguration. The organizer of the event, who stated that “We are planning to shut down the inauguration” , was arrested while violently participating in the event. Of course, all charges against him were dropped, which is what happened to all the participants there.
Obviously we do not know how the planned shut down of the supreme court will play out, as it has not happened yet. In our current political environment, it will likely be downplayed , unless the violence gets to a level that cannot be ignored. Even then, it will be spun in ways that make the perpetrators seem noble, because apparently the Supreme Court is fair game these days.
#ruthsentus has published the location of the school that ACB’s kids attend. They are protesting there, and encouraging others to do so as well. This is apparently fine.
It’s well-settled that an acquittal at an impeachment trial presents no double jeopardy bar to a criminal prosecution. The senate is hardly a jury of one’s peers selected according the to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.
As for the Capitol rioters, that others engaged in — or even got away with — similar conduct has never been a defense to a criminal charge, dating back to English common law. Ask anybody who’s tried to fight a speeding ticket by telling the traffic court, “But other people were going over the limit, too, Judge!”
I’m not sure if insurrection is a legal term. However, several Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy. Per the AP:
“The former top leader of the far-right Proud Boys extremist group and other members were charged with seditious conspiracy for what federal prosecutors say was a coordinated attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral victory.”
What is seditious conspiracy?
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
So, yes, the Proud Boys defendants have been charged with the nearest thing to treason.
“Insurrection” and “Seditious Conspiracy” are addressed by sequential sections of the same chapter of the US criminal code, 18 USC section 2383 and section 2384, and address the same essential type of harm to the lawful functioning of the US government.
Ken, forgive me my ignorance, but what is the essential difference between an ‘Insurrection’ and a ‘Seditious Conspiracy’? In layman’s terms?
The primary difference, Nicky, is that insurrection requires an actual attempt or incitement to undermine the legitimate authority of the US government, and seditious conspiracy requires only that two or more persons reach an agreement to try to accomplish such ends.
Thanks Ken, that makes it clear, even to an ‘un-legal’ mind like mine.
Hence, if I conclude things correctly, it was a seditious conspiracy as well as an insurrection.
“insurrection requires an actual attempt or incitement to undermine the legitimate authority of the US government, and seditious conspiracy requires only that two or more persons reach an agreement to try to accomplish such ends.”
Do you think a Congressional committee will be formed to investigate Senator Charles Schumer for conspiracy to assassinate Supreme Court justices and so undermine the legitimate authority of the US government? Remember when he said
“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
A possible co-conspirator could be Nancy Pelosi, who this week blocked a bill to provide security to the SCOTUS justices.
You trying that out as a serious analogy, ski, or are you just trolling?
I’m gonna go with the latter.
Time to take another look, Mr./Ms. Harper.
Five days ago, leader of the Proud Boys Enrique Tarrio and four others were charged in Washington DC federal district court with 10 new counts, including seditious conspiracy relating to the Jan. 6th insurrection and events leading up to it.
More such indictments are expected.
When I see an organized, armed, mob carrying the confederate flag inside the capital, proclaiming they are there to hang the Vice President, I call that an insurrection. And as Mark R points out, there have been charges brought.
Come on. These people were tourists! Trespassers at worst. [/sarcasm]
Funny how much “tourist” sounds like “terrorist”…
Of course. As a committee of one, O can only present my side. What’s their excuse?
Plainly false! You could present arguments for and against.
Were Republicans invited to join the committee? If yes why are they not presenting their arguments?
Your comments do not sound serious.
Listen to the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, no liberal he. https://youtu.be/c_ziCKi9bvg Fast forward to about 6:35 where he said words to the effect of:
“… you have a significant portion of the American people who just don’t give a damn who I believe actually want to see this whole thing collapse, because they think somehow their vision of America is going to make it all better, and what they don’t understand is that the very same people who were trying to mount an insurrection, will be the first ones to crush their damn necks when they get the power. … And they don’t understand that …”
Michael Steele’s words should be chiseled into stone.
Committee of one? What are you referring to?
I count 9 members:
Bennie Thompson, D, Mississippi, Chair
Liz Cheney, R,Wyoming, vice-Chair
Adam Kinzinger, R, Illinois
Zoe Lofgren, D,California
Adam Schiff, D, California
Pete Aguilar, D, California
Stephanie Murphy, D, Florida
Jamie Raskin, D, Maryland
Elaine Luria, D, Virginia
I really do not understand your comment.
Four women (including the vice-chair) and five men, 3 POC, including the Chair, 7 D and 2 R (including the vice-chair) , from 7 different states although 3 from California, which appears a bit of an overrepresentation, but Cal is heavily underrepresented in the Senate.
Overall reasonably balanced, I’d say.
My guess is that DrBrydon was responding to
Paul’s reply to DrBrydon’s #2 above. Replies sometimes get posted as top-level comments, especially when they are replies to the most recent top-level comment.
Yes, this happens to me when I reply via my phone instead of on my PC. In fact, I think it happened on a comment I made this morning to one of your comments.
I think I goofed that one for you. Sorry 🙁 . After I finished my response to your comment, I realized that I had surely misunderstood you. Then I botched my attempt to edit it and somehow ended up deleting it — I think. I did not get a notification of your response, but see it now, below at #15.
That’s fine. I reread my comment and it was far from perfectly worded. My only defense is that it’s only a comment and I haven’t got an edit button.
What does it mean, this word “edit,” and how does one horn in on the action?
I ain’t seen my edit button since Christ was a corporal.
I usually prefer typing comments on my PC where, like you, I haven’t seen an edit button in eons. But I used my phone to comment this morning and I saw the edit button! Unfortunately, it failed to place my comment under the comment to which I was responding. There’s just no way to win.
If a group of gentlemen were to use a bicycle rack or similar object to force entry into my home’s front door with the same force used on the Capitol that day, it’s likely at least two ground floor wall sections plus a large portion of our second floor would collapse in an instant. Maybe it’s just me, but I get the impression that the ammosexual, mostly pot-bellyed, (I know, I know there were at least a few physically fit people here and there) lame-brained “patriots” were NOT interested in finding a like-minded representative to have a civil discussion about the results of the election.
Looks, smells and sounds like an insurrection, indeed. It is amazes me how some folks value evidence in one part of their life and insist on ignoring it altogether in another. The self-imposed ignorance of most (all?) religious folks has spread widely among the GOP.
I hold no illusions that people on the far right will learn introspection and realize they’ve been had. Bamboozled. Duped. Manipulated. And that people f-ing died because of a systematic lie told by their elected leaders and news sources. These hearings and documentaries won’t flip them because nothing foreseeable ever will. And they won’t watch it either, since they are in their media silos.
But what is valuable is the politics of it and the lessons to be taught for the rest of us. I would rather it not stoop to that (mere politics), but people on the left and a broad swath of the center that straddles the left and right need to understand that they need to vote. Early and often. Vote for a government that respects the truth and rule of law. Vote for representatives whose religion is not winning at any cost, but who instead worship the constitutional process, due process, and the art of compromise and reaching across the aisle. This is what would make ‘Mericah great again.
I asked my Trumpified parents if they were going to watch it, and I added that they’ll have to watch something other the Fox, since Fox won’t air it. My dad said “I don’t watch fake news”. I asked if he realized two republicans are on the committee, his answer: “yeah, two republicans that always vote with the dems.”
After that I gave up. There really is no way to get through this destructive cult; these people are immune to facts. It’s depressing to have parents who are willfully ignorant and have been (as you said) bamboozled, duped and manipulated. I don’t know if I should feel sorry for them, or feel disgust…it depends on my mood. But after the above discussion, disgust seems to be winning out.
It’s an endless battle to debunk right-wing disinformation. The fight must go on, as painful as it may be. Otherwise we will be surrendering to Fox News and fascism.
Yes, it’s easy to just not bother. But I always imagine there are people listening who think that there might be some truth to the disinformation or that a lack of counter-argument is a tacit acknowledgement of its truth. We must fight back even though it is painful to have to do so.
In my modest opinion you shouldn’t have given up. Engage them why direct hearings are ‘fake news’ and the like. Both my parents are dead, but I would never have given up on them (and I never did).
I don’t know your parents -or your relation with them-, of course, so I might be preposterous (my apologies if you think so), but the reasons you give do not suffice to give up on them, I’d say.
Don’t be upset with your parents. They just evolved differently than you.
Watching Trump on the podium reminded me of when he would enthrall his audiences in the wrestling arena. Those are his people. The low income, low information, low self esteem, peasants the US has been generating by the millions.
What does “low income” have to do with it? Is it that these peasants have been generated at least in part by the U.S elite off-shoring manufacturing jobs? Sounds like one of those admirable “American values” on behalf of which the peasants are expected (and compelled by their being in economic straits) to join the military and go in harm’s way.
Sounds like you would be in favor of more protectionism? Trump tried that and the results weren’t good:
Trump’s Protectionist Failure
Tax cuts and deregulation spurred the boom. Tariffs delivered neither economic growth nor key states.
They don’t understand that Trump wouldn’t mind to see them all mowed down the moment they stop being useful for him.
I don’t think there’s any call to malign low-income voters, but as Trump himself said during 2016 primary season, he “loves the poorly educated” (the better to convince them, obvs, that he’s the fictional character he portrayed on The Apprentice):
“Low-information voters” puts the most generous spin on them. The GOP and Fox News understand this which is why they are trying so hard to prevent their voters from watching the Jan 6th hearings.
Not only did Repubs have a chance to get an outside non-partisan investigation, they’ve already aired their POV: RNC called it “legitimate political discourse.” One GA Rep said it looked like a “normal tourist visit” (maybe he lets his visiting constituents break into his office, bloody a few of his staff, and shit on the floor). And how many have pointed out that it was really a “false flag” effort by Antifa, even though most participants admitted they were all-out Trumpers (but of course they would, it’s part of the ruse)? Sheesh.
Though if it had been Black Lives Matter or Antifa that engaged in such “legitimate political discourse” the Republicans would have screamed bloody murder about America being under attack and held hearings until doomsday. Their hypocrisy is sickening.
How many committees and hearings did they hold on Benghazi? And….and….what about her emails?
Exactly. And of course they managed to turn up nothing, whereas the Jan. 6 Commission had already made clear how guilty Trump and company were of fostering an insurrection against the government and contesting the peaceful transfer of power.
1) Pelosi and mayor of DC specifically refused 20,000 national guards three days prior. Trump held a meeting in White House with Joint Chiefs, National Guard, and other enablers of the release. However, local gov has to take action to invite the Guard in. Dems proactively refused, despite clear intel of the highest level that certain groups were planning violence. The idiots outside the capital would not even get started if 20,000 Guardspersons surrounded the Capital Building. With the “parents” refused attendance, the unruly children ran amok.
2) How can four networks air a Hollywood-designed video to their liking, totally absent any countering facts, and intimate it is “the investigation.”
3) The MSM/Dem show will have zero effect against Trump, or against the mid-term election. America does not care. They care about identarians grooming their children in state schools, inflation thru the roof, supply chain disaster, vaccines not stopping COVID, and the doubling of gasoline prices. The only thing that will stop the end of the current Democrat hegemony is: if Donald Trump gets convicted of a crime.
It’s weird that we’re not hearing about any of this. Perhaps you should offer to testify. Do you have any links to reliable sources?
You have not heard about identarians grooming their children in state schools, inflation thru the roof, supply chain disaster, vaccines not stopping COVID, and the doubling of gasoline prices?
Not heard that nothing can stop Trump? [I added the except conviction of crime]
Chrissake, orders of magnitude more children have been “groomed” by Christian youth-group leaders, Baptist ministers, and Catholic priests than by any so-called “Identitarians” (which I assume is the noun you were reaching for).
Except the first, those things have nothing to do with Biden. Inflation, supply chains, COVID, gas prices—there are reasons, but nothing to do with Biden or his party. Just the fact that the same problems exist in almost all countries in the world should be ample proof.
The fact that Biden and most of his party have not distanced themselves from trans-rights activists might very well be their downfall. If the Republicans win the next election it is their fault. It is difficult to fight for women’s rights if one can’t even define “woman”.
Just for shits and giggles, I googled: “Pelosi and mayor of DC specifically refused 20,000 national guards three days prior.”
There is nothing about 20,000…there were claims by Trump and others that 10,000 troops were asked for and denied by Pelosi. Every fact-checking site said this claim is false. Washington Post gave it 4 Pinocchio’s.
This is from Newsweek:
USA Today reported in December that Trump once again made the claim during a Florida rally that month. The newspaper wrote that a video shared on Facebook showed Trump speaking about the National Guard suggestion, saying, “The Capitol police knew about it, she [Pelosi] knew about it, and they turned it down because they said it didn’t look good.”
The Washington Post and USA Today have both debunked Trump’s claim. USA Today wrote that Pelosi’s office was never contacted by the president regarding such a recommendation, and the Pentagon has denied having record of the request. Additionally, the Department of Defense’s timeline of the events leading up to the Capitol riot also makes no mention of a National Guard request, and the former House sergeant-at-arms said he had no discussions with congressional leaders about the matter, according to USA Today.
I’m glad you and Ken looked into this. I had some shopping to do and, I’ll admit, was too lazy to pursue it further.
That is thoroughly debunked right-wing propaganda initiated by Donald Trump himself (who did nothing whatsoever to protect congress or his own vice-president et famille before or on Jan. 6th) a month and a half after the 1/6 insurrection.
Maybe you should actually watch the select committee hearings, Mr. Donohue. (This claim was specifically addressed by Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Nev) during her opening statement at last Thursday’s initial public hearing.) Refuting such arrant propaganda is one of the reasons the hearings are so badly needed.
“America does not care.”
What an inane statement.
Speak for yourself and your fellow conspirators; you certainly aren’t speaking for anyone I know (except my brainwashed parents).
The claim that Nancy Pelosi “refused” help from the National Guard not only has been debunked by the Associated Press, the Washington Post and a half-dozen other news organizations, it has been disavowed by Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader of the House. According to the McCarthy, in a statement issued through his spokesman (Mark Bednar):
“The allegation is not that Nancy Pelosi said no National Guard. The concern is that the speaker, as the highest-ranking individual on the Capitol complex, had security responsibility for the Capitol, the security apparatus reported to her — and they said no, prior to the 6th.”
Even this highly modified allegation appears false. There is no evidence, nearly 18 months after the riot/insurrection, that anyone in the “security apparatus” actually refused assistance from the National Guard. Rather, they simply did not request it. And whatever attenuated blame might attach to Nancy Pelosi for the failure of the U.S. Capital Police Chief, and the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms to make such a request, also attaches to Mitch McConnell who had comparable oversight responsibility.
> Rather, they simply did not request it.
This is what’s weird about the fact-checking universe. Maybe this difference is important for deciding precisely how many Pinocchios to award. (I’d prefer that everyone speak precisely, of course.)
But the core accusation is that none of those in charge of security made preparations for anything more than a few tourists. That’s a major failure. Do we have a clear picture on exactly how that happened? Not just a list of everyone saying they didn’t know anything and it was someone else’s job to tell them, requests had to be authorized through proper channels…
For a large & angry but unarmed protest, your policing plan can either be to retreat and abandon a few blocks, as in many protests the summer before, or else to stand your ground. Which takes riot police shoulder-to-shoulder 3 deep, like every big protest in say London. Thousands of people knew they had to show up, from across the country, and nobody in the building knew?
The plane flew into the mountainside. Handing out Pinocchios for “it’s false to claim that this co-pilot was doing the crossword” doesn’t seem to add much.
No one doubts there was a tremendous screw-up. But the original accusation, that Pelosi “specifically refused” an offer by the administration of ten or twenty thousand national guardsmen seems to imply that she wanted the Capital police to be overwhelmed. In other words, she wanted an uncontrollable riot to take place as part of her own sinister strategy to get rid of Trump. That’s simply untrue (aside from being nuts).
The Post article I cited analyzed the evidence that had been amassed by the end of July. In the Post’s judgment, there were three “key players” who were entrusted with protecting the houses of Congress: the chief of the Capital Police Force (Steven Sund), the House sergeant-at-arms (Paul Irving) and the Senate sergeant-at-arms (Michael Stenger).
All three have resigned their positions.
Sund, the chief of Capital police, claims that he raised the idea of asking for National Guard assistance with the two sergeants-at-arms, who rejected the proposal. Sund then asked the commanding officer of the DC National Guard to be ready to send troops quickly if they turned out to be needed.
In retrospect, the failure to have adequate police and/or guardsmen deployed in advance of the rally obviously was a terrible mistake. Was it obvious at the time that such a deployment would be necessary? I remember someone, I think it was Bill Bratton (the former NYC police chief) stating, on the evening of the 6th, that the Capital police had not employed the most elementary methods of crowd control, methods used by every big city police department.
One central issue concerns the contents of the intelligence reports available in the days immediately before the riot. How specific and credible were the predictions of mass violence? The contents of those reports have been alluded to, but if the reports themselves have been made public, I haven’t seen them.
Another question “to whom were the reports circulated”? Even assuming there was specific and credible evidence that a massive attack on the Capital was likely, did the administration show those reports to the Capital police and the two sergeants-at-arms? According to the Post article, as of July 28, 2022, no evidence had been adduced that the reports were shown to Pelosi? Should Pelosi and McConnell have demanded them?
It seems obvious, in hindsight, that there was enough publicly available evidence that something terrible was planned for Pelosi and McConnell to have realized that they needed all the intelligence amassed by the FBI. But even if this is true, it hardly exonerates Trump. The administration had the FBI reports, knew the magnitude of the threat, and did nothing. Indeed, long after the threat had become a reality, and hundreds of armed thugs had breached the Capital, the administration did nothing.
If we ask why Pelosi did nothing, the worst possible answer seems to me to be “incompetence”. If we ask why Trump did nothing, the worst — and to me the most likely – possible answer is he was planning an autogolpe. That’s a word I learned this week which means “a form of coup d’état in which a nation’s leader, having come to power through legal means, dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances”.
All this makes me suspicious that elements in the Capitol Police and Secret Service were in on the Coup attempt.
As I may have mentioned earlier, the insistence by the Secret Service to remove Pence from the premises -and hence prevent certification- I find highly suspicious. Pence understood this and refused to leave. We have to give it to him: he did the right thing there.
Trump’s claim has also been debunked by Politifact.
Others have already debunked this refusal of 20,000 troops thing, but let us pretend it was true for a minute. Does that, in any way, excuse the behaviour of the people who tried to overthrow democracy on the 6th January? No it doesn’t.
These hearings may not do the Democrats any favours in the mis terms but does that excuse the behaviour of the people who tried to overthrow democracy on the 6th January? No it doesn’t.
These people must be seen to be punished because they tried to overthrow a democracy. If it is not shown that the consequences of doing that are severe, they will try again the next time a vote doesn’t go their way.
You cannot understand January 6 without an understanding of the Election of 2016, markjabbour.com ;and you cannot understand that without an understanding of the decline of the “American Dream”. And you cannot understand that without an understanding of evolution and history.
Not being snarky, but how does an understanding of evolution help us understand the decline of the American Dream?
How else would Mark be able to push a book he wrote @ 20-30 bucks a pop?
“Not being snarky, but how does an understanding of evolution help us understand the decline of the American Dream?”
Maybe because evolutionists believe evolution created people and explains everything people dream and do?
No search for the Jan6 truth will be complete without the testimony and cross-examination of Ray Epps, among others.
When is he scheduled to appear before the Committee?
He already appeared before the Committee, which appeared to be satisfied he was not working for the FBI. It obviously is one of the multiple spurious conspiracy ‘theories’ emanating from Mr Trump.
There is no evidence whatsoever Mr Epps ever worked for, even as just an informer, for the FBI. The FBI has a strict policy never to confirm or deny whether someone is an informer, so we won’t get much there.
He was removed from the ‘suspects’ list only six months after the riot. That is later than several other ‘suspects’ that did not enter the Capitol.
Of course, with all these conspiracies raging, I think he should be cross examined as a witness. However, I seriously fear there is no there there at all.
What about the guy with the megaphone on top of the scaffold who continuously called the crowd to move forward and fill the Capitol?
Was in DC for the first time two months ago. I was blown away by the beautiful, neoclassical architecture of the capitol district.
Looking at this footage, it looked at a lot like ancient Rome must have looked during its sacking by the barbarian hordes…
This is what the Founders, particularly James Madison, were apparently afraid of in terms of mob rule and the power of demagogues.
““In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever characters composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason.”
Note the “of whatever characters composed” clause…Madison believed that even bright and educated people can be susceptible to mob rule.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
However, it’s hard for me to see many Socrates out there running around during January 6. It looks more like a collection of folks who are 1-2 standard deviations under the mean IQ…
Yes, that Deep Throat. Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that someone will eventually tell the tale like Felt did.
Since the real purpose of the Jan6 Committee is to destroy Trump, why isn’t Trump appearing before the Committee to testify and be cross-examined?
I think it is because (a) Trump would resist testifying and negotiating with him in bad faith would take too long, (b) the way to put Trump away is for others to testify against him, not him testify against himself, and (c) the Jan 6th committee can’t actually charge anyone with a crime. They produce the hearings and a written report and leave it up to the Justice Dept. (Merrick Garland) to make that decision.
“the Jan 6th committee can’t actually charge anyone with a crime. They produce the hearings and a written report and leave it up to the Justice Dept. (Merrick Garland) to make that decision.”
Yes, Congressmen are legislators not investigators nor prosecutors. So why waste Congressional time on this alleged crime? Why not just let the executive branch – including the DOJ, FBI – get to the bottom of this?
Congressmen can be investigators and are obviously in this case. They’ve put in a huge amount of effort in this committee, with the help of staff of course. The DOJ and the FBI are certainly able to pursue crime independently and do. In this case, it is such a political thing that they are a bit afraid to touch it unless they have a solid reason to investigate and it produces evidence of a solid crime. They are always trying to avoid the politicization of their office. If they are seen as pursuing a political agenda, it will undermine their credibility. An example of this is the Durham probe which Trump pushed for and has now completely fizzled. I suspect the DOJ and FBI will stand back while the Jan 6th committee does its job. The committee’s report may contain criminal referrals on which the FBI and DOJ may choose to act. There is a sort of time-sensitive nature to this. If the GOP take over control of the House, they can be expected to dissolve the committee as one of their first moves. On the other hand, if the FBI and DOJ start pursuing crimes, nothing that happens in Congress will derail it.
I certainly would agree with at least this much of what you said – “In this case, it is such a political thing”.
As to “If they are seen as pursuing a political agenda, it will undermine their credibility… There is a sort of time-sensitive nature to this”
I see that the Committee is planning to issue its final report … “by the fall.” https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/10/jan-6-hearing-alleges-trump-election-conspiracy-heres-whats-next.html
Great timing for the midterms!
Although the GOP are accusing the committee’s effort as being “political”, that doesn’t make it a bad thing. Trying to disrupt the smooth transition of power, deny a fair counting of votes, storm the Capitol, etc., are political acts and any response to them will be political. These are crimes and they have to be pursued.
“These are crimes and they have to be pursued.”
If they are crimes then the professional criminal investigators and criminal prosecutors can do their pursuing.thing.
And the Congresspeople, who were able to return to their work by the evening of Jan6, can get back to legislating away the the highest inflation in 40 years, the border crisis, etc.
Hmm. I thought I explained all that. Although you want to pretend that investigating insurrection is not Congress’s job, it is. Go look it up. And don’t waste my time with your crass whataboutism.
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
… So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol…
We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I want to thank you all. God bless you and God Bless America.
Thank you all for being here. This is incredible. Thank you very much. Thank you.”
It’s a wonder they didn’t put him in handcuffs right then and there!
It’s the committee’s purpose to show the American people what happened that day, what led up to it, and who were involved. Many of the committee’s personnel were attorneys, investigators and prosecutors: Jamie Raskin, attorney and constitutional law professor, Stephanie Murphy national security specialist at the DOD, Zeo Lofgren and Liz Cheney both were attorneys, Adam Schiff was an assistant US attorney and prosecutor. Just because members of the committee are legislators now, doesn’t negate their professions and backgrounds- this is what makes them ideal for an investigation like this.
The DOJ is investigating, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the FBI is too, but these are behind closed doors (as they should be). As an American, I feel I deserve answers about this Trump-inspired insurrection, answers that the DOJ and FBI won’t necessarily disclose to the public, especially in a timely manner. You better believe I want this information out there before the midterms, who wouldn’t? Unfortunately, the only way Republicans would allow the information to come to light is through a committee like this one; the GOP didn’t want a purely bipartisan investigation. Hm, I wonder why?