Wasn't this the "smoking gun"? (Read details)
Asked by
janbb (
63263)
February 12th, 2021
I saw on Facebook a copy of the letter that the acting head of the Department of Defense, who was installed on November 9, wrote to the head of the DC National Guard not to deploy any troops unless express permission was given from the DoD. Apparently, this was not standard operating procedure and the DC National Guard would normally have been able to deploy them themselves.
If this is true, and I haven’t searched exhaustively for corroboration, wouldn’t that indicate Trump’s intent to incite a dangerous riot? Wouldn’t it mean that he knew Esper would not go along with this and that’s why he installed a lackey to tell the National Guard to hold off?
There was a copy of the letter in the posting but I know that this may or may not be true. The fact that I didn’t hear anything about this potentially damning fact, if it is a fact, makes me wonder about its veracity. However, I did not watch all of the trial.
Anyone who can shed light on this issue, would be a help. However, I am posting in General and off-topic, general ranting comments will be flagged.
(Apologies for the length.)
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
18 Answers
Possibly so, it sure looks damning.
But as we are seeing in real time this week, the concepts of facts, proof, and accountability don’t really matter in this impeachment. It’s about cover-up, protecting the ‘base’, and fear that are motivating the R party – not guilt, right and wrong, or anything resembling a fact.
@elbanditoroso I know but I still think the prosecution was trying to make the strongest case for history and the American public so I wonder if a) this is true and b) if so, why wasn’t it highlighted if it wasn’t.
I know nothing specific about this incident, but there’s one key aspect to this of which I believe the general public unaware. And that is that guard units are organized by individual states, and can be called up by the governor of a state in the event of crisis, disasters, etc—situations in which routine police presence is insufficient. DC is exceptional in that there is no such thing as a DC unit of the National guard. Any guard or reserve troops ordered into the Capitol must come from either Virginia or Maryland. Guard troops were deployed at the time to aid Capitol police in their duties throughout the city. It was anticipated that there might be disruptions. I think the ball was dropped because of bureaucratic bungling in establishing the chain of command. The order in question here sounds to me like an effort to avoid the hot potato of Federal troops marching on the Capitol building ala those scenes from banana republics. And I bet those receiving the order were relieved to have it, and assumed that they would augment police duties to free the Capitol police to deal with the crowds. There have been larger crowds than this assembled in the past. The cops and the army were just both caught flat footed.
I don’t know, but I keep seeing commentators’ and opinion writers’ posts reminding us of the thing that is so hard for rational people to bear in mind: that the Rs don’t need to be persuaded. They know. They’ve always known. It’s not lack of conviction. It’s lack of courage. They won’t cross the alpha male, for fear of losing their own hides.
So—smoking gun? Doesn’t matter if they have video of the shooting gun, just as Trump said in 2016. Nobody knows how to comprehend, much less deal with, such brazenness. We don’t even have the vocabulary for it.
A piece in the Wall Street Journal yesterday—the Wall Street Journal!—said that a vote for acquittal is a vote for a lie. It asks quite reasonably a question that ought to have been asked a hundred times already:
If the folks on the steps and invading the building were their people, why didn’t Republican lawmakers come out and address them instead of hiding under desks?
@janbb thanks birdie. I was absolutely wrong.
I hadn’t heard this, but it’s interesting if it is true.
Almost every Republican I know denounces what happened at the Capitol while at the same time defending Trump. Most Republicans I know also feel the party is splitting (I was surprised they felt that way).
So, effectively my Republican friend have decided they don’t identify with the rioters and still do identify with Trump, AND are not watching the impeachment proceedings so are only being spoon fed clips.
That adds up to facts will not matter.
Trump did plenty to set things up so it doesn’t look like it’s his fault. All you have to do is cherry pick what he said.
Also, in a way the rioting helped the Democrats. I have seen a few comments about police letting rioters through, through the barricades and doors. At first, almost in real time during the attack, it was liberal biased cable news outlets saying it, and I turned to my husband and said, “these people have to shut up.” Now, liberal cable has decided that the police were great defenders of the Capitol. Additionally, conspiracy theory minded people took up the slack saying police letting the mob through was a set-up.
The propaganda will never end.
I wonder how the loyal rioting Trumpists feel about hearing themselves called antifa in disguise by Trump’s attorneys.
Does anyone, anyone at all, really think Trump’s “We love you” was addressed to antifa?
To your OP, @janbb, yes, such an order would have to be damning proof. There is also a great deal of other damning proof.
But these are people who can’t distinguish between belief and truth. (A religious upbringing can do that to you.) Inconsistencies and downright contradictions don’t matter to them, not in the face of what they choose to think. And have to think, if they can’t admit their own appalling error.
When half of the so called “jurors”, instead of listening to the presented evidence and arguments by the impeachment lawyers, prefer to take naps, draw doodles, surf the internet, and even just walk out of the room and meet and conspire with the defence, no amount of evidence or smoking guns will matter.
Agree but as I said above, the trial is also for the historical record even though we know the outcome. And some Republicans are leaving the party.
I’m just surprised I haven’t seen more about the delay in calling in the National Guard.
@ragingloli And some of those “jurors” met with the defense lawyers last night. Is that legal in an impeachment?
@Jeruba I’m not watching the defense. I wouldn’t be able to bear it.
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
I just watched the full closing argument speech that Representative Raskin made and he does touch on the fact that the National Guard being deployed was delayed for two hours so it must have been discussed in the prosecution presentation.
One of a whole arsenal of smoking guns, yes!
Your logic about the replacement are accurate. I remember it being reported very shortly after the attack that National Guard units had been given exceptional orders not to respond.
Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller sent the memo two days before the attack, in reply to a request to support D.C. with National Guard troops by Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy. The memo says they basically can’t even arm themselves or respond in any meaningful way without getting permission directly from Miller.
(the memo)
The Capitol police were also deliberately under-deployed for the attack.
@Zaku Thanks for corroborating.
It was the D.C. Mayor’s job or the Sgt at Arms to deploy the National Guard.
The Capitol Police made six requests, all were denied. The D.C. Mayor didn’t want to deploy their National Guard troops because of ‘optics’
There was plenty of intelligence showing what would transpire as it was planned on Facebook for several weeks. Also, Nancy Pelosi’s son was present in the melee as a reporter, so the attacks were at least known about in advance.
Answer this question
This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.