'Absolute liars': Ex-D.C. Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6

[SkepticThinker]

On the world stage Biden is a clown.
In Australia, and South Africa we laugh at him.
There is now a saying in South Africa that we had the stuppidist President in the history of mankind, Jacob Zuma...
But that championship now belongs to the USA!

China's slave factories loves the Biden Administration,
the Mexican Drug Cartells loves Biden.
Russia loves Biden!
The Arab oil producers loves Biden!!!
Money laundering corrupt officials loves Hunter's artwork, 500K a piece!!!

Yip, Biden is the one president thats loved internationally.

But if you think the word thinks Biden is an example of what a Leader of the free world should look like...

Sure!

Canadian here.
I lost respect for the US when Trump was elected.

 

[Revoltingest]

With all due respect, maybe you should read about it? Or read any of the many people who are skilled, high-level experts who've been warning us for the past year?

I've monitored the situation in the news.
Your case appears to be claims of fact
based upon speculation.

It has been all over the news. And there's a lot of frustration that the wheels of justice are moving so slowly, impatience with Merrick Garland and the Jan. 6 commission, but we are reminded that we don't know what they're accomplishing behind the scenes and so we wait.

The insurrectionists are being charged and convicted, but in many cases not getting much more than a slap on the wrist. That's frustrating too. But the investigation into beyond the insurrectionists themselves is currently the purview of the Jan. 6 committee. Many Trump admin personnel have come forward of their own accord, the interviews number in the hundreds already.

I'm claiming that there was high level plotting for the overturn of the election and using the Jan. 6 insurrection as a tool in advancing that process.

Such plotting, if based clearly in evidence would be
prosecuted. Since you claim that this is so, would it
mean that Biden & his administration are part of a
cover-up?
You suggest that testimony in progress will support
your claim, but this has yet to happen. Yer jump'n
the gun.

 

[Revoltingest]

Canadian here.
I lost respect for the US when Trump was elected.

We never even had any respect for you guys.
@Wirey hasn't been deported yet.

 

[anna.]

I've monitored the situation in the news.
Your case appears to be claims of fact
based upon speculation.

I don't watch "the news" if by that you mean corporate news. I read individual journalists, researchers, historians, analysts. A few publications, but none religiously.

Such plotting, if based clearly in evidence would be
prosecuted. Since you claim that this is so, would it
mean that Biden & his administration are part of a
cover-up?

You can't prosecute until you're finished with the investigation. Thus, the Jan. 6 Committee.

You suggest that testimony in progress will support
your claim

That I do, but it's not just "my" claim. It is the claim of lawmakers and military personnel.

but this has yet to happen.

Do you want me to do the work for you and provide you with copious links?

Yer jump'n
the gun.

Have you ever danced with pretension? Just wondering.

 

[anna.]

Canadian here.
I lost respect for the US when Trump was elected.

I would understand if you'd lost respect for us long before Trump...

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't watch "the news" if by that you mean corporate news. I read individual journalists, researchers, historians, analysts. A few publications, but none religiously.

I mean news of different biases.
By "journalist", do you mean Democrat Party minions?
(2 can play that game.)

You can't prosecute until you're finished with the investigation. Thus, the Jan. 6 Committee.

You're claiming that evidence will be discovered,
& a high level conspiracy based upon something
you admittedly cannot present. This is a faith
based argument.
Considering your argument....suggesting "pretense"
on my part is rather....unsavory.

Some general advice to Trump haters.....
It's fine to hate him, but try not to let this spill over
into arguments.

 

[anna.]

I mean news of different biases.
By "journalist", do you mean Democrat Party minions?
(2 can play that game.)

I'm not playing a game. If you are, you should say so up front.

I'm not a Democrat.

But if they're honest, they're worth listening to. Example: Adam Schiff.

So is a Republican. Example: Liz Cheney

Or a historian. Example: Heather Cox Richardson.

Or an ambassador. Example: Fiona Hill.

Or investigative journalists. Example: ProPublica.

Or an independent news source: Example: Talking Points Memo

And so on.

You're claiming that evidence will be discovered,
& a high level conspiracy based upon something
you admittedly cannot present. This is a faith
based argument.

Not what I said at all. I said the evidence is out there. It is you who has not yet discovered it.

Considering your argument....suggesting "pretense"
on my part is rather....unsavory.

I think your argument is rather pretentious. You don't know a thing, therefore it doesn't exist.

Some general advice to Trump haters.....
It's fine to hate him, but try not to let this spill over
into arguments.

This is only partially about Trump. Some general advice to those who view themselves as above the fray... attempting to reduce the argument to Trump-hating is an attempt to reduce the argument itself.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not playing a game.

We all owe each other the benefit of doubt.

But if they're honest, they're worth listening to. Example: Adam Schiff.

So is a Republican. Example: Liz Cheney

Or a historian. Example: Heather Cox Richardson.

Or an ambassador. Example: Fiona Hill.

Or investigative journalists. Example: ProPublica.

Or an independent news source: Example: Talking Points Memo

And so on.



Not what I said at all. I said the evidence is out there. It is you who has not yet discovered it.



I think your argument is rather pretentious. You don't know a thing, therefore it doesn't exist.



This is only partially about Trump. Some general advice to those who view themselves as above the fray... attempting to reduce the argument to Trump-hating is an attempt to reduce the argument itself.

Naming names of sources is not evidence.
How is it that you're so certain what will come
out from the hearings on Jan 6?

 

[anna.]

We all owe each other the benefit of doubt.

It wasn't me who brought up game-playing.

I will tell you now that I post what I think, or what I believe, or what I know, or what I've learned - as honestly and as upfront as I possibly can. If you think I'm game-playing, we have no future in discussions. That's all. 20 years of doing this, I have no more time to waste or cares to give.

If your approach is the same, I'll agree or disagree with you in future with spirit and energy, but also with respect.

Naming names of sources is not evidence.
How is it that you're so certain what will come
out from the hearings on Jan 6?

See, you asked if by journalists I meant "Democratic Party minions" so I gave you some examples of where I got my news. And you call that naming names and not evidence. It wasn't supposed to be evidence, it was supposed to be showing you where I got my news.

How is it I'm so certain? Do you recall my saying this: "There is evidence, much evidence. More than I can pull together in an instant, but off the top of my head, the shuffle of key Pentagon personnel at the 11th. hour, the intentional delay in sending in the National Guard, the memo on how to circumvent the electoral college vote written by Trump's lawyer John Eastman, Trump's call to GA Sec. State Raffensberger, the War Room at the Willard Hotel, the pressure on Pence to change the vote, the knowledge key insurrectionists had of the warren of hallways under the Capitol, the off-the-books tour of the Capitol and the tweeting of Pelosi's whereabouts during the insurrection, and more."

Do you honestly expect me to do a year's worth of work for you? I won't do that, but I'll crack open one of them for you.

Do you remember Fiona Hill from the impeachment?

Fiona Hill served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for European and Russian affairs on the National Security Council from 2017 to 2019. She is currently a senior fellow in the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution.

Jan. 11, 2021

Opinion | Yes, It Was a Coup Attempt. Here’s Why.
What Trump tried is called a “self-coup,” and he did it in slow motion and in plain sight.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't me who brought up game-playing.

Oh?
The suggestion of "pretense" struck me as such.
We've reached a point of unproductivity.
Let's talk when the "Jan 6" hearings bear fruit....or not.

 

[anna.]

Oh?
The suggestion of "pretense" struck me as such.
We've reached a point of unproductivity.
Let's talk when the "Jan 6" hearings bear fruit....or not.

No, we've reached a point of I've given you the first expert example and you won't acknowledge it.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, we've reached a point of I've given you the first expert example and you won't acknowledge it.

Still trying to win eh.

 

[anna.]

Still trying to win eh.

How about get past your irritation and read Fiona Hill and tell me what you think.

 

[Revoltingest]

How about get past your irritation and read Fiona Hill and tell me what you think.

As I said, this is unproductive.
I postpone things before the become irritating.

 

[anna.]

As I said, this is unproductive.
I postpone things before the become irritating.

As you wish.

(I think it's been quite productive.)

 

[anna.]

Moving on:

Jan.7, 2021:

Maryland Governor Says Pentagon ‘Repeatedly Denied’ Approval To Send National Guard To Capitol

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said Thursday that the Department of Defense “repeatedly denied” to authorize deployment of Maryland’s National Guard troops to help quell violence at the Capitol on Wednesday.

Hogan said during a press conference that he convened an emergency meeting of his “unified command team” when he was informed of a mob of Trump supporters descending on the Capitol as lawmakers attempted to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
Hogan says he mobilized 200 “specially trained” state troopers and instructed Maj. Gen. Timothy Gowen, the general of the Maryland National Guard, to mobilize his troops.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called Hogan from an “undisclosed bunker” and were “pleading” with him for assistance from his state and national forces, the governor said.
However, Hogan, who requires the Department of Defense’s authority to mobilize his National Guard troops, said he was “repeatedly denied” approval to do so from the Pentagon despite being “ready, willing and able” to assist.
Hogan said he had a “back and forth trying to get that authorization” and that, about an hour and a half later, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy gave approval to send his troops to Washington, D.C.
Federal authorities were not guarding the Capitol at the time of the attack, leaving the job to the Capitol Police, who were quickly overrun by the mob.

President Trump reportedly refused initial requests to send in the National Guard, with Vice President Mike Pence ultimately interfacing with Defense Department officials and giving the order to mobilize units.

Hogan, a Republican, called for President Trump’s removal in the wake of the attack. "I think there's no question that America would be better off if the president would resign or be removed from office,” he said.

 

[anna.]

Regarding the extraordinary warning letter signed by 10 former secretaries of defense, days before the insurrection on Jan. 6:

BY JAMES STAVRIDIS
JANUARY 4, 2021 4:40 PM EST
Admiral Stavridis (Ret.), a TIME Contributing Editor, was the 16th Supreme Allied Commander at NATO and is an Operating Executive at The Carlyle Group.

The ten living American secretaries of defense collectively signed an extraordinary letter over the weekend, stating in the strongest possible terms that the U.S. election is over, the time for protests is past, and that there is no role for the U.S. military in resolving any controversy surrounding it. They called for a smooth and professional transition of defense responsibilities from the current administration to the next, reflecting their frustration with the obvious stonewalling that has characterized much of the turnover so far. And, most forcefully, they said that any civilian and military officials who directed the use of the military to interfere in the electoral process would be held accountable, “including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.”

. . . .

The secretaries have been watching events closely for the past months, including the infamous presidential walk across Lafayette Square and well-sourced reports of discussions in the Oval Office of martial law. Even after they released the letter, the most recent reports of Trump pressuring the Georgia Secretary of State to “find” another 12,000 votes could only have reinforced their views and sent a collective shiver up their spines. And it should: nothing in our lifetimes is a more direct contravention of the oath each of these cabinet secretaries swore to “support and defend the constitution of the United States.” I suspect that these ten leaders, urged by former Vice President Dick Cheney (the highest ultimate office holder of the group), came reluctantly to the conclusion that they owed the nation their public voices. I emailed half-a-dozen of the signers simple to say well done, and the prevailing response was simply “it had to be said.” I could feel their collective sadness about the state of the republic, coupled with a healthy dose of real outrage, in the tone of their letter.

But here’s the bad news: none of them is in a position to do anything but raise their voices, as important as that is for the nation. The current occupant of the E-Ring office is a retired Army Colonel named Chris Miller, who lacks the experience, credentials, or independent temperament to stand up to a willful president. That is why the most important single statement of the past weeks has been the tweet from Secretary of the Army McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff McConville, saying that there is “no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American an election.” That statement was essentially a direct response to disgraced Lieutenant General Mike Flynn’s public call for martial law and a redo of the 2020 election. Fortunately, having the current Army Secretary and the Army’s top General directly and publicly denigrate such dangerous thinking aligns with other voices, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Mark Milley.

. . . .

 

[anna.]

Jan. 6 Protest Organizers Say They Participated in ‘Dozens’ of Planning Meetings With Members of Congress and White House Staff

As the House investigation into the Jan. 6 attack heats up, some of the planners of the pro-Trump rallies that took place in Washington, D.C., have begun communicating with congressional investigators and sharing new information about what happened when the former president’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol. Two of these people have spoken to Rolling Stone extensively in recent weeks and detailed explosive allegations that multiple members of Congress were intimately involved in planning both Trump’s efforts to overturn his election loss and the Jan. 6 events that turned violent.

Rolling Stone separately confirmed a third person involved in the main Jan. 6 rally in D.C. has communicated with the committee. This is the first report that the committee is hearing major new allegations from potential cooperating witnesses. While there have been prior indications that members of Congress were involved, this is also the first account detailing their purported role and its scope. The two sources also claim they interacted with members of Trump’s team, including former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, who they describe as having had an opportunity to prevent the violence.

The two sources, both of whom have been granted anonymity due to the ongoing investigation, describe participating in “dozens” of planning briefings ahead of that day when Trump supporters broke into the Capitol as his election loss to President Joe Biden was being certified.

“I remember Marjorie Taylor Greene specifically,” the organizer says. “I remember talking to probably close to a dozen other members at one point or another or their staffs.” . . . .

These two sources also helped plan a series of demonstrations that took place in multiple states around the country in the weeks between the election and the storming of the Capitol. According to these sources, multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.

Along with Greene, the conspiratorial pro-Trump Republican from Georgia who took office earlier this year, the pair both say the members who participated in these conversations or had top staffers join in included Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas). . . .

The two potential witnesses plan to present to the committee allegations about how these demonstrations were funded and to detail communications between organizers and the White House. According to both sources, members of Trump’s administration and former members of his campaign team were involved in the planning. Both describe Katrina Pierson, who worked for Trump’s campaign in 2016 and 2020, as a key liaison between the organizers of protests against the election and the White House.

 

[anna.]

Heather Cox Richardson's Oct. 18, 2021 Letter from an American:

Today, the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol recommended that the House of Representatives find Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress. Bannon is refusing to cooperate with a subpoena for documents and testimony about the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection. Now the House will take up the question of contempt.

The committee report is a lot more interesting than that topline suggests (political historian here: although people tend to watch what happens before the TV cameras, committee reports are often where the action is).

The report starts by stating that the attempt of “a violent mob” to “halt the lawful counting of electoral votes and reverse the results of the 2020 election” was, according to “the words of many of those who participated in the violence, ...a direct response to false statements by then-President Donald J. Trump—beginning on election night 2020 and continuing through January 6, 2021—that the 2020 election had been stolen by corrupted voting machines, widespread fraud, and otherwise.”

The committee is laying the events of January 6 on Trump.

Congress established the committee, the report says, “to identify how the events of January 6th were planned, what actions and statements motivated and contributed to the attack on the Capitol, how the violent riot that day was coordinated with a political and public relations strategy to reverse the election outcome, and why Capitol security was insufficient to address what occurred.”

The committee is saying that the riot was coordinated ahead of time, and it appears to suggest that Capitol security was compromised.

Then the report explains why Bannon is an important witness. Its account of his actions in that crisis is an illuminating roundup of what we have seen in pieces in many other places. It concludes that Bannon knew specifically about the events of January 6 ahead of time.

On his January 5 podcasts, for example, he said:

“It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen. OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in. [. . .] You made this happen and tomorrow it’s game day. So strap in. Let’s get ready.”

“All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. [. . .] So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”

Bannon said that the country was facing a ‘‘constitutional crisis’’ and ‘‘that crisis is about to go up about five orders of magnitude tomorrow.’’

And: “It’s all converging, and now we’re on the point of attack tomorrow.”

So, the committee report suggests there was high-level planning for the January 6 insurrection. And it goes on:

The report says that it appears Bannon joined others eager to overturn the election “who gathered at the Willard Hotel, two blocks from the White House, on the days surrounding the January 6th attack…. The group that assembled at the Willard Hotel is reported to have included members of the Trump campaign’s legal team (including Rudolph Giuliani and John Eastman), several prominent proponents of false election fraud claims that had been promoted by Mr. Trump (e.g., Russell Ramsland, Jr. and Boris Epshteyn), as well as Roger Stone, who left the hotel with Oath Keeper bodyguards, and campaign spokesman Jason Miller.”

Then the report blows up the idea that Bannon had an excuse not to testify.

Bannon refused to honor the subpoena because he claimed that Trump was going to invoke executive privilege, but “Trump has had no communication with the Select Committee.” “This third-hand, non-specific assertion of privilege, without any description of the documents or testimony over which privilege is claimed, is insufficient to activate a claim of executive privilege,” it says. In any case, as a private citizen at the time of the events in question, Bannon would not be covered by executive privilege anyway.

. . . .

Heather Cox Richardson is an American historian and professor of history at Boston College, where she teaches courses on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, the American West, and the Plains Indians. She previously taught history at MIT and the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Richardson has authored six books on history and politics. She is a founder and editor at werehistory.org, which presents professional history to a public audience through short articles. Between 2017 and 2018, she co-hosted the NPR podcast Freak Out and Carry On. Most recently, Richardson started publishing "Letters from an American", a nightly newsletter that chronicles current events in the larger context of American history.

 

[Revoltingest]

As i have stated, its his record as president that counts, not his history.

Here is some info regarding how Biden was a driving
force behind civil forfeiture, ie, the doctrine that if you
have more cash than cops think you should have,
they can take by force without any warrant or adjudication.
You then have the right to spend a lot of time & money
on lawyers to sue to get it back.

Cops do this because they get to keep the money for
their department. Some even keep it personally.
How a Young Joe Biden Became the Architect of the Government's Asset Forfeiture Program | Chris Calton
This is very authoritarian, but since few (only tens of
thousands per year) are affected, it goes largely unnoticed.

This is part of Biden's legacy. Sure, Trump is bad.
But be careful about praising a tyrant.
And if you ever visit here....don't carry large amounts
of cash...say $2000 or more. If caught with it, you'll
be financing a new coffee maker for cops.