Me thinks, they protest too much

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...torm-building/

Former General Kellog, Pentagon Spokesman Hoffman, acting Defense Secretary Miller, US Army Secretary McCarthy, and Kayliegh McKnany confirm Trump authorized National Guard after Mayor Bowser requested the Guard be deployed. Virginia Governor sent 200 Guardsmen.
The Mayor requested, Trump approved, and only Pelosi was AWOL.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...torm-building/

Former General Kellog, Pentagon Spokesman Hoffman, acting Defense Secretary Miller, US Army Secretary McCarthy, and Kayliegh McKnany confirm Trump authorized National Guard after Mayor Bowser requested the Guard be deployed. Virginia Governor sent 200 Guardsmen.
The Mayor requested, Trump approved, and only Pelosi was AWOL. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

What a fuck up of a dumpster fire. Don't you think? Even the American Military News thought so.

Great post, Corny. Great post.

On Wednesday, President Donald [D]ump ordered National Guard troops and federal protective services personnel to the U.S. Capitol after pro-[D]ump demonstrators stormed the building, interrupting an electoral college vote certification process to affirm Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.


Clashes between police and the [pro-Dump] protestors could be seen inside and outside the building as Congress was forced to recess and lockdown, stopping the vote certification process. Vice President Mike Pence was also evacuated during the chaos at the Capitol.

Methinks thou dost . . .

. . . stepped in it.

just a quick reading of both posts

barleycorn says trump "authorized"

you attempt a clouded refutation, which is no refutation at all, while not addressing what barleycorn wrote, by highlighting the word "after", while ignoring the real difference maker, preceding "after" in the snippet you posted, the word "ordered"

from what i remember, trump authorized the national guard, but pelosi and/or the mayor either refused or didnt follow through

find it in your heart to realize that is a typical dimocrat ploy, found in almost all issues of controversy, by misstating, misquoting, or making points that dont address the issue

As usual folks on the right don’t bother to actually read the article. As stated over and over, Trump didn’t call out the national guard to defend the capitol. Testimony from everyone in the White House on Jan 5 and the pentagon confirmed that they received no order from Trump to deploy to end the insurrection. He instead sat watching TV while nutty right wing Trumpys fought police and breached the capitol to stop the congress from acting.

Nothing in that article disputes that.

... If you say so...

#### Salty

God...you gave them eyes but they cannot see.

I don't know which is worse, someone who can't recognize the con or someone who does recognize the con but refuses to admit it. I suppose the greatest example in history would be the Jewish people in Germany before World War II. Reading their stories, some did not believe that their fellow Germans would do what it did to them and others DID believe it but it couldn't happen to them, or worse, that they would continue and hope for the best. You see where that got them?

Like how the article states both sides wanted the Guard.

But that is where the article stops giving any more info.

That is not the only article that states the same thing.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...100#blogHeader

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/con...ns-2021-05-12/

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...apitol-1560186

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/...-prior-to-1-6/

These are some of the sources but Reuters gets it wrong about five dead cops (that is a myth), Newsweek wants to mince words about numbers and precise times but it is obvious, Trump did authorize the deployment of the Guard whether you want to argue numbers or not. The mayor wanted the Guard but the final decision came to down to a committee in the House or under Nancy Pelosi.

... Pelosi didn't want it. ... No National Guard there.

Because THAT would have kept both the crowd and
the traffic down... And then LESS people at
the Capitol... Maybe nobody to "trespass" inside.

How you gonna sell a "insurrection" with nobody there?
Which is why Special Agent Ray Epps and his mates
were there on the 5th... Taking down some o' the fencing.
And ordering people INTO the building on the 6th.

#### Salty

... Pelosi didn't want it. ... No National Guard there.

Because THAT would have kept both the crowd and
the traffic down... And then LESS people at
the Capitol... Maybe nobody to "trespass" inside.

How you gonna sell a "insurrection" with nobody there?
Which is why Special Agent Ray Epps and his mates
were there on the 5th... Taking down some o' the fencing.
And gaslighting people INTO the building on the 6th.

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

FTFY


not ordering... gaslighting.

The line of thinking that Democrats wanted an insurrection is asinine. They already won. It was a done deal. It was the fool republicans that were still making the election an issue. Y'all keep up with your conspiracy theories. It's dumb but I suppose after years of the other shit y'all believe, not surprising.

interesting quote from hunter biden that the great families are always persecuted

now who could he have meant? lets see....

the family of george washington lee?

the family of vibia perpetua?

the family of sophie scholl?

oh wait..*light bulb*....the trump family..now you got to give it to hunter there

The line of thinking that Democrats wanted an insurrection is asinine. They already won. It was a done deal. It was the fool republicans that were still making the election an issue. Y'all keep up with your conspiracy theories. It's dumb but I suppose after years of the other shit y'all believe, not surprising. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yeah. Kinda hard to justify the winning side promoted this.

The line of thinking that Democrats wanted an insurrection is asinine. They already won. It was a done deal. It was the fool republicans that were still making the election an issue. Y'all keep up with your conspiracy theories. It's dumb but I suppose after years of the other shit y'all believe, not surprising. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Yeah. Kinda hard to justify the winning side promoted this. Originally Posted by Precious_b

not so fast fellow valued posters! if you think the Democrats aren't fully capable of exploiting this even if they didn't instigate the riot then you gravely underestimate the ruthless nature of the Democrats.


the "committee" was exactly that. it was never about how or why it happened, how it could have been prevented (which largely puts the D.C. police and to an extent the Democrats in a bad light) it was about a circus for media points.


it's clear that the D.C. Police, with weeks of knowledge of this, either by incompetence or design, did about as bad a job preparing as possible. short of just not even bothering that is.


there are protocols for engaging the D.C. National guard and the D.C. Police had every opportunity in advance to have the Guard ready and did not act. the Pentagon even asked days ahead if the D.C. Police wanted the Guard there upfront and the request was "politely declined".


now about McCarthy and releasing the video to FOX and Carlson. the left's hand-wringing over it is hilarious. McCarty has stated weeks ago he will release the entire set all 41,000 hours to other media outlets and certainly they will be the usual left like CNN et el so what's the big deal that FOX gets an exclusive first look?


one of the questions that should be asked is .. with over two years for the committee, the FBI and D.C. Police to review the footage why was only a few parts of it shown? was all of the rest of it of no importance at all?


did they even review the bulk of it? if not why didn't they? wouldn't that indicate a "predetermined outcome" from the start? hmmm?


let's face it, if the Democrats had held the house, not one minute of video would ever have been released. why? that the Republicans are releasing it may show nothing. which in itself serves a purpose. what if it shows something else? that also serves a propose. assuming the committee wanted the "truth".

Yeah. Kinda hard to justify the winning side promoted this. Originally Posted by Precious_b

... Kinda know what ya mean there, mate.

Hard to justify WHY Hillary and the Dems would
start their bullshit "Trump/Russia collusion" narrative
seeing-as she was supposed to win the election EASY.
Trump had "no chance", Remember?

And Waco makes a good point:

Why would the "winning side" OBJECT to 6th January
videos being released?? ... Why wouldn't "the winners"
release them sooner? ... It's been two years.

#### Salty