McCarthy: 'Pelosi colluded with Trump to overthrow Biden' ...what?

[Walt]

DC is not a state.

In DC, the president fills the role of governor, and commands the troops when not federalized.

[Walt]

(1) As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OPERATIONAL DECISIONS MADE WITHIN THE HOUSE.

You think she should have requested the National Guard for the House Chamber? A buildings security is usually considered as a whole, not one chamber of a building. How would the National Guard have gotten to the House Chamber without going through the rest of the Capital Building?

Besides, technically the House Sergeant of Arms is responsible for security in the House Chamber. You are mistaken.

[Darth Omar]

You think she should have requested the National Guard for the House Chamber? A buildings security is usually considered as a whole, not one chamber of a building. How would the National Guard have gotten to the House Chamber without going through the rest of the Capital Building?

Besides, technically the House Sergeant of Arms is responsible for security in the House Chamber. You are mistaken.

Weak.

Here’s the scenario: heavily contested election with Trump’s base being pissed off/energized over it. They *knew* Trump was going to hold one of his famous/infamous rallies within walking distance of the Capitol.

Stop right there.

Just with that information they should have fortified security. Granted, up to that point Trump rallies weren’t known to produce an inordinate amount of violence and destruction—but why chance it? But none of that happened.

Whoever it was that made the call or failed to make the call, had garden variety security measures in place as if they were expecting the daily Capital tourists to show up. Not enough people are pissed off that it was allowed to happen in the first place. In fact, HAD Trump supporters killed someone, *someone* would have been liable because Capitol security was totally inadequate under the circumstances.

[Into the Night]

The National Guard functions under "dual command", which means when not federalized, they are under state authority. They are both a state and national militia. They are in essence the original state troopers.

Nope. They are the federal militia. They are nothing more or less than the federal militia. They controlled by the President of the United States (lately the Leader of the SODC).

States also have militias. The current one in Washington has 75 members. They are controlled by the governor of that State.

State troopers are a police unit, not a militia.

[Into the Night]

In DC, the president fills the role of governor, and commands the troops when not federalized.

The National Guard is a federal militia. They are always 'federalized'.

[Dachshund]

You think she should have requested the National Guard for the House Chamber? A buildings security is usually considered as a whole, not one chamber of a building. How would the National Guard have gotten to the House Chamber without going through the rest of the Capital Building?

Besides, technically the House Sergeant of Arms is responsible for security in the House Chamber. You are mistaken.

The House Sergeant -at-Arms contacted Pelosi on the 4th January, 2021, to convey Trump's offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen to provide a security presence at the Capitol on the 6th January. The reason for this was that Trump said he was anticipating a RECORD number of rally-goers on the 6th - literally 100's of thousands of people, and it turned out he was right. Trump said, after the 6th January, 2021, he had NEVER seen a bigger crowd of supporters show up for any one of his rallies (MAGA, etc), than what he saw on the 6th January, 2021, with rally-goers stretched by all the way to the Washington Monument ! (and Trump, remember, has hosted some VERY BIG political rallies in his time).



So it turns out Trump was 100% right, given the massive number of rally-goers that did, indeed, arrive on the 6th Jan, 2021, itWOULD have been prudent for Pelosi to have taken up his offer of providing 10,000 National Guardsmen on site (at the Capitol) to provide a strong, security presence.


Trump's offer was conveyed to the House Sergeant-at-Arms by a senior DC Police Officer (I forget his name and rank, but you can "google" it all). The House Sergeant-at-Arms then relayed the message to Pelosi (on the 4th, January, 2021) Pelosi rejected the offer, saying that the "optics" would be bad.



The first thing Pelosi did, BTW, after the shit hit the fan on the 6th of January was toSUMMARILY FIRE the DC policie officer (mentioned) and the House Sergeant-at-Arms.



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

[Dachshund]

You think she should have requested the National Guard for the House Chamber? A buildings security is usually considered as a whole, not one chamber of a building. How would the National Guard have gotten to the House Chamber without going through the rest of the Capital Building?

Besides, technically the House Sergeant of Arms is responsible for security in the House Chamber. You are mistaken.

You're being ridiculously unreasonanable, Walt (and you know it).


Pelosi, as Speaker of the House is responsible for all operational decisions MADE within the House.


It goes without saying that one would need to secure the perimeter of Capitol building to secure the House, doesn't it ? Because for a violent mob to break into the House (chamber), they would initially need to breach any entrance/s (doors, windows) to Capitol building. (BTW, the DC police allowed Trump supporters to pass freely through the barrier gates they had set up, outside the Capitol building on the 6th, , January, 2021 on the day, because the DC Police were so woefully outnumbered.

The House of Reps and the Senate are both on the second level of the Washington DC Capitol Building, (and as it happens the floor of the House Chamber was never breached. The floor f the Senate was breached.)


Had the Trump supporters been serious about an insurrection, don't you think that they would have been armed (with firearms). What kind of insurrection" were they hoping to achieve without guns ? (i.e. ZERO guns) when they must have known that armed law-enforcement would be on their way immediately soon after breaked the Capitol ?



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

[Dachshund]

Weak.

Here’s the scenario: heavily contested election with Trump’s base being pissed off/energized over it. They *knew* Trump was going to hold one of his famous/infamous rallies within walking distance of the Capitol.

Stop right there.

Just with that information they should have fortified security. Granted, up to that point Trump rallies weren’t known to produce an inordinate amount of violence and destruction—but why chance it? But none of that happened.

Whoever it was that made the call or failed to make the call, had garden variety security measures in place as if they were expecting the daily Capital tourists to show up. Not enough people are pissed off that it was allowed to happen in the first place. In fact, HAD Trump supporters killed someone, *someone* would have been liable because Capitol security was totally inadequate under the circumstances.

Exactly. (And) not just that, but for a number of reasons (none of which were "rocket science"), the rally on the 6th January, 2021, was predicted to be uncommonly large - even wrt a big MAGA rally; and sure enough (literally) 100's of THOUSANDS of Trump supporters showed up on the day. The mainstream media images of the Trumpers/conservatives who arrived to protest on the 6th January, 2021, gave the public no idea whatsoever of just how massive this particular Trump rally actually was. (Standard practice for the Democrat MSM).


You are also right that big Trump rallies have never - as far as I can recall, been violent events - NOT ONCE. The political circumstances of the 6th January were, however, unusual, in the sense that the Democrat Party had clearly perpetrated massive electoral/ballot fraud during the November 2020 Presidential election. Given the scale of this fraud and how breath-takingly brazen much of it was; is it any wonder that a very SMALL percentage of the hunreds of thousands of Trump supporters present (in total) on the day to protest, went "over the top" (I sympathise 100%, actually, because I was absolutely furious as well when I saw the way the Democrats put the fix on 3rd November. Perhaps it's lucky for me that I live in Australia and was not physically able to be outside the Capitol building on the 6th January, 2021 - I just may have "lost it" and joined that dude with the big horns on his head and stormed in to try and wring Nancy Pelosi's scrawny neck !).



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !

[Walt]

Nope. They are the federal militia. They are nothing more or less than the federal militia. They controlled by the President of the United States (lately the Leader of the SODC).

National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...United_States)

They spend much of their time under the command of the state governor. They are also allowed to act as law enforcement, which is mostly illegal for the federal military to do, under Posse Comitatus Act. In other words, everything you have said is completely false.

States also have militias. The current one in Washington has 75 members. They are controlled by the governor of that State.

There are a lot of groups out there claiming to be militias. If not authorized by the state, like the National Guard is, they are not.

State troopers are a police unit, not a militia.

Militias acted as the state police, before there were police. They hunted down criminals, and even animals that were attacking people. The State Police, and the National Guard are considered the modern equivalent of the militias.

[Walt]

The National Guard is a federal militia. They are always 'federalized'.

It is painfully obvious that not only have you not served, but no one among your family and friends have ever served. Do not bother denying this.

[Walt]

The House Sergeant -at-Arms contacted Pelosi on the 4th January, 2021, to convey Trump's offer of 10,000 National Guardsmen to provide a security presence at the Capitol on the 6th January.

Why would the trump administration contact the House Sergeant-At-Arms about such an issue? He is only there for formal control over the access to the House Chamber. He has not in charge of Capitol Building security. Wouldn't the trump administration contact the Capitol Police?

Your claims are bizarre.

Trump's offer was conveyed to the House Sergeant-at-Arms by a senior DC Police Officer

Again, why would the DC police be talking directly to the House Sergeant-At-Arms. Talking to the Capitol Police makes sense, because their jurisdictions border on one another, BUT DO NOT OVERLAP. Why would the trump administration send a message to the local police to give to a ceremonial guard? Shouldn't they communicate directly to the federal police whose jurisdiction the Capitol Building falls under?

The first thing Pelosi did, BTW, after the shit hit the fan on the 6th of January was toSUMMARILY FIRE the DC policie officer (mentioned) and the House Sergeant-at-Arms.

Pelosi has absolutely no ability to fire anyone on the DC police force. That would be a DC local matter. They are heavily unionized, so there is a a whole process, and it is impossible to summarily fire any of them.

It really seems like Daschshund has been listening to complete garbage again.

[Walt]

Pelosi, as Speaker of the House is responsible for all operational decisions MADE within the House.

The "House" is an organizational structure, not a physical structure. The Capitol Building is the physical structure, and it is under the security authority of the Capitol Police. Pelosi does not have sole authority over them.

And Pelosi, in point and fact, does not have operational authority over everything in the House.

A good example of this was the 27th Amendment. It was ratified by a few states in the 1790's, and then forgotten. Enough more ratified it 200 years later, that it could in theory become an amendment, but Congress wanted to debate it, because there were questions about whether the delay meant it was the same amendment. The Archivist of the United States overruled the Speaker of the House, and declared it a ratified amendment.

It goes without saying that one would need to secure the perimeter of Capitol building to secure the House, doesn't it?

The House and the Senate share the building, so they share responsibility for the building's security. And the minority parties of both houses of Congress must be respected, so they too share authority. They form committees that oversee the Capital Police. In other words, Pelosi is just part of the authority, and would not be given day-to-day briefings.

BTW, the DC police allowed Trump supporters to pass freely through the barrier gates they had set up, outside the Capitol building

The barriers immediately outside the Capitol would not be manned by DC police at all. That would be the Capitol Police.

[Into the Night]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...United_States)

Discarded. You cannot use Wikipedia as a reference for anything with me.

They spend much of their time under the command of the state governor.

They are never under command of any State governor. The National Guard answers to the President of the United States.

They are also allowed to act as law enforcement, which is mostly illegal for the federal military to do, under Posse Comitatus Act.

They cannot legally act as law enforcement. They are a militia.

In other words, everything you have said is completely false.

Nope. The National Guard is a national militia, answerable to United States government and only the United States government.
The State militias are completely separate, and answer only to the government of that State.

There are a lot of groups out there claiming to be militias.

They are militias.

If not authorized by the state, like the National Guard is, they are not.

They are militias.

Militias acted as the state police, before there were police.

Illegal.

They hunted down criminals, and even animals that were attacking people.

Illegal.

The State Police, and the National Guard are considered the modern equivalent of the militias.

Police are not militia.
Militia are not police.

[Into the Night]

It is painfully obvious that not only have you not served, but no one among your family and friends have ever served. Do not bother denying this.

irrelevant.

[Walt]

irrelevant.

You do not have a basic understanding of how the National Guard works. That is relevant.