Jump to content

Senate hearings begin, the story of the Capital insurrection, and who is responsible


Recommended Posts

I realize that the Washington Post is trying to be delicate in how it approaches this reporting. But let's be clear, this was not a "riot" it was an insurrection. Nor was it a simple disturbance, it was a terrorist attack against the United States government. The same applies to the Republican Senate who may have more interest in pushing alternate theories to prevent damage to its reputation.

 

The public inquest into the deadly Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol begins a new phase Tuesday when four law enforcement officials — three of whom resigned their posts and some of whom have never before spoken publicly about the attack — face lawmakers aiming to uncover what led to the violence and prevent future unrest.

But Tuesday’s hearing before members of two Senate committees could also become a battleground for competing narratives over what prompted the riot and who was responsible for it — a question that has become even more pointed following former president Donald Trump’s acquittal on an impeachment charge earlier this month.

Trump’s allies in Congress and beyond have sought to downplay Trump’s role in gathering his supporters in Washington and spreading the false claim that he, not President Biden, won the November election — facts that led to bipartisan impeachment proceedings. Instead, they have sought to blame lapses by Capitol security officials — and the congressional leaders they report to — for the building’s invasion.

That has heightened the drama surrounding the expected testimony of former House sergeant-at-arms Paul D. Irving and former Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael C. Stenger, who resigned quickly after the riot was suppressed. Neither man has spoken publicly about their experiences and decision-making before and during the riot.

 

Also expected to appear Tuesday are former Capitol Police chief Steven A. Sund, who has spoken to media outlets about his frustrations requesting assistance from Irving and Stenger ahead of the riot, and acting D.C. police chief Robert J. Contee III, whose officers engaged in some of the most brutal clashes with rioters at the Capitol’s doors. The riot resulted in the deaths of one Capitol Police officer and four others.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), chair of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said in an interview that preparations for the hearing have been strictly bipartisan and that she expected a “constructive tone” to prevail.

“This is a moment to get the actual facts about what happened at the Capitol,” she said. “The issues we identify and the answers we get are part of the solution, so this isn’t just about throwing popcorn at a movie screen to try to get sound bites. We actually have to make decisions in the coming months.”

But she acknowledged that other senators may focus on contested aspects of the narrative surrounding the riot. Those questions are likely to include what role House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) played in reviewing or approving plans for Capitol security ahead of the attack.

Irving reported to Pelosi, and Stenger reported to McConnell, who was majority leader at the time of the riot. Both men sit on the Capitol Police Board, a secretive four-member body overseeing congressional security matters that also includes the chief of the Capitol Police and the presidentially appointed architect of the Capitol.

While neither Irving nor Stenger has addressed the matter directly, a former Capitol security official who spoke to The Washington Post last month at Irving’s request relayed that Irving dismissed Sund’s request to place National Guard troops on call, citing the “optics” of stationing uniformed military personnel at the seat of federal government.

Irving did not consult with Pelosi on the decision to reject the request, said the official, former Senate sergeant-at-arms Bill Pickle, but Irving believed he was reflecting her wishes.

That has not stopped several high-ranking House Republicans from seeking to add Pelosi to the list of those responsible for the events of Jan. 6. The top GOP members of four House committees last week demanded Pelosi answer questions about her knowledge of the security preparations, contending that “many important questions about your responsibility for the security of the Capitol remain unanswered.”

“The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House,” they wrote.

Other GOP allies are also joining in, including conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has gone to court with a demand for emails among members of the Capitol security apparatus as well as a blanket demand for security video at the Capitol.

“We don’t trust Nancy Pelosi (or, frankly, any other politician) to honestly examine the many controversies surrounding January 6, and so we want a closer look,” the group said in an email last week.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said that the GOP letter reflected an attempt to “deflect responsibility for the Capitol attack from Donald Trump” and noted that Irving and Sund briefed House lawmakers a day before the riot and assured them that all necessary precautions had been taken.

“As the target of an assassination attempt, the Speaker knows all too well the importance of security at the Capitol and is focused on getting to the bottom of all issues facing the Capitol Complex and the events that led up to the insurrection,” Hammill said.

Republican senators have not made a similar demand for transparency from McConnell, who oversaw Stenger’s hiring in 2018 and requested his resignation in the immediate aftermath of the riot.

But at least one senator who will ask questions Tuesday has shown a willingness to challenge the prevailing evidence showing that the Capitol attack was conducted by Trump supporters, at least some of whom saw the infiltration of the Capitol as a way to obstruct the counting of electoral votes that was underway that the time and prevent Biden’s inauguration.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has publicly suggested that Pelosi is to blame for the riot and last week questioned whether the events of Jan. 6 could be fairly considered an “armed insurrection,” despite the fact that several rioters were carrying weapons and a cache of weapons was found near the Capitol grounds.

A spokesman for Johnson did not return a request for comment Monday.

Three other senators who will participate in Tuesday’s questioning — Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) — voted to discount at least one state’s electoral votes after the riot took place.

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said in an interview Monday that he expects Tuesday’s hearings to “lead to even more questions” about what contributed to the security failures on Jan. 6. Both he and Klobuchar said that at least one additional hearing will be called featuring senior officials of the federal agencies who were involved in the preparations and response to the insurrection.

“We need to know more about what happened prior to Jan. 6, and that’s certainly something I will be focused on as chairman,” Peters said, noting that “it certainly seems there was a major failure of leadership.”

But he sidestepped questions about whether the expected grilling of Irving and Stenger might yield to a more partisan and acrimonious debate over whether Pelosi or other elected officials bear responsibility for the lack of preparedness.

Klobuchar and Peters stressed that they are working in close coordination with the top Republicans on their panels, Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.) and Rob Portman (Ohio), and expect to continue the investigation on a “nonpartisan” basis.

“We need to know: was there credible intelligence about potential violence; when was it known; and who knew it,” Portman is expected to say, according to a copy of his prepared statement obtained by The Post. “We need to know what happened and how to ensure that this never happens again.”

Peters would not speculate about what the final product of the panel’s investigations would be — except to say that after “a number of hearings,” there were likely to be “a series of policy decisions.” Klobuchar said the hearing may result in improvements on the gathering and analysis of intelligence on threats to the Capitol, as well as a possible restructuring of the Capitol Police Board.

In additional to the congressional probe, federal prosecutors are continuing to file cases against rioters, the Government Accountability Office is probing security preparations, and top congressional leaders continue to discuss creating an outside commission to investigate the attack, one modeled on the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. That effort, however, appeared to be on hold Monday amid a partisan dispute about its structure.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/capitol-riot-trump-senate/2021/02/22/abd53038-7527-11eb-8115-9ad5e9c02117_story.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I realize that the Washington Post is trying to be delicate in how it approaches this reporting. But let's be clear, this was not a "riot" it was an insurrection.

Nah, it was a nincomcoup. An actual insurrection would have to have some kind of plan that could lead to a desired political outcome but there was no such plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Can Trump still face penalties or did the impeachment end that?

I defer to clean et all, but I believe the DOJ can do what the fuck it wants and if he is found to have done something, well he will have been found to have done something.  Weather it sticks and weather it gets past the supremes before he croaks is a whole nother ball o wax.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Nah, it was a nincomcoup. An actual insurrection would have to have some kind of plan that could lead to a desired political outcome but there was no such plan.

The purpose of this hearing is discovery. Don't be premature, we may find new things about plans.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Nah, it was a nincomcoup. An actual insurrection would have to have some kind of plan that could lead to a desired political outcome but there was no such plan.

Are you sure?

There could be a plan and it could still be a nincomcoup... and an attempted insurrection. There are plenty of similar examples in history.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you sure?

There could be a plan and it could still be a nincomcoup... and an attempted insurrection. There are plenty of similar examples in history.

- DSK

Plan?  Kevin McCallister had a better plan in Home Alone.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Are you sure?

There could be a plan and it could still be a nincomcoup... and an attempted insurrection. There are plenty of similar examples in history.

 

Plan?  Kevin McCallister had a better plan in Home Alone.  

I didn't say they had a GOOD plan... OTOH the main thing that stopped them from taking the joint session hostage was the unexpected resistance of the Capitol Police and the prompt+effective evacuation of the Congress.

This kind of thing has worked many times in the past. It's how Cromwell took over England, among others (long enough ago to hopefully not upset anybody's personal applecart)

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wisconsin’s continued embarrassment 

“Republican senator defends pro-Trump protesters who stormed Capitol, falsely blaming insurrection on ‘fake supporters’”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/republican-senator-defends-pro-trump-174237770.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Between Republican Senators blaming the insurrection on a false flag and our resident Fakebertarian saying that it was a nincomcoup, never meaning no harm, you'd think 8,000 people didn't storm the Capitol killing a police officer and injuring 138 more. There apparently wasn't PowerPoint presentation with the words Nancy, where are you? on it, so we're supposed say, aw shucks, it's all good.

Yeah, fuck that.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I didn't say they had a GOOD plan... OTOH the main thing that stopped them from taking the joint session hostage was the unexpected resistance of the Capitol Police and the prompt+effective evacuation of the Congress.

This kind of thing has worked many times in the past. It's how Cromwell took over England, among others (long enough ago to hopefully not upset anybody's personal applecart)

- DSK

They had a plan, which was delayed by the loyal Capitol cops - barely long enough to get the critters to shelter - but the insurrectionists didn't have a clue what to do next when they couldn't round up Nancy and Mike.  And apparently murder them.

Their orange messiah was sheltering with his diet coke and without him there, and no victims, they clearly had no leadership or plan to declare a new government or hold a pseudo-confirmation session

In other words, grievances, unrequited hatred and most of all stupidity ruled the day.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, hasher said:

Crazed individuals walked into a very stupid environment.  The elephants own this.  I hope that thing about memory holds true.

By and large I don't think they were Elephants. Elephants are loyal, majestic creatures, with a strong sense of family..... These were more likely a band of Lemmings that just blindly followed one another over the cliff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mrleft8 said:

By and large I don't think they were Elephants. Elephants are loyal, majestic creatures, with a strong sense of family..... These were more likely a band of Lemmings that just blindly followed one another over the cliff.

The party of little don don't deserve to be referred to as elephants.  The Democratic Party might be donkeys or a horse's ass.  But hay (or is it hey) we talk shit.  I am hoping we can focus for a few minutes until less die.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Nah, it was a nincomcoup. An actual insurrection would have to have some kind of plan that could lead to a desired political outcome but there was no such plan.

Oh yeah ??  They laughed at the Beer Hall Putsch too, for a while anyway. 

Just because an insurrection is incompetent does not mean it is not an insurrection. 

Actually, "Autogolpe" is a more accurate term - it points the finger at the Drumph, as well it should. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, badlatitude said:

But let's be clear, this was not a "riot" it was an insurrection.

And yet the daily attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland was just a "protest"

Burning down parts of major cities is a "mostly peaceful" protest (and when it was in DC, the mayor didn't want the national guard anywhere near it)

CHAZ? Hardly worth talking about.

Yet some windows get broken in the capital and it is the end of the world, especially for certain reps nowhere near it. And the same people that provided material support and cheered on everything all last summer have declared that the national guard and barbed wire are the best things ever (and the DC mayor has nothing negative to say)

 

  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And yet the daily attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland was just a "protest"

Burning down parts of major cities is a "mostly peaceful" protest (and when it was in DC, the mayor didn't want the national guard anywhere near it)

CHAZ? Hardly worth talking about.

Yet some windows get broken in the capital and it is the end of the world, especially for certain reps nowhere near it. And the same people that provided material support and cheered on everything all last summer have declared that the national guard and barbed wire are the best things ever (and the DC mayor has nothing negative to say)

 

Boo Hoo Hoo, you're going to drown from all the crocodile tears you shed daily for your imaginary butthurt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Between Republican Senators blaming the insurrection on a false flag and our resident Fakebertarian saying that it was a nincomcoup, never meaning no harm, you'd think 8,000 people didn't storm the Capitol killing a police officer and injuring 138 more. There apparently wasn't PowerPoint presentation with the words Nancy, where are you? on it, so we're supposed say, aw shucks, it's all good.

Yeah, fuck that.

Just good old GOPatriots showing their love of country by smearing shit on the Capitol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And yet the daily attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland was just a "protest"

Burning down parts of major cities is a "mostly peaceful" protest (and when it was in DC, the mayor didn't want the national guard anywhere near it)

CHAZ? Hardly worth talking about.

Yet some windows get broken in the capital and it is the end of the world, especially for certain reps nowhere near it. And the same people that provided material support and cheered on everything all last summer have declared that the national guard and barbed wire are the best things ever (and the DC mayor has nothing negative to say)

 

At work we use a risk assessment matrix to..er well assess risks to safety and measures to be taken

It's simple but effective,

www.researchgate.net/profile/Gulsum_Kaya2/publi...

I'm pretty sure this could be easily adapted to fit situations where and when "rallys"  are likely to turn  turn Catastrophic.

Taking in such factors as the profile of the speakers, the mood of the crowd etc.:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Left Shift said:
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I didn't say they had a GOOD plan... OTOH the main thing that stopped them from taking the joint session hostage was the unexpected resistance of the Capitol Police and the prompt+effective evacuation of the Congress.

This kind of thing has worked many times in the past. It's how Cromwell took over England, among others (long enough ago to hopefully not upset anybody's personal applecart)

 

They had a plan, which was delayed by the loyal Capitol cops - barely long enough to get the critters to shelter - but the insurrectionists didn't have a clue what to do next when they couldn't round up Nancy and Mike.  And apparently murder them.

Their orange messiah was sheltering with his diet coke and without him there, and no victims, they clearly had no leadership or plan to declare a new government or hold a pseudo-confirmation session

In other words, grievances, unrequited hatred and most of all stupidity ruled the day.

Disagree.

Their plan was to force Congress to toss out the Electoral College votes and declare Donald J. Trump to be the lawfully wedded President. Murdering Pence and Pelosi and probably AOC and few others the RWNJ spew machine love to hate would have just been the convincer. And red meat for the meat head followers.

Their fallback plan was to grab the paperwork for the Electoral College votes, preferably the votes themselves and the certification letters, and either destroy them or demand Congress declare them to be fake or some such. There's a fair amount of video of some of them hunting for the electoral college votes, they knew what the courier's containers looked like (inside knowledge).

Last, failing all that, they hoped to create enough violence and fear, and also hoped they would be joined by riots in other major cities, that Trump could declare martial law and cancel Biden's inauguration.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

And yet the daily attacks on the federal courthouse in Portland was just a "protest"

Burning down parts of major cities is a "mostly peaceful" protest (and when it was in DC, the mayor didn't want the national guard anywhere near it)

CHAZ? Hardly worth talking about.

Yet some windows get broken in the capital and it is the end of the world, especially for certain reps nowhere near it. And the same people that provided material support and cheered on everything all last summer have declared that the national guard and barbed wire are the best things ever (and the DC mayor has nothing negative to say)

 

Again? Really?

The Portland protests did not aim to disrupt an election nor to overthrow a government. The federal courthouse was for the most part empty, not in the midst of making official the results of the election. Shitstain's open encouragement of hostility towards the protesters and the fact that he sent in his troops exacerbated the situation. In any case, it wasn't insurrection.

Arson fires are not peaceful protest. Nobody has ever said that they were. (When were there protesters burning down major parts of DC?) They were the acts of criminals, not protesters. And even at that they didn't amount to insurrection.

CHAZ? Yeah, hardly worth talking about (I live in Seattle. The hubbub was overrated). It could have been much, much worse had the feds gotten involved. CHAZ did not seek to overturn any elections nor government (it did seek to make changes to local government--do you vote in Seattle? Do you even have a right to complain about any of this?) and so did not amount to insurrection.

The attack on the Capital was motivated by an intent to disrupt the official business of government in making official the results of the presidential election. Insurrectionists were openly searching for and calling for the assassinations of what they viewed as unsupportive members of Congress and installing a non-elected government. Stupid is not a defense to insurrection any more than any other crime. Nor is it an excuse for your bullshit, Troll.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Boo Hoo Hoo, you're going to drown from all the crocodile tears you shed daily for your imaginary butthurt.

What, can't come up with a good reply unless it involves a cut-n-paste? Oh well, guess I will just have to wait and see what (D) talking point you post next.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

What, can't come up with a good reply unless it involves a cut-n-paste? Oh well, guess I will just have to wait and see what (D) talking point you post next.

 

How’s this for a talking point?
 

You’re a Moran.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

The Portland protests did not aim to disrupt an election nor to overthrow a government.

I guess nightly riots for months is acceptable then. Well, until just after the election, anyway. Funny how that works.

4 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

The federal courthouse was for the most part empty,

So it is ok? How about when they moved on and went after precinct stations or private homes?

6 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

Do you even have a right to complain about any of this?) and so did not amount to insurrection.

Ahh, the old "do you live here?". I guess since you don't live in DC, you don't get to comment on anything there, right?

8 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

Insurrectionists were openly searching for and calling for the assassinations of what they viewed as unsupportive members of Congress and installing a non-elected government.

And yet it amounted to some broken windows, and a police shooting. Funny how the lapdog (D) press had to walk back most of their claims from that day.

Not quite the bricks, fireworks, and lasers that went on for months in portland.

13 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

They were the acts of criminals, not protesters.

And yet (D) politicians felt it was acceptable enough to provide material support for "mostly peaceful" protestors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bpm57 said:

I guess nightly riots for months is acceptable then. Well, until just after the election, anyway. Funny how that works. No objection to protests here. Before or after the election.

So it is ok? How about when they moved on and went after precinct stations or private homes? Are we moving on from Portland now? How does any of this have to do with insurrection? Violence is unacceptable. Period.

Ahh, the old "do you live here?". I guess since you don't live in DC, you don't get to comment on anything there, right? I get to comment about the insurrection in DC because it's the seat of the US Government, and I live in the US. It's not a local issue.

And yet it amounted to some broken windows, and a police shooting. Funny how the lapdog (D) press had to walk back most of their claims from that day. Stupid is still not a defense to your trolling. Tell the families of the dead police, the dead insurrectionists, and all those injured that it amounts to some broken windows (and your added police shooting).

Not quite the bricks, fireworks, and lasers that went on for months in portland. Sharks with Lasers?

And yet (D) politicians felt it was acceptable enough to provide material support for "mostly peaceful" protestors. Material support? You really don't know what you're talking about.

I note that you don't suggest that any of your examples amount to insurrection. You simply pooh pooh the insurrection as something akin to adolescent mischief while attempting to make false equivalents.

buttplug57's idea of "it amounted to some broken windows":

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bpm57 said:
36 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:

Insurrectionists were openly searching for and calling for the assassinations of what they viewed as unsupportive members of Congress and installing a non-elected government.

And yet it amounted to some broken windows, and a police shooting. Funny how the lapdog (D) press had to walk back most of their claims from that day.

??

What claims have been walked back?

If anything, the picture of what happened Jan. 6th has gotten more severe.

I guess pretending the rioters didn't kill a cop and try to kill... as in, hospitalized with severe injuries... is a standard RWNJ talking point? Seems like I've heard that before, somewhere

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Disagree.

Their plan was to force Congress to toss out the Electoral College votes and declare Donald J. Trump to be the lawfully wedded President. Murdering Pence and Pelosi and probably AOC and few others the RWNJ spew machine love to hate would have just been the convincer. And red meat for the meat head followers.

Their fallback plan was to grab the paperwork for the Electoral College votes, preferably the votes themselves and the certification letters, and either destroy them or demand Congress declare them to be fake or some such. There's a fair amount of video of some of them hunting for the electoral college votes, they knew what the courier's containers looked like (inside knowledge).

Last, failing all that, they hoped to create enough violence and fear, and also hoped they would be joined by riots in other major cities, that Trump could declare martial law and cancel Biden's inauguration.

- DSK

Regrettably, as it points out the depth of the problem, that you may have a better understanding than me of what the organizer's intent was.  Fortunately they failed.  Like many other's their stupidity, their fervent support of the mad mango and their blindness to reality led them to overestimate what following they really had. 

Especially to your point about the absence of any simultaneous "organic" demonstrations elsewhere.  For that to have happened, they either had to have pre-organized those demonstrations - and they obviously didn't have the capacity for that - or managed to hold on to the Capitol for many hours if not days.  Which was also not going to happen without (a clearly pusillanimous) orange-zilla marching in front of them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I didn't say they had a GOOD plan... OTOH the main thing that stopped them from taking the joint session hostage was the unexpected resistance of the Capitol Police and the prompt+effective evacuation of the Congress.

Well, that and not knowing that you bring your guns to an insurrection.

13 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Their plan was to force Congress to toss out the Electoral College votes and declare Donald J. Trump to be the lawfully wedded President. Murdering Pence and Pelosi and probably AOC and few others the RWNJ spew machine love to hate would have just been the convincer. And red meat for the meat head followers.

Their fallback plan was to grab the paperwork for the Electoral College votes, preferably the votes themselves and the certification letters, and either destroy them or demand Congress declare them to be fake or some such. There's a fair amount of video of some of them hunting for the electoral college votes, they knew what the courier's containers looked like (inside knowledge).

Last, failing all that, they hoped to create enough violence and fear, and also hoped they would be joined by riots in other major cities, that Trump could declare martial law and cancel Biden's inauguration.

Dumb fucks don't understand the nature of government. Taking hostages or trying (without guns) to kill Trump opponents like Rep Massie, who was armed, was not going to lead to another Trump administration. Nor would taking the paperwork. As for the final fallback, the nincomcoup didn't give me any urge to get a battlefield .22 out of the safe, let alone any more appropriate militia weapons that I may have never mentioned in public. If it had, murdering a bunch of congresscritters and Pence would have been a convincer all right, convincing me to shoot nincomcoupers.

In a nutshell, the many people, many of them TeamR people, who understood that Trump lost and Biden won were simply not going away nor changing our minds because of a violent attempt to reverse that result.

They did make such an attempt and delayed the process by a few hours, killed one cop and injured many others and, well, look at where it has gotten them over in the storming the capitol thread. They didn't have popular support and didn't have a plan that could lead to the desired outcome. They had a stupid plan that was bound to fail, and did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A question waiting to be asked, why was preparation for THIS protest significantly different than preparation for previous protests? It's been reported (can't find the cite right now) that the Capitol police normally plan for days, if not weeks, before a protest but didn't this time. Also, there WAS an internal intelligence report that this protest could get out of hand, why the lack of planning?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

A question waiting to be asked, why was preparation for THIS protest significantly different than preparation for previous protests? It's been reported (can't find the cite right now) that the Capitol police normally plan for days, if not weeks, before a protest but didn't this time. Also, there WAS an internal intelligence report that this protest could get out of hand, why the lack of planning?

Good question.

How many people in the loop are Trumpettes?

 

42 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Well, that and not knowing that you bring your guns to an insurrection.

...

Lots of reports of their being armed. If they had pipe bombs why would they not have had guns? Is there some kind of rule against it?

I thought the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to overthrow a gov't that gets all try annualical or something. Like trying to give you a Democrat President when you don't want one.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Just because an insurrection is incompetent does not mean it is not an insurrection. 

Actually, "Autogolpe" is a more accurate term - it points the finger at the Drumph, as well it should.

It means it's a nincomcoup, which is a kind of insurrection or coup. A failing kind.

If Trump had followed through and participated in the storming of the capitol, your term would be more applicable. He didn't, though he did incite the nincomcoup, as mentioned earlier.

On 1/29/2021 at 7:54 PM, Pedagogical Tom said:

The incitement to nincomcoup began on Twitter, not Facebook, when Trump invited supporters for a "wild" demonstration to occur Jan 6.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:
50 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Well, that and not knowing that you bring your guns to an insurrection.

...

Lots of reports of their being armed. If they had pipe bombs why would they not have had guns? Is there some kind of rule against it?

I thought the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to overthrow a gov't that gets all try annualical or something. Like trying to give you a Democrat President when you don't want one.

Yes, DC has lots of rules against guns. There's a whole thread about them.

If they had guns, they sure were careful with them and reluctant to actually use them, which is why one person was shot.

There were/are several purposes for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. One of them being to fight FOR the government if needed. Fighting against the government if needed is another. Self defense is another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

There were/are several purposes for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. One of them being to fight FOR the government if needed. Fighting against the government if needed is another. Self defense is another.

Three "purposes," and each idea has fundamental problems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Good question.

How many people in the loop are Trumpettes?

 

Lots of reports of their being armed. If they had pipe bombs why would they not have had guns? Is there some kind of rule against it?

I thought the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to overthrow a gov't that gets all try annualical or something. Like trying to give you a Democrat President when you don't want one.

- DSK

Knowing that Trump and his Ettes in power are hard wired for revenge and retribution, I think a more important factor is how fearful were the decision makers of executive fallout and to what extent did it influence their decision making?

As for the 2nd, the whole "Insurrectionist Theory" is a product of Carter and LaPierre's takeover of the NRA.  I spent some time looking for contemporary defense of Shay's and Whiskey Rebellions and, with the exception of TJ, can't find any. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Yes, DC has lots of rules against guns. There's a whole thread about them.

If they had guns, they sure were careful with them and reluctant to actually use them, which is why one person was shot.

There were/are several purposes for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. One of them being to fight FOR the government if needed. Fighting against the government if needed is another. Self defense is another.

Guns are a major problem in the USA.  A higher level of regulation would certainly begin to address the issues that firearms pose in our society.  https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/firearms/fastfact.html

People who think that citizens can over throw the government by force lack sound reasoning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Knowing that Trump and his Ettes in power are hard wired for revenge and retribution, I think a more important factor is how fearful were the decision makers of executive fallout and to what extent did it influence their decision making?

As for the 2nd, the whole "Insurrectionist Theory" is a product of Carter and LaPierre's takeover of the NRA.  I spent some time looking for contemporary defense of Shay's and Whiskey Rebellions and, with the exception of TJ, can't find any. 

Well, there's a reason they love their Trump. They were already hard-wired for pig-headed fixation on revenge and obstruction. Since the waning years of the Bush-Cheney Administration, when it was becoming more and more clear that not only had the Republican Party crashed the bus but were bragging about how hard they crashed it, the whole Republican focus has been on not governing but insisting that the whole reason for government was to fuck over Democrats (and minorities and poor people). And blaming the dadgum gubbermint for all the problems.

The chain of communications for the wind-up to the nincomcoup is going to take some investigation. There has been a few tidbits released, like Gen.Flynn's brother being involved in the Pentagon side, but if there are any cards in hand they are being kept close to the chest (a good idea but frustrating).

And yes, I mention "Insurrectionist Theory" once in a great while to mock it. Some years ago, in fact one of the first threads I participated in PA, coming from the sailing part over there, I gave a fairly long list of historical facts about the early years of the Constitution and the total  lack of factual evidence for the "we got the right of GUNZ so we can overthrow the gubbermint if'n we wants." Might have made a slight impression on Jeff but Tom and a few other ammosexuals (many have come and gone from this august forum) are completely immune to reality.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bus Driver said:

Wondering if anyone will ask Senator Hawley to explain his show of solidarity with the Insurrectionists?

210108-josh-hawley-raised-fist-capitol-riots-se-1123a_a8bd579b6365489a5ecb744a055f2758.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg

Such a breach of good manners would be an outrage. An outrageously outrageous outrage of outrageously outrageous proportion.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Just because you make up something about me doesn't make it reality.

Did you claim "the 2nd Amendment is so we can have guns to overthrow the government" (words to that effect, not an exact quote)? Do you still believe that?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did you claim "the 2nd Amendment is so we can have guns to overthrow the government" (words to that effect, not an exact quote)? Do you still believe that?

- DSK

I can't speak for any members of this board, but I have friends that believe absolutely that. I try to point out that the 2'nd describes a well-regulated militia and that a government entity - either State or Federal - must necessarily do the regulating. But they don't want to hear that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Remodel said:

I can't speak for any members of this board, but I have friends that believe absolutely that. I try to point out that the 2'nd describes a well-regulated militia and that a government entity - either State or Federal - must necessarily do the regulating. But they don't want to hear that.

Clearly, the NRA sees no need for the first half of that Amendment.  At least, in their HQ lobby -

nralobby.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:
1 hour ago, Remodel said:

I can't speak for any members of this board, but I have friends that believe absolutely that. I try to point out that the 2'nd describes a well-regulated militia and that a government entity - either State or Federal - must necessarily do the regulating. But they don't want to hear that.

Clearly, the NRA sees no need for the first half of that Amendment.  At least, in their HQ lobby -

 

Well, right.

Because if you only print the parts of the Constitution that say what you want, you can ignore the rest, right?

But the whole "we gots to have GUNZ because we gots the legal right to overthrow the gubbermint if'n it turns all tyrannical-like (which has come to mean Democratic)" is a very common belief among the real gun nutz.

It's like a unifying theme of murderous spite

I used to hunt and do a bit of competitive shooting, but the atmosphere at the gun clubs has become toxic. Seeing the dishonesty and hatred in discussion here has really turned my attitude around on this issue.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, right.

Because if you only print the parts of the Constitution that say what you want, you can ignore the rest, right?

But the whole "we gots to have GUNZ because we gots the legal right to overthrow the gubbermint if'n it turns all tyrannical-like (which has come to mean Democratic)" is a very common belief among the real gun nutz.

It's like a unifying theme of murderous spite

I used to hunt and do a bit of competitive shooting, but the atmosphere at the gun clubs has become toxic. Seeing the dishonesty and hatred in discussion here has really turned my attitude around on this issue.

- DSK

Notice how no one talks about Article I Section 7 "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..."?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, badlatitude said:
6 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Under reported is that the Sergeant at Arms lied in sworn testimony to Congress 

Very good point, it only gets better from here.

So, is this our first rat to be uncovered? Or is it one of those awkward mistakes? Let's make sure before we get out the pitchforks

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 7:52 AM, Bus Driver said:

Wondering if anyone will ask Senator Hawley to explain his show of solidarity with the Insurrectionists?

210108-josh-hawley-raised-fist-capitol-riots-se-1123a_a8bd579b6365489a5ecb744a055f2758.nbcnews-fp-1200-630.jpg

It's awkward, now that we know he was expressing solidarity with ANTIFA/BLM terrorists. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 7:55 AM, Sol Rosenberg said:

Such a breach of good manners would be an outrage. An outrageously outrageous outrage of outrageously outrageous proportion.  

A fucking, fucked-up bit of fuckery by a fucking fucked fucker, you mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Did you claim "the 2nd Amendment is so we can have guns to overthrow the government" (words to that effect, not an exact quote)? Do you still believe that?

- DSK

In this thread:

On 2/24/2021 at 8:26 AM, Pedagogical Tom said:

There were/are several purposes for protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. One of them being to fight FOR the government if needed. Fighting against the government if needed is another. Self defense is another.


Whose standing army do you think Publius was referencing when he said this?
 

Quote

 

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Clearly, the NRA sees no need for the first half of that Amendment.  At least, in their HQ lobby -

nralobby.jpg

Do you see a need for it? Related question: which would be a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR 15 or Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

Notice how no one talks about Article I Section 7 "To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia..."?

That might be because your partial quote is from Section 8, not 7. It says:
 

Quote

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

So the militia might suppress insurrections, or, if needed, nincomcoups, but might also challenge the standing army to prevent tyranny, as I said above.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2021 at 6:33 AM, learningJ24 said:

Knowing that Trump and his Ettes in power are hard wired for revenge and retribution, I think a more important factor is how fearful were the decision makers of executive fallout and to what extent did it influence their decision making?

As for the 2nd, the whole "Insurrectionist Theory" is a product of Carter and LaPierre's takeover of the NRA.  I spent some time looking for contemporary defense of Shay's and Whiskey Rebellions and, with the exception of TJ, can't find any. 

An honest search for the justification of insurrectionist theory will lead an honest man to Sanford Levinson. He is a well-spoken liberal of sorts, but is selective in his presentations.. (And so is reason.com.) 

Quote

The Gun Rights Rhetoric That Helped Seed the Insurrectionist Mindset (thetrace.org)

(Olivia Li, a journalist from The Trace)  It seems like the insurrectionists at the Capitol this week really believed they were standing up to government oppression. The language of insurgency and insurrection is used a lot in extreme pro-gun circles. Can you explain what their thinking is? 

(Darrel Miller, on Sanford Levinson's theory) There’s a theory of the Second Amendment called the insurrectionist theory. According to it, the Second Amendment preserves civilians’ right to bear arms so that they can take up arms against a tyrannical government, should the need arise. 

(…)

 The insurrectionist theory wasn’t part of modern legal discourse until the 1970s, at the earliest.

What happened in the 1970s? 

That was when the National Rifle Association went from being a sportsman’s organization to a very strong and inflexible gun-rights organization. They began to see any kind of regulation of firearms as one step toward widespread confiscation. And in order to support that set of arguments, the NRA argued [that] a disarmed populace can’t defend itself from tyranny. 

Do you see any connection between the ideology of the insurrectionist theory and the mentality of the mob at the Capitol this week? 

We have to remember that this is happening on the heels of the FBI discovering a plot by Michigan militia members to storm the Michigan Capitol building and kidnap and kill political officials in the state. I saw some reports that certain people were in D.C. to find Mike Pence, to force him to do what the Constitution does not permit, which is to just throw out electoral votes. They were prepared to make him do that under duress. It doesn’t seem that far from the spirit of storming Lansing to storming the nation’s Capitol to get your political end accomplished.

You pointed out four years ago that the problem with the insurrectionist theory is that “there is always someone who thinks that tyranny is in the present.” And I think, in the minds of the Trump supporters at the Capitol this week, they thought tyranny was in the present. They really felt they had already exhausted all other legal, peaceful avenues to try to get the electoral result they wanted.

I’m sure that’s how they think of it, too. Which is why this is such an explosive theory of constitutional rights. There’s always somebody who is going to mistake legitimate government for tyrannical government. 

Insurrectionist theory seems difficult to square with a core element of a democracy, which is that we all agree to resolve disputes nonviolently.

Right. If someone says, “I want to take this gun into a courtroom because I want to show the judge how he should rule,” well, that goes against the very idea that we have a court system that adjudicates disputes under the imprimatur of law in a process that everyone agrees with.

 

 

(…) It’s one thing if everyone leaves their guns at home, and you just have an armed populace. It’s another thing if people think, “It is my right to take these arms and overawe the political actors and political process.” That’s why the normalization of public arms at political events is hazardous. If we have a scenario in the future where the people who mobilize with guns have a bigger voice than the ones who respect a peaceful political process, then we are at the end of American democracy.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Do you see a need for it? Related question: which would be a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR 15 or Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

Clearly, the FF felt a need for the first half of the 2A.  That's why they wrote it.  Unless, you think they were just putting packing material around the important point.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Clearly, the FF felt a need for the first half of the 2A.  That's why they wrote it.  Unless, you think they were just putting packing material around the important point.

And they wrote it in addition to Article 1 Section 7 that give Congress the power to regulate the militias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2021 at 11:22 AM, Ishmael said:

I see that the concept of "truth" is escaping a lot of these people.

It's too closely associated with "facts" - which have a well known lefty bias.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bus Driver said:
10 hours ago, Pedagogical Tom said:

Do you see a need for it? Related question: which would be a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR 15 or Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

Clearly, the FF felt a need for the first half of the 2A.  That's why they wrote it.  Unless, you think they were just putting packing material around the important point.

No, I think it's obviously needed, since we have a political party bent on banning the weapons it indicates should be most protected. But you didn't answer the question: which would be a more appropriate militia weapon, an AR 15 or Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites