Homelander Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said: In alignment with the separation of powers, the office of the House speaker is accountable for providing security for the Capitol, not the President and the Executive branch. This has been noted and discussed on PPP already. So you're question is irrelevant. And do you remember who the Speaker was at the time of J6? The person in charge that rejected the offer to deploy the National Guard. The Speaker of the House does not have direct control over Capitol security or the National Guard. The Capitol Police are overseen by the Capitol Police Board, which includes the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol not the Speaker. The National Guard can only be deployed to the Capitol after a request from the Capitol Police Board and approval from the Department of Defense - which is part of the Executive Branch. So yes, the President and the Executive Branch do have a role in how and when the Guard is deployed. Which brings us to Christopher Miller, who was appointed Acting Secretary of Defense by Trump just days after the election. Miller was a yes man who placed restrictions that required high-level approval for the DC National Guard to respond with certain equipment or engage with crowds. On January 6, this translated into a delayed response - despite urgent calls for help. Miller later testified that he wanted to avoid a military “overreaction” due to the optics, but many see those decisions as part of why the Capitol was left vulnerable during the attack. If you don't like it - take it up with - 2 U.S. Code § 1901a and Article II, Section 2. Additionally, the Insurrection Act of 1807 provides statutory authority for the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress insurrections and enforce federal authority.
Homelander Posted 9 hours ago Posted 9 hours ago 2 hours ago, Doc said: Sorry but "he made me do it" has never been a legitimate excuse. It's even less applicable when "he" never said to do "it." \ If people interpreted what he said the wrong way, that's wholly on them. And I've said repeatedly that those who committed crimes that day were idiots who deserved to be punished. Those who entered through open doors, milled around peacefully and then left...do not. That’s a strawman. No one’s saying “he made me do it” is a legal defense (yet, several individuals who stormed the Capitol explicitly said in court that they believed they were acting on Donald Trump's instructions). This is about accountability for incitement and leadership, not absolving individual guilt. Trump spent months spreading lies about a stolen election, told supporters January 6 was their last chance to act, and then directed them to march to the Capitol. He knew some in the crowd were armed - he said so himself. According to testimony, he demanded the Secret Service “get rid of the mags” because “they’re not here to hurt me.” He didn’t care they were armed he needed them to rile up the crowd on his behalf. And while his allies were on stage calling for “trial by combat,” his base took the message literally. The Capitol was stormed within the hour. Pretending Trump was just misunderstood isn’t a defense. It’s denial.
4th&long Posted 6 hours ago Author Posted 6 hours ago 'Peak narcissism': Veterans blast Trump for 'hijacking' military holiday for his birthday https://flip.it/sXJO1-
Doc Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 4 hours ago, Homelander said: That’s a strawman. No one’s saying “he made me do it” is a legal defense (yet, several individuals who stormed the Capitol explicitly said in court that they believed they were acting on Donald Trump's instructions). This is about accountability for incitement and leadership, not absolving individual guilt. Trump spent months spreading lies about a stolen election, told supporters January 6 was their last chance to act, and then directed them to march to the Capitol. He knew some in the crowd were armed - he said so himself. According to testimony, he demanded the Secret Service “get rid of the mags” because “they’re not here to hurt me.” He didn’t care they were armed he needed them to rile up the crowd on his behalf. And while his allies were on stage calling for “trial by combat,” his base took the message literally. The Capitol was stormed within the hour. Pretending Trump was just misunderstood isn’t a defense. It’s denial. I never specified legal defense (even though it isn't). I said it's not a legitimate excuse period. And people tried to blame Trump for their bad actions, to get out of being punished? You don't say. And no one brandished any weapons, much less discharged them, at the Capitol. Why even bring that up?
Homelander Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 49 minutes ago, Doc said: I never specified legal defense (even though it isn't). I said it's not a legitimate excuse period. And people tried to blame Trump for their bad actions, to get out of being punished? You don't say. And no one brandished any weapons, much less discharged them, at the Capitol. Why even bring that up? This exchange started with you saying Trump didn’t lead a mob which totally ignores both his words and the timeline. He told a charged crowd - many of whom he knew were armed - to march to the Capitol and “fight like hell.” That’s not passive observation; that’s incitement. As for weapons, that claim is flat-out false. Multiple people were arrested with weapons ranging from stun guns and knives to firearms and bear spray. Capitol Police officers testified under oath about being attacked with flagpoles, metal pipes, and chemical sprays. One officer even described it as a “medieval battle.” We can debate motivations, but the facts are clear: there was a violent, armed assault on the Capitol and Trump lit the match.
Recommended Posts