As PolitiFact previously reported, what Trump described in February 2021 as a formal request for 10,000 troops was actually an offhand remark to then-acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller. Miller said he took it as hyperbole based on Trumpâs expectation for a massive crowd. Thereâs no evidence the remark was handled as an official authorization.
A Vanity Fair reporter who followed Miller during the last week of Trumpâs administration detailed the remark in a report. The report said that on Jan. 5, 2021, Miller and his chief of staff Kash Patel were meeting with Trump about an issue related to Iran. (A Defense Department inspector generalâs reportappeared to place the meeting on Jan. 3.)
The Vanity Fair report said the conversation suddenly "switched gears":
"The president, Miller recalled, asked how many troops the Pentagon planned to turn out the following day. "Weâre like, âWeâre going to provide any National Guard support that the District requests,â" Miller responded. "And (Trump) goes, âYouâre going to need 10,000 people.â No, Iâm not talking bullshit. He said that. And weâre like, âMaybe. But you know, someoneâs going to have to ask for it.â" At that point Miller remembered the president telling him, "âYou do what you need to do. You do what you need to do.â He said, âYouâre going to need 10,000.â Thatâs what he said. Swear to God."
Thereâs still no record of any such authorization being made, or of Pelosi standing in the way. The D.C. National Guard reports "solely to the president of the United States," per its website.
"This is not true," Pelosiâs deputy chief of staff, Drew Hammill, told PolitiFact June 10. "The Speaker of the House doesnât have the power to do this. No request was made for the National Guard before Jan. 6."
"No congressional official, or body, has the authority to activate the National Guard to the U.S. Capitol. Only the president," added Jane. L Campbell, president and CEO of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society. "If the president calls the National Guard to the U.S. Capitol, no congressional official has the authority to decline its service."
Look if Pelosi supposedly dropped the ball... or others in the chain did... I'm all for holding them accountable (haven't some of them already left/resigned i.e. Capitol Chief of Police & Assistant Chief of Police) but lets be real here... the true crux of the issue is what were the actions, decisions and events leading us to a point where the National Guard would even need to be considered to be deployed and engaged.
I'm looking for the source of the problem not the ancillary fallout caused by the problem that would not even exist if not for the problem in the first place. You Kurt, are looking for anything that would distract from that.
Donald Trump is Jesus Christ; that's his position. Donald Trump is the hill upon which he has chosen to die, he will never surrender the absurdity of his position.
Yes you did and I read it before my reply. I have always heard the number was 20k until now. In my reply I was just mentioning what I have seen personally. A first hand accounting by someone who was present. Obviously this requires further investigation as accounts have varied. Will the committee go there ? Hard to say. If true, it would be somewhat exculpatory and therefore undesirable towards the goal of this committee.
Look if Pelosi supposedly dropped the ball... or others in the chain did... I'm all for holding them accountable (haven't some of them already left/resigned i.e. Capitol Chief of Police & Assistant Chief of Police) but lets be real here... the true crux of the issue is what were the actions, decisions and events leading us to a point where the National Guard would even need to be considered to be deployed and engaged.
I'm looking for the source of the problem not the ancillary fallout caused by the problem that would not even exist if not for the problem in the first place. You Kurt, are looking for anything that would distract from that.
I believe I had linked that article below. Kurt may not have read it all - or the sources. Odd how the alleged number was 10K and turned into 20K.
Yes you did and I read it before my reply. I have always heard the number was 20k until now. In my reply I was just mentioning what I have seen personally. A first hand accounting by someone who was present. Obviously this requires further investigation as accounts have varied. Will the committee go there ? Hard to say. If true, it would be somewhat exculpatory and therefore undesirable towards the goal of this committee.
So in this scenario Trump is like an arsonist with a conscience who wanted to try and make sure there were enough responders around to put out the conflagration he planned on starting.
So let's just say Kurt's right, and that Trump did in some way authorize the NG. Ignoring all of the reasons one might do that when the shit hit the fan, did Donnie say "what the hell happened to my 20,000 National Guard troops?"
He did nothing.
There were no troops. There was no provision of support. But to people like Kurt who want to focus on all of the procedural failures instead of the most obvious (Trump doesn't lie about the election and tells them to go home at the first sight of violence), this sort of bullshit provides just enough "whataboutism" cover to ignore addressing the real issues.
The difference between Trump and the arsonist, is that a great many arsonists set the blaze so they can participate in putting out the fire. Donnie wanted to add underbrush and accelerants.
The night before last I saw Kash Patel state on live TV that he was present at a meeting with Trump for an unrelated matter with his boss Gen Miller, as noted in your link and that Trump did in fact authorize 20,000 NG for the event. That authorization went to the DOD. Patel has already testified to the committee behind closed doors. As have the Secret Service agents we are presently talking about. Hmmm, eh ?
And just because there is no evidence (so far) doesn't mean it did not happen. Evidently the committee is ignoring the security failures as part of their investigation is my understanding and that Pelosi (and others) are refusing to supply communication records between herself and the security team for the House relating to activities on and around January 6.
So in this scenario Trump is like an arsonist with a conscience who wanted to try and make sure there were enough responders around to put out the conflagration he planned on starting.
Your statement is highly illuminating in that I guess not having evidence (so far) of the election being stolen from Trump doesn't mean that didn't happen either huh?
No evidence Pelosi ârejectedâ Trumpâs authorization for â20,000 National Guardâ before Jan. 6 attack
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
There is no record of former President Donald Trump officially authorizing 20,000 National Guard troops for the U.S. Capitol ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.
There is no evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied such an authorization, and experts said she doesnât have the authority to do so in the first place.
A Vanity Fair report said Trump made a passing remark to his acting defense secretary about potentially needing 10,000 National Guard troops, not 20,000. But thereâs no evidence the comment was treated as a formal authorization.
... Several days before the "insurrection" Trump formally authorized 20,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for security purposes for the event. Since Trump was the mastermind and organizer of this insurrection, why would he authorize 20,000 presumably armed troops to prevent his insurrection from happening ? It doesn't pass the sniff test.
The night before last I saw Kash Patel state on live TV that he was present at a meeting with Trump for an unrelated matter with his boss Gen Miller, as noted in your link and that Trump did in fact authorize 20,000 NG for the event. That authorization went to the DOD. Patel has already testified to the committee behind closed doors. As have the Secret Service agents we are presently talking about. Hmmm, eh ?
And just because there is no evidence (so far) doesn't mean it did not happen. Evidently the committee is ignoring the security failures as part of their investigation is my understanding and that Pelosi (and others) are refusing to supply communication records between herself and the security team for the House relating to activities on and around January 6.
Not sure why you are repeating much of this in response to my post. I do not see it as inconsistent with what I stated.
I meant no disrespect towards you. But your post, while quite informative, did not touch on the human fallibility of eyewitness testimony. People see, interpret and remember things differently from each other.
The police deal with this all the time when taking eyewitness statements. Akira Kurosawa made a classic film based on this phenomenon. IIRC the Secret Service members were all over the place when recounting what they saw during the JFK assassination.
Again, all three staffers were stressed. That affects memory. We went through this with Christine Blasey Ford. The three staffers are not f*cking video cameras nor are they AFAIK trained in remembering discussions and events.
Also, The meeting between the three staffers took place quite a while ago; memories can change over time.
In short, there were bound to be inconsistencies and differences in the memories of the three staffers. Any good trial lawyer would emphasize in court that these are natural occurrences.
If Trump supporters want to fixate on whether Trump lunged/grabbed, though, they've lost the discussion.
What is finally happening is that all of the bat-shit crazy ideas and actions that Trump took or his closest supporters initiated on his behalf are finally being put into a context to confirm that Trump knew he lost the election but choose to rip America apart by propagating an unfounded dangerous lie. We are reminded of the extent of Trump flaunting his blatant disregard for the Constitution and leaning in on only one mission: to remain in power at-all-costs, with no-holds-barred and f*ck everyone and everything that stands in his way.
We finally get to see that all these attempts to keep Trump in power weren't these wild one-off ideas but were part of a doomed, illegal, coordinated, plan of attack that fell by the wayside one by one until his final hurrah to try and incite an insurrection to prevent Biden's certification.
Should Trump go to jail? ...absolutely!.. Will he?... never! An therein lies the real problem because if Trump can walk away from the sh*t pile he created then even having a special panel expose all of this means nothing and doesn't serve as much of a deterrent for another kook to come along who thinks they can improve on Trump's playbook.
Instead of questioning why he did nothing for hours, the true believers blame Pelosi, Schumer, and those who truly hate America. It's amazing how logic and common sense can be neutralized by 2 hours of prime time.
...
Several days before the "insurrection" Trump formally authorized 20,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for security purposes for the event. Since Trump was the mastermind and organizer of this insurrection, why would he authorize 20,000 presumably armed troops to prevent his insurrection from happening ? It doesn't pass the sniff test.
Anyway, I'm waiting for Steeler to pop in and opine.
A few points: That some of Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was hearsay is of little or no moment.
A) Because this is not a court proceeding, the rules of evidence do not apply. Even in court, there are exceptions to the inadmissibility of hearsay.
. That Hutchinson’s sworn testimony regarding Trump grabbing the steering wheel and lunging at a Secret Service agent may be contradicted by Secret Service agents could be of moment. As a threshold matter, to be of moment, those contradicting her testimony would have to do so under oath. It could be damaging because this testimony of hers has been treated as a bombshell. It was high drama. Curious to me is why the committee would have solicited this specific testimony if it had any notion that it might be contradicted by Engel and Ornato. From a legal standpoint, it was only necessary to establish that Trump demanded to be taken to the Capitol and was angry when he was unable to do so because of security assessments of the Secret Service. No one is disputing that. The rest was high drama, but its significance really was in establishing that Trump was/is a lunatic. It may prove to be a step too far — and, really, unnecessary. I think of when Chris Darden, part of the prosecution team, had OJ try on the gloves. If the gloves had fit, it would have been of limited evidentiary value. That they did not fit was a disaster. Darden was trying for a theatrical moment in front of the jury. It backfired. You never want to ask a question on cross examination if you do not know the answer.
B) This is not as damaging as that, but it could hurt in the court of public opinion and it certainly opened the door for Trump supporters and others to attack her and her testimony, On the one hand, it was the specifics Hutchinson offered that were presented in what appeared to be a calm, confident manner that bolstered her credibility. A contradiction on these high-drama specifics concomitantly could detract from that credibility. My view, though, is that her overall credibility is such that it would take more than this contradiction — if it does occur — to render her an unreliable, untrustworthy witness.
. Based just on the testimony she gave at the televised hearing, she came across as a great witness. Whether Trump grabbed the wheel and physically touched a Secret Service agent is more of a sideshow. As stated, what is of legal importance is that Trump demanded to go to the Capitol to join the mob and was angry that he was prevented from doing so. My understanding is that neither Engel or Ornato dispute that. I also am curious as to whether Ornato will deny that he informed Hutchinson of that, in the presence of Engel. She had to have been informed by someone, so I doubt she will be contradicted on that. . That hearing was incredibly damning for Trump. I do not think anything will change that.
Thanks.
A) While not a court proceeding, they are having people physically arrested for what the committee determines to be criminal activity. Navarro being the latest. He is formally and legally challenging his subpoena and otherwise cooperating will all law enforcement to the best of my knowledge.
B) I agree. This committee already has two strikes against it with Trump supporters. 1) It is completely composed of members who agree that Trump is guilty before they started and that they are just looking for confirmation of their well established bias. 2) There is no rebuttal or cross examination of witnesses. Which with this committee is impossible because they all have the same POV. "Witnesses" are just trotted out and present their story and it is taken as gospel. Plays well to the base at least.
Moving on to the most recent development Trump's WH counsel Cipollone being subpoenaed. This is being portrayed as an act of desperation by the committee. As I understand things just as his attorney, the matter of the attorney / client privilege comes into play. Is not that inviolate ? And then there is clearly the matter of legitimate Executive Privilege involved as well. As I understand that, it prevents Cipollone for even showing up without actual permission from Trump. What is your take on this latest development ? Lastly, to anyone ...
Several days before the "insurrection" Trump formally authorized 20,000 National Guard troops to be deployed for security purposes for the event. Since Trump was the mastermind and organizer of this insurrection, why would he authorize 20,000 presumably armed troops to prevent his insurrection from happening ? It doesn't pass the sniff test.
As I stated in a previous post, Hutchinson was recounting Ornato's recounting of Engel's ordeal with Trump in the vehicle.
Jan. 6 was a very stressful day for all three staffers. It's quite possible that Ornato made mistakes when recounting what Engels said and that Hutchinson made mistakes when recalling Ornato's statement and gestures. Engel was apparently so stressed that he couldn't talk to Hutchinson. That meeting sounds like it had a lot of potential for a "broken telephone" moment.
The question about lunging and assaulting are not terribly relevant. There are no reports that Engel and Ornato disagree with the major point of Hutchinson's relay of Ornato's recounting: that Trump wanted and demanded to join the protesters at the Capitol.
Trump knew the protesters were armed and dangerous. He knew they would try to break into the Capitol and disrupt the vote. He very likely knew that Pence was in serious physical danger. He still wanted to go.
Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post, author of two books on the Trump administration and a history of the Secret Service, Zero Fail, said: âSources tell me agents dispute that Donald Trump assaulted any agent or tried to grab the steering wheel on Jan 6. They agree Trump was furious about not being able to go to Capitol with his supporters. They offer to testify under oath.â
Earlier this month, Politico reported that Engel had given private testimony to the January 6 committee.
Hutchinson likely knew that Engel and Ornato would testify; she might have known before her public appearance that Engel already had. It's highly doubtful she would lie about Trump lunging when she knew that both men would dispute any lie she told.
The Guardian also reports in the above-linked piece that Hutchinson would face felony charges if she were caught lying in her testimony. Another great reason to tell the truth.
Kurt may not have read it all - or the sources. Odd how the alleged number was 10K and turned into 20K. 
