Televised Jan 6 "Attack" hearings

alnav said:
This tread made me curious so I looked up how Capitol Hill security oversight works.
Overall security and direction of the Capitol Police is the responsibility of the Capitol Police Board. The members of this board on 6 Jan:
House Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Speaker of the House, confirmed by the House)
Senate Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Majority Leader, confirmed by the Senate)
Architect of the Capitol (appointed by President Trump, confirmed by the Congress)
Chief of the Capitol Police (non-voting)
So, if responsibility for the security lapse rests with the appointing official, it's spread between 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat.
The testimony in earlier hearings about the National Guard was that the police thought it might be needed and good to have them on-site but that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate didn't concur but and asked that they be in hot standby.
The National Guard deployment itself is complicated by the special status of the District of Columbia. Usually state governors have the ability to directly call up the Guard. But, in the case of the District, the Secretary of Defense had to approve. The testimony was that this took quite a bit of time after it became obvious that there was a real mess that required help. The Guardsmen themselves were pretty much locked and loaded and sitting on transport waiting for the word to deploy.
Click to expand...
Thank you
 
alnav said:
This thread made me curious so I looked up how Capitol Hill security oversight works.
Overall security and direction of the Capitol Police is the responsibility of the Capitol Police Board. The members of this board on 6 Jan:
House Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Speaker of the House, confirmed by the House)
Senate Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Majority Leader, confirmed by the Senate)
Architect of the Capitol (appointed by President Trump, confirmed by the Congress)
Chief of the Capitol Police (non-voting)
So, if responsibility for the security lapse rests with the appointing official, it's spread between 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat.
The testimony in earlier hearings about the National Guard was that the police thought it might be needed and good to have them on-site but that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate didn't concur but and asked that they be in hot standby.
The National Guard deployment itself is complicated by the special status of the District of Columbia. Usually state governors have the ability to directly call up the Guard. But, in the case of the District, the Secretary of Defense had to approve. The testimony was that this took quite a bit of time after it became obvious that there was a real mess that required help. The Guardsmen themselves were pretty much locked and loaded and sitting on transport waiting for the word to deploy.
Click to expand...
OllieC said:
Thank you
Click to expand...
You're welcome.
 
alnav said:
This tread made me curious so I looked up how Capitol Hill security oversight works.
Overall security and direction of the Capitol Police is the responsibility of the Capitol Police Board. The members of this board on 6 Jan:
House Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Speaker of the House, confirmed by the House)
Senate Sergeant at Arms (appointed by the Majority Leader, confirmed by the Senate)
Architect of the Capitol (appointed by President Trump, confirmed by the Congress)
Chief of the Capitol Police (non-voting)
So, if responsibility for the security lapse rests with the appointing official, it's spread between 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat.
The testimony in earlier hearings about the National Guard was that the police thought it might be needed and good to have them on-site but that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate didn't concur but and asked that they be in hot standby.
The National Guard deployment itself is complicated by the special status of the District of Columbia. Usually state governors have the ability to directly call up the Guard. But, in the case of the District, the Secretary of Defense had to approve. The testimony was that this took quite a bit of time after it became obvious that there was a real mess that required help. The Guardsmen themselves were pretty much locked and loaded and sitting on transport waiting for the word to deploy.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day these Capital police are influenced by who? The house and senate leaders. Then we have an over simplification that overlooks the fact that the uniparty wanted Trump gone, that includes cocaine Mitch.

Seems like the anti-Trump crowd got the end result they wanted and are now playing it up. There is a fight for the republican party and this is what the business as usual career politicians from the republicans wanted too, to try and stem the changes the conservative voters want.
 
If Trump ran under a third party who here would vote for him?
 
The question that needs to be asked and investigated is...,

What role did the FBI play in the events LEADING UP TO and including the Jan 6 event?

As it turns out, the “plot” to kidnap Gov Wittmer was concocted and executed by mostly FBI agents. In other words most of the “kidnappers” were FBI agents.

So I want to know who, what, when and where the FBI involvement was/is?

BTW that black 4-door sedan parked across the street is now on my side of the street. :eek:
 
jmauld said:
If Trump ran under a third party who here would vote for him?
Click to expand...

Why? And give it to the dems without cheating? Pretty sure that was rumored earlier this year and IIRC, he said no - just get the RINOs out of the Grand Ole Party...
 
I’d be interested in seeing him run for a third party, and think he could actually pull it off. The Republican Party has lost its way.
 
jmauld said:
I’d be interested in seeing him run for a third party, and think he could actually pull it off. The Republican Party has lost its way.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. But so many are old time straight ticket GOP, I'd hate for him to split the ticket and just hand it to the dems.
 
A legitimate third party would take voters from both dems and reps
 
jmauld said:
A legitimate third party would take voters from both dems and reps
Click to expand...

Hard to say as so many are brainwashed by the MSM...and how do you get a true # of dem voters if they have cheated for years...as it is starting to look like?
 
firecadet613 said:
Hard to say as so many are brainwashed by the MSM...and how do you get a true # of dem voters if they have cheated for years...as it is starting to look like?
Click to expand...
How soon we forget that Ross Perot handed the White House keys to Bill “Slick-Willy” Clinton.
 
Blueone said:
He wouldn’t ….and if he did …couldn’t win…or do anything if he did
Click to expand...
He basically spent the first two years of his term as an independent without any support from the republican led house. That’s the reason they lost the house in 18. Paul Ryan was egotistical RINO, and many in their caucus failed to support the guy.
 
kvduff said:
He basically spent the first two years of his term as an independent without any support from the republican led house. That’s the reason they lost the house in 18. Paul Ryan was egotistical RINO, and many in their caucus failed to support the guy.
Click to expand...

The reason Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house is because Paul Ryan and nearly 40 other representatives retired rather than do what they had promised for decades to do.
 
Blueone said:
I have to admit I liked Ryan.... amazing how easily these bullshitters can dupe you
Click to expand...

I remember when he came on and I was so excited that Republicans were going to have a young good looking leader. He said all the right things and yet we see how it turned out.
 
The Republicans need a younger, somewhat moderate and pragmatic candidate that can attract the majority of voters from both sides of the isle. I think a lot of Dems held their noses when they pulled the lever for Biden-Harris and there are a lot of Republicans that were just tired of Trump's personality issues. There is no way in hell Trump will win in 2024 and the more the party allows him to be the face of the party the more fractured that party will become. He has too much of an ego to step aside though so I fear we will have at least 8 years of Democrats in the WH.
 
Carpediem44DB said:
The Republicans need a younger, somewhat moderate and pragmatic candidate that can attract the majority of voters from both sides of the isle. I think a lot of Dems held their noses when they pulled the lever for Biden-Harris and there are a lot of Republicans that were just tired of Trump's personality issues. There is no way in hell Trump will win in 2024 and the more the party allows him to be the face of the party the more fractured that party will become. He has too much of an ego to step aside though so I fear we will have at least 8 years of Democrats in the WH.
Click to expand...

I just cannot agree with any of this analysis. The wishy-washy part leftist Republican does not inspire the base, and the base is where the votes are at not in pilfering votes from the other side. Ronald Reagan prove that by running as an unabashed conservative, and Newt Gingrich proved it again.

As for Trump, he won the last election and I fully expect that if he runs again he will win the next one. If one does not want Trump to be the face of the party then someone needs to step forward and represent the ideals of America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,350
Messages
1,430,884
Members
61,197
Latest member
Larry Hogg
Back
Top