• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Merry Normalization of Lies Day

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

In practice, a wild claim from a red source is almost certainly garbage and not worth investigating.
translation: no claim should ever be investigated, as long as anyone doesn't like the claim (thinks it's "garbage").

By this standard we should have no investigation into climate change, which millions of Americans think is "garbage."


Real stuff makes it to the mainstream media.

Like the Jussie Smollett story, the hate crime in Chicago which the mainstream media promoted for several days.

However, the mainstream media, not just red sources, did report that someone higher-up turned down requests for more security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like the following is from both NPR and the Washington Post:

www.npr.org

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots

Steven Sund contradicts reports that help was not requested, saying security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed calls for assistance ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol.
www.npr.org
www.npr.org
The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

It says "no one at the Capitol" requested extra security. It also says there was resistance to "declaring an emergency ahead of the protests" or having "a National Guard presence" prior to the demonstration:

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.
It says extra security was rejected because of their concern with the "optics" of such emergency preparations.

The above is only one source among many, where mention is made of warnings BEFORE Jan. 6 and possible rioting which might happen, and why such warnings were rejected, and an apparent order handed down from on high that such steps would communicate some kind of undesirable symbolism ("optics").
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
He said that they wanted the National Guard prepped for the protests.

The US Military refused to get involved during the riot. You'll notice few significant words there.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.
OK we agree.

Trump should be arrested and put on trial for refusing the subpoena to appear before Congress to answer the above and other charges, and sentenced to prison for that crime (and others too who refused to appear).

And Pelosi should be subpoenaed to appear and explain why the requests for additional security were not made. And whether she is the one who gave the order to not have extra security, because someone did give that order. If not her, then who?

So we agree -- ALL those who are to blame should be investigated and punished according to their degree of negligence or dereliction, and not exclusively Reds only, for partisan political gain, as Democrats are doing right now.

The facts show that the lack of security is the most conspicuous wrong which occurred here, because all the reports show that the riot was predicted in advance and that much greater police presence would be needed to prevent it.
 

Lumpenproletariat

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2014
Messages
2,185
Location
Santa Mira
Basic Beliefs
Utilitarian
The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.
That not what you said originally. You said "Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection". All responses were based upon that erroneous statement. Moving goalposts. Not cool.
Maybe an additional "goalpost" was added, although they were both there together. But the original goalpost is still the same. The accusation was made against her, and it's not debunked by anyone, and everyone is circling the wagons around her to shield her from ever having to be answerable for her irresponsibility.

All the following relates to the original accusation, that Pelosi rejected requests for extra security, not just that she failed to make such a request, but that some such request had been made, and she said "NO!" to it because the "optics" would look bad -- (from the earlier NPR item):

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? It seems it's because he blamed "security officials at the House and Senate" for the mistakes, or failure to have better security. I.e., he indirectly blamed Pelosi (and maybe also McConnell).


Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

There are 2 characters here, Steven Sund and Paul Irving, who made a decision against additional security, BEFORE Jan. 6, and the only reason given is that someone was worried about the "optics" of having such added security. This was decided by someone, and yet everyone knew there would be riots if the additional security was not provided. Who instructed Paul Irving, House Sergeant-at-Arms, that extra security was undesirable because of the "optics"? That was probably Nancy Pelosi. Why shouldn't she have to answer this? Why shouldn't Irving be required to testify and answer it?

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? Probably because of his interview where he seems to shift responsibility for the bad decision to someone at the Capitol, i.e., to Paul Irving, and thus indirectly to Pelosi, who had everything to gain from a violent storming of the capitol, so her party could cash in on it for propaganda purposes, so hearings could be held for political gain and propaganda.

When you goad someone into committing a crime, you're partly to blame for the crime when they commit it. The decision to not have the extra security is a factor which decided whether the riots would happen, even a major cause of them. Probably a bigger factor than anything else. The fact that a protest demonstration was planned and would make a lot of noise is a lesser factor than the decision to have no extra security. Plus, to hold a noisy demonstration is not a crime.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,742
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.
No, the people who encouraged the rioters are also responsible. The people who refused to take action at the time of the riot are responsible. There is a big difference, a huge difference between Pelosi fucking up whilst believing in good faith (naively in my opinion) that MAGiots wouldn't resort to domestic terrorism and Trump inciting a mob and then cheering whilst watching it on TV. The way you are arguing suggests they are somehow equivalent.

In my opinion, Pelosi is a fucking naive idiot. She fucked up. Her decision to undermine security wasn't deliberate. Trump's actions were, and that is confirmed by his own fucking people. A mistake and a choice are not on equal footing. "Look what you made me do", is a perfect metaphor for how conservatives are now rationalizing Jan 6th. It's all Pelosi's fault because she didn't keep them in check.

The facts show that the lack of security is the most conspicuous wrong which occurred here

Nope. Not even by a long shot.
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I wonder why he's fixated on nancy Pelosi's actions and not the action of the Trump administration that blocked the National Guard and took over the authorization for their use.
OK we agree.

Trump should be arrested and put on trial for refusing the subpoena to appear before Congress to answer the above and other charges, and sentenced to prison for that crime (and others too who refused to appear).
Related to inciting a riot, both before and during.
And Pelosi should be subpoenaed to appear and explain why the requests for additional security were not made. And whether she is the one who gave the order to not have extra security, because someone did give that order. If not her, then who?
*sinking TItanic*

But who was in charge of the chair arrangements?!
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,327
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
In my opinion, Pelosi is a fucking naive idiot. She fucked up. Her decision to undermine security wasn't deliberate. Trump's actions were, and that is confirmed by his own fucking people.

Pelosi is many things, but naive idiot is not one of them.

I'm no mindreader. I can't say for sure what Pelosi was thinking.
But I know this.
There was a similar episode after the 2016 election. If you'll recall, the U.S. electorate voted for someone besides Trump then also. And patriotic Americans showed up to express themselves and denounce the undemocratic method of appointing a POTUS.

They were polite and peaceful. They dispersed when they'd had their say. They didn't undermine basic USA institutions with violence and lies. They didn't cause any death or destruction. They didn't shit on the floor or erect any gallows.

Apparently, Pelosi mistook the morals of rightist protesters for the morals of lefty protesters. Clearly, that was a mistake. Righty protesters demonstrated how much more violent and stupid and lawless than lefty protesters they are.

It's right there on the internet for anyone to see.
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,742
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Pelosi is many things, but naive idiot is not one of them.
After some thought I think you're right. An argument can be made that she is out of touch however. It's not a quality unique to her alone but that Hamilton pandering was absolute cringe. It would be like is an Australian politician sang, "I am, you are, we are Australian". I guess I was trying to meet Lumpenprolitariat half way when I should have said Pelosi's good faith decisions/errors of judgement contributed to about 0.5% of what happened on Jan 6th and the committee would do well to focus on the other 99.5% first.

Apparently, Pelosi mistook the morals of rightist protesters for the morals of lefty protesters. Clearly, that was a mistake. Righty protesters demonstrated how much more violent and stupid and lawless than lefty protesters they are.
That's what fucking baffles me. After driving into protesters, mailing pipe bombs and plans to kidnap Governors I am nonplussed when people still assume Republicans will err on the side of decency. And before the usual suspects start typing away at their keyboards with their usual whataboutisms, I'll point out that no elected so called leftist official openly embraces such extremist movements.
 

TomC

Celestial Highness
Joined
Oct 1, 2020
Messages
4,327
Location
Midwestern USA
Gender
Faggot
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic deist
After some thought I think you're right.

OMFG!
A woman claws her way up to the 3rd highest office in the USA.

And just now you have given it enough thought to realize that she isn't a naive idiot?

I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi is flattered that you have given her another thought.

Tom
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,742
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
After some thought I think you're right.

OMFG!
A woman claws her way up to the 3rd highest office in the USA.

And just now you have given it enough thought to realize that she isn't a naive idiot?

I'm sure that Nancy Pelosi is flattered that you have given her another thought.

Tom
Whether or not Nancy Pelosi is a naive idiot or whether her decisions with regards to security were acts of naive stupidity is a semantic rabbit hole I have no intention of diving into. Having said that, yes it was a cuntish thing I said. I won't repeat myself on why I said it in the first place.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Why should congress investigate obviously false claims?

translation: If it's from a Red source it's "obviously" and automatically false and unfit to be investigated. Only the Blue claims can be investigated, because "Truth" by definition is the Blue narrative, and "false" is the Red narrative. And "obviously" only Blue sources are acceptable for demonstrating what is true or false.

In practice, a wild claim from a red source is almost certainly garbage and not worth investigating.
translation: no claim should ever be investigated, as long as anyone doesn't like the claim (thinks it's "garbage").

By this standard we should have no investigation into climate change, which millions of Americans think is "garbage."


Real stuff makes it to the mainstream media.

Like the Jussie Smollett story, the hate crime in Chicago which the mainstream media promoted for several days.

However, the mainstream media, not just red sources, did report that someone higher-up turned down requests for more security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like the following is from both NPR and the Washington Post:

www.npr.org

Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots

Steven Sund contradicts reports that help was not requested, saying security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed calls for assistance ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol.
www.npr.org
www.npr.org
The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

It says "no one at the Capitol" requested extra security. It also says there was resistance to "declaring an emergency ahead of the protests" or having "a National Guard presence" prior to the demonstration:

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

Like Sund, Irving and Stenger have also since resigned their posts.
It says extra security was rejected because of their concern with the "optics" of such emergency preparations.

The above is only one source among many, where mention is made of warnings BEFORE Jan. 6 and possible rioting which might happen, and why such warnings were rejected, and an apparent order handed down from on high that such steps would communicate some kind of undesirable symbolism ("optics").
That's what Sund said a few days after the insurrection. This is what actually happened.


In the three days leading up to the insurrection, Capitol Police intelligence failed to predict the impending attack and downplayed the possibility of violence, according to the Associated Press, which reviewed Capitol Police documents. Despite warnings from multiple sources, the agency’s daily intelligence reports from Jan. 4, 5, and 6 classified the possibility of arrests and civil disobedience resulting from the Stop the Steal rally as “highly improbable.”

Those reports listed nearly two dozen other possible scenarios that would constitute a major disruption, although it said the possibility of each of those events occurring was classified as either “remote,” “highly improbable,” or “improbable.”
Although Capitol Police headquarters received that FBI intelligence report the night before the attack, leadership did not see it, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told the Senate during a February hearing. “I actually just in the last 24 hours was informed by the department that they had received that report,” Sund told senators.

During that same hearing, former House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving blamed federal intelligence, saying that the information Capitol Police used to create its reports did not “forecast a coordinated assault” on the Capitol.

Reacting to the news that Capitol Police leadership did not see the FBI report, Senate Homeland Security Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said to Sund, “That raises a big question. It does not get to operational command? How could that happen?”

“I agree that is something we need to look at,” Sund said.
Obviously Sund was covering his ass in his initial statements.
 

blastula

Contributor
Joined
Apr 14, 2006
Messages
8,031
Gender
Late for dinner
Basic Beliefs
Gnostic atheist
There's no way they should not have known, anybody could see the crazy public posts at The Donald.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
meanwhile shitting and pissing and breaking glass and stealing stuff in the hallowed halls
--not to mention dragging and flaunting, unopposed, the traitorous flag of the previous insurrection through those halls.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
meanwhile shitting and pissing and breaking glass and stealing stuff in the hallowed halls

In my opinion, Pelosi is a fucking naive idiot. She fucked up. Her decision to undermine security wasn't deliberate. Trump's actions were, and that is confirmed by his own fucking people.

Pelosi is many things, but naive idiot is not one of them.

I'm no mindreader. I can't say for sure what Pelosi was thinking.
But I know this.
There was a similar episode after the 2016 election. If you'll recall, the U.S. electorate voted for someone besides Trump then also. And patriotic Americans showed up to express themselves and denounce the undemocratic method of appointing a POTUS.

They were polite and peaceful. They dispersed when they'd had their say. They didn't undermine basic USA institutions with violence and lies. They didn't cause any death or destruction. They didn't shit on the floor or erect any gallows.

Apparently, Pelosi mistook the morals of rightist protesters for the morals of lefty protesters. Clearly, that was a mistake. Righty protesters demonstrated how much more violent and stupid and lawless than lefty protesters they are.

It's right there on the internet for anyone to see.
Tom
This seems accurate. Pelosi should testify to it before the committee--and Mitch McConnell as well, then leader of the Senate, he should testify too.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

An old video has surfaced of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul telling an auditorium of students that he would occasionally spread misinformation, calling it a "great tactic."

The clip, posted to Twitter by epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, shows the Kentucky senator speaking to students during a lecture at the University of Louisville's school of medicine in 2013.

The lecture was reported on at the time by The Atlantic, which detailed the context of the question. According to The Atlantic, Paul was asked by a student if he had "last-minute advice" for their exams the next day.

In response, Paul said that he "never, ever cheated" and did not condone the practice, but added: "But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."

Paul then described how he and some classmates would spread misinformation to students they viewed as competitors and send them down the wrong path during exam prep.
Such a nice upstanding man.

I'm still rooting for his neighbor.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist

An old video has surfaced of Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul telling an auditorium of students that he would occasionally spread misinformation, calling it a "great tactic."

The clip, posted to Twitter by epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, shows the Kentucky senator speaking to students during a lecture at the University of Louisville's school of medicine in 2013.

The lecture was reported on at the time by The Atlantic, which detailed the context of the question. According to The Atlantic, Paul was asked by a student if he had "last-minute advice" for their exams the next day.

In response, Paul said that he "never, ever cheated" and did not condone the practice, but added: "But I would sometimes spread misinformation. This is a great tactic. Misinformation can be very important."

Paul then described how he and some classmates would spread misinformation to students they viewed as competitors and send them down the wrong path during exam prep.
Such a nice upstanding man.

I'm still rooting for his neighbor.
On exams (not math or most science courses) where I had a choice of questions, I would pick ones that I thought my classmates would be less likely to pick. And whatever questions I wrote that required any complexity/ length of answer, I would try to include a relevant point or two that I though my classmates were likely to miss. This was an attempt, not to undermine them, but to make my answers stand out, and it worked. But unlike Rand Paul, I had faith in my ability to do well on exams (except for math).
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2006
Messages
22,444
Location
Far Western Mass
Gender
Here.
Basic Beliefs
I'm here...
This was an attempt, not to undermine them, but to make my answers stand out, and it worked.
11th grade, we wrote reports on the Civil War. Literally half the class wrote on the subjedct of slavery.
Most 9f the rest covered the 'brother against brother' aspect of the conflict.
I wrote about military developments from that war still in use. Like the tactics for river warfare being dusted off to make the Viet Nam riverboat playbook.
The teacher talked about my report to all his classes. Even the Health one he taught. Standing out does help.

Of course, the senator who feared too many peopld on Guam might make the island capsize also stood out. This is more of a Rand Paul effort at distinction....
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,413
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Is it me not wanting to recognize aging or is calling a 2013 video "old" seem inappropriate. I think "Rand Paul saying stupid shit in unearthed 2013 video" works for me. Old to me means a long time ago, like when he was actually in college.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
30,543
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,258
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
your entire post reads like an abusive partner telling their spouse, "look what you made me do". Pelosi showing bad judgement in giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt pales in comparison to what members of the Trump administration actually fucking did.
You're right. So then, what should happen, instead of what actually has been happening?

Trump and many of his cohorts should have been subpoenaed to testify, and refusing to show up they should have been arrested and convicted and imprisoned for this crime.

And Pelosi or others who failed to do their duty, a much lesser offense, should simply have been censured by the Congress and forced to resign in disgrace.

So all those blameworthy should be given their appropriate punishment.

Why do you want to absolve the Blues of any blame and insist that only Reds/Trumpists can ever be investigated for wrongdoing?


I have the controversial opinion that when a coup occurs, you hold the people who actually did shit accountable first.

Why doesn't that include those who chose not to provide extra security to prevent violence, when this was an obvious choice for them to make? Why are they not also accountable for their shit as much as those who caused the mob to show up?


Then you dive into the hindsight arguments.

ALL of this is "hindsight," including the investigation into who planned for the mob to be there or who "actually did shit" -- that too is all "hindsight."

ALL the wrongdoing which ended up causing the "coup" to become lawless should be investigated, all of which is "hindsight" regardless whether it's Reds/Trumpsters or some Democrats who are to blame for negligence. You can't separate supposed "hindsight arguments" as having less priority or to be excluded until later. Congress can take action to punish those who are responsible for the lack of security. These ones likely had a sinister motive of wanting the coup to become violent so it could be used for political gain.

You could claim we have no way to determine their motive. But at least they should have to resign, for their irresponsibility, as many cases are resolved by those guilty not being convicted but having to resign in disgrace.

It was known in advance, by all those in high position, that there would be riots unless extra security measures were taken. This fact was known, from all the evidence so far.


Like I said - "Look at what you made me do".

This cliché is meaningless. The rioters are not saying anything like this. The ones responsible for the chaos are all those who told them to commit violence or who neglected proper preparation for adequate security.

If "Look at what you made me do" means that no one is responsible for what happened other than the particular individuals who rioted, then you have to let off the hook Trump and anyone else not actually present with them and storming the capitol building. Because you're saying it's not Trump's fault, or anyone else's, that they decided to riot, but only the fault of those individual rioters, regardless of anything that provoked them.
Let's try to make this simple. Let's assume that Pelosi is responsible for capital security (there is no proof for this). Assuming this for fun: who would you hold responsible for a bank being robbed: the local police chief in charge of security; or the thieves?
As well, were the preparations for security less robust that for previous Congressional certification of elctoral college vote. If not, then why blame Pelosi at all.
 

jab

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
GTA Ontario
Basic Beliefs
non-militant atheist
The accusation against her is not about any of that. It's about what steps were or were not taken PRIOR to Jan. 6. She made no request for extra security prior to Jan. 6, as she should have, being the leader of the House. Perhaps a similar complaint could be made against Mitch McConnell -- he too should be subpoenaed and interrogated as to why he did not request extra security.
That not what you said originally. You said "Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection". All responses were based upon that erroneous statement. Moving goalposts. Not cool.
Maybe an additional "goalpost" was added, although they were both there together. But the original goalpost is still the same. The accusation was made against her, and it's not debunked by anyone, and everyone is circling the wagons around her to shield her from ever having to be answerable for her irresponsibility.

All the following relates to the original accusation, that Pelosi rejected requests for extra security, not just that she failed to make such a request, but that some such request had been made, and she said "NO!" to it because the "optics" would look bad -- (from the earlier NPR item):

The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? It seems it's because he blamed "security officials at the House and Senate" for the mistakes, or failure to have better security. I.e., he indirectly blamed Pelosi (and maybe also McConnell).


Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

There are 2 characters here, Steven Sund and Paul Irving, who made a decision against additional security, BEFORE Jan. 6, and the only reason given is that someone was worried about the "optics" of having such added security. This was decided by someone, and yet everyone knew there would be riots if the additional security was not provided. Who instructed Paul Irving, House Sergeant-at-Arms, that extra security was undesirable because of the "optics"? That was probably Nancy Pelosi. Why shouldn't she have to answer this? Why shouldn't Irving be required to testify and answer it?

Why did Pelosi demand Sund's resignation? Probably because of his interview where he seems to shift responsibility for the bad decision to someone at the Capitol, i.e., to Paul Irving, and thus indirectly to Pelosi, who had everything to gain from a violent storming of the capitol, so her party could cash in on it for propaganda purposes, so hearings could be held for political gain and propaganda.

When you goad someone into committing a crime, you're partly to blame for the crime when they commit it. The decision to not have the extra security is a factor which decided whether the riots would happen, even a major cause of them. Probably a bigger factor than anything else. The fact that a protest demonstration was planned and would make a lot of noise is a lesser factor than the decision to have no extra security. Plus, to hold a noisy demonstration is not a crime.
Yeah, the slut shouldn't have gone to the bar dressed all skimpy-like line on "goading"
 
Top Bottom