Nancy Pelosi is accused of having rejected National Guard protection for the Capitol in the days preceding Jan. 6, when there was anticipation of mob violence likely to happen. Meaning she is partly to blame for what happened, because the lack of adequate security is largely the cause of what happened.
So, why is this not part of the congressional investigation of the event? Why are these charges not presented, by witnesses, and why is Pelosi not summoned to be a witness and answer these charges?
Why does the investigation by Congress have to be limited only to charges against Trump and his cohorts? Why does the investigation have to be limited so as to be used only as a partisan attack against Trump and Republicans?
Why can't there be a neutral non-partisan investigation which would expose ALL those who are to blame for what happened?
Well, a 2 minute google search demonstrates that this claim is false:
Their claims amounted to an audacious attempt to rewrite the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries.
www.nytimes.com
No, the New York Times is not a legitimate source for resolving this. Especially since the article is not available to anyone unless they first subscribe to the NYT. You have to at least cite a source which we're all allowed to read.
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.
"google search"? What could not be debunked with a "google search"? The moon landing, climate change -- name your conspiracy. Evolution?
Obviously every claim by either side is condemned by the other as "false" and is debunked by something published somewhere which "demonstrates that this claim is false." Certainly this is so for all claims about Biden or Trump, Russia or China, about vaccinations and climate change, anything about the economy, about taxes, about racism, about any historical events, anything in science, anything where there's disagreement.
Using the debunked-by-google-search standard, nothing whatever should be investigated.
Well, with respect, you're just being lazy. When someone says "just google it"; that means that there are abundant sources for you to get information on the topic. You don't like NY Times? Fine. I did a quick 45 second check and found that the AP (linked below); Wall Street Journal (right wing); USA today (moderate); Washington Post (liens left) and etc all have stories on this issue.
No they don't, not stories about efforts made BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security, in anticipation of riots to happen later.
She's not in charge of the capital police. She's not in charge of their board. She didn't appoint any members of their board.
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.
Without searching exhaustively it's clear that the issue was raised BEFORE Jan. 6, and the need for extra security was dismissed, according to many sources. Here's one:
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
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").
The blame toward Pelosi is not that she was in charge of the National Guard or had official power over it or appointed its officials. The claim is that she made no request, and also that the issue had been raised and was rejected, e.g., by Paul Irving (who probably received that instruction from someone), noted above. We're talking about PRIOR to Jan. 6, when there were warnings and the issue of extra security was raised.
Why is a RED source automatically or "obviously false"? (and thus not to be investigated)
I'm not against a "red source". But produce it.
Sean Hannity (radio show) said Pelosi rejected an effort to request additional security (i.e., an effort made BEFORE Jan. 6 and so ignored by all your Google "abundant sources" above). And if Thom Hartmann accuses Republican leaders of something similar, that too ought to be investigated. A (Left or Right) radio propagandist is a legitimate source, in this case, i.e., a source for the accusation, not the facts, which the investigation then has to determine.
Why are you afraid of it being investigated?
If your only argument is that some Republican leader is also to blame, that's no reason to ignore Pelosi's dereliction. Investigate and blame anyone who apparently is at fault. Why are you afraid of the ones accused being put on the witness stand and required to explain their failure to do their duty? Wasn't it their duty to request extra security for such an event? Wasn't it known in advance that trouble was likely? Are you saying it's against the rules for the Leader of the House to ever request extra security, when the need for it is obvious?
Where are the "google" sources which say the House Leader is prohibited from ever communicating to the Capitol Police about upcoming protests which are likely to result in violence? or taking any steps to request security? If this is not taken up, then the best explanation is that the Democrats in Congress wanted the riots to happen --- you can't say they didn't anticipate them.
I don't see the need to investigate it.
translation: You're afraid of what would be learned from such an investigation, because it would expose guilt by BLUE demagogues, not only RED. Of course you see no need to ever investigate any charge which would expose blame by a Blue crusader. We all understand your Blue bias. But there is evidence that the need for extra security was brought up, BEFORE Jan. 6, and for some reason it was dismissed, likely under influence from someone high in the power structure.
Obviously, neither do the republicans.
Maybe you're right that Mitch McConnell was also derelict and wants to stay away from it. What is needed is a real investigation of all those who should have taken steps to get added security BEFORE Jan. 6. It looks like certain effort to do that was dismissed, by someone. Who? E.g., who told Paul Irving (see above) to reject the National Guard presence or that the "optics" of it would be bad?
If they did see the need, I'm sure that they would have been careful to put a republican or two or more into the Congressional Special Committee in order to investigate this dastardly deed. They obviously did not.
You know their choices for that Committee were rejected by Pelosi -- You're not being serious. Unless you mean that both Republican leaders and also Pelosi and Schumer are trying to hide their blame for what happened, by rebuffing efforts BEFORE Jan. 6 to have extra security provided.
No one is answering why Pelosi didn't do anything BEFORE Jan. 6 to get extra security to prevent what happened, and whether she might have influenced those who dismissed the requests for it. And the best explanation, if there's no investigation, is that Pelosi and Schumer wanted the riots to happen, so they could capitalize on it later, to score political points. The truth is that Blue crusaders (and maybe some Red crusaders too) wanted the riots to happen, so fanatics on both sides could capitalize on it, as they are doing. And so actually no one -- Republican or Democrat leaders -- wanted the riots to be prevented, despite their false pretense of being shocked by the tragic event.
This is the best explanation why there was so little security preparation for the riots before they broke out on Jan. 6. By then it was far too late to prevent the damage. A true and full investigation would reveal that Pelosi and other Democrat leaders anticipated the rioting with glee and discouraged any advance preparation for it, because they knew they could exploit it later for political gain.
