Jan. 6 committee allegedly suppressed testimony showing Trump admin pushed for National Guard presen

Lawyer Robert Barnes was sitting with Trump's cabinet on J6. On a J7 podcast he said he thought there was probably a large FBI undercover presence at the Capitol on J6 and they wanted Trump supporters to go into the Capitol. Barnes said on J7 that the lack of security was very suspicious.

Instead of working with Russia to prevent terrorists from bringing radioactiveaterial into our cities our FBI/Deep State is entrapping Trump supporters. They'll be coming after us with increasingly sophisticated AI tech until we've had enough. Eventually there will be war

 

Indeed. Trump wanted the demonstration to be peaceful so badly that he tried to allow weapons in, saying (paraphrase) "They're not going to use them against us." Then he watched gleefully for over 3 hours while 100's of cops were beaten because....he wanted the demonstration to be peaceful.

 

Par for the course for the Democrats.

 

Interesting.

Has the FBI ever found the “pipe bomber”?

 

From the article the poster linked:
"Trump has long claimed that he requested the National Guard but that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., failed to act on the request. Amid and following the congressional committee’s investigation, media outlets such as the Washington Post "debunked" Trump’s comments, repeatedly awarding him "Four Pinocchios." The article did not dispute this.
Also from the article : ""President Trump had authority and responsibility to direct deployment of the National Guard in the District of Columbia, but never gave any order to deploy the National Guard on January 6th or on any other day. Nor did he instruct any Federal law enforcement agency to assist. Because the authority to deploy the National Guard had been delegated to the Department of Defense, the Secretary of Defense could, and ultimately did deploy the Guard," the report states. "
The big revelation seems that a staffer states he "overheard" Meadows conversation with the DC Mayor prior to Jan. 6th discussing the National Guard and she opted for nearly 400 guardsmen.

 

Although the subject matter is somewhat different I'm not sure that I would consider Tony Ornato the most credible source. Again not the same although in the end he could turn out to be as credible on the issue of deployment of national guard troops as the so called whistleblower was with respect to Joe Biden's receipt payments from Burisima.
US Secret Service assistant director leaves agency after aide’s explosive Jan. 6 testimony about him
Jan. 6 Witness Anthony Ornato Is at the Center of a Battle Over Credibility (Published 2022)
Trump’s defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6 | CNN Politics

 

Trump wanted them there to back his attempted coup...

 

So you are saying the story is bs? Just want u to be on record

 

Bingo.

If Trump was truly concerned about security, he would have cancelled that event or at least moved it to a more secure location.

Just use some basic common sense here. I know it’s so hard for some to employ critical thinking. The guy wanted to deploy 10,000 troops to protect Congress from… his own rally? Seriously? Same guy who asked for his crazed supporters to march right behind him? Same guy who sat and did nothing for *hours* as shit hit the fan, leaving Pence to eventually issue the order? He wanted those troops to prevent his own plans? Lol yeah right.

 

• There is no record of Trump officially authorizing National Guard troops for the U.S. Capitol ahead of the Jan. 6 attack.
  
  
• There is no evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi denied such an authorization, or spoke with Trump about it.... and experts said she doesn’t 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. There’s no evidence the comment was treated as a formal authorization and no paper trail for such an authorization.

MAGA continues to grasp at straws to protect the Rapist. Maybe the Hunter Biden whistleblower can provide us the evidence

 

Don't overestimate people's ability to be willfully dumb. This is the same crew who fell for

• Obama = Kenyan
• Hillary trafficking children from a basement in a pizza parlor w/o a basement
• Election was stolen
• Teachers are groomers
• College DEI programs are racist

Despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they must be right about some of these conspiracies. . .

 

So Trump says he offered the troops to Pelosi but she turned them down.
Ornato says he overheard Meadows asking the mayor if she needed troops but she said she didn't.
Those aren't the same stories, are they?

 

Snuck that 5th unrelated point in there nicely. I hate Trump and cannot believe the ridiculous conspiracies people buy into (you named 4 of them). But college DEI programs ARE racist. Perhaps not racist as originally intended, but in reality weaponized to mean "no white people", which is . . . racist.

 

10,000 is an absurd number to think was a realistic request. lol. 10,000.

 

Anyone who believes anything Trump says might want to talk to me about a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale at a reasonable price.

 

Eh. I think calling them “weaponized” against white people is a bit much. Maybe some crazed activists are actually anti-white but I don’t think that is the overall impetus.

Oddly, I believe one of the main lawsuits was won by Asian American students who have come to dominate Ivy admissions (and would be negatively impacted by efforts to diversify a class towards other races, including whites). Still, I wouldn’t say it’s exactly weaponized against Asian students as even as they were doing it, high numbers of Asian students were being admitted. I’m not sure an exact quota system is the way to go, but if the Ivy’s are like 40% Asian kids from CA I’m not sure preferring a diverse class from all over the country is “evil” of them. All the kids applying to a school like that are elite anyway. No such thing as perfectly fair admission unless you just 100% did it on test scores.

Additionally, I’m pretty sure all DEI isn’t just straight up affirmative action. Sometimes it’s outreach. Going into a community and educating about what opportunities are available to them. Maybe offering some guidance to the youth. I think this is critical in high poverty areas. Not only do I not think this aspect of DEI is evil, I think the efforts to stop this sort of outreach is evil.

 

You'd better duck....you just suggested that test scores would be "fair". How dare you! And I agree with you, guidance and outreach to educate about opportunities are very good things. But that's not what DEI has become in many cases, unfortunately.

 

It would be the most “fair” if we wanted absolutely zero subjectivity, but I think most see that as a stupid way to go. Don’t mistake that for me suggest any school should employ that model.

That’s putting aside that even test scores aren’t entirely fair, and not necessarily predictive. Two equally smart kids. One might have private tudoring specific to the test. One might not. Supposedly that difference is 100-150 pts on the SAT. At Harvard we are talking about kids who almost all have near perfect scores. So even the hypothetical “affirmative action” prospect would probably be like 1300 or 1400 on the SAT.

 

Yeah I remember how for weeks after Jan 6 stories kept cropping up about the 100's of cops that were beaten on msnbc and the NYT. Many of them even died of things like strokes and suicide weeks later.