Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

This is another example how even basic facts are being contested. How a false reality is attempted to be created. It's the "Who do you believe? Me or your lying eyes?"

 

Not really, it is two sides arguing over the semantics of offering or suggesting or ordering. One side posts people saying troops were offered (10,000 or 20,000 or something like that). The other side says no troops were ordered. Back and forth. The Trumpers never address the non-ordering of troops. The Democrats never address the offering of troops. It is all political word games. If they were serious, both would address the actual words being used by the other side. It isn't hard to see if you oppose both of them.

 

What you are saying here is not true. Meadows claims Trump provided a DIRECT ORDER, which is false. The Jan6 report addresses the claim of the 'offer' or 'suggestion,' if you will, stating that witnesses claimed Trump floated the idea of deploying 10k National Guards to protect him and his supporters. This isn't Democrats versus the other side playing with semantics but a false claim by Trump and his surrogates, directly addressed by the Jan6 report.


https://www.justsecurity.org/93316/...f-trump-order-for-10000-guard-on-january-6th/

Former President Donald Trump and his loyalists have long claimed that he “ordered” the National Guard to be ready for deployment on Jan. 6, 2021. “As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense,” Mark Meadows, Trump’s White House Chief of Staff, claimed during a Fox News interview just one month after the attack. “That was a direct order from President Trump,” Meadows said. The implication was clear: President Trump did not deserve blame for the violence that unfolded at the U.S. Capitol because he wanted the National Guard to keep the peace.

There’s just one problem: The claim is not true.

The House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol thoroughly investigated this issue — questioning multiple witnesses about it and reviewing countless documents. The committee could not find any evidence to support Meadows’ claim. Indeed, Trump’s Acting Secretary of Defense at the time, Chris Miller, directly refuted it in his testimony under oath– explaining that the president did not issue any such order.

In its final report, the committee summarized the testimony of witnesses who claimed that Trump had floated the idea of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen — mainly to protect him and his supporters as they marched together to the U.S. Capitol. While Trump wanted to “walk with the people,” he did not end up doing so. And, as the committee explained in the executive summary to its final report, the investigation uncovered “no evidence” that “President Trump gave an order to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th.”

 

As a simplification, there are two contrasting realities among those who reject well-established facts: For many MAGA supporters, alternative facts have become their reality. For many ordinary people, a deep distrust in institutions and authority figures is now their reality.

This mindset essentially boils down to 'I can only trust those on my side or information that aligns with my perspective.' Any facts that contradict this worldview are easily dismissed because 'I can't trust the news, judges, government, organizations, [insert authority here].' This deep-rooted mistrust permeates society today, for good reasons.

But much more concerning are those who have complete faith in sources that regularly disseminate lies, such as social media accounts and individuals with a history of lies (such as Trump, James O'Keefe, and Project Veritas). Just as there is asymmetric outrage that I mentioned in the other thread, it showcases an asymmetric trust - an amazing willingness to believe a tweet or partisan voice over established institutions and evidence-based information.

 

I don't even understand the public relations value of this argument. I'm supposed to believe Trump was concerned about the public's safety on Jan 6 and thought to deploy 10,000 National Guards and either (a) he didn't follow through or (b) he was overruled. I'm not sure which is the worse look.

But maga arguments about the supposed deployment are taking advantage of the passage of time and fading memories. If everyone will remember with me, Trump had over-reached with deployments of law enforcement earlier during the George Floyd protests, and the memory of him tear-gassing protesters in DC so he could do a photo-op in front of a church was still heavy. There was also genuine concern that if there was a large Guard presence, Trump could leverage it to engineer some kind of coup -- in hindsight, a well-grounded fear since that's what he had tried to do after all. Who knows what J6 might have looked like with Guardsmen present. DC has no governor, so Trump would have more direct control. He could have quite "reasonably" garrisoned the Capitol building to protect Congress from rioters, and then used that occupation there ostensibly for Congress' protection to logistically prevent them from certifying Biden's election. While it is unfortunate that Capitol Police and DC Police lost control of the situation, I don't at all regret that National Guardsmen weren't there.

 

As another poster noted the actual facts don't show that troops were ordered and the "offer" was Trump thinking about protecting himself and not the Capitol. This isn't a matter of semantics.

 

Also to reiterate again, since we keep on having to remind people.

When violence did break out at the Capitol Trump refused to respond to pleas for help from Congressional leaders of both parties and even his VP for hours. He ignored request from his Chief of Staff and even his own daughter for hours. Whether Trump had "offered" to help before Jan. 6. On Jan. 6 he not only did nothing to help for hours he even made an inflammatory tweet targeting his own VP.

 

Dude forget offering help. According to Mark meadows he sat in the oval office PRAISING the rioters and telling his aides that the rioters had more courage than mike pence. He actively cheered them on.

@Commodore is a dipshit liar

 

Sure, that's the narrative you're supposed to buy into. It's a shame your brain functions as expected.

 

Except there are explicitly videos of them talking about offers or suggestions and responses to those videos denying orders. That someone else made a false claim of an order to the January 6th committee or on Fox News more than 3 years ago does not negate the fact that right now they are talking about how there were offers or suggestions and the response is to deny that there were orders. In fact, in your very post you are talking about how there were no orders, and not addressing the claims that there were offers or suggestions. You are literally engaging in exactly what I was talking about.

If one of the Trumpers came in here and responded to you with proof of offers or suggestions, it would make the picture complete.

 

But the fact remains Trump never ordered thousands of national guard. He didn't ask for permission to provide the national guard for the capitol building or congress ever. He didn't ever put in the order. Neither Nancy Pelosi, the mayor of DC nor anyone else in authority was ever presented that from Trump. His actions and intent have been consistent and clear. They weren't to protect the VP, capitol building, congress or anyone else. Trump suggested and carried out actions and lack of actions that maybe the VP deserved it.

 

And here it is again. You guys are doing a perfect job of illustrating my point.

 

What point?
That Trump had “offered” troops to protect the Capitol? The idea of an “offer” was already addressed in @Amiga’s post.
“Trump had floated the idea of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen — mainly to protect him and his supporters as they marched together to the U.S. Capitol. “

 

No. I don't care if he offered troops or not or why. The point is that people respond to the discussion with post after post about how no troops were ordered when I never even said troops were ordered. I didn't even say troops were offered. I said when people even mention troops being offered or suggested, Democrats respond that no troops were ordered. See above posts to see exactly that happen.

 

It was addressed in the final report. Did you not read that part? Maybe you did and are now rejecting that it's addressing it. In that case, I can't help you.

"In its final report, the committee summarized the testimony of witnesses who claimed that Trump had floated the idea of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen — mainly to protect him and his supporters as they marched together to the U.S. Capitol."

Why don't you go read it here: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/GPO-J6-REPORT/

 

I don't know if you aren't reading what you are quoting or what. I am not talking about the January 6th committee. I don't care whether or not Trump offered or suggested or "floated the idea" of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen. I am talking about the current discourse. In discussions occurring right now, even in this very thread, people ignore what the people talking to them are actually saying and respond with non-responsive talking points. That a report written over a year ago "summarized that witnesses claimed Trump floated the idea of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen - mainly to protect him and his supporters as they marched together to the U.S. Capitol" has nothing to do with the responses here.

 

National guard stories don't change the fact that a sociopathic lying loser of an ex President, who couldn't accept defeat, spewed out his lies, planned his coup, and incited insurrectionists to storm the Capitol. Then he just watched with glee like the sick Traitor he is.

 

One of trump's patriots, soon to be hostage, unfairly held for "touching a table".