Pelosi Took responsibility for Jan. 6th

[Luvnit2]

Why did the Jan. 6th committee omit this in their Hollywood production?

As time goes no, the real truth emerges. As time goes on the Jan. 6th committee only interest was to lay blame on Trump. Yet, he has never been charged with an insurrection 3+ years later by a blood thirsty party out to jail him. That tells us all we need to know, simply Trump is innocent of the charge by liberals.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unearthed-jan-6-clip-shows-pelosi-saying-i-take-responsibility-capitol-police-being-unprepared-mob

GOP releases Jan. 6 clip of Pelosi saying 'I take responsibility' as she discussed National Guard absence
'It's stupid that we should be in a situation like this,' Pelosi says in the video

A previously unreleased video taken on Jan. 6, 2021 shows then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying she takes "responsibility" for law enforcement's lack of preparedness when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol that day.

A tweet on X by a House Republican panel contains video that appears to show a frustrated Pelosi being evacuated from the Capitol complex and in intense conversation with Chief of Staff Terri McCullough about how the evacuation was conducted.

"We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there. And we should have," Pelosi says in the video, which was reviewed in its original form by Fox News Digital. "This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached…that, should we call the Capitol Police? I mean the National Guard? Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?"

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-11-2024, 09:14 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Why did the Jan. 6th committee omit this in their Hollywood production?

As time goes no, the real truth emerges. As time goes on the Jan. 6th committee only interest was to lay blame on Trump. Yet, he has never been charged with an insurrection 3+ years later by a blood thirsty party out to jail him. That tells us all we need to know, simply Trump is innocent of the charge by liberals.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/unearthed-jan-6-clip-shows-pelosi-saying-i-take-responsibility-capitol-police-being-unprepared-mob

GOP releases Jan. 6 clip of Pelosi saying 'I take responsibility' as she discussed National Guard absence
'It's stupid that we should be in a situation like this,' Pelosi says in the video

A previously unreleased video taken on Jan. 6, 2021 shows then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying she takes "responsibility" for law enforcement's lack of preparedness when a mob stormed the U.S. Capitol that day.

A tweet on X by a House Republican panel contains video that appears to show a frustrated Pelosi being evacuated from the Capitol complex and in intense conversation with Chief of Staff Terri McCullough about how the evacuation was conducted.

"We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there. And we should have," Pelosi says in the video, which was reviewed in its original form by Fox News Digital. "This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached…that, should we call the Capitol Police? I mean the National Guard? Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?"

Not a good luck for Nancy. Kudos to her for taking responsibility in the moment.

I am waiting for the mental gymnastic to start on the left...

[*pally*]

The respondibilty for Jan 6 falls on the sore loser who spent months LYING to his devoted followers about a rigged election just because he didn't win. Then the people he had told to "stand back and stand ready" jumped into action draggng those same devoted followers onto the floors of Congress.

Only 1 person had the authority to activate the National Guard for that day and that was Donald Trump. Everyone knows if Speaker Pelosi had ASKED him for the Guard he would have turned him down.

When will Republicans/Conservatives, the so-called "Party of Personal Repsonsibility" actually take some? It wasn't ANTIFA, it wasn't BLM, it wasnt the FBI who broke into the Capitol in order to stop the certification process. IT WAS MAGA egged on by Trump.

[NATI BENGALS]

Anybody with a brain who watched this play out on live tv in front of their face knows this was all Nancy's fault.

It was probably Nancy that smeared the poop on the walls of our Capitol.

[HarleyDog]

(06-12-2024, 08:52 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Anybody with a brain who watched this play out on live tv in front of their face knows this was all Nancy's fault.

It was probably Nancy that smeared the poop on the walls of our Capitol.

That's what Taco Bell and $10 pints of ice cream will do to ya.

[Arturo Bandini]

At least someone who does !

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-12-2024, 08:30 AM)pally Wrote: The respondibilty for Jan 6 falls on the sore loser who spent months LYING to his devoted followers about a rigged election just because he didn't win.  Then the people he had told to "stand back and stand ready" jumped into action draggng those same devoted followers onto the floors of Congress.

Only 1 person had the authority to activate the National Guard for that day and that was Donald Trump. Everyone knows if Speaker Pelosi had ASKED him for the Guard he would have turned him down.  

When will Republicans/Conservatives, the so-called "Party of Personal Repsonsibility" actually take some?  It wasn't ANTIFA, it wasn't BLM, it wasnt the FBI who broke into the Capitol in order to stop the certification process. IT WAS MAGA egged on by Trump.

She knew she was being recorded and thus earned her Oscar.

[*pally*]

MAGA likes to talk a big game burst the reality just like their “dear leader” they are amoral cowards. They refuse to take responsibility for anything, it is always someone else’s fault that they behave badly. Stay in the pack or the pack will eat you alive

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 08:04 AM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I am waiting for the mental gymnastic to start on the left...

Well, let's see. There's a president Trump who knew there's a crowd that is armed, dangerous and full of extremists, he knew because his secret service told him. Trump then told these fine people to go to Congress, having zero reason to believe that they will be decent and peaceful, since again, he knew they were armed and dangerous. After the inevitable then happened, Trump watched it unfold on TV for several hours. He could have ordered the national guard and chose not to. He could have ended it with a tweet and chose not to. Instead, he edged them on by insisting on twitter how Mike Pence lacked courage and failed him by not breaking his constitutional duty and, to Trump's great and visible ire, confirmed an election result that was found to be legit by all states and all courts that looked into it.

So of course the logical thing is to blame... Nancy Pelosi?

[HarleyDog]

(06-12-2024, 02:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, let's see. There's a president Trump who knew there's a crowd that is armed, dangerous and full of extremists, he knew because his secret service told him. Trump then told these fine people to go to Congress, having zero reason to believe that they will be decent and peaceful, since again, he knew they were armed and dangerous. After the inevitable then happened, Trump watched it unfold on TV for several hours. He could have ordered the national guard and chose not to. He could have ended it with a tweet and chose not to. Instead, he edged them on by insisting on twitter how Mike Pence lacked courage and failed him by not breaking his constitutional duty and, to Trump's great and visible ire, confirmed an election result that was found to be legit by all states and all courts that looked into it.

So of course the logical thing is to blame... Nancy Pelosi?

He requested on 1-3 for the guard to be present. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/

Quote:President Donald Trump wanted National Guard troops in Washington to protect his supporters at a Jan. 6 rally that ended with them attacking the U.S. Capitol, leaving five dead, Trump's former Pentagon chief testified on Wednesday.

Former Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told a House of Representatives panel that he spoke with Trump on Jan. 3, three days before the now-former president's fiery speech that preceded the violence and led to his second impeachment.


According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.
Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."


Miller made the remarks during a contentious hearing held by the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating security failures in the days leading to and during the riot.
Representative Carolyn Maloney, the Democrat who chairs the committee, demanded answers from Miller on why National Guard troops did not arrive until hours after the building was overrun.
Miller testified that the U.S. military was deliberately restrained that day when Trump's rally turned into an assault by hundreds of his followers that left five dead, including a Capitol Police officer.

Miller testified that he was concerned in the days before Jan. 6 that sending National Guard troops to Washington would fan fears of a military coup or that Trump advisers were advocating martial law.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 02:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, let's see. There's a president Trump who knew there's a crowd that is armed, dangerous and full of extremists, he knew because his secret service told him. Trump then told these fine people to go to Congress, having zero reason to believe that they will be decent and peaceful, since again, he knew they were armed and dangerous. After the inevitable then happened, Trump watched it unfold on TV for several hours. He could have ordered the national guard and chose not to. He could have ended it with a tweet and chose not to. Instead, he edged them on by insisting on twitter how Mike Pence lacked courage and failed him by not breaking his constitutional duty and, to Trump's great and visible ire, confirmed an election result that was found to be legit by all states and all courts that looked into it.

So of course the logical thing is to blame... Nancy Pelosi?

People are responsible for their own actions.

It was a mostly peaceful protest in which some bad actors made bad decisions, some good people got swept up in the moment and made stupid decisions, and the vast majority peacefully protested. More and more video is coming out, exposing some of the false narratives, which is interesting to see.

Nancy admitted what she did, which may warrant looking into.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 02:55 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: He requested on 1-3 for the guard to be present. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/congresswoman-says-trump-administration-botched-capitol-riot-preparations-2021-05-12/

So... he requested the national guard to protect his supporters, that imho is quite different from requesting the national guard to protect the Capitol from his supporters.

Imho it is fairly obvious that his request to have the national guard for that intended purpose was not followed through, they are not here to march alongside Trump fans. But anyway, he still could have ordered them on the day the riots actually took place, but his interest seemed gone after it weas clear they would oppose his folks instead of supporting them.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 02:59 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: People are responsible for their own actions.

Sure. But then again, if I tell a very aggressive and violent person that he was wronged by a certain entity and he should go do something about it, and that person then goes and acts out violently against said entity, there is a certain co-responsibilty on my part as well.

(06-12-2024, 02:59 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: It was a mostly peaceful protest in which some bad actors made bad decisions, some good people got swept up in the moment and made stupid decisions, and the vast majority peacefully protested. More and more video is coming out, exposing some of the false narratives, which is interesting to see.

Yeah we will not see eye to eye on this one. As soon as the masses break into the capitol and fights break out with police, any good person should leave. Or when there's gallows erected for Mike Pence. Staying after witnessing that can no longer be labeled as being peaceful. That's of course just my take, but yours seems to downplay what actually took place, which in my book was a violent attack on democracy.

(06-12-2024, 02:59 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Nancy admitted what she did, which may warrant looking into.

Sure, look into it. Imho, as of now it seems the maximum guilt she might bear is that she underestimated the danger. Which, well, many people did. As Americans say (and I don't know what that even means), hindsight is 20/20.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 03:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: Sure. But then again, if I tell a very aggressive and violent person that he was wronged by a certain entity and he should go do something about it, and that person then goes and acts out violently against said entity, there is a certain co-responsibilty on my part as well.



Yeah we will not see eye to eye on this one. As soon as the masses break into the capitol and fights break out with police, any good person should leave. Or when there's gallows erected for Mike Pence. Staying after witnessing that can no longer be labeled as being peaceful. That's of course just my take, but yours seems to downplay what actually took place, which in my book was a violent attack on democracy.



Sure, look into it. Imho, as of now it seems the maximum guilt she might bear is that she underestimated the danger. Which, well, many people did. As Americans say (and I don't know what that even means), hindsight is 20/20.

That first one is a strawman. The crowd was very aggressive, nor violent as a whole.

I disagree with the second part, as reporters stayed to document when things were violent, and the violence was not all over the Capitol, is was in different points. But we can agree to disagree, as I think we see the event differently.

I do not care about charging anything, just noting accountability and moving on. There may be Republicans who feel differently, but I am not on that boat. I am curious if anything comes of it though, as things have been a sideshow lately in government.

[HarleyDog]

(06-12-2024, 03:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: So... he requested the national guard to protect his supporters, that imho is quite different from requesting the national guard to protect the Capitol from his supporters.

Imho it is fairly obvious that his request to have the national guard for that intended purpose was not followed through, they are not here to march alongside Trump fans. But anyway, he still could have ordered them on the day the riots actually took place, but his interest seemed gone after it weas clear they would oppose his folks instead of supporting them.

Thats not the point. Did he ask for them? Yes, he did. So claiming he could have done something while he tried to do something is misleading. And besides, that's how Reuters chose to report it. There's also this: https://cha.house.gov/2024/3/chairman-loudermilk-publishes-never-before-released-anthony-ornato-transcribed-interview

Quote:WASHINGTON - Today, Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released a transcribed interview the January 6 Select Committee conducted with President Trump's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Anthony Ornato, which shows President Donald Trump pushed for 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the nation’s capital.

The interview also shows White House frustration with slow deployment of assistance. The Select Committee conducted this interview in January of 2022, but never released it.

Following Mollie Hemingway's reporting, Chairman Loudermilk released the following statement:

“The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative," said Chairman Loudermilk. "Mr. Ornato's testimony proves what Mr. Meadows has said all along, President Trump did in fact offer 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the U.S. Capitol, which was turned down.

"This is just one example of important information the former Select Committee hid from the public because it contradicted what they wanted the American people to believe. And, this is exactly why my investigation is committed to uncovering all the facts, no matter the outcome.”



Original reporting by Mollie Hemmingway in The Federalist reveals the January 6 Select Committee suppressed exonerating testimony of President Trump's push for the National Guard on January 6, 2021. The Select Committee falsely claimed they had "no evidence" to support Trump officials' claims the White House had asked for 10,000 National Guard troops. Ornato's interview proves this was false.

Read the full article here.

Top Takeaways:

1. A January 6 committee staffer asked Ornato, “When it comes to the National Guard statement about having 10,000 troops or any other number of troops, do you recall any discussion prior to the 6th about whether and how many National Guard troops to deploy on January 6th?” Ornato surprised the committee by noting he did recall a conversation between Meadows and Bowser: “He was on the phone with her and wanted to make sure she had everything that she needed,” Ornato told investigators.
    
2. Meadows “wanted to know if she need any more guardsmen,” Ornato testified. “And I remember the number 10,000 coming up of, you know, ‘The president wants to make sure that you have enough.’ You know, ‘He is willing to ask for 10,000.’ I remember that number. Now that you said it, it reminded me of it. And that she was all set. She had, I think it was like 350 or so for intersection control, and those types of things not in the law enforcement capacity at the time.”  Ornato was correct. Bowser declined the offer, asking only for a few hundred National Guard and requiring them to serve in a very limited capacity. 
    
3. Bowser’s decision to decline help from the White House did not end the Trump team’s efforts to secure troops ahead of the protest. When the D.C. mayor declined Trump’s offer of 10,000 troops, Ornato said the White House requested a “quick reaction force” out of the Defense Department in case it was needed.
    
4. Once the Capitol was breached, the Trump White House pushed for immediate help from Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller and grew frustrated at the slow deployment of that help, according to the testimony. “So then I remember the chief saying, ‘Hey, I’m calling secretary of defense to get that [quick reaction force] in here,” Ornato said. Later he said, “And then I remember the chief telling Miller, ‘Get them in here, get them in here to secure the Capitol now.'”
    
5. Cheney and her committee falsely claimed they had “no evidence” to support Trump officials’ claims the White House had communicated its desire for 10,000 National Guard troops. In fact, an early transcribed interview conducted by the committee included precisely that evidence from a key source. The interview, which Cheney attended and personally participated in, was suppressed from public release until now.
   

[HarleyDog]

(06-12-2024, 03:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: As Americans say (and I don't know what that even means), hindsight is 20/20.

I've always taken it as meaning it's easy to look back on something and know what you should have done based on the outcome. But that decision is made in hindsight once you clearly see (20/20) the outcome/consequences of your decision. In other words, could've, should've, would've. 

[Millhouse]

Can't blame her all that much because there is no precedence of what happened. Her fault was underestimating those Maga "patriots" there that day in believing Trump and the Maga media without proper evidence to go on.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 03:27 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: That first one is a strawman. The crowd was very aggressive, nor violent as a whole.

Hm? The crowd contained members of the proud boys, the oath keepers, the three percenters, no white guilt, NSC-131 and then some. And Trump knew about their involvement, maybe not of each and every group, but he fully knew about the extremists in the crowd and that they are armed. He was told so. At best, it is highly irresponsible to edge such a crowd on and send it to the Capitol. At best.

(06-12-2024, 03:27 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I disagree with the second part, as reporters stayed

Well, that is what I consider a strawman argumwent. The journalists did their job, which is showing the world what takes place. They did not support the crowd, march alongside them, wave around Trump flags or Confederate flags or all the stuff they had with them, they were neutral observers. No one within the crowd, and certainly also no one that entered the Capitol, can make this claim.

(06-12-2024, 03:27 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: But we can agree to disagree, as I think we see the event differently.

We certainly do.

[hollodero]

(06-12-2024, 03:36 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I've always taken it as meaning it's easy to look back on something and know what you should have done based on the outcome. But that decision is made in hindsight once you clearly see (20/20) the outcome/consequences of your decision. In other words, could've, should've, would've. 

Yeah, that what I figured out too, based on context. I still do not get the literal meaning behind it. But I can live with that.

(06-12-2024, 03:29 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Thats not the point. Did he ask for them? Yes, he did. So claiming he could have done something while he tried to do something is misleading.

Well, I was referring to what he did after the violence broke out. To claim he actually did something because he asked for the national guard to protect his people three days before the events took place, imho, also is misleading. As for your other point, the Ornato interview, that is a decent rebuttal and it might warrant an amendment to my previous statement. The imho still devastating thing is that it quite possibly would not even have needed the national guard. In all likelyhood all Trump would have had to do is to type STOP IT! on his twitter account.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(06-12-2024, 03:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Hm? The crowd contained members of the proud boys, the oath keepers, the three percenters, no white guilt, NSC-131 and then some. And Trump knew about their involvement, maybe not of each and every group, but he fully knew about the extremists in the crowd and that they are armed. He was told so. At best, it is highly irresponsible to edge such a crowd on and send it to the Capitol. At best.



Well, that is what I consider a strawman argumwent. The journalists did their job, which is showing the world what takes place. They did not support the crowd, march alongside them, wave around Trump flags or Confederate flags or all the stuff they had with them, they were neutral observers. No one within the crowd, and certainly also no one that entered the Capitol, can make this claim.



We certainly do.

I would disagree with the first, since a a whole, the vast majority of protestors were not of the group you are listing. But you may be correct they were there, and some had bad intentions, as I have already stated.

There were protestors allowed in by police and escorted around the Capitol. The pictures released  only highlight the worst of the event, not the peaceful people, because that does not sell newspapers. If you see any of the more recent pictures released, you will see many, a vast majority, of the protestors were indeed peaceful.

Hopefully the whole picture becomes clear in time, like the pipe bomb mystery, in time.