Hiding the truth
The biggest story of last week was all but buried by the dishonest left-wing media. It turns out that members of the partisan Jan 6th Committee suppressed evidence that President Donald Trump requested National Guard troops for the Jan 6th rally at the capital. It is still hard to find many of the msm outlets covering the story. Only now are some of them acknowledging what a House Committee has uncovered:
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.
Chairman Loudermilk Publishes Never-Before Released Anthony Ornato Transcribed Interview - Press Releases - United States Committee on House Administration
Now that the truth is out, where are the leftist fact checking sites on this?
Where are our beloved "critical thinkers" who asked the rest of us for months about the Jan 6th Committee findings?
Where are the old wordsmiths who once defended the appointment of all the Jan 6th Committee members by Nancy Pelosi?
As usual we find that President Trump told the truth and his deranged opponents lied again. Let us not forget that the Jan 6th Committee also tried to delete the words "Go in peace" from the President's speech on Jan 6th. Let us not forget that the msm was complicit in the Russia hoax and the suppression of the Hunter laptop story during the 2020 election. That "perfect election" in which all the rules were changed in battleground states which were inundated with mail-in-ballots with mostly unverified signatures.
In other news:
Public tensions between President Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu have escalated over the weekend.
The US military has airlifted Embassy staff from Haiti due to widespread instability & violence.
Joe Biden will propose his wish list 2025 fiscal budget today. It is a budget that has zero chance of passing but is mostly a campaign talking point containing goodies for various groups.
New York's openly partisan Attorney General is publicly celebrating her victories in cases against Trump and the N.R.A
Good morning
Burger King has a full week of free food starting on Sunday, March 10 for rewards members. I have no idea how many BK reward members there are, but I can only think of one such person and that would be a TV character named Doug Heffernan.
Donald Trump has unloaded on Joe Biden for apologizing for using the word "illegal alien" to describe a murderer who entered the country illegally. Biden will pay the price for kneeling to the woke.
The former 'president' is always unloading a fresh pile of manure every time it opens it's mouth.
So what else is new?
That would explain why I rarely listen to him. What does that say about all the folks that listen to almost everything he has to say?
Many also seem to go from everything out of his mouth is a lie to he is telling the truth when he says something outrageous several times a day.
It is like watching a tennis match.
So we are supposed to ignore far right wing fascism?
Ignoring Hitler turned out to be a bad thing.
Ignoring Trump could be much worse.
“You may need to recruit some help to battle all these imaginary far right fascists you see everywhere.”
Or stop watching the f’tards on cnn and msnbc.
You might want to find out what a fascist is before you call everyone that doesn't agree with you one.
You might want to learn a little about Hitler before comparing anyone to him. It is a bad look.
How about we charge Liz Cheney with obstruction of justice?
She won't be. She's protected as she's fallen in with the bottom feeders.
Not quite as bright as the dems. She couldn't cover her tracks.
The New York Post has another blockbuster story on her this morning. To be posted at the right time.
Yet another quagmire. Doesn't anyone remember that the J6 committee was orchestrated by Democrats? Liz Cheney was just a useful tool.
And all republicans testified against the former 'president' for his role in inciting and planning the false electors if his insurrection/coup failed.
And every last Democrat has hidden behind Republicans. Democrats didn't do one damned thing -- it was all Liz Cheney.
WTF are you talking about??????
How about we give her the medal of freedom.
She has earned it.
What has that got to do with suppressing the truth concerning Trump requesting the National Guard?
If Trump had requested the National Guard they would have been there. The president of the United states is the only person that can order the movements of the DC National Guard.
Didn't you read it?
The mayor of DC has final say. She didn't want 10,000 troops there.
On Thursday, December 31 , says the current accepted narrative, the District of Columbia mayor rang an alarm about protests at the Joint Session of Congress . In fact, the opposite is true. What the mayor did, was ask for the minimal number of National Guardsmen and women to help out the Metropolitan Police Department, and she warned that those troops should be unarmed and not directly involve themselves in any protests.
Mayor Muriel Bowser sent a letter on New Year's Eve to Maj. Gen. William Walker, commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard, requesting support on January 5 through 6. She said Guard personnel would support the MPD and the District Fire and Emergency Medical Services. "[N]o DCNG personnel shall be armed during this mission, and at no time, will DCNG personnel or assets be engaged in domestic surveillance, searches, or seizures of [U.S.] persons," she wrote.
Underestimating the Threat, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser Ordered Up Unarmed Guards (newsweek.com)
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.
Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots : Capitol Insurrection Updates : NPR
The evidence that Trump ordered "10,000" national guard to be ready for Jan 6 is fictional.
The DC national guard is nowhere near that size.
There is not a single shred of documentation that Trump had 10,000 national guard troops on standby.
He cannot order them! He can recommend... The DC Mayor has to approve.
The evidence is in. You are in denial. As soon as a few others get here, I'll hit them with it too!
All the lies are coming to light…. the question is if anyone will ever be held accountable
Ahh, nothing like playing words with friends. The reporting I've read on what Trump had said was that he suggested they would need 10k troops. Liz (bless her heart) has responded that Trump never ordered 10k troops. Guess this is part of our national divide, with the parsing of words.
He is trying to figure a way to play it. There is no getting around it. Trump told the truth and the Jan 6th Committee tried to hide it.
Today’s D.C. National Guard remains strong with more than 2,700 Soldiers and Airmen available to execute its missions. D.C. National Guard Soldiers and Airmen resides within the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia, and are proud to be from the communities in which we protect and serve.
The D.C National Guard was formed in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to defend the newly created District of Columbia. As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.
The D.C. National Guard provides mission-ready personnel and units for active duty in the armed services in the time of war or national emergency. The D.C. National Guard also retains the mission as protector of the District of Columbia.
In honor of last nights Oscar's...
This resulted in a delay of nearly three hours to deploy the D.C. National Guard on January 6 that came under fire almost immediately following the Capitol riot. The DC mayor currently has control of the Guard via The District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act.
It doesn't and DoD has denied her request for Guard assistance with migrants bused to the city.
We both know it has nothing to do with it. Just more fiction being use as another distraction
Link? Or does this go with the rest of your fiction?
Facts at a glance:
Number of Soldiers: 1,350
Number of Airmen: 1,100
Hopefully all far right wing fascists will be held accountable for their anti democracy insanity.
what about the far left communists or are you ok with them?
Hope accomplishes nothing, it’s not a process.
well hell, i was hoping hoping accomplished more, cause without hoping, what else could one hope for...?
Yes, all of the former 'president's' lies are coming to light . . . the question is if it will ever be held accountable.
The parsing of words???????????????
You mean 'Honest Don'?
They got caught!
They hid the truth.
The facts that you and others will not accept!
What facts and truth are you referring to?
When the former 'president' was told pence was being moved to a secure location, it said 'so what'?
Even if this current band of nonsense you are peddling were true it would not totally exonerate trump, it wouldn't exonerate him at all.
The evidence of trump's criminal behavior related to the stolen election matter goes far beyond whether or not he OK'd National Guard troops to be at the capitol building.
Since you don't know anything about the January 6th charges you come up with the conclusion that he is exonerated it is ridiculous
Just amazing how quickly some Trump supporters will leap to defend him. It does not matter what is actually the truth, headlines are good enough for some.
The Jan 6th committee was nothing more than a Pelosi hand picked TDS driven mighty mental midget show with a predetermined outcome. It has been proven repeatedly they hid any witness testimony that didn't fit their narrow narrative; altered evidence; and then destroyed anything that might have damned them.
The only reason they will not be charged with obstruction is Garland is the most partisan POS AG in the history of the country.
a delusional comment...
That is easy to say when you're battling zero hundred...
It is easy!!!
Now, we can clearly see what others tried to tell us:
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg said last week that former President Donald Trump did in fact request National Guard troops be deployed in Washington D.C. before the breach of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Kellogg said he was present at the time of Trump’s request, and Congress should release his testimony to the public.
Trump has repeatedly claimed he requested National Guard troops be activated in D.C. to provide security as he called on supporters to gather in D.C. to protest the certification of the 2020 election results for Joe Biden. Trump’s claim has been substantiated by members of his administration, but rejected by some members of Congress.
Kellogg, who was serving as Vice President Mike Pence’s National Security Advisor at the time of the Jan. 6, 2021 Capitol breach, tweeted last week, “To be clear on 6 Jan/NG. Pg 199 of my book, ‘On 3 Jan the President asked the Def Dept to deploy NG troops’ into DC for J6 contingencies. OK for J6 Cmte to publicly release my full sworn testimony. Release Army Guard and DC Mayor J6 testimonies as well. Would be illuminating.”
According to an initial timeline published by the U.S. Capitol Police, a Pentagon employee named Carol Corbin reached out to Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher on Jan. 2, 2021 to determine whether Capitol Police were considering a request for National Guard soldiers in anticipation of planned election protest events on January 6. Gallagher replied on Jan. 3 that the Capitol Police were not planning to make such a request.
According to a Department of Defense Inspector General report from November, Trump asked acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley on Jan. 3 about preparations for election protests on Jan. 6.
“The President told Mr. Miller that there would be a large number of protestors on January 6, 2021,” the DoD report states. “And Mr. Miller should ensure sufficient National Guard or Soldiers would be there to make sure it was a safe event. Gen Milley told us that Mr. Miller responded, ‘We’ve got a plan and we’ve got it covered.'”
Miller testified to Congress in May of 2021 that Trump also asked him if D.C.’s mayor had requested any National Guard troops and instructed him to “fill” a request.
A recent Washington Times op-ed criticized the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol breach . The op-ed said the select committee does not have legitimate Republican representation. Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) are the only two Republicans currently allowed on the committee.
David Bossie, who wrote the Washington Times op-ed noted Jan. 3 conversation between Trump and Miller and said the Jan. 6 select committee is “crafting a narrative that doesn’t quite add up and omits important facts that would not stand if there were proper Republican representation on the committee.”
Bossie was deputy campaign manager of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
Kellogg responded to Bossie’s op-ed in a tweet Friday, saying, “Great OpEd. Reinforces my earlier comment on 6 Jan Cmte. Has quote from DOD IG Report regarding 3 Jan 2021 meeting with Actg Def Secy Miller/CJCS Milley in the Oval on the 6 Jan NG request by POTUS on troops needed. I was in the room.”
Trump did call for Nat'l Guard troops before Jan. 6, ret. Gen. Kellogg says (americanmilitarynews.com)
Security? What, so no one attacked the tourists visiting the Capital?
Mayor Bowser had been reluctant to approve of extra security, ever since the 2020 riots. You see, the wrong people might get hurt.
) The President commands the DC National Guard. If Trump had called for them, they would've been there. He did not call for them on Jan. 6th.
2) This "suppressed" testimony came courtesy of Tony Ornato and Barry Loudermilk, neither of which are even remotely credible.
Mayor Bowser has no authority over the Washington DC National Guard.
That is no longer true:
House passes amendment to give mayor control of National Guard | wusa9.com
The fact is that Trump didn't order, he suggested . And that is what the Committee attempted to bury.
) This "suppressed" testimony came courtesy of Tony Ornato and Barry Loudermilk, neither of which are even remotely credible.
A Committee has no right to edit testimony.
Under the The District of Columbia National Guard Home Rule Act she does.
I'm sick of people attacking Liz Cheney over a Lie that Trump ordered 10,000 National Guard on January 6th. The facts all show this is NOT true: -
The only one who officially requested assistance from the National Guard was mayor Bowser. She was granted 340 soldiers before the event and 1100 during it. - There were no official requests or offers from Trump.
The DC national guard is run by the Pentagon, and therefore, the President. Trump could have deployed them if he gave an official order, which there is NO record of .
- Donald Trump’s own defense secretary, who is part of the chain of command for National Guard troop requests, testified UNDER OATH, that Trump had never signed an order to deploy National Guard troops to the Capitol.
- MAGA ally, Kash Patel claimed Trump ordered the national guard. Colorado Judge Wallace found that Kash Patel is “not a credible witness”. -
Chief Sund, Capitol Police Officer, says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed. -
US Secret Service assistant director Tony Ornato told the committee in January 2022 he overheard conversation between Mark Meadows and DC Mayor Bowers that the President had approved 10,000 National Guard troops for January 6th Rally.
The problem is that this is hearsay and Trump NEVER officially called up the National guard. There would be evidence that he did.
Cheney will be remembered as a courageous woman who put America over Trump.
Brian Krassenstein on X: "I'm sick of people attacking Liz Cheney over a Lie that Trump ordered 10,000 National Guard on January 6th. The facts all show this is NOT true: - The only one who officially requested assistance from the National Guard was mayor Bowser. She was granted 340 soldiers before the… https://t.co/bA0EBOkNt6" / X (twitter.com)
It's still true, the Senate didn't agree with the House amendment.
You keep saying he ordered. He made a suggestion and YOU people claimed that he didn't
She hid the evidence!
Ok it is still true. And Trump made a suggestion.
Then she shouldn't be a lying bitch who hid evidence.
As usual they are trying to spin it from every direction. We had at least 3 people and a General say that Trump suggested 10,000 troops. We had testimony to back it up and Cheney buried it. Now we have one pretending that Trump ORDERED the guard. NOBODY ever made that claim. And we have another guy saying well, he could have ordered them. He made a suggestion. They denied that he ever made any suggestion and Cheney hid it.
They are screwed again!
What analysis led to the number 10,000? What kind of units? What mission did Trump intend?
He should have made an order if that's what he wanted.
So you are going to focus on the number?
Simple question: Did Trump suggest the Guard? YES OR NO?
We could argue that but that is clearly not the point. The point Drinker: The lefties have denied all along that he ever made such a request. Obviously because it contradicts their narrative that he instigated the riot. Now we find out that they hid the evidence that he made the suggestion.
Trump probably did want 10,000 troops to assist him in his insurrection and to defend the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers!
[deleted]
Perhaps, but it was in the DoD report
Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller testified that he had a 30 second call with Trump on 5 Jan and that Trump remarked that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops on Jan. 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021.
But Miller added that there was “no elaboration,” and he took the comment to mean “a large force would be required to maintain order the following day.” He noted that domestic law enforcement believed they had sufficient personnel.
Maybe the Army didn't follow his suggestion because they didn't believe that he knew anything about security with a suggestion out of the blue 24 hours out. Or maybe they were worried that troops would start shooting if their orders weren't followed.
Yes, deployments require mission analysis and planning or people get hurt.
I don't know if his suggestion was the Guard or Active Duty. 24 hours out, the only way to get 10,000 that quickly would have been the 82nd Airborne Division in NC and they probably couldn't muster that many.
His suggestion clearly was an ignorant one.
Here is what we know vic
in the afternoon of January 6 trump sat watching television, watching the TV broadcast of the riot that was taking place at the capitol.
there is testimony from numerous people who were there who say that trump did absolutely nothing to try and end the riot. Either by ordering troops to go there or by sending a message to his followers there who were observing his every word on Twitter
a few months ago Kristin Welker from Meet the Press asked trump directly what he was doing in the White House while the riot was taking place, and he said "I'm not going to tell you"
But it was true then . . . . he didn't order diddly
That is all I'm saying before I allowed you to take me down a rabbit hole.
You just admitted to it in post 5.1.18
His suggestion clearly was an ignorant one.
It was a conversation about what kind of security was needed. In hindsight, I'd say it was a very intelligent estimate.
As opposed to a partisan committee willing to hide testimony simply because they won't admit that something Trump said was true.
Here is one last question for you:
Didn't this committee omit the words "go peacefully" from his speech?
I suppose you don't know that either.
Nobody said that he didn't make an offer. Read the Executive Summary. The pertinent parts are here (point 17, page 6 of the text file ):
So this whole article is based on the presumption that Elizabeth Cheney said "he never offered" not "he never ordered" the National Guard to protect whatever. The actual areas or people are uncertain. A strong case can be made for his wanting the National Guard to walk with him and the "peaceful protesters" down Pennsylvania Avenue. See your supposed revelatory and just released Ornato interview, on or about pages 78-81.(Sorry, I don't have them at my disposal currently.)
And then we get to the whole, "Rest of the Story," which is this supposed bombshell of a revelation is nothing of the sort. There is no exculpatory evidence from Mr. Oranato's transcribed interview without distortion of the evidence in-toto. So, one can pretend that Trump didn't try to :
But the road is all uphill.
He was the PotUS. He does not need to suggest and get approval or agreement. He was the CiC. The PotUS does not have an excuse of: "I offered but they turned me down".
It is not credible that Trump was intending to send in the NG but did not do so because Pelosi (or whomever) rejected the idea. At what point in time does Trump think anyone other than himself is the smartest guy in the room?
You still refuse to accept facts.
Nope. The ARTICLE is based on the FACT that testimony was hidden from incoming members of congress.
You refuse to deliver the facts.
And you were blatant about it.
see @9
This article is a feeble attempt to exonerate Trump. Why are you running away from the truth?
From the Article:
Your claim and the claim of the articles referenced was that evidence was covered up, specifically evidence about the National Guard troops and the offering of these troops by the president under the assumption that this evidence was somehow unobtainable from other sources and that the Select Committee had denied that the President had made the offer. These assertions, that from nowhere else could this information have been derived and that the Select Committee denied the existence of the offer, are false. Here is the claim of the Select Committee:
The Select Commitee did not deny the presence of the offer, they said that the President never ordered, which are two different things. Also, the presence of the offer is available in other documents present in the evidence. Further, Mr. Ornato's testimony is full of " I don't recall" to the point of absurdity. One would think that it was a regular day at the office with nothing to differentiate it from any other. His testimony did indeed differ to the point of contradiction from multiple witness accounts including those of Mr. Robert Engle, Secret Service agent, a military aide, Cassidy Hutchinson, et al. From these discrepancies it was determined that Mr. Ornato's testimony was unreliable.
As for the claim that the Transcript was buried so that the American public at large could not know of it, why is it stated on page 8, lines 21-23 of the transcript of November 29,2022:
And then there is this tid-bit from the report (pp.533-534 of the Report):
It appears that Trump has an infatuation with the number 10,000 in reference to National Guard Troops. Which, as is shown elsewhere in these comments, is just a number that he pulled out of nowhere, probably because it is large and round.
If you can point to a source in the report detailing where it is stated that there was no offer from the President or his staff I will check it out. As it stands, I can find it nowhere except in claims made by others, not from the Select Committee itself.
And finally, this looks to me to be deflection, for the obvious reason that Trump is in fact guilty of the actions ascribed to him by the Select Committee and the powers that be on the Party of Trump side of the aisle are desperate to tar anyone with anything that they can find, no matter how petty and vindictive it makes them appear.
Petty and vindictive, now there is something the former President and those who follow him can get behind.
Quit relying on your pro-Trump sources and do your own research!
This is not a deep fake, Vic.
i could be mistaken, but i thought go peacefully was pre-inswrectionist riot, when Trump was energizing his 'peaceful peeps' with his "fight like hell, or we won't have a country ' BS , not an exact quote obviously, but you get my drift, just like his supporters, got his...
You made the assertion. Now you must be able to defend it.
As an aside, I will note that I have spent quite a bit of time researching and fact-finding for the sake of clearly representing the factual happenings of that day. I would say that I expect the same from you, but I realize that I am in fact disappointed frequently by my expectations.
There were two cases that I know of. Before the insurrection and at the end. I posted the video of after because that proves the Jan 6 committee made no attempt to hide peaceful language by Trump.
I do not know if the Jan 6 committee included the pre-insurrection phrase in its videos, but it is likely not given they included very few excerpts from his incendiary pre-insurrection speech.
But to give an example of how absurd this 'peaceful' claim is, here is the full transcript of Trump's pre-insurrection speech. It is not necessary to read it, I included it all to illustrate where the single spot 'peaceful' word was included. Once; buried in the middle of this speech. Note how much language followed and note the lack of any peace talk at the end right before the march to the Capitol.
And then note the language that he ended with , right before the march started. The words in the minds of his supporters were 'fight' language.
This is classic Trumpism. Just like his fraud case where he states that his fraudulent documents have a disclaimer that instructs lenders to do their own research, Trump has a single word 'peaceful' in this entire speech ... a speech which otherwise is incendiary.
Yeah, but he said the word "Peaceful" once... Doesn't that Count?? S/
I know, it is pathetic how spin doctors operate. If the Jan 6 committee were to do an accurate profile of Trump's speech they would put the peaceful language in one column and then list the incendiary column in the next. The single use of the word 'peacefully' was thoroughly overpowered by Trump's call to arms language (note also the language he used to get his supporters there in the first place). And, as noted, 'peacefully' appeared in the first third of his speech and was long forgotten by the end. But in the end, Trump provide this tone:
Think that was fresh in the minds of his supporters as they marched to the Capitol?
We ought to apply the reasoning of symbolic logic to it. One mention of peaceful to how many mentions of violence? Does not take much to see where that is headed.
But first one must be willing to think critically.
Yeah, more bullshit.
What you keep blathering on is a result of the faulty thinking that the J6 committee was unbiased and bipartisan. It was everything but unbiased and bipartisan.
Were the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political futures by giving testimony adverse to Trump acting in a biased and partisan fashion?
Is that mentioned anywhere in my comment?
They place (some folks on NT) so much significance on the one time when the former 'president' said to go in peace which I believe was right at the beginning of the 'rally' and then lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and lied and continued to incite after already inciting them to be there in the first place and then continued to lie and say they had to 'fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country any more' and then lied some more and continued to incite.
Another feeble deflection.
You dismiss everything from the J6 committee so I asked if you also dismiss the testimonies of the high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political futures by giving testimony adverse to Trump.
They were emotionally drained at the White House. That was the end of 'their' day.
JFC
As the former 'president' continues to lie and incite while calling for peace three hours later they are emotionally drained at the White House and their day was over.
'Because nobody, until I came along, had any idea how corrupt our elections are"
[deleted]
10,000 NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS WERE REQUESTED “Jan 6 committee allegedly suppressed testimony showing Trump admin pushed for National Guard presence:
report” "The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative.
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," Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk said in a statement on Friday.
"The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people because it contradicted their pre-determined narrative. 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," Georgia Republican Rep. Barry Loudermilk said in a statement on Friday. Ornato’s interview was conducted in January 2022 and attended by Cheney, among other members on the committee. In addition to serving as deputy chief of staff under Trump, Ornato served in the Secret Service for decades.
Jim Weed on X: "10,000 NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS WERE REQUESTED “Jan 6 committee allegedly suppressed testimony showing Trump admin pushed for National Guard presence: report” "The former J6 Select Committee apparently withheld Mr. Ornato’s critical witness testimony from the American people… https://t.co/7KnrUb4wvP" / X (twitter.com)
Turned down by whom?
You are not going to get away with it again. You take that part up with Barry Loudermilk.
I made my point.
Just what was that point again? That Donald Trump is guilty of several factual and substantiated claims? And that you are voting for a Fraud?
According to the suspect testimony of Mr. Ornato, it was Washington D.C. Mayor Bowser who turned down the "offer" of up to 10,000 troops when asked by Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. Nancy Pelosi was never asked, at least according to all the information I have seen. Pelosi could hardly refuse if she was not asked.
And the "offer" was made to protect himself and his supporters at the rally.
He is either badly mistaken or lying. Mayor Bowser has no authority over a deployment of the National Guard. DC’s Guard troop strength was the 1,100 at that time, and not all were deployable. The testimony has Trump idly speculating about Guard support so he and his followers would be safe marching from the Ellipse to the Capitol.
Pelosi doesn’t control Guard deployments either.
There was no serious offer to anyone, no planing, no alert status, no riot gear equipping, just some idle presidential speculation,
I agree, it was just a passing question to the mayor with a made up number from Trump.
It has been a staple of MAGA doctrine since 2021 that Nancy Pelosi turned down Trump's gracious offer of 10,000 troops. I doubt if they'll be changing their minds at this late date.
I think that it started in Feb 2021 when Meadows lied on Fox News to Hannity:
“Don’t forget, President Trump requested increased National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. The request was rejected — by Pelosi, by congressional leaders, including requests, by the way, from the Capitol Police chief.”
“What we also know is that President Trump wanted to make sure that the people that came, that there was a safe environment for that kind of assembly. And I’ve said that publicly before — the 10,000 National Guard troops that he wanted to make sure that everything was safe and secure. … Obviously having those National Guards available, actually the reason they were able to respond when they did, was because President Trump had actually put them on alert.”
On a Feb Sunday Fox News show:
“As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. That was a direct order from President Trump.”
Trump and his inner circle know how to Tweet but not give ‘direct orders’.
OK.
According to Loudermilk:
Does it? I don't think so.
Loudermilk said on the Committee on House Administration web page:
Surprised the committee? Maybe because he consistently said "I can't recall" over things like seeing a report that there were people with flak vests and plastic riot shields and tactical helmets and mace and metal pipes that wouldn't go through the magnetometers because they knew their implements of destruction would be confiscated. Or the reports that he forwarded on up to Engles and Meadows. Or the conversations that he had with multiple people that he suddenly did not have any recollection of. But the one conversation that he overheard one side of. Oh, yeah! He can remember that and know who was on the other end of the call.
Because the amount of law enforcement in total was great enough for crowds of up to 1,000,000 people, according to Appendix 1. Indeed, the decision was not hers alone, but General Mark Milley was also in on it. Everyone was worried that it might look like something was amiss (Hmmmmmm... I wonder what that could be. Oh, yeah. Trump taking over .) The decision was made to keep the NG away from the event itself and let the MPD and other policing agencies like the Park Police, Secret Service, and the Capitol Police do their jobs. I recall a number of 6 thousand to 8 thousand officers being on duty that day.
From the testimony (page 80)
So, not only was General Mark Milley against having the troops, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows was against it also. Why? Because what the President actually wanted the troops for was to walk with him down to the Capitol. Gosh, Trump rates right up there with his autocratic buddies having military parades as a demonstration of strength. It is all in the report. You might have a better time if you had read the report.
From the testimony (page 87):
Wow, he did know something. That is a really good thing because that was his job!
Yes, they were all looking at what was happening and saying, "Trump has to stop this". To be fair, it was the Trump White House (aka all of the senior level staff) and not the President himself. The tacit admission of all involved was Trump could stop it. Here is why it took so long.
The White House did communicate it's desire for 10,000 National Guard troops, to other members of the administration. The White House and members of the administration also quashed that ask. They did not ask Pelosi even though the President claims he did.
The January 6th insurrection resulted from a wannabe strongman playing at being a dictator. Yet still, the entirety of the Republican party is in deep denial of these facts that prove how loathsome Donald Trump was, is, and will continue to be because they are drunk on the illusory power that his name conjures.
Well, according to Appendix 1 of the Report, it is a little more convoluted than that:
Protect? Ehhh. I think that Trump wanted his own little Army. Now that is speculation.
I think the Army brass agreed with you.
Yes.
I'm impressed Drinker, as i am also a DRINKER, but not of the Kool Aid a few here have been overserved. Nice to see you explaining, in rather convincing fashion i might add, so i did, point after point that Vic and cump could not, all though they did try, Trump. Without convictions, due to derelictions of duty smeared buy the bought whom apparently can't be taught what Trump has wrought aboutisms, as you TiG and Thomas have thoroughly obliterated the arguments that they still refuse to concede, just like Trump, and beings you tend to be a tad more from the 'right', then down the center as some, i'll again mention,
nicely done.
And I am glad they did.
Thanks, Iggy.
Where are the googlers?
Say it ain't so!
From pages 533-534, J6 Report:
President Trump wanted to personally accompany his supporters on the march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. During a January 4th meeting with staffers and event organizer Katrina Pierson, President Trump emphasized his desire to march with his supporters. “Well, I should walk with the people,” Pierson recalled President Trump saying. Though Pierson said that she did not take him “seriously,” she knew that “he would absolutely want to be with the people. ”Pierson pointed out that President Trump “did the drive-by the first time and the flyover the second time”—a “BE THERE, WILL BE WILD!” reference to the November and December 2020 protests in Washington, DC. During these previous events, President Trump made cameo appearances to fire up his supporters. Now, as January 6th approached, the President again wanted to be there, on the ground, as his supporters marched on the U.S. Capitol.
The President’s advisors tried to talk him out of it. White House Senior Advisor Max Miller “shot it down immediately” because of concerns about the President’s safety. Pierson agreed. But President Trump was persistent, and he floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by leftwing counter-protestors. Miller again rejected the President’s idea, saying that the National Guard was not necessary for the event. Miller testified that there was no further conversation on the matter. After the meeting, Miller texted Pierson, “Just glad we killed the national guard and a procession .” That is, President Trump briefly considered having the National Guard oversee his procession to the U.S. Capitol . The President did not order the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol, or to secure the joint session proceedings.
From page 702:
During the January 3rd and 4th calls, General Milley, according to Donoghue, noted that “[t]here should be plenty of police forces available without using Federal military troops, ” so he was adamant that no active duty troops would be deployed on January 6th .
From pages 729-730:
Fears of Politicizing the Military in an Antidemocratic Manner . Both Acting Secretary Miller and Secretary McCarthy were sensitive to the sight of troops near the site of the Congressional certification of electoral votes, because of President Trump’s previous expression of interest in using Federal troops in civilian situations. Again, Attorney General Barr and other members of the Trump Administration had resisted President Trump’s desire to deploy such troops. Secretary Esper said it “tended to be the case . . . that the President was inclined to use the military,” contrary to longstanding principles of reserving the armed forces as a last resort.70 According to his testimony, Acting Secretary Miller’s express first priority—after being installed with just two months left in the Trump administration—was “to make every effort to return the Department of Defense to a nonpoliticized entity,” because previously, “the Department was being showcased too much.”71In testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform on May 12, 2021, he cited “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an antidemocratic manner” as shaping his thinking.72“No such thing was going to occur on my watch,” he wrote,73later adding that “if I would have put troops on Capitol Hill” before the attack and without a request from civil authorities, “that would have been seen as extremely provocative, if not supporting this crazy narrative that the military was going to try to overturn the election.”74 Secretary McCarthy felt similar pressure. He had been taken aback when—as he was walking down the Pentagon’s hallways—“one of the most seasoned reporters” asked him whether the Army was planning to seize ballot boxes.75It was “an incredibly tense period,” according to Secretary McCarthy.76As our investigation has demonstrated, President Trump had considered proposals from Lt. General (ret.) Michael Flynn, Sidney Powell, and others that troops be utilized to seize ballot boxes in certain parts of the country . On December 18, 2020—the same day as the contentious White House meeting with Flynn and others,—Secretary McCarthy issued a statement, “mirror[ing] what General Milley said about a month before,”77reiterating that “There is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election.”78Given the heat of the rhetoric, he thought, “[I]f we don't say anything, it's going to scare people.” 79Secretary McCarthy told the Select Committee he thought he would be fired after publicly stating that the military would not assist in a coup.80General McConville, who signed the statement alongside Secretary McCarthy’s signature,81linked their words directly to the Ninth Street limitation: “[T]here was no plan to put any military anywhere near the Capitol because of what we had said, the military has no role in determining the outcome of elections .”82 On January 1st, Executive Officer to Secretary McCarthy Colonel John Lubas wrote in an internal email that the Secretary “wants to clearly communicate that this request is NOT from the White House.”83The email noted that the Secretary wanted to “aggressively message” that the request had come from District officials, not the President.84 “We wanted everybody to know that, because it would create confusion and even more tension of having soldiers on the street without a request and that they be near the Capitol with certification of an election, a contested election,” Secretary McCarthy said.85
First of all, Vic, your quoted use of "critical thinkers" is obvious intentional mocking. But worse, your mocking is based on yet another leap by you to take tidbits and claims and desperately spin them into hard-cold fact.
Here is an example of actual critical thinking. Let's go back to Jan, 2023 and note the reporting by the Post on this matter:
The report first notes Trump's claim:
It then debunks the claim based on the (then) newly released report from the Jan 6 committee:
Trump floated the idea of using the National Guard to protect himself and his supporters . Not the deployment of same to deal with protecting the Capitol from the Jan 6 insurrection by his supporters . It is to be expected that we will continue to see more pathetic attempts like this article to dishonestly and falsely exonerate Trump given the GOP is stuck with him as their nominee.
And if you actually read the transcript from the Jan 6th committee referenced deep in your link, you will see that Trump was (per Ornato 's recollection) asking the Mayor of D.C. (Bowser) if she needed National Guard support prior to the event. And the reasoning, by Trump, was the concern over his opponents clashing with his supporters.
Trump did not offer 10,000 National Guard troops to Nancy Pelosi and Pelosi did not (obviously) turn them down. That was yet another lie from Trump ... weaving a bullshit tale from select words he had used in different contexts.
Critical thinking litmus test one: if Trump said it, it is more than likely a lie ... fact check the details.
First of all you should address that comment to me.
Second of all, I don't like when people deny obvious facts and then try and deflect with an interpretation of events.
Trump did not offer 10,000 National Guard troops to Nancy Pelosi and Pelosi did not (obviously) turn them down.
And that was never my claim. Trump did make a suggestion for security during a contingency discussion. We can't get you to admit that.
Critical thinking litmus test one:
Should include HONESTY.
That seems to be the argument they want me to make.
It is really a very low bar. The Jan 6th committee hid testimony from the incoming House members.
There are a few here who refuse to accept facts.
And you think that comprises total exoneration for trump. That is pathetic.
The vast majority of the fact pattern relating to the J6 indictments of trump have nothing to do with whether or not he suggested something about security at the capitol.
No I don't. I simply want to hear one of you accept the fact that testimony was hidden by the Jan 6th committee. That is all I'm asking for.
Trump made the suggestion for his and the protestors security, not the Capital. Apparently no one on his staff took any action to make this happen.
You are still trying to spin this into "Trump really did act responsibly on Jan 6th". That is a lie.
So you did not read what I wrote:
How is it possible that you do not recognize me noting that Trump made this note? Further:
Again, I am stating that Trump asked Bowser if she needed help. How is it that you cannot see that?
And in the quoted reporting from the Post, I specifically highlighted passages such as this:
The irony of you engaging in dishonesty to suggest I was dishonest.
Also on your specific claim (which I clearly acknowledged @9 as per above):
"Trump did make a suggestion for security during a contingency discussion."
So what? Trump made all sorts of comments. That fact that Trump made a suggestion for security does not match with what he claimed. Trump did NOT, as a point of fact, offer National Guard to Pelosi. That is what he claimed. His claim was a lie. Further, Trump did not offer security for the Capitol building even though he planned to have his supporters march to the Capitol on Jan 6th. Further, Trump did not act to prevent the insurrection violence until it well after Congress had been disrupted by his supporters occupying the building. And as a cherry on top, during the middle of the insurrection, Trump added fuel to the fire by tweeting how Pence had failed them.
That is your interpretation.
Admit the facts.
That doesn't make sense. Protection from what? And I don't think that is a legit request and I think it wouldn't have been carried out had that been the case.
His suggestion is on pages 533-534 in the J6 Report.
Testimony was hidden by a Committee so that incoming members wouldn't see it.
THAT"S WHAT!
Unbelievable. No matter how detailed the response (to the actual transcript) all you can do is claim that others are being dishonest. It is equivalent to nuh'uh.
Do you think this clearly evasive tactic will persuade anyone?
"Weeks after Republicans reclaimed the House in 2022, then-GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy sent a letter to Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the Jan. 6 committee, to “preserve all records collected and transcripts of testimony taken during your investigation.” Loudermilk’s investigators, however, found that Thompson’s committee deleted troves of information, including “hundreds of video recordings.”
There is nothing of value to hide, Vic. You are acting as though there is some smoking gun here. Trump's lies are not corroborated. There is nothing here.
This is just more partisan spin that is easily debunked by the actual testimony.
Do you not realize that you are penning lies? Read @9. I am not denying anything. Read @9.1.8 where I prove it in detail.
Either read what I wrote and honestly comment or cease making your false claims about me.
I think your refusal to admit that records and transcripts were not preserved will persuade any rational human being.
I guess this is where the conversation ends.
Nothing new there. The conservatives here have been searching for a 'smoking gun' that will help defend trump ever since he got into trouble
So now your argument is nothing more than a claim that not all records and transcripts were not preserved by the Jan 6 committee.
We are off Trump entirely and now you are simply criticizing the Jan 6 committee for failing to keep every record. You have no argument that the committee intentionally hid anything that would exonerate Trump. You just claim that information is missing.
Just keep moving that goalpost, Vic.
On this specific question, I am aware that the Jan 6 committee ostensibly deleted over 100 documents. I do not know the degree to which this is true, but I am certainly not denying it. And unlike you, I do not engage in conspiracy theory and leap to the conclusion of 'ahah ... this is the part that shows Trump is innocent of wrongdoing and the Jan 6 committee was a bunch of lies'. (Ridiculous)
What matters is if deleted documents contain information that would exonerate Trump. So if you have this information, provide it. Just claiming that the committee deleted documents does not mean anything in itself.
What conversation? You made a claim. I thoroughly debunked it. Your rebuttals have been nothing more than nuh'uh.
The conversation ended when you failed to even attempt to show where I was wrong in my rebuttal.
I heard yesterday that some transcripts from the J6 committee, including the one from Tony Ornato, were not released with all the others because the committee was asked by Homeland Security to not release those particular transcripts for national security reasons. So it may not be Liz Cheney's doing it all but I don't really know the details of something that I just heard on television news and haven't looked into.
President Trump wanted to personally accompany his supporters on the march from the Ellipse to the U.S. Capitol. During a January 4th meeting with staffers and event organizer Katrina Pierson, President Trump emphasized his desire to march with his supporters. “Well, I should walk with the people,” Pierson recalled President Trump saying. Though Pierson said that she did not take him “seriously,” she knew that “he would absolutely want to be with the people. ”Pierson pointed out that President Trump “did the drive-by the first time and the flyover the second time”—a “BE THERE, WILL BE WILD!” reference to the November and December 2020 protests in Washington, DC. During these previous events, President Trump made cameo appearances to fire up his supporters. Now, as January 6th approached, the President again wanted to be there, on the ground, as his supporters marched on the U.S. Capitol.
The President’s advisors tried to talk him out of it. White House Senior Advisor Max Miller “shot it down immediately” because of concerns about the President’s safety. Pierson agreed. But President Trump was persistent, and he floated the idea of having 10,000 National Guardsmen deployed to protect him and his supporters from any supposed threats by leftwing counter-protestors. Miller again rejected the President’s idea, saying that the National Guard was not necessary for the event. Miller testified that there was no further conversation on the matter. After the meeting, Miller texted Pierson, “Just glad we killed the national guard and a procession .” That is, President Trump briefly considered having the National Guard oversee his procession to the U.S. Capitol
Pages 533-534
You can't plan and deploy 10,000 troops on a 24 hour notice.
When they fail, they just keep digging in deeper.
Which is pretty much always
Stop already
Just another conspiracy theory
or as another member put it, "playing words with friends"
or what the people convinced of conspiracies hear
as opposed to what everyone else hears.
Prove that it was hidden so incoming members could not see it.
I don't think that you can.
I did.
No, you did not.
I posted 3 articles on it. It isn't even breaking news anymore.
Just because you post an article making a claim does not make the claim true.
To back your assertion, you have to prove that the evidence was knowingly (show intent) hidden to be beyond the reach of new members. Loudermilk is not credible. What I am looking for is an independent verification from the National Archives or a trusted third party, not the words of a known liar.
House Republicans release report seeking to undermine Jan. 6 committee and star witness
No matter how the MAGA handlers try, they cannot break the main thrust of the January 6th committee's findings. They quibble about whether Donald Trump offered 10,000 troops to Pelosi or Bowser, whether he grabbed the stearing wheel, etc. then stretch those claims to try and discount the whole report. What is tragic is that I doubt any of these people with misplaced alliegences have actually read the report. If they had, I don't think that they would be posting half of the bullshit that passes as news on this site because they would realize the depths of the dishonesty they promulgate.
Just take a look at post 10.1
I rest my case.
How on Earth does my @10.1 comment help your claim?
Just stating "I rest my case" does not mean you even made a cogent argument, much less prevailed.
You have yet to prove anything. You claimed:
As of yet, there is zero evidence that it was purposefully hidden so that people could not find it.
Evidence that some of the testimony was referred to different agencies due to security and privacy concerns does exist.
As far as the articles that you posted, they are like a circular reference, each one referring to the other. This is usually indicative of somebody who is not being completely honest.
Hey Vic, have you read the report ?
on the basis of his approval of the Eastman memo alone Trump is not fit to be president of the United states or even a dog catcher in a local town. But even the Eastman memo is only part of the massive evidence that trump tried to overthrow the legitimate results of the 2020 election. Most of the members here that dispute this have no idea what is in the report because they deliberately shielded themselves from the content of the report
Updated: Liz Cheney sat in interview with Secret Service driver who denied story Trump tried to commandeer presidential limo on Jan. 6 but did not include in final report.
If true, so what? Trump trying to commandeer the limo is not a wrongdoing. There would be no charge. It at best goes to show his character.
This is a trivial detail. What is NOT trivial is that Trump incited his supporters who then violently broke and entered the Capitol to disrupt the working of Congress and Trump fueled the fire by tweeting about Pence and did not act to stop his supporters until hours later ... after much pressing to do so from friends, family, and advisors.
Whether or not Trump put his hand on the limo steering wheel or the driver is meaningless.
I agree, so what?
amen.
I do not remember that as being anything close to the main news. This came out as a minor part of the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson. This factoid was covered by the AP, Reuters, etc. Probably because it was news ... an allegation of absurdly irrational behavior by a sitting PotUS.
But I do not recall 'the left' treating this as substantial. What was substantial was her testimony of Trump refusing to act during the insurrection. And of his asking that the security measures be removed for the rally because his supporters are not here to hurt him.
Trump acting like a petulant brat is not wrongdoing. The PotUS sitting on his butt watching the Capitol being broken into and refusing to act to stop it in spite of pleadings from his family, friends, staff, and others is the wrongdoing.
LMMFAO!
Liz Cheney described it as the most egregious dereliction of duty in our nation's history
The left not only treats anything Donald as as substantial but as a bombshell, hair on fire, sky is falling, constitutional crisis, assault on democracy.
You are correct, at least 3 cycles of Orange man bad.
Worse than Watergate?
But, but, but - he seeks immunity - even for 'acts that cross the line'
Very odd since the news that was coming out at that time was Trump's refusal to act while his supporters were breaking and entering the Capitol.
Trump's alleged move to the steering wheel is nothing compared to his inaction. It is also nothing compared to the incitement of his supporters that preceded it.
Thus your 'memory' does not make logical sense.
remember how liberals fell over themselves about the whole steering wheel thing even if others don't.
Similar to countless other stories. They go into hysterics over an allegation for a week and when it gets debunked later on they pretend they never cared about the story in the first place.
[deleted]
True. Once it passes some critical mass of belief, no amount of evidence will ever cause them to stop regurgitating it.
I noted that this was picked up by the AP, Reuters, etc. That means, in case you are not aware of how the media works, this was covered by most of the media.
It was a minor item that was widely broadcast. You are aware that minor shit like this is widely broadcast nowadays ... to fill the 24 hour news slot.
As I stated, I do not recall this being MAIN news. There are plenty of minor items that get a broad coverage and then disappear. This was one of them. What is far more important, as I noted, was Trump's actions pursuant to and in response to the insurrection. That, Texan, is MAIN news.
In short, (as I noted upfront), trying to grab a steering wheel (if true) is not a wrongdoing.
Inciting supporters who then engaged in an insurrection of the Capitol and disrupting Congress in session and then letting this fester for hours IS a wrongdoing ... a major one at that.
In Feb 2021, on Fox News, Meadows said, "As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. That was a direct order from President Trump.” We now know that was a lie. To get to 10,000 troops, you need the DC Guard, the entire VA guard and most of the Maryland Guard.
Thank you for persistently posting the facts about the Guard, their numbers and their chain of command.
I agree with SP, and will add textbook flanking maneuver. impressive and hilarious.
I agree. I'm quite impressed as well. Quite well done.
In addition to my rebuttal (@9 and elsewhere) of the above spin (did not suppress, did not request, not for the Capitol) which attempts to create an optic that Trump tried to avoid the insurrection but was curtailed, I think the following needs to be noted:
There is an abundance of damning evidence against Trump via the Jan 6 committee. Primarily from testimonies of high-ranking, connected Republicans who compromised their political careers by testifying. Not from the committee members but from these witnesses who paid a substantial price for their testimonies.
Throughout, Trump supporters flat out dismiss all of these testimonies. But when a hint —a glimmer— that there might be some tiny defense for Trump, we see open-arms acceptance and declarations that these tidbits are facts. And then the spin to create an impression that Trump really was trying to ensure his supporters would not engage in violence.
There is no defending Trump, but GOP loyalists will continue to try since they are now stuck with this scoundrel as their nominee.
The level of confirmation bias by some Trump supporters is impressive.
I think "tragic" might be a better adjective to use in this case
well put
Well after reading article and all current comments, i can give the author this much, Hiding The Truth, is a most apropos title for seed, though planted via a cross poli nation of deceived perceptions perceived via perceptions deceived.