Government could have stopped J6 if they wanted to -- J6 Committee Chief Investigator

[rogue06]

It was harrowing!!!!!!1111111111111

The harrowing of the heroine who almost died thinking she was gonna die.


Or something like that.

[Cow Poke]

From another thread.....


So, I go to the JAN6 official website to see what the final outcome was, and it has been disabled. All the links are directed to "committees no longer standing."

https://january6th.house.gov

I am guessing that this whole thing sneaked off to die a quiet death someplace. No fanfare from the MSM since nothing was accomplished....

And it's interesting that the links provided to find information elsewhere just bounce back to this same "Committees No Longer Standing" page.

Visit the Committee's website for more information. The "committee's website" link bounces back to the page that referenced it.

You have to be persistent, but you can eventually find https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...-J6-REPORT.pdf

Interestingly enough, I just happened to find - on PAGE SEVENHUNDRED - the following....

U.S. CAPITOL POLICE PREPARATION

On January 3rd, the same day Capitol Police’s Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division (IICD) issued a threat assessment indicating that “Congress itself is a target,” Chief Sund called House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul D. Irving to discuss requesting the DC National Guard to assist in policing the Capitol’s perimeter.70 Chief Sund needed approval from the Capitol Police Board, which consisted of Irving, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael C. Stenger, and the Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton. Chief Sund remembers that Irving responded immediately that he did not “like the optics” and that the intelligence did not support the request.71

Got that? "Let's ask the National Guard for help, cause there might be a big problem" - "Nope, bad optics".

Irving, however, remembers Chief Sund calling him to say the DC National Guard had offered 125 unarmed National Guardsmen to the USCP and MPD.72 He also remembered that, during a conference call, Chief Sund told Stenger and him that the National Guard would be utilized in similar fashion to the assistance provided to the DC police, namely, staffing intersections, and for traffic control to free up officers, but then could be used for crowd control, although he acknowledged that the Capitol campus does not have many intersections in need of staffing.73

The Capitol Police Board, including Chief Sund, later agreed that a request for the DC National Guard would not be necessary, particularly if the USCP was in an “all hands on deck” posture.

Got that? Naw, National Guard won't be necessary - the Capitol Police can handle this.

74 Chief Sund agreed with Stenger and Irving that the intelligence did not support a request for DC National Guard assistance.75 According to Irving, Chief Sund did not believe the National Guard would add much to the USCP security plan for January6th.76 Chief Sund briefed the Capitol Police Board on the USCP’s enhanced security plan, and “all hands on deck posture”—including 1,200-plus officers, added Civil Disturbance Units (CDU), an enhanced Containment Emergency Response Team (“CERT”), and an expanded perimeter.77

Nope - we don't need the National Guard - we got this!

Chief Sund did not believe, based on the intelligence he had, that it was then necessary to cancel officers’ days off.78

"All hands on deck" in a crisis situation would generally include canceling days off.

Then this is stunning....

USCP leadership did not create a department-wide plan for the January6th event.79

Wait --- WHAT?!?!??!? But, yeah, I can clearly see that this is all Trump's fault!

[mossrose]

The harrowing of the heroine who almost died thinking she was gonna die.


Or something like that.

We don't even know if she was there.

[Stoic]

Unlike those, there is overwhelming evidence for this.

You don't think Pearl Harbor and 9/11 could have been prevented if the intelligence had been taken seriously?

[Cow Poke]

You don't think Pearl Harbor and 9/11 could have been prevented if the intelligence had been taken seriously?

There's a big difference between failing to take intelligence seriously, and outright ignoring it.

[Stoic]

There's a big difference between failing to take intelligence seriously, and outright ignoring it.

It doesn't sound to me like they outright ignored it.

[Cow Poke]

It doesn't sound to me like they outright ignored it.

Like you outright ignored my excerpts from the actual report where they make the case that they did?

[Stoic]

Like you outright ignored my excerpts from the actual report where they make the case that they did?

Exactly.

In other words, they didn't ignore the intelligence just as I didn't ignore your excerpts.

"Chief Sund agreed with Stenger and Irving that the intelligence did not support a request for DC National Guard assistance."

Talking about the intelligence and agreeing that it did not support a request for DC National Guard assistance is a pretty good indication that they didn't ignore it.

That's not to say they made a good decision. At least in retrospect it was a pretty awful decision, and a good argument could be made that it was an awful decision based on what they knew at the time. But that's a separate matter.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly.

In other words, they didn't ignore the intelligence just as I didn't ignore your excerpts.

"Chief Sund agreed with Stenger and Irving that the intelligence did not support a request for DC National Guard assistance."

Talking about the intelligence and agreeing that it did not support a request for DC National Guard assistance is a pretty good indication that they didn't ignore it.

That's not to say they made a good decision. At least in retrospect it was a pretty awful decision, and a good argument could be made that it was an awful decision based on what they knew at the time. But that's a separate matter.

You are being far too woodenly literal. If somebody tells you the bridge is out, and you drive over the cliff into the river anyway, it's because you ignored their warning.

[Diogenes]

You are being far too woodenly literal. If somebody tells you the bridge is out, and you drive over the cliff into the river anyway, it's because you ignored their warning.

Or that driving off the cliff is intentional.

[Cow Poke]

Or that driving off the cliff is intentional.

Well, yeah, that, too.

[Stoic]

You are being far too woodenly literal. If somebody tells you the bridge is out, and you drive over the cliff into the river anyway, it's because you ignored their warning.

It's more like someone tells you that someone else threatened to take out the bridge, and you didn't take the warning seriously.

[Cow Poke]

It's more like someone tells you that someone else threatened to take out the bridge, and you didn't take the warning seriously.

No. No, it's not. Not even close.