Assault on the Capitol

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The head of the Capitol Police just turned in his resignation. Speaker Pelosi called for him to step down yesterday.

"Chief Steven Sund said Thursday that police had planned for a free speech demonstration and did not expect the violent attack. He said it was unlike anything he’d experienced in his 30 years in law enforcement."

Well, that's a complete failure of preparation. It was obvious for several weeks that there was a significant potential for violence.

story/link: https://apnews.com/article/trump-25th-amendment-schumer-capitol-992705542ceebba6596f2d6682b476e7

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Vice President elect Harris now makes things worse (somehow) with this absurd claim:

“We witnessed two systems of justice when we saw one that let extremists storm the United States Capitol, and another that released tear gas on peaceful protesters last summer. The American people have expressed rightly outrage. We know this is unacceptable. We know we should be better than this."

Who "let extremists storm the United States Capitol", Madame Vice President? Let? Did you see the videos? The police were unprepared and overwhelmed by the mob. They didn't "let" this happen.

The police fought the mob off using tear gas, pepper spray, flash bang devices and night sticks and police inside the building actually shot and killed a member of the mob.

Okay, so you're referring to Trump. I get it. But we don't need this type of speech; we're trying to get rid of someone who uses it all of the time. This is campaign rhetoric and the election is over.

[Joe Elliott]

Trump has been publicly calling for this attack for weeks, with hints even back in September. Easily the most brazen, well telegraphed coup in history. I mean Trump was an idiot to come up with such a plan but it came damm close to working, to some extent. Get him some revenge against Pence and others who “betrayed” him, if nothing else.
The Pentagon asked the U. S. Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. On multiple occasions. And were always turned down, most recently as of last Sunday.
The FBI has been monitoring the situation and seen clear signs of trouble, but the Capitol police turned them down.
As the mob approached the Capitol the FBI made one last plea to allow all available agents to come but they were turned down one last time.

On Wednesday, after barely escaping with her life, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called upon Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to resign, immediate.
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund: Hmmm. I don’t know. I’ll have to sleep on that.
Today, he submitted his resignation.

I am credulous that Sund could not see this coming. With all the public messages from Trump. “Be there”. “It will be wild”. “Don’t miss it”.

Question:

Is Sund a Trump supporter?

Did he leave his officers, the Vice President, the Senators and the Congressmen in obvious danger because he thought it was Trump’s best chance at remaining as President?

For now, I am not satisfied with Sund being fired. I would like this looked into.

Never mind my criticism of the Mayor or the head of the National Guard in Washington D. C. Everything points to two men who made this happen. Trump and Sund. Was Sund just a dunce or is there more to this?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From the AP: "Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter."

And this was reportedly the reason (or one of them):
"Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans."

We're getting all sorts of conflicting reports. If this is true, this indicates that it wasn't the White House that held back protection, it was the Capitol Police that rejected the offer of additional security/personnel.

And the chief security officer for the House of Representatives has resigned. Speaker Pelosi asked for his resignation.

This appears to me to be old fashioned incompetence and nothing conspiratorial.

[Joe Elliott]

From the AP: "Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter."

And this was reportedly the reason (or one of them):
"Still stinging from the uproar over the violent response by law enforcement to protests last June near the White House, officials also were intent on avoiding any appearance that the federal government was deploying active duty or National Guard troops against Americans."

We're getting all sorts of conflicting reports. If this is true, this indicates that it wasn't the White House that held back protection, it was the Capitol Police that rejected the offer of additional security/personnel.

And the chief security officer for the House of Representatives has resigned. Speaker Pelosi asked for his resignation.

This appears to me to be old fashioned incompetence and nothing conspiratorial.

I agree. Nothing conspiratorial. But maybe Sund giving minimum protection in the hopes of helping Trump. But probably just a series of bad decisions by Capitol Police Chief Sund. It would be unlikely that both Trump and Sund would be equally delusional and both think that this could work.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There's lots of finger pointing and fanny covering here so it's hard to discern what happened. Clearly though the Capitol Police were simply unprepared for this. Just in terms of having enough force - officers - on the scene. Sund didn't need approval, I don't believe, from anyone to put more officers out.

This reminds me a bit of James Hosty's account of the assassination. He was the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds (both of them). He said in his book ("Assignment Oswald") that two days - two - before the visit he was informed by his superiors of the details of the President's visit. He claimed there was almost no coordination between the FBI and Secret Service and that the SS provided the agency with "very restrictive criteria for threats to the President." That's his account, of course; so take it with a large dose of skepticism.

Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent in charge in Dallas, said that if he had been told about Oswald that they would have taken him in before the visit for questioning. But they were never informed.

So the FBI is pointing its finger at the SS, the SS back at the FBI. The DPD criticized the FBI and on and on. That sounds like what is happening here. "I didn't mess up, they did."

[Bill Chapman]

There's lots of finger pointing and fanny covering here so it's hard to discern what happened. Clearly though the Capitol Police were simply unprepared for this. Just in terms of having enough force - officers - on the scene. Sund didn't need approval, I don't believe, from anyone to put more officers out.

This reminds me a bit of James Hosty's account of the assassination. He was the FBI agent assigned to monitor the Oswalds (both of them). He said in his book ("Assignment Oswald") that two days - two - before the visit he was informed by his superiors of the details of the President's visit. He claimed there was almost no coordination between the FBI and Secret Service and that the SS provided the agency with "very restrictive criteria for threats to the President." That's his account, of course; so take it with a large dose of skepticism.

Forrest Sorrels, the SS agent in charge in Dallas, said that if he had been told about Oswald that they would have taken him in before the visit for questioning. But they were never informed.

So the FBI is pointing its finger at the SS, the SS back at the FBI. The DPD criticized the FBI and on and on. That sounds like what is happening here. "I didn't mess up, they did."

[Steve M. Galbraith]

From yesterday's (1/9/21) Wall Street Journal account of the preparations for the protests/rally:

"In the days before the Jan. 6 rally, local and federal officials took a different tack in their preparations.

[Washingont DC Mayor] Ms. Bowser, in a letter to federal officials Monday, urged a light security footprint for Wednesday’s protests to avoid the type of show of force that inflamed tensions during last year’s racial-justice protests.

Military and defense officials offered assistance and prepared what all sides saw as a sufficient number of D.C. National Guard soldiers—about 340—to perform support duties such as traffic management, military officials said.

The U.S. Capitol Police, which is responsible for security at the Capitol and answers to Congress, twice told the Pentagon that no additional support was needed, according to officials and a Defense Department timeline. Local police generally require permission from Capitol Police to control crowds on the grounds of congressional buildings.

'The general attitude from Capitol Police was: ‘We got this. We do this all time,’” said a U.S. official familiar with the discussions."

Full story here (account needed): https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-capitol-riot-communications-between-agencies-hampered-forceful-response-11610242709