Report: President Donald Trump ordered 10,000 troops for January 6
This report proves there was no insurrection on January 6. If someone wanted to have an insurrection, why would they order 10,000 troops to help with crowd control? The report proves that President Donald Trump ordered 10,000 troops for January 6 and it was the democrats who decided not to utilize them.
Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots.
Video of Nancy Pelosi taking responsibility for not having troops at January 6 capital event.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800 … nuary-6%2F
GENERAL MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF:
“[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” *
“[POTUS said! ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.
CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
• “The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day… I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter or President Trump banter that you all are familiar with, and in no way, shape, or form did I interpret that as an order or direction.
“[On January 6, 2021] everyone was like, “Did you listen to the President’s speech?” I’m like “The guy speaks for 90 minutes it’s like Castro or something.?” No, I’ve got work to do.”
“I was cognizant of the fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner. And, just before the Electoral College certification, 10 former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing and using inappropriately the military. No such thing was going to occur on my watch.”
“There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.’
“The operational plan was this, let’s take the D.C. National Guard, keep them away from the Capitol.”* CHIEF STEVEN SUND, U.S. CAPITOL POLICE:
“I’m making an urgent request for the National Guard. We are being overrun. I gave a quick rundown of what we had going on and that officers out there are fighting for their lives. We were about to be taken over.
The representative from the Secretary of the Army said, “I don’t like the optics of National Guard standing in a line with the Capitol in the background.” *
“I explained to them that the building is being breached. I need their assistance immediately. He [General Piatt] said, “My recommendation to the Secretary of the Army is to not support the request.”
COLONEL EARL MATTHEWS, D.C. NATIONAL GUARD:
“The D.C. Guard could’ve gone in right away. But the Secretary of the Army did not give us the approval.”
“There was concern about being anywhere near the Capitol because of perception that the military would be involved, that there would be militarization of the electoral process.
“We were seeing the Congress of the United States being overrun, and the Guard – and the Capitol Police, the MPD need help. We had people at the D.C. Armory who are able to help, and they’re not moving. And they’re not allowed to move. They’re not allowed to go down there.”
“It’d be like, if there’s a five-alarm fire and you’re telling a volunteer fire company, “Don’t go respond to the fire. Go to trees and pull cats or dogs out of trees to free up firemen to respond to the real fire.” I mean, it’s ridiculous.
COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR MICHAEL BROOKS, D.C. NATIONAL GUARD:
“They were ready to go, and they just couldn’t understand why they were still sitting there. Literally sitting on a bus, just waiting to drive to the Capitol and do the best they could do to support Capitol Police.”
“People were like, “Why weren’t you there?” We were. We were waiting.”
“We repeatedly told them, “We know what we’re doing. We just need you to give us the authorization”
BRIGADIER GENERAL AARON DEAN, ADJUTANT GENERAL, D.C. NATIONAL GUARD:
than proming most sroper vete caged about optics when it comes to, you know, saving
“The lull time between that 2:30pm call and 5 o’clock, just nothing. It was like, that’s a little odd – very odd.
It put us in a bad situation, because we wanted to respond but we couldn’t. So we were just left there waiting on word.”
At the bottom of the article attached to this link it the report from House Oversight Committee
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/0 … d-january/Mike, why has the committee waited so long to release this report?
"Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored --- September 20, 2024
WASHINGTON - Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) revealed that days before January 6, 2021, President Trump met with senior Pentagon leaders urging them to do their jobs to protect lives and property. The transcripts released show Trump gave senior Pentagon leadership directives to keep January 6 peaceful - including using the National Guard - which the Pentagon leaders ignored. This revelation directly contradicts the conclusions drawn in the flawed DoD IG report on January 6, 2021."
Trump has consistently stated that he believed it would have been prudent to deploy the National Guard or other military personnel due to the anticipated size of the crowd at his January 6 speech. He has blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Mayor of Washington, D.C., for not accepting his offer of assistance, suggesting they were responsible for the lack of security. However, this new report reveals that Trump did believe military presence was necessary at the event, reinforcing his position that he had no involvement in any plans for an insurrection. This certainly puts a huge dent in Smith's charges. I won't be surprised if we see it tossed out. Just another case that will be tossed and Trump will be vindicated. I have never seen such a fighter, and I might add he has good karma. I would assume this will hit the fan tomorrow.
MY God this says it all ---- Bears repeating
"GENERAL MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF:
“[January 3, 2021] The President just say, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a
safe event."
“[POTUS said] ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have
to do. Just make sure it’s safe."Does the committee include in its report the actual paperwork, the actual request for the guard soldiers?. Who that written request went to? You know, the signed order to deploy National guard troops.
These discussions are meaningless without a signed order.
Am I missing this somewhere?I found the transcripts of all the interviews. Mike's quotes are correct.
Milley's testimony page 24 lines 6-8
https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpf … 0163916382
Here is Miller's testimony on page 35 lines 1-13
https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpf … tos?page=1
Here are all the interview documents. There are tons...
https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpf … tos?page=1
After reading some of the testimonials I would think the media is combing through all the testimonies. I just can't understand why these testimonies were not included in the Jan 6th hearings. Why are they releasing all of this now?
At this point, my eyes are glazing over from reading all of this. I’m done and leaving it to Congress — though we both know how that’ll turn out… confusion, delays, and in five years, everyone will have forgotten about it.So in General Milley's testimony, on page 10 he talks about the process to use the National guard. He states that it involves a request to the department of defense..
At this point I don't see that a request was made.
On page 13 He details the department of defense speaking with all of the agencies involved in and around the events of January 6th asking if they needed resources including the guard, all of them, including the White House said no. The mayor of DC was the only one who asked for anything additional.
Top of page 22. acting AG Rosen..
"we're in good shape, no need for support from DoD."
In regard to the January 3rd meeting Miley states..
"There was no discussion to my recollection... There was no discussion of 10,000 troops. It was just what I described, hey, I don't care if you use guard or soldiers, just do whatever you need to do to make sure it's safe"
I don't think these documents add anything new. Mark my words, if Republicans choose to do public hearings on the basis of this stuff, they will suffer yet another round of public humiliation. At least this one doesn't involve a whistleblower...Then Miley perjured himself.
GENERAL MARK MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF:
“[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” *
“[POTUS said! ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe.
As someone who spent time in the military, this is pretty much an order.
Some important thing this report shows.
1. If President Donald Trump was going to have an insurrection, why would he order 10,000 troops for crowd control?
2. Destroying communications is a serious indication of a cover up. You have to as what they are trying to cover up.
"Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots."
3. Nancy Pelosi admits the January 6 events were HER fault. That is significant.
Video of Nancy Pelosi taking responsibility for not having troops at January 6 capital event.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800 … nuary-6%2F
4. This evidence clearly shows there was NO insurrection on January 6 and the events that transpired were the result of incompetence by democrats.
Calling what happened on January 6 an insurrection is one of the many lies repeated by those in the democrat party. This report proves them to be liars. It also makes you wonder why the democrats destroyed evidence. What were they hiding? That is what needs to be investigated.Milley speaks of his conversation with the president more directly on page 24 lines start at line 6. I never made mention of 10,000 troops. I offered a link to the transcript and may have shared the essence of what Milley. https://app.box.com/s/w1mdlicby1o9wrcpf … 0163916382
" On page 13 He details the department of defense speaking with all of the agencies involved in and around the events of January 6th asking if they needed resources including the guard, all of them, including the White House said no. The mayor of DC was the only one who asked for anything additional. "
The president had already made his intentions clear, hadn't he? That’s the bottom line. It’s my bottom line, and I’d bet it’ll be the same in a court of law. People can dance around the details, but in the end, it was Milley who chose to disregard the president’s direct order. How could anyone overlook that? The president is the Commander-in-Chief. Hey, Milley did what he felt was prudent, it's all on him."Milley who chose to disregard the president’s direct order. How could anyone overlook that? "
Because there's no documentation that a formal request was made, went through the established procedure and then evidence in the form of documentation that it was formally declined.
Surely there is some written documentation that a request was declined.
There isn't even formal documentation pointing to a request being made to begin with.
Milley:
"On Jan. 3, the national security team assembled to brief the president about Iran increasing the number of centrifuges it can use to enrich uranium. At the very end of the meeting, Milley remembers, Trump turned to acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and asked him if he was “set” for Jan. 6..
“You’re set for the 6th and all that and you got a plan and, you know, protect my people and all that. Right?” Milley said. “And I’m silent. I’m just listening and I’m like, hmm.”
This struck Milley as “odd,” he said, because it was so out of place at the meeting.".
Does that sound like there was a denial of troops?
Again...Former acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller told the House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that then-President Trump gave no orders to prepare troops before that day.
Miller said he was “never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature.”
https://x.com/January6thCmte/status/155 … frame.html
Miller certainly was in the loop, he would have known.
There is no evidence that Trump actually signed any order requesting 10,000 Guard troops, let alone 20,000, for Jan. 6. Reached for comment, a spokesperson for the Department of Defense provided a timeline of the agency’s involvement in preparing for and responding to the attack on the Capitol. The timeline shows no such order, and notes only that on Jan. 3, the president concurred with activating the D.C. National Guard to support law enforcement at the behest of Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-t … 6055113284
No paper trail.
I just can't understand why these testimonies were not included in the Jan 6th hearings.
It was.
Why are they releasing all of this now?
Why? Dont you know, really?
Most the arguments here are false and have been debunked.
But even if they were true, it doesnt matter. Trump has declared Jan 6 insurrectionists patriots, victims, heroes. Has promised to pardon them. So, troops or not troops, Trump sees nothing wrong with the insurrection.
This is a last-ditch effort to help with those polls.I disagree. This is based on an investigative report produced by the Congressional Oversight Committee.
This is solid proof there was no such thing as an insurrection that took place on January 6.
It is a blatant lie democrats have spewed forth for years. It is time the light of truth was shown on these dark lies.
The actions of nancy pelosi and the democrats destruction of interviews are major cause for concern.
"Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots."
Video of Nancy Pelosi taking responsibility for not having troops at January 6 capital event.
https://x.com/OversightAdmn/status/1800 … nuary-6%2FMike, I’ve been reading Mayor Bowser's testimony this morning, and it’s quite interesting. I’ve also fully gone through General Milley’s and Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller’s testimonies. Both of them indicated that President Trump requested military protection specifically for his supporters on January 6th. Milley recalled Trump saying something along the lines of, “We need to make sure the National Guard is there to protect my people,” emphasizing his desire to keep his supporters safe. Similarly, Miller testified that Trump had asked for the National Guard to be ready to ensure security. There was no indication that Trump anticipated any violence at his speech, but the focus was clearly on protecting his supporters from potential threats. Their testimonies offer a clear context and give insight into Trump’s concern about possible disruptions from outside actors. I’m with you on this—it sheds light on what he believed might happen and his intent to protect those attending his rally.
All of this is a politically opportune moment to bring up these testimonies, though the media has largely ignored the Congressman’s September 20 statement. These documents provide full transparency of the testimony given, yet it's clear that some have selectively focused on parts that fit a particular narrative while disregarding the rest. In my opinion, this information will be crucial if Smith’s case ever reaches court. It’s compelling and demonstrates that Trump did not know of any insurrection plans.
The testimonies of Milley and Miller could potentially be relevant in a trial related to Trump, particularly if the case involves issues of intent, decision-making, or the response to the events of January 6. Their statements regarding Trump's actions and requests for military protection might be used to support arguments about his intentions or state of mind during the events in question. In legal proceedings, the context of their testimonies and how they align with the charges or arguments presented will be crucial.
I had not heard the full Nancy Tape... WOW! Again this will be good evidence, if needed.Does the oversight committee have hearing scheduled?
While Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to Jan. 6 about whether the National Guard would be called ahead of the joint session, he issued no such order or formal request before or during the rioting, and the guard’s arrival was delayed for hours as Pentagon officials deliberated over how to proceed.
In a 2022 interview with the Democratic-led House committee that investigated the attack, Christopher Miller, the acting Defense secretary at that time, confirmed that there was no order from the president. His testimony is here:
https://www.justsecurity.org/93316/anat … nuary-6th/
And the house select committee?
"In its final report, the committee summarized the testimony of witnesses who claimed that Trump had floated the idea of deploying 10,000 National Guardsmen — mainly to protect him and his supporters as they marched together to the U.S. Capitol. While Trump wanted to “walk with the people,” he did not end up doing so. And, as the committee explained in the executive summary to its final report, the investigation uncovered “no evidence” that “President Trump gave an order to have 10,000 troops ready for January 6th.”
And Pelosi?
"The video recently released by House Republicans, Pelosi is seen in the back of a car on Jan. 6 and talking to an aide. In the raw video recorded by her daughter, Pelosi is angrily asking her aide why the National Guard wasn’t at the Capitol when the rioting started. “Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?” she asks.
“We did not have any accountability for what was going on there and we should have, this is ridiculous,” Pelosi says, while her aide responds that security officials thought they had sufficient resources. “They clearly didn’t know and I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more,” Pelosi says in the video.
There is no mention of a request from Trump, and Pelosi never said that she took “full responsibility for Jan. 6.”
In a statement, Pelosi spokesman Ian Krager said Trump’s repeated comments about Pelosi are revisionist history.
“Numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed again and again that Speaker Pelosi did not plan her own assassination on January 6th,” Krager said. “The Speaker of the House is not in charge of the security of the Capitol Complex — on January 6th or any other day of the week.”
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot … d8c16ccd51
At this point, I do not believe that the Republicans will be stupid enough to pursue any of this. This is all media taking statements out of context and throwing thousands of pages of documents at a public they know won't even take a cursory look.
I don't think that even our dynamic investigatory duo of Jordan and Comer would touch this one at this point.Again,
It is clear in the report President Donald Trump said,
“[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” *
“[POTUS said! ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe."
THAT is an order. Anyone who has served in the military understands that is an order.
I don't care what independent fact checkers say. I watched the video and can think for myself.
"Democratic-led House committee that investigated the attack"
This report completely destroys the biased politically influenced work of the House Committee.
WHY don't they explain...
"Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots."
It is obvious the democrats are hiding something. Why did they destroy evidence?
Again, these are facts.
“As Nancy Pelosi was being evacuated from the Capitol on January 6, 2021 she admitted that, as Speaker of the House, she was responsible for the security failures, and for not having the National Guard at the Capitol,” said Chairman Loudermilk.
“However, after the dust settled from the breach of the Capitol, she spent 20 million taxpayer dollars for her January 6 Select Committee to create a narrative that shifted the blame on President Trump. The Democrats’ partisan select committee went to great lengths to suppress and hide evidence that didn’t support their predetermined narrative about that day, including this video of Speaker Pelosi admitting that she was responsible for the security failures at the Capitol. My committee will continue to investigate and expose all the facts. The American people deserve the truth.”
Yes, the American people deserve to be free of the blatant lies of the democrats."THAT is an order. Anyone who has served in the military understands that is an order."
General Milley explains the process in his testimony.
But like I said, the Republican can and should absolutely go ahead and launch public hearings. I welcome it. I thoroughly enjoy when they do so. At this point I'm missing the comic relief of Jordan and Comer.
These accusations have been made and I hope they follow through on proving them. In fact, I will consider it a dereliction of their duty if they do not do so.Well some very serious accusations have been made. I look forward to public hearings.
I am not sure of what accusations have been made. I see this all going nowhere but perhaps into Trump's defense in the Smith case.
Again --- The question of whether Milley had the right to override a presidential order is complex and involves legal and constitutional considerations. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Milley IS responsible for military operations but must also ensure that military actions comply with the law. While the president is the Commander-in-Chief, military leaders are guided by principles of legality and their duty to uphold the Constitution.
Milley's decisions during the January 6 events were influenced by concerns about the legality of orders and the potential implications of deploying troops to the Capitol. He alone prioritized ensuring that any military response was appropriate and legally justified, particularly given the risks of escalation and the appearance of military involvement in civilian affairs. Ultimately, the legality and appropriateness of Milley's actions would depend on the specific circumstances and legal interpretations applied, making this a topic of significant discussion in legal and military circles in the wake of January 6.
What we're left with today is that he did override the president's order, and he was within his rights to do so. However, in retrospect, his decision can certainly be questioned and viewed as a poor one, especially considering the events that unfolded at the Capitol.I'm still not seeing the order though? And the acting head of the department of defense during that time was Chris Miller not Milley.
As chairman of the joint Chiefs of staff, here is what he told the J6 committee..
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2022 … n-6-panel/Fact show --- In terms of military hierarchy, General Milley, as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, outranks Christopher Miller, who served as the Acting Secretary of Defense. Milley has the senior military position and is responsible for providing military advice to the president and civilian leadership, while Miller, as a civilian leader, had authority over the Department of Defense.
It also appears --- Christopher Miller's testimony has been scrutinized, and there were instances where his statements seemed to evolve or differ in emphasis. For example, during his testimony before Congress, he indicated that Trump had requested military protection for supporters on January 6, but the specifics of that request and the context surrounding it have been the subject of debate. Some observers noted that the nuances in his statements could reflect a shift in focus or interpretation over time, but whether this constitutes a "change" in testimony can depend on how one interprets the details.
Milley has shared testimony that remains unchanged. What is clear neither one carried out the president's order for their reasons. Milley had a legal right to do so. I am not sure about Miller's rights. I feel Milley being the senior was responsible for deciding on not carrying out the president's order.But there was nothing more than verbal banter about National guard?
I see no official order and even if there was an official order, where is the official response denying the request?
"I am not sure of what accusations have been made."
I think the original post that started this thread covers that. I would expect that Loudermilk should be held accountable to provide a factual basis for his claims. A public hearing would be in order.
I'd also like to see or hear the evidence that general Milley made such a decision. Where is the documentary or video evidence under oath that he refused the so called request?
I think it important that anyone that comments on these statements read at best Milley, Miller, and Bowser's testimonies. I mean how can one dispute these testimonies? The contexts of all are clear and under oath. There is no room for twisting and regurgitating these testimonies.
Have I missed the part where Trump or his administration contacted the department of defense and went through the process of requesting National guard?
Since Loudermilk has decided to make all of these accusations in the media, dumping thousands of pages of documents that most Americans aren't even equipped to read (and won't read) that oversight should take up the matter with public hearing? If they choose not to do so, would it be considered a dereliction of their duty?I agree this should be taken up in public hearings. It appears that the president gave an order, but it was ignored, and the consequence was a crowd attacking the Capitol. I read Milley and Millers testimony. Trump openly asked for troop presence due to crowd size, he wanted his supporters the be safe.
Trump did not distinguish which he preferred between the Guard and troops at the briefing. As you can see the chain of command was present, and several others were sat in at the briefing which also heard the statement.
"[January 3, 2021] The President just says, ‘Hey, look at this. There’s going to be a large amount of protesters here on the 6th, make sure that you have sufficient National Guard or Soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” *
“[POTUS said! ‘Hey, I don’t care if you use Guard, or Soldiers, active duty Soldiers, do whatever you have to do. Just make sure it’s safe."
The chain of command
The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and has the ultimate authority over military operations.
Secretary of Defense Miller: The President delegates military authority to the Secretary of Defense, who is responsible for the overall management and direction of the Department of Defense.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff currently General Mark Milley, acts as the principal military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. While he does not command forces, he provides guidance and strategic advice.
Others present -- General Daniel Hokanson - Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
Robert C. O'Brien - National Security Advisor,
--- These officials provided testimony that included references to Trump's remarks about wanting the National Guard to protect his supporters during the January 6 rally. However, their accounts varied regarding the specifics.
Milley was given the order—there's no twisting that fact. It’s unbelievable that anyone could spin it otherwise. You've provided facts, and I’ve shared links to the testimonies. Yet, some people refuse to believe even what's written in front of them, and when they do read it, they see only what they want to see. Mike, these testimonies could very well win Trump’s case if it ever goes to trial. We both know how ruthless the Democrats can be, and there’s no convincing some to see the other side, even when it hits them square in the face.
Milley dropped the ball—plain and simple. His authority was above Miller’s, and he chose to ignore a presidential order. That’s the bottom line.There is no record of Trump authorizing thousands of National Guard troops for the U.S. Capitol before the attack and no evidence that anyone denied such a request.
"There is no record of Trump authorizing thousands of National Guard troops for the U.S. Capitol before the attack and no evidence that anyone denied such a request."
We do have statements given under oath subject to perjury.
Why don't people on the left realize he was the president of the United States. When he said get extra people there, they should have had extra people there.
The bottom line is all of the is that January 6 was NOT an insurrection. That is a baseless lie democrats feel if they repeat enough people will believe it.
democrats impeached a man leaving office over nothing but their complete and total fear their incompetence would be exposed. It's being exposed and let us hope it continues.Well hopefully they will advance this to public hearings so that all of their "evidence" can be questioned. They've sat on this since March so what's up with that?
Republican leadership knows there's nothing to Loudermilks claims. They can't afford any more embarrassing hearings.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff... The chairman outranks all service chiefs, but does not maintain authority over them, their branches or the Unified Combatant Commands. All combatant commanders receive their orders directly from the secretary of defense.
"the chain of command "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command."
Yes, the National Guard is a combatant force.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not have the authority to deny a president's request for the National Guard. However, they can provide military advice and assess the implications of the request. Ultimately, the decision rests with the president and, if applicable, the Secretary of Defense. The chairman's role is to advise and inform, but they do not have veto power over the president's decisions.
Milley never received such a request because he was not the individual the request would have gone to..
https://www.jcs.mil/About/
Take a look at video of Miller testifying under oath... Lying?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/26/politics … index.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 32227.html
Miller later said in the video definitively, "There was no direct, there was no order from the President."
Really looking forward to public hearings on this one.
Actually, I can see that Loudermilk has been making these claims since March of this year, why is the committee not taking this up? You think they would at least want to publicly embarrass Democrats, right?
You know the shock value of all of it coming out on live TV.Christopher Miller's testimony and statements regarding the events surrounding January 6 have been perceived as conflicting or inconsistent by many observers. One notable area of concern is the timeline of approval for the National Guard's deployment; while Miller indicated that he approved the deployment in response to requests from the Capitol Police, critics have pointed out discrepancies between his timeline and those provided by other officials, including General Milley. Additionally, Miller's assertions about the Department of Defense being prepared for potential violence have been challenged, as many argue that his claims did not accurately reflect the reality of the security posture and the delays in mobilizing the National Guard.
In media interviews, Miller made statements about his actions leading up to and during January 6 that lawmakers have found inconsistent with his testimony before Congress. For instance, his comments regarding communication with the White House and the decision-making process have drawn scrutiny, leading to questions about the accuracy of his narrative. Furthermore, Miller's portrayal of his level of responsibility for the delays in the National Guard's deployment has been challenged, with some officials, including General Hokanson, presenting differing views on the decision-making process. These perceived inconsistencies have contributed to a narrative of confusion and disagreement among officials regarding the response to the January 6 events, resulting in calls for further investigation and accountability.
This does not take away from the fact Trump did order protection for his supporters at that briefing. He was first in command to see that Trump's wishes were carried out.I don't know, do folks believe that the government, at any level, operates on verbal commands? That just dropping a mention in conversation translates to signing an official order? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it absolutely does not work that way.
When it comes to the president's order, he did go through his chain of command Miller, and the list of progressives from him on down. Whatever occurred it starts with Miller on down.
Well, some believe it also operates on thoughts.
Ha!"the government, at any level, operates on verbal commands?"
In the military, many things are done through verbal commands. In the government most things are done through verbal commands.We're talking about scheduling the National guard for an event. Not an emergency situation but a preventative action. General Milley, and his testimony, spelled out the procedure. Trump did not sign a written request for the guard. Dropping a passing mention in conversation, isn't how you do it.
Also am I to believe that Trump actually wanted National guard on hand January 6th when in the aftermath he sat in his dining room watching the chaos at the Capitol unfold, family members and others begging him to bring in the guard?
Doesn't really make sense to me.
I am anxiously awaiting a public hearing on this one. Loudermilks supposed bombshell has just been sitting for months... Why no hearings?If I gave someone an order to make an event safe, that would be enough.
I would expect those who got the order to use their skills and knowledge to fulfill the order. That's it. The Commander and Chief of the military goes through a process of you do what you are told. Period.
I believe some of these generals should have faced consequences for not following the order of the Commander and Chief of the military.
I believe hearing will begin after this election cycle IF Republicans are in control. Americans deserve to know the truth.Why would they wait until after the election? All of these folks are available to bring before the oversight committee. If Loudermilk is so sure of his accusations, proving them would only bolster Trump in the polls.
If Americans "deserve" to know the truth, I would think folks should be encouraging their representatives to get this hearing underway already.
Comer doesn't seem to be doing much these days.
I have high hopes that such a hearing would be even more comically farcical than the previous carnival midway shows presided over by Comer and Jordan.
Loudermilk has promised to arrange that his committee hold the customary public snipe hunts at a later date. That was back in March...I would assume he has waited to get some political bang out of his findings. I mean the media will pick up on any form of Congressional hearings on any subject that relates to Jan 6th. I have not seen much on this issue thus far. Politics are at play. Both sides do very well with planning Oct surprises. Can't say I am disappointed that it's my side has some mud to sling.
CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
• “The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day… I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter or President Trump banter that you all are familiar with, and in no way, shape, or form did I interpret that as an order or direction.
“[On January 6, 2021] everyone was like, “Did you listen to the President’s speech?” I’m like “The guy speaks for 90 minutes it’s like Castro or something.?” No, I’ve got work to do.”
“I was cognizant of the fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner. And, just before the Electoral College certification, 10 former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed piece published in The Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing and using inappropriately the military. No such thing was going to occur on my watch.”
There was absolutely – there is absolutely no way I was putting U.S. military forces at the Capitol, period.’
“The operational plan was this, let’s take the D.C. National Guard, keep them away from the Capitol.”Update to Statement by Jonathan Hoffman, Chief Pentagon Spokesmen
Immediate Release
Update to Statement by Jonathan Hoffman, Chief Pentagon Spokesman, on D.C. Guard Mobilization
Jan. 6, 2021
"Earlier this week, Mayor Bowser requested approximately 340 D.C. National Guardsmen to assist D.C. police in preparation for possible protests today. That request was approved. Today, the mayor requested the full activation of the D.C. Guard to support local and federal law enforcement as they respond to the situation at the Capitol. That request was approved. There have been no other requests from the D.C. government."
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/R … -guard-mo/
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/01/timel … o-capitol/Representative Jamie Raskin's response to Loudermilks accusations that started back in March of this year..
"Representative Loudermilk and Trump’s other loyal foot soldiers in Congress willfully ignore the findings of the bipartisan January 6 Select Committee report—for example, Loudermilk attempts to revive a long-debunked conspiracy theory that Trump pressed for a National Guard presence ahead of January 6, ignoring the sworn testimony of Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller stating that there was ‘no order’ from Trump to put 10,000 troops on the ready. If Trump dropped a passing mention of that number in conversation, thinking that it would somehow immunize him from the consequences of his treachery and disloyalty to the Republic, he is badly mistaken. If he casually remarked to an underling or anyone else about the forces that would be needed to stop his own attack on our government, this only deepens his culpability and consciousness of guilt—it does not erase it."
Bring on the hearings.
https://raskin.house.gov/2024/3/raskin- … ring%20theCome on --- "Representative Loudermilk and Trump’s other loyal foot soldiers in Congress willfully ignore the findings of the bipartisan January 6 Select Committee report—for example, Loudermilk attempts to revive a long-debunked conspiracy theory that Trump pressed for a National Guard presence ahead of January 6, ignoring the sworn testimony of Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller stating that there was ‘no order’ from Trump to put 10,000 troops on the ready." J. Raskin
It is clear he omitted the fact Milley did give testimony --- During his testimony regarding the events of January 6, 2021, General Mark Milley stated that President Trump did ask for troops to be deployed to the Capitol. Milley emphasized that the request was made in the context of wanting to protect the supporters at the rally and to prevent potential violence. He noted that there were discussions about the presence of National Guard troops to ensure safety and maintain order.
Yeah seems he forgot that. Do you not pick up the lack of factual info in his statement? Raskin is an attorney, and did not lie -- just left out a sh--load of factual info. Are you willing to disregard Milley's testimony so easily?
Representative Jamie Raskin's statement illustrates why it's challenging to uncover the full truth. While his claim contains some truth, it omits crucial details, particularly regarding General Milley's testimony. Milley, who outranks Miller, ultimately decided not to follow the president's order. This context is essential for understanding the situation fully.
Ultimately Raskin is a big part of the problem when it comes to planting the root of disinformation -- In my view, you ran with it, did you not?https://x.com/January6thCmte/status/1552041350941532168
I am unable to find any testimony under oath that Milley States 10,000 troops were requested by Trump and that he denied such a request.
But I'm also wondering why hearings haven't happened yet? These accusations were brought by Loudermilk in March."I am unable to find any testimony under oath that Milley States 10,000 troops were requested by Trump and that he denied such a request."
There is a good reason for that.
"Nancy Pelosi later refused to turn over her communications surrounding January 6. And Democrats later destroyed evidence from their interviews with officials involving the January 6 riots."
Also
CHRISTOPHER MILLER, ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
• “The President commented that they were going to need 10,000 troops the following day… I interpreted it as a bit of presidential banter or President Trump banter that you all are familiar with, and in no way, shape, or form did I interpret that as an order or direction.But Nancy Pelosi has nothing to do with Milley. I would like to see confirmation that he turned down a request for troops. Surely, since Loudermilk is making this accusation, there is documentary evidence. Right?
Apparently I had great sources way back when I mentioned all of this in J6 articles.
I will be so happy when we can put this all behind us and get back on track with Trump!!Yes, I think he will win this time. Hopefully, Trump will be safe in the Whitehouse. It would be SO nice to get back on track. If we can.
Related Discussions
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 13 months ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...
- 15
Bipartisan Senate Report says Capital Police problem January 6 attack
by Readmikenow 3 years ago
Guess what? President Donald Trump is not responsible for the January 6th breach of the Capital building. It was planned long before he gave his speech. At last, the truth comes out. "A Senate investigation of the January6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has uncovered...
- 1121
Jan 6th Hearings Are Approaching Will You Be Tuning In?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
- 24
Ukraine Accepts U.S. Ceasefire Deal Awaiting Russia’s Response
by Sharlee 3 days ago
Ukraine has agreed to a deal put forward by the Trump administration during a meeting in Saudi Arabia, marking a big step toward securing a ceasefire and potentially ending the war with Russia. (Sratement from President Zelensky posted on X --- ...
- 108
President Donald Trump Again?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 8 months ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
- 118
Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?
by The Minstrel 5 years ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court....