4 ms·

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted. Paraphrasing: "We are prepared for this weeks ac

by jariel 6y ago

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted. Paraphrasing: "We are prepared for this weeks activities and we are not asking for further assistance" In the links you sent, only the first link seems to contradict this statement, links 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to say about it really, and link 4 backs up the above quotes and doesn't contradict them - that said, these are literally her own words verbatim on the Tweet. Maybe her own words may be ironically out of context or misinterpreted? I don't know what the answer, but her letter seems fairly straight forward. Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel? What seems really odd, is why she wouldn't indicate that 'she had made a request that the Police subsequently denied' or at least hinted at that in the letter, at least to cover her rear as having not made the final decision? In any event, her words to seem fairly clear. With respect to the OP, and frankly a lot of the CNN-ish coverage with claims of 'racism!' - this really seems to discount that. The Black Female mayor indicating 'we are prepared and not asking for further assistance' - literally in a public document seems pretty clear. If anyone has any more information that would be helpful. [1] https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1346530358674792466%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fcongress-electoral-college-tally-live-updates%2F2021%2F01%2F07%2F954349992%2Fwhere-was-the-security-when-a-mob-stormed-the-capitol https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?r...

neogodless 6y ago
The key takeaways: * MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed) * Additional logistical support from unarmed DC National Guard (presumably these are not boots on the ground but just planning, equipment, etc?) * In the past, unidentified (e.g. not uniformed) armed personnel caused confusion (and is not desirable) Anyway, I agree this wasn't the right call. But I don't have enough inside information to know if Capitol Police assured her that with the various (above) coordination and help from surrounding areas (from your earlier link)[0], that everything would be "under control." Was she being naive, misinformed or have ill-intent? A good explanation would go a long way here. > [0] a mutual-aid agreement with several local police departments from nearby jurisdictions, and had requested backup from the Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia state police.
- jariel 6y ago
  Indeed confusing. But this: " “we must get statehood on the president’s desk within the first 100 days of there 117th Congress,” ... is obviously a hugely politicaly partisan point (it throws the supposed balance of power off in favour of 'one side') and , not exactly related to the specific issue of 'Metro Security'. The statement is really odd because 'DC Statehood' is a big political landmine (she knows this), and the statement just adds the possibility of partisan furor right a time when it's the last thing needed. My hunch is that all of this was mostly a result of DC not expecting huge crowds (I don't think the raw numbers were massive) - and - the expectation that because it was a political rally, that it would be much like Trump's other political rallies, which is to say, relatively uneventful, and not riotous. Certainly not 'assaulting the Capitol building'. I wonder if that is even within their imagination for what could go wrong, although I suppose it should be. I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the guards 'let them in', that's clearly not the case for the most part, although there are some guards who very oddly seemed to 'move away'. These kinds of conspiratorial actions would be impossible to keep under wraps, there's no chance that at least a few guards wouldn't 'leak' the 'secret plans' or whistle-blow after the fact. It'd be great if there was a really objective piece by piece breakdown of all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.
Izkata 6y ago
> Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel? I've lost the link (which is sad because I just had it like 20 minutes ago when searching for something else), but apparently the mayor requested more help on the 6th, after having lost control, and at that point then was denied.
- jariel 6y ago
  We're talking about 'preparations' however. It's a valid point you bring up overall, but it doesn't absolve her from the fact she signed off on the current situation. I've had a number of downvotes apparently but none of you have stepped up to providence evidence against her very own very public and documented signed off on the situation. People are literally blaming 'racism' on this board without evidence, when the Black Female mayor seems to have been an integral part of the lack of preparations.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    Oh no, that much I agree with. I meant to just add it as, help was both requested and not requested on different days, but no one was really saying which day they're referring to, so they could both be right and either have the days mixed up or be unaware of the other instance.

by jariel 6y ago

neogodless 6y ago

The key takeaways: * MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed) * Additional logistical support from unarmed DC National Guard (presumably these are not boots on the ground but just planning, equipment, etc?) * In the past, unidentified (e.g. not uniformed) armed personnel caused confusion (and is not desirable) Anyway, I agree this wasn't the right call. But I don't have enough inside information to know if Capitol Police assured her that with the various (above) coordination and help from surrounding areas (from your earlier link)[0], that everything would be "under control." Was she being naive, misinformed or have ill-intent? A good explanation would go a long way here. > [0] a mutual-aid agreement with several local police departments from nearby jurisdictions, and had requested backup from the Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia state police.

jariel 6y ago
Indeed confusing. But this: " “we must get statehood on the president’s desk within the first 100 days of there 117th Congress,” ... is obviously a hugely politicaly partisan point (it throws the supposed balance of power off in favour of 'one side') and , not exactly related to the specific issue of 'Metro Security'. The statement is really odd because 'DC Statehood' is a big political landmine (she knows this), and the statement just adds the possibility of partisan furor right a time when it's the last thing needed. My hunch is that all of this was mostly a result of DC not expecting huge crowds (I don't think the raw numbers were massive) - and - the expectation that because it was a political rally, that it would be much like Trump's other political rallies, which is to say, relatively uneventful, and not riotous. Certainly not 'assaulting the Capitol building'. I wonder if that is even within their imagination for what could go wrong, although I suppose it should be. I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the guards 'let them in', that's clearly not the case for the most part, although there are some guards who very oddly seemed to 'move away'. These kinds of conspiratorial actions would be impossible to keep under wraps, there's no chance that at least a few guards wouldn't 'leak' the 'secret plans' or whistle-blow after the fact. It'd be great if there was a really objective piece by piece breakdown of all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

Izkata 6y ago

> Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel? I've lost the link (which is sad because I just had it like 20 minutes ago when searching for something else), but apparently the mayor requested more help on the 6th, after having lost control, and at that point then was denied.

jariel 6y ago
We're talking about 'preparations' however. It's a valid point you bring up overall, but it doesn't absolve her from the fact she signed off on the current situation. I've had a number of downvotes apparently but none of you have stepped up to providence evidence against her very own very public and documented signed off on the situation. People are literally blaming 'racism' on this board without evidence, when the Black Female mayor seems to have been an integral part of the lack of preparations.
- Izkata 6y ago
  Oh no, that much I agree with. I meant to just add it as, help was both requested and not requested on different days, but no one was really saying which day they're referring to, so they could both be right and either have the days mixed up or be unaware of the other instance.