3 ms·

The key takeaways: * MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed) * Additional logistical support from unarmed D

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.

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.