3 ms·

I think it's worth mentioning that the executive branch of the US government, including the president of the US, were supporting the rioters. In my opinion, thi

I think it's worth mentioning that the executive branch of the US government, including the president of the US, were supporting the rioters. In my opinion, this is part of the reason why the capital was not more secure. It may be more difficult for another country, like England, to get that kind of support from the executive branch of the US government.

beerandt 5y ago
- magicalist 5y ago
  > Trump tried to secure the capital with troops, only to have Pelosi etal insert themselves this is not something that happened > Which was itself unconstitutional and extremely concerning Right, because this would be stupid if it were real. If the speaker of the house wanted the national guard they would make a request through the chain of command. But it's not something that happened. > The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi. No, it doesn't.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Whatever culpability you imagine Nancy Pelosi has regarding Jan 6, Mitch McConnell would share the same. Nonetheless, neither of them bears the culpability you imagine, because they don't have the kind of oversight you are implying. The Capitol Police are controlled by a board of the Capitol Architect, and the Sergeants at Arms for the two chambers of the Congress. The Capitol Architect is appointed by the President for a 10 year term and the Sergeants at Arms are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. But the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader do not control the Capitol police as you imagine, nor should they if you think about it. I think there was a failure in security that day, but it's still a big question as to exactly what that was. This is part of the scope of the Jan 6 Committee, and we should get some answers here this year.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > Trump tried to secure the capital with troops, No he didn't. (Unless by “troops” you mean the mob that he sent to the Capitol, but that really doesn't help your case.) > only to have Pelosi etal insert themselves into the chain of command and directly contact military leaders to block it. That also didn't happen. (The only documented contact I am aware of between anyone in congressional leadership and anyone in the military chain of command during the event that I am aware of is between the President of the Senate—the Vice President of the United States—and the Acting Secretary of Defense, and that was requesting assistance, not giving orders, as is appropriate for someone not in the military chain of command, but no one in any position to know has even claimed anyone outside of the legal chain of command inserted themselves in the way you suggest.) > The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi. No, it doesn't. Each house has its own Sergeant-At-Arms that answers to the leader of the house, and the Capitol Police answers to a Board consisting of both Sergeants-At-Arms and the Architect of the Capitol.

beerandt 5y ago

magicalist 5y ago
> Trump tried to secure the capital with troops, only to have Pelosi etal insert themselves this is not something that happened > Which was itself unconstitutional and extremely concerning Right, because this would be stupid if it were real. If the speaker of the house wanted the national guard they would make a request through the chain of command. But it's not something that happened. > The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi. No, it doesn't.
ModernMech 5y ago
Whatever culpability you imagine Nancy Pelosi has regarding Jan 6, Mitch McConnell would share the same. Nonetheless, neither of them bears the culpability you imagine, because they don't have the kind of oversight you are implying. The Capitol Police are controlled by a board of the Capitol Architect, and the Sergeants at Arms for the two chambers of the Congress. The Capitol Architect is appointed by the President for a 10 year term and the Sergeants at Arms are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader. But the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader do not control the Capitol police as you imagine, nor should they if you think about it. I think there was a failure in security that day, but it's still a big question as to exactly what that was. This is part of the scope of the Jan 6 Committee, and we should get some answers here this year.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Trump tried to secure the capital with troops, No he didn't. (Unless by “troops” you mean the mob that he sent to the Capitol, but that really doesn't help your case.) > only to have Pelosi etal insert themselves into the chain of command and directly contact military leaders to block it. That also didn't happen. (The only documented contact I am aware of between anyone in congressional leadership and anyone in the military chain of command during the event that I am aware of is between the President of the Senate—the Vice President of the United States—and the Acting Secretary of Defense, and that was requesting assistance, not giving orders, as is appropriate for someone not in the military chain of command, but no one in any position to know has even claimed anyone outside of the legal chain of command inserted themselves in the way you suggest.) > The police/security force for the capital building itself btw is not part of the executive branch (for this exact reasoning) and answers directly to Pelosi. No, it doesn't. Each house has its own Sergeant-At-Arms that answers to the leader of the house, and the Capitol Police answers to a Board consisting of both Sergeants-At-Arms and the Architect of the Capitol.