• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

More on the sergeant of arms failure:

Roll Call: Capitol Police chief, sergeant-at-arms acknowledge failure to protect against Jan. 6 riot

As a result of the security failure, House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger resigned.
Click to expand...


Claims no request for Nat'l Guard was made:
Pittman [new acting chief] said on Jan. 4 that Sund asked the Capitol Police Board, which comprises the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms and the Architect of the Capitol, to declare a state of emergency and authorize a request for National Guard support, but the board denied the request....

“Despite the comments made today by the U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Acting Chief before the House Appropriations Committee, then-Chief Sund did not reach out to the Architect of the Capitol (AOC) with a request for an emergency declaration or seeking National Guard support. The AOC has no record of a request for an emergency declaration by then-Chief Sund to the Capitol Police Board. While then-Chief Sund may have engaged in conversations with other members of the Board, no such conversation occurred with the Architect or any AOC employee involved in Board matters,” Blanton said in a statement released late in the afternoon on Tuesday.

“In addition, there was no Board meeting as indicated by the Acting Chief. While USCP leadership may have met with or spoken to other security colleagues, no such conversations were held with AOC employees involved in Board matters. Furthermore, the AOC is not aware of any USCP requests (verbal or written) being submitted to the Board requesting additional support prior to January 6, 2021,” Blanton continued.
Click to expand...


And what about this key fact?
Ryan also questioned why the commander of the D.C. National Guard, Maj. Gen. William Walker, was restricted by the Pentagon from addressing the situation. “Why was the authority taken away from Gen. Walker with the D.C. National Guard to be able to make split-second decisions? That authority was assumed by the Pentagon, and so why was that the case, which slowed down the response?” Ryan said.
Click to expand...
This is going to need a new thread when the investigations begin.

I'm off to go see who these two sergeants at arms were.
 
Yeah, Trump was so concerned about Pence that he called him right away to see if he was OK.. Right, van der Veen. This guy is unbelievable.
 
Stacyhs said:
Trump's words has ZERO to do with those rioters being there on Jan. 6 and what they did.

Except for what dozens of those rioters at the Capitol on Jan. 6 have said.
Click to expand...

I hope Trump supporters around the country are watching this and taking the lesson- that Trump will walk away whistling from a mess he created and they will be the ones left holding the bag. (Though I'm sure he will be happy to pay for their legal expenses :rolleyes:) Because you can bet Trump will understand that- if he runs again in four years, what reason will he (or any candidate, for that matter) have to dial back on rhetoric that needs only to be framed as "protected speech," when consequences are only things for little people to bear?
 
Last edited:
I remember this "optics" claim.

The Washingtonian:
The Washington Post reported Monday that Paul Irving, the Sergeant-at-Arms for the House of Representatives, didn’t act on a suggestion from the chief of the Capitol Police—two days prior to the attack on the U.S. Capitol— that he activate the national guard because he believed Congressional leaders would deny the request on account of how it would look. “The term ‘optics’ is not an unusual term up there on the Hill,” former Senate sergeant-at-arms Bill Pickle, speaking at the request of Irving, told The Post. “He understands how the members think. He understands optics is everything to a politician.” When making the decision not to activate the National Guard, Irving didn’t check with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was his superior until he resigned on January 11, “but thought he was reflecting her likely response,” according to The Post’s reporting.
Click to expand...
So incompetence. I'm not sure that helps Trump's case which is to say no one could have foreseen the results of Trump's incitement.
 
turingtest said:
I hope Trump supporters around the country are watching this and taking the lesson- that Trump will walk away whistling from a mess he created and they will be the ones left holding the bag. (Though I'm sure he will be happy to pay for their legal expenses :rolleyes:) Because you can bet Trump will understand that- if he runs again in four years, what reason will he (or any candidate, for that matter) have to dial back on rhetoric that needs only to be framed as "protected speech" when consequences are only things for little people to bear?
Click to expand...

If Trump ever got re-elected he would be far worse than the last time because he'd have nothing to lose: no re-election to worry about and he'd have learned that he could do just about anything and get away with it.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
I think the prosecution missed several opportunities.

When asked exactly when Trump knew this or that, the defense focused on the lack of an investigation. The prosecution rather weakly said roughly, “He must have known because everybody knew”. I think they missed saying, “We could know exactly when he learned of each and every aspect of the attack and what he did or didn’t do - BY ASKING HIM! Don’t pretend we didn’t give him the opportunity to tell his side of the story, and then blame us for lack of information.”
Click to expand...
They did just say this. They must be reading our thread. :p
 
Stacyhs said:
If Trump ever got re-elected he would be far worse than the last time because he'd have nothing to lose: no re-election to worry about and he'd have learned that he could do just about anything and get away with it.
Click to expand...

I can't be watching this stuff on TV, because I can't afford right now to replace one, but I'm seeing an NBC News headline at MSN that says Trump's defense team is arguing that his words before the riot were "ordinary political rhetoric." Things are going to really start going downhill if Trump's two months of CT-mongering and outright lying about the election, and that speech as the capper to all that, becomes the risk-free standard for politics in America.
 
Trump's speech can't be held to have incited the riot because some barricades were pushed over 20 minutes before it ended? You mean some of the rioters couldn't already have become enraged 20 minutes into his speech considering they came there already believing he had called them there to "stop the steal"?

yeah....

ETA: And that's already after hearing Mo Brooks and Giuliani revving them up.
 
Last edited:
What the lawyers are saying. From Law.com:

'Substantively Pathetic': Trump's Defense Team Falls Flat for Some Lawyers
Click to expand...

Several legal observers were critical of the attorneys for being unable to answer whether Trump knew Mike Pence was in danger at the Capitol when he wrote a tweet critical of the then-vice president, pointing to Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s previous statement that he told Trump during a phone call that Pence was removed from the Senate chamber.

Here’s a look at what the legal community is saying about today’s arguments:

➤➤ Laurence Tribe, Harvard law professor: ”Van der Veen absurdly tried to use one tweet’s obvious misspelling of ‘cavalry’ as evidence of ‘manipulation’ by the House Managers. And that was typical.” [Twitter]
➤➤ Michael Bromwich, former inspector general at the U.S. Department of Justice: “Van der Veen is a rare combination of substantively pathetic, stylistically embarrassing, and condescending beyond belief.” [Twitter]

➤➤ Daniel Goldman, former lead counsel in Trump’s first impeachment proceeding: ”Just after Schoen accused Managers of ‘manipulating’ evidence because they took excerpts of videos, he shows a lengthy video of numerous, extremely spliced video clips without any context for the comments.” [Twitter]

➤➤ Sarah Isgur, host of legal podcast “Advisory Opinions”: ”I cannot tell you how irrelevant the Brandenburg test is to impeachment in the Constitution.” [Twitter]
Click to expand...
 
turingtest said:
I can't be watching this stuff on TV, because I can't afford right now to replace one, but I'm seeing an NBC News headline at MSN that says Trump's defense team is arguing that his words before the riot were "ordinary political rhetoric." Things are going to really start going downhill if Trump's two months of CT-mongering and outright lying about the election, and that speech as the capper to all that, becomes the risk-free standard for politics in America.
Click to expand...

As the awesome Stacie Plaskett points out 'it is not just about the one speech'.
 
I'm tired of the BS argument that if we impeach Trump then we're setting a precedent that ANY former government official can be impeached.

This is patently false, and I don't see how anyone could make this argument. The impeachment process would still have to be followed according to the constitution, and those subject to it are still clearly defined:

Congress has most notably employed the impeachment tool against the President and federal judges, but all federal civil officers are subject to removal by impeachment. The practice of impeachment makes clear, however, that Members of Congress are not civil officers subject to impeachment and removal.
Click to expand...

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-1/ALDE_00000282/['']

Finally, congressional practice indicates that Members of Congress are not officers of the United States. In 1797, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Senator William Blount, the first impeachment in the history of the young Republic. Two years later, the Senate concluded that Senator Blount was not a civil officer subject to impeachment and voted to dismiss the articles because that body lacked jurisdiction over the matter. This determination has been accepted ever since by the House and the Senate, and since then, the House has never again voted to impeach a Member of Congress.
Click to expand...

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S4-1-2-1/ALDE_00000689/['']

Additionally, and although I can't find any direct corroboration of this, since Congress essentially makes their own impeachment rules and must submit the articles of impeachment in a timely manner I don't see how that could be done retroactively as those that are making this claim want us to believe they would. Classic slippery slope.
 
Vixen said:
As the awesome Stacie Plaskett points out 'it is not just about the one speech'.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to hear at least one of the managers pointed this out (not that it will matter to Senators determined to acquit, and damn the details); hopefully, more than one did so. I just cannot see how a man who took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" can be said to have done anything but violate that oath by spending the last two months of his Presidency doing all he could to kick the legs out from underneath the Constitution.
 
Lerxst said:
I'm tired of the BS argument that if we impeach Trump then we're setting a precedent that ANY former government official can be impeached.

...snip
Click to expand...

I would like someone to point out that the House DID NOT impeach a former president. Trump was impeached while he was in office.

The senate is following the constitution by having a trial. And the constitution requires that trial. Both the media and the politicians are guilty of ignoring this distinction when they discuss "post term impeachment".
 
slyjoe said:
I would like someone to point out that the House DID NOT impeach a former president. Trump was impeached while he was in office.

The senate is following the constitution by having a trial. And the constitution requires that trial. Both the media and the politicians are guilty of ignoring this distinction when they discuss "post term impeachment".
Click to expand...

Everyone in that room knows that too...and in questioning today they brought up Hillary and the prospect of impeaching her, or <gasp> any of them!

They know that can't happen but they throw that out there anyway.
 
Lerxst said:
Everyone in that room knows that too...and in questioning today they brought up Hillary and the prospect of impeaching her, or <gasp> any of them!

They know that can't happen but they throw that out there anyway.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about whether all the politicians know. I saw on CBS news today them discussing the claim, and the media were very sloppy about terms when discussing the slippery slope arguments as if it had merit.
 
slyjoe said:
I'm not sure about whether all the politicians know. I saw on CBS news today them discussing the claim, and the media were very sloppy about terms when discussing the slippery slope arguments as if it had merit.
Click to expand...

I think they count on the fact that their constituents don't know and are none the wiser. I can't even count the number of people I know that are parroting this nonsense. Politics, it's not about reality, it's about what people believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom