To believe that Pelosi had "nothing to do" with the two refusals of the requests to use National Guard (NG) troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6, you would have to assume that the House Sergeant at Arms twice rejected those requests without bothering to consult with Pelosi, a very unlikely scenario.
Again
The house leader has NO POWER TO REQUEST OR REFUSE THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE NATIONAL GUARD TO THE CAPITOL. Even the VP does not have that power.
Your lying source is lying to you!
January 6 was the day the Senate would certify the Electoral College results.
See, you do not even know the most basic facts about US politics. The Senate does not count EC votes, CONGRESS does, the WHOLE of congress - the House and the Senate... (3 USC § 15 ). The counting of electoral votes in Congress is a combined session FFS
The whole world knew that a massive protest was going to occur and that tensions were sky high. It boggles the mind to suggest that the House Sergeant at Arms would make such an enormous decision on security without consulting with his boss, Pelosi. I find such a scenario incredibly hard to believe.
No such decision was made.
POTUS is the only person with the power to deploy the National Guard to the Capitol, and that lazy Fat Orange Turd did not make a single phone call to anyone during the Insurrection, let alone, call in the National Guard.
Remember that it was Pelosi who ordered NG troops to guard the Capitol *after* January 6. She kept them there for five months, long after there was any credible reason for making them stay there. Yet, we are supposed to believe that she had nothing to do with the rejections of the requests to use NG troops to help guard the Capitol on January 6.
More lies you are being gulled with from your lying source
And what about the documented evidence that one of Schumer's top aides received credible, specific FBI intel that some of the protestors would storm the Capitol? Here, too, it boggles the mind to believe that the aide did not immediately discuss this intel with Schumer. Yet, neither Schumer nor the aide shared that intel with the Capitol police, nor did they act on that intel. Schumer surely was advised of the intel, and his failure to act clearly suggests that he wanted the riot to occur because he knew the Democrats could use it as a propaganda weapon against Trump and the Republicans.
Again, there was no such documentation. It never happened.
As a deep purple Independent
Bwahahahaha. You're a dedicated sycophant who has clearly and obviously shown unending blind loyalty to The Fat Orange Turd... and now you would have us believe that you're a
"deep purple Independent"?
........
There are not enough laughing dogs to respond to that BS
If you think you are deep purple, maybe you should reconsider. If you keep listening to that
Castle Full Of Rascals at "Just the News", and that
Bloodsucker John Solomon, you'll end up
Blind with a
Bad Attitude. You'll end up a
Living Wreck, and before long, there will be men in white coats
Knocking At Your Back Door.
... Pelosi and Schumer clearly seemed to want the riot to occur, given Schumer's failure to act on the FBI intel and given Pelosi's apparent refusal to allow NG troops to be used to help guard the Capitol.
Yeah, Pelosi was eager to let people who wanted to put a bullet in her head, into the place where she works? Got it!
...and right here, you have demonstrated what your two biggest problems are.
1. The moment any reasonable person sees
"Just the News" as the
"source", then they can dismiss out of hand, whatever is being claimed from that source. "Just the News" is not a source of information, its a source of far right, ultra conservative disinformation, misinformation and lies. It has been caught by fact checkers on numerous occasions, making claims that are both evidentially and verifiably false.
2. As long as you keep living in your far-right echo chamber, using "Just the News" as your only source, you will make no headway here. Try
Godlike Productions, they are more your style!
