US Politics

It depends what's standard practice, surely?

Is it normal to say 'you can deploy, and take all the guns,' so this is an emasculated order, or is it normal for the first stage to be 'you can deploy, but check with me before you take it to the next level'?

(ETA - that WaPo link suggests it's not normal, but perhaps explained by reaction to criticism of the National Guard deployments last summer, compounded by cock-up. Or it could all just be part of a big conspiracy.)

He posted it 4 days ago and we haven't heard anything else about it since - based on that alone, there may not be much to it.

Winslow wasn't the original source. He just reposted it.

I'm not sure I follow. It is what it is. A document that might shed some light on things or might not. Agree its a bit strong to call it a smoking gun.

Edit: A more general view https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/dc-guard-capitol-riots-william-walker-pentagon/2021/01/26/98879f44-5f69-11eb-ac8f-4ae05557196e_story.html

Popped up on twitter - not confirmed as genuine yet, but it's being touted as such - also references an Executive Order enforcing the memo, presumably from the (then) president?

I remember there being suggestions at the time that security at the Capitol had been told not to engage with any protesters but I hadn't seen any documentation to support this - this looks like some

Worth adding that I don't think has verified that memo as real. However, this site was the original source and while very left leaning they don't have a track record of publishing false information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Kos

I guess it looks a bit fake.

It depends what's standard practice, surely?

It could be a fake. It is standard practice to have some form of available air support which they clearly didn’t. Official timeline doesn’t give enough detail to prove the memo but it also doesn’t disprove it. https://media.defense.gov/2021/Jan/11/2002563151/-1/-1/0/PLANNING-AND-EXECUTION-TIMELINE-FOR-THE-NATIONAL-GUARDS-INVOLVEMENT-IN-THE-JANUARY-6-2021-VIOLENT-ATTACK-AT-THE-US-CAPITOL.PDF

I guess it looks a bit fake.

I assume you mean the signature . Looks like a normal signature pad signature to me personally but sure, could be fake.

Maybe it’s that. Plus the simplicity of it.

Yeah - that's what I meant - IF it was real, AND it was a smoking gun, would've thought it would have been made more of. Not yet convinced of either.

If interested, I have a copy of the PDF somewhere. Will post here if I can find it.

EDIT: Nah, I never had it. I'm confusing it with something else.

Real

^ Jamie Raskin, a Consitutional Law Professor.

In the UK we get an ex-fireplace salesman as Education Secretary.

Also real.

1 Attachment

Can we stop just saying real? It's genuinely difficult to identify sarcasm around claims that something trump wrote something disagreeable...

I've never used sarcasm so you can trust what I post.

Put an /s for serious after posts where you're not being sarcastic.

/s

Or if you aren't sure, take all of 10 seconds to do a bit of Googling and find out.

OK Google, is Will being sarcastic?

And an \s if you are.
\s

Marjorie Taylor Greene defending her past 'mistakes': "I was allowed to believe things that weren't true," You were allowed? By who? Your mum?

whom*

whanker*

God almighty my rep finger is a bloody stub just from you lot roasting one another.

whamker*

whamker*

Ha!