Posted on Dec 13, 2021
Meadows Jan. 5 email indicated Guard on standby to ‘protect pro Trump people,’ investigators say
1.52K
18
7
7
7
0
Donald Trump
Guard
Investigation
Washington
Email
Posted 3 y ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
There is so much misinformation about Jan 6 events...I don't believe any of it
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
OK, so taking this at face value, let's look at history prior to Jan 6. In case anyone does not have a calendar, January 5, the day of the e-mail in question, is prior to January 6. In case anyone cannot figure out why this is important, I will explain that we cannot view actions taken on January 5 through the lens of what we know happened or what we learned about on January 6 - or any time thereafter. We MUST view those actions through the lens of what happened and what was known on and before January 5.
Obviously, we now know that getting aboard the Titanic was a HORRIBLE decision. And we could criticize those idiots all day long. But when the ship LAUNCHED, it was a perfectly rational - even a GOOD decision. So......
Prior to January 6, pro-Trump rallies, demonstrations, etc. were raucous, but non-violent. Those demonstrators were FAR more likely to be attacked by anti-Trump counter-demonstrators than they were to attack LEOs, loot, rob, commit arson, vanadalize, etc. EVERYONE in the law enforcement community understood that the demonstrations organized by the right had to be protected, and the demonstrations organized by the left had to both be protected and protected FROM.
This is NOT to say that the right are perfect angels. The demonstrations by the left had to be protected, as well, as counter-protestors at left demonstrations DID get violent. And even at the demonstrations by the right, some of the folks were only TOO happy to mix it up with counter-protestors if the counter-protestors started something. But there was zero evidence prior to January 6th that the pro-Trump crew would fail to respect LEOs in a massive way, would break down barriers, vandalize, and get violent.
So, on January 5 (or January 3, in the Trump convo with the military), having the concern of protecting the rights of demonstrators to demonstrate is a PERFECTLY rational, valid concern. It shows absolutely nothing regarding the events of January 6, because January 6 HAD NOT HAPPENED YET, therefore the potential for something like this was not known.
As the adage goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." January 6 was the first time. So shame on the protestors. Not on Meadows or Trump or the National Guard.
Obviously, we now know that getting aboard the Titanic was a HORRIBLE decision. And we could criticize those idiots all day long. But when the ship LAUNCHED, it was a perfectly rational - even a GOOD decision. So......
Prior to January 6, pro-Trump rallies, demonstrations, etc. were raucous, but non-violent. Those demonstrators were FAR more likely to be attacked by anti-Trump counter-demonstrators than they were to attack LEOs, loot, rob, commit arson, vanadalize, etc. EVERYONE in the law enforcement community understood that the demonstrations organized by the right had to be protected, and the demonstrations organized by the left had to both be protected and protected FROM.
This is NOT to say that the right are perfect angels. The demonstrations by the left had to be protected, as well, as counter-protestors at left demonstrations DID get violent. And even at the demonstrations by the right, some of the folks were only TOO happy to mix it up with counter-protestors if the counter-protestors started something. But there was zero evidence prior to January 6th that the pro-Trump crew would fail to respect LEOs in a massive way, would break down barriers, vandalize, and get violent.
So, on January 5 (or January 3, in the Trump convo with the military), having the concern of protecting the rights of demonstrators to demonstrate is a PERFECTLY rational, valid concern. It shows absolutely nothing regarding the events of January 6, because January 6 HAD NOT HAPPENED YET, therefore the potential for something like this was not known.
As the adage goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." January 6 was the first time. So shame on the protestors. Not on Meadows or Trump or the National Guard.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Capt Gregory Prickett - Sir, please read the entire comment.
And I quote (myself): "This is NOT to say that the right are perfect angels. The demonstrations by the left had to be protected, as well, as counter-protestors at left demonstrations DID get violent."
And I quote (myself, again): "And even at the demonstrations by the right, some of the folks were only TOO happy to mix it up with counter-protestors if the counter-protestors started something."
And I quote (myself): "This is NOT to say that the right are perfect angels. The demonstrations by the left had to be protected, as well, as counter-protestors at left demonstrations DID get violent."
And I quote (myself, again): "And even at the demonstrations by the right, some of the folks were only TOO happy to mix it up with counter-protestors if the counter-protestors started something."
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Capt Gregory Prickett - Sir,
I may have missed it, it is entirely possible. Were those supporters assaulting LEOs, breaking down barricades, burning, looting, and/or vandalizing?
Because from a planning and prep standpoint, as well as a resource allocation standpoint, "they occasionally (or even OFTEN) mix it up with opposing viewpoints who show up" is different from "they frequently attack LEOs who are there to keep the peace" and VASTLY different from "they occasionally (or OFTEN) 'break out' of the protest area and commit other crimes."
To my knowledge the first criteria (mixing it up with the opposition) is the more appropriate threat criteria. At least prior to January 6. But again, as I said, I have missed it.
I may have missed it, it is entirely possible. Were those supporters assaulting LEOs, breaking down barricades, burning, looting, and/or vandalizing?
Because from a planning and prep standpoint, as well as a resource allocation standpoint, "they occasionally (or even OFTEN) mix it up with opposing viewpoints who show up" is different from "they frequently attack LEOs who are there to keep the peace" and VASTLY different from "they occasionally (or OFTEN) 'break out' of the protest area and commit other crimes."
To my knowledge the first criteria (mixing it up with the opposition) is the more appropriate threat criteria. At least prior to January 6. But again, as I said, I have missed it.
(0)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
Capt Gregory Prickett Nope. Not what I said.
Not even close.
What's more you know it's not what I said. You know it is a dishonest representation, snarky, AND a distraction from the thesis.
But if you would like to address the actual topic, I would be happy to engage.
Not even close.
What's more you know it's not what I said. You know it is a dishonest representation, snarky, AND a distraction from the thesis.
But if you would like to address the actual topic, I would be happy to engage.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google