Officials Put 'Unusual' Limits on D.C. National Guard Before Riot, Commander Says

[Kid Berwyn]

Maj. Gen. William J. Walker testified that he did not receive permission to deploy troops for hours on Jan. 6, as violence by pro-Trump supporters escalated.

By Luke Broadwater and Michael S. Schmidt
The New York Times, March 3, 2021

WASHINGTON — Pentagon officials placed “unusual” restrictions on the D.C. National Guard before the Capitol riot, its commander told senators on Wednesday, saying the military leaders’ fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics used during racial justice protests last year slowed decision-making and squandered time as the violence by a pro-Trump mob escalated.

Military and federal security officials detailed in a joint Senate committee hearing the additional security breakdowns that led to the failure to quell the mob attack on Jan. 6. Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the D.C. National Guard commander, said he did not receive approval to mobilize troops until more than three hours after he had requested it.

The delay he outlined was longer than previously known and came to light in the latest hearing by lawmakers investigating the attack.

Days before the riot, the Pentagon had removed General Walker’s authority to quickly deploy his troops, he testified. He said he was unable to move troops even from one traffic stop to another without permission from Ryan D. McCarthy, the Army secretary. Once General Walker had approval for deployment, the Guard arrived at the Capitol only minutes later, at 5:20 p.m., and helped re-establish the security perimeter on the east side of the building.

General Walker said he could have had 150 troops to the complex hours earlier. The violent rampage that unfolded over nearly five hours caused injuries to nearly 140 police officers and left five people dead.

Continues...

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/03/us/politics/dc-national-guard-capitol-riot.html

It seems Team Trump ordered the National Guard stand down to leave the Capitol Hill cops to fight the mob on their own. If things had gone to plan, meaning murders of Administration and Congessional leaders that day, the resulting chaos would have “forced” martial law and and then Mike Flynn’s electoral “re-do.”

[niyad]

1. INSURRECTION. NOT "riot". NYT, we DEMAND that you do better.

[Kid Berwyn]

2. "Insurrection" means "Conspiracy."

And NYT has gone out of its way to avoid making that connection regarding Jan. 6. Failing to name Trump as the insurrection’s head reminds me of their refusal to call Trump a liar, mobster, insurrectionist or traitor — each a name that fits. Failing to do so has made it much more difficult to hold the traitor and his accomplices accountable.

[Escurumbele]

3. "saying the military leaders' fears of a repeat of aggressive tactics" That is a lame excuse

BS...They were told not to do anything, and like the great patriots they are, they obeyed.

[LittleGirl]

4. Will the powers that be

Ever put 2 and 2 together? This was by design!

[CaptainTruth]

5. They were afraid Trump would use the Guard for himself.

Since the DC Guard was formed in 1802 it's been true that "the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States."

Think about that. That means Trump could have ordered Gen Walker to have the Guard occupy the Capital & stop certification of the vote.

There was no "intelligence failure," they knew it would likely get violent, & Trump was encouraging it, saying the election was stolen, & objecting to certification of the vote (he wanted Pence to stop it).

In the Jan 4 letter more than 200 years of "the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States" suddenly changed to "the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard has to get approval from the Secretary of the Army & the Secretary of Defense to use the Guard for this one specific event," while conspicuously leaving Trump OUT of the chain of command. They made a lot of effort to prevent Trump from commanding those troops.

Think about that. Think about why they might want to prevent Trump from directly controlling those Guard troops at an insurrection he incited. And why they also effectively disarmed those troops in the Jan 4 letter.

They took "Trump's troops" away from him because they were afraid of what he might order them to do.

I don't believe you'll ever hear any member of the Pentagon or any branch of the military say that out loud in an open hearing. Saying you feared POTUS would use our own troops to attack our own country is not the kind of thing they do. And if there were meetings where it was discussed I will bet those are classified, for good reason. You don't broadcast our weaknesses to our adversaries like that, it's a national security issue.

Their one massive failure was in not having Plan B ready to go, that is, having Guard troops from a nearby state (NOT under Trump's control) ready to quickly come in.

[BobTheSubgenius]

6. Unfortunately, this news will change but few minds.

The people who found the whole thing abhorrent from the first moments don't need an extra push in that direction. For the opposite end, many are too entrenched in the cult to claw their way out, or even want to, and for most of the rest, it's probably too complex and nebulous for their minds to properly grasp what it all means.