You know - this might be an example of the Dems making a mistake by appointing someone who is eminently qualified and unbiased - a mistake the (recent) Repubs would never make.
The Right’s strategy top to bottom of acting as close to - if not over - the line as possible and litigating the heck out of any disputes, profiting from delay and eventual change in regime - seems pretty darned effective.
Historian Jon Meacham last night spoke about the state of U.S. democracy. He pointed out that when the Trump attempt to overthrow the election started they were very disorganized like their famous rally at the Four Seasons Landscaping Co. They didn’t get it done well then, but now they are organized and Meacham says they won’t screw it up next time. The danger is in the state offices where elections are controlled. I have no doubt the Republican party is willing to take any election victory no matter how corrupt.
Only one side is being called (the Republicans) whereas Speaker Pelosi who had a hand in the decision making will not subpoenaed as well as other Democrats. I guess the committee does not want all of the evidence.
Question: can the House legally issue subpoenas for purely politcal reason?
What decisions are you talking about? You think the Pelosi was trying to overturn the election?
The decision on calling out the National Guard.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Speaker of the House makes operational decisions for any part of the National Guard–this is not correct. The Speaker has no military command authority.
Yes, I’m pretty sure they can issue subpoenas for any reason they want.
You should get better news sources.
My understanding was when protecting the Capitol and the members of Congress, the National Guard is placed under the direction of the Capitol Police for jurisdictional reasons. The Sergeant of Arms of the House is responsible for the Capitol Police and the Speaker of the House gives directions to the SoA. Therefore, once Trump authorized use of the National Guard, it was Pelosi’s responsibility to tell the Sergeant of Arms to have the NG support the Capitol Police in protecting the Capitol itself and the members of Congress.
Where is that wrong?
Let’s say a group of crooks are all blue eyed. You have to be blue eyed to be in the gang. When they commit a crime, they are not being subpoenaed for having blue eyes.
From the DC National Guard’s website:
The D.C National Guard was formed in 1802 by President Thomas Jefferson to defend the newly created District of Columbia. As such, the Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army. The D.C. National Guard is the only National Guard unit, out of all of the 54 states and territories, which reports only to the President.
You are wrong in that the Sergeant of Arms can’t tell the National Guard to get a cup of coffee or anything else. The National Guard is a “dual sovereign” entity, in that each of the various National Guards reports to the Governor of their State for matters of State defense and other activities, and reports to the President of the United States when called into a Federal service [I hope it goes without saying that the command authority of the POTUS and the various Governors traces down through officers through a chain of command, these politicians are not ordering squads to go to X location and do Y thing.]
The District of Columbia is not a State and has no Governor, the D.C. National Guard thus…reports to the President for District level things (and they also report to the President for Federal service too!)
Civilian police do not at any point become part of the chain of command, and the Speaker of the House in her role twice removed from the police force in question is definitely not in the chain of command.
She has the same power that the other Congresscritters had–asking for help, which supposedly several others did as well, it is ultimately the President’s decision, devolved to whatever military officer he chooses to devolve it to.
As others have stated, this is not correct – the Guard units would obviously coordinate with the Capitol Police but are not placed under their operational control.
There is likely useful testimony that Pelosi could offer the committee, though. One of the things claimed by ousted Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was that he had advocated prior to January 6 that there be DC Guardsmen on standby near the Capitol that day. He claims that he was denied by his superiors to make this request of the Guard. He also claims that he requested permission from his superiors to ask for immediate Guard assistance as protestors closed in on the Capitol, which he did not receive for over an hour as protestors breached the Capitol building.
Ahh. Thanks for that. I thought it was a situation of whoever guards the Capitol is under the authority of the SP who is under the authority of the SoA who is under the authority of the SotH.
So then is it true that Trump could have authorized the NG to guard the Capitol, Pelosi could have authorized the CP to guard the Capitol and, at least nominally, the two groups act independently?
I would agree with that–so the primary “security responsibility” for the Capitol was with the Chief of the Capitol Police. There are many not well-answered questions about that, and while there has been some stories to come out from some of the principals, it is unclear who is telling the full truth or if the full truth is out there.
It is absolutely true the security posture on that day was wretched, the Capitol police is like a 2,000 strong police force, and they had a small token force defending the outside of the Capitol grounds, that left them in a position where they would likely risk death if they had tried to physically stop the rioters. There isn’t any stopping thousands of people when you’re out numbered so dramatically, and aren’t even set up for riot containment to begin with. There should have been more serious security preparations made, both in the number of policeman on duty and physical barriers around the capitol.
The National Guard should have been called in a week or more in advance to do prepwork and work out how they could help with security. Additionally, D.C. Metro Police–who are actually the ones most responsible for ending the coup attempt, were also apparently kept at arm’s length until things had already gotten dire and the Capitol was breached, they have regularly helped with Capitol security in the past when necessary.
I’ve heard some say that Sund simply underestimated all the FBI reports about potential risks in the crowd, and due to “bad optics” over previous security postures outside the Capitol chose for a “soft touch” approach. I’ve heard some say that one or both of the leaders of Congress kneecapped him–both McConnell and Pelosi are dual overseers of the two Sergeants-at-Arms whom the Chief reports to (the Chief technically reports to a three-person committee, made up of the House Sergeant, Senate Sergeant and the Architect of the Capitol.) Generally the two chamber Sergeants do whatever the leader of their respective chambers orders them to, so if the Speaker and Senate Majority Leader are in agreement their will holds the day.
And many people believe that it was because the protestors were white. If they were Black, then tear gas and indiscriminate beatings would have been the least of the protestors’ problems. And Trump is all but calling for Congress to be lynched if they don’t give him the election. I think Sund should be put on the hot seat for the decisions he made.
Sund is responsible for the decisions he made, but according to his account he sought approval for some of those decisions through his bosses (i.e. the Sergeants-at-Arms of the House and Senate, who in turn report to the Speaker and Majority Leader) and was denied or delayed. Obviously he’s going to frame things in the way that put him in the best possible light. But establishing the facts of that day is the whole point of the January 6 Committee, which you do through interview witnesses, requesting documents, etc.
Which brings us full circle as to: why will the Committee not allow Pelosi to be subpoenaed?
That’s a really weird way to put it.
Who on the Committee is asking for Pelosi to be subpoenaed?
At the beginning of the hearings, the Committee Chair declared that Pelosi (and Paul Irving IIRC) will not be subpoenaed. Basically the Dems are protecting their own while subpoenaing Pubs.
Every single one of the individuals who received subpoenas (McCarthy et. al) were given the courtesy of an invitation to answer questions without necessity of a subpoena. They refused.
Do you think Speaker Pelosi would not be extended the same courtesy? And do you think she would require a subpoena to answer the Committee’s questions?