Absolute Liars, Phone Call Never Happened. Nat'l Guard says Army Jan-6 report Hogwash (Page 1/1)
rinselberg DEC 12, 06:18 PM
Would you believe? Two very recent and frankly, startling reports from Politico's crack investigative team of Betsy Woodruff Swann and Meridith McGraw. Two article citations. Excerpts.

"'Absolute liars': Ex-D.C. Guard official says generals lied to Congress about Jan. 6"

quote
In a 36-page memo to the Capitol riot committee, D.C. National Guard Colonel Earl Matthews also slams the Pentagon's inspector general for what he calls an error-ridden report.

Politico; December 6, 2021.
https://www.politico.com/ne...uard-official-523777


quote
A former D.C. National Guard official is accusing two senior Army leaders of lying to Congress and participating in a secret attempt to rewrite the history of the military's response to the Capitol riot.

In a 36-page memo, Col. Earl Matthews, who held high-level National Security Council and Pentagon roles during the Trump administration, slams the Pentagon's inspector general for what he calls an error-riddled report that protects a top Army official who argued against sending the National Guard to the Capitol on Jan. 6, delaying the insurrection response for hours.

Matthews' memo, sent to the Jan. 6 select committee this month and obtained by POLITICO, includes detailed recollections of the insurrection response as it calls two Army generals — Gen. Charles Flynn, who served as deputy chief of staff for operations on Jan. 6, and Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt, the director of Army staff — “absolute and unmitigated liars” for their characterization of the events of that day. Matthews has never publicly discussed the chaos of the Capitol siege.


quote
Matthews' memo levels major accusations: that Flynn and Piatt lied to Congress about their response to pleas for the D.C. Guard to quickly be deployed on Jan. 6; that the Pentagon inspector general’s November report on Army leadership’s response to the attack was “replete with factual inaccuracies”; and that the Army has created its own closely held revisionist document about the Capitol riot that’s “worthy of the best Stalinist or North Korea propagandist.”



"‘This call never happened’: Ex-D.C. Guard leaders push back as internal Army report on Jan. 6 emerges"

quote
The [internal Army report's narrative] is surfacing days after POLITICO first revealed a memo from a former top Guard official accusing two generals of lying to Congress.

Politico; December 9, 2021.
https://www.politico.com/ne...uary-6-report-523995


quote
Two former top D.C. National Guard officials claim that an internal Army report on its response to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol is loaded with falsehoods.

The Army report, obtained by POLITICO, lays the foundation for the Pentagon’s defense against criticism that it took too long to approve the Guard’s response to the Capitol attack. The March 18 report says Guard members weren’t prepared to respond quickly to the riot and describes multiple communications between top Army officials and the D.C. Guard’s commander, then-Maj. Gen. William Walker.

But Walker, now sergeant at arms in the House, says some of those communications the Army describes in the report never actually happened. He and a former top lawyer for the D.C. Guard, Col. Earl Matthews, also say the Guard members were ready to be deployed to the Capitol.

“It’s whole fiction,” said Matthews, who has accused two Army generals of lying to Congress about their role in the Jan. 6 response. Matthews was on a call with leaders from the Capitol Police and the Army during the siege.


Does that sound crazy, or what?

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-12-2021).]

rinselberg DEC 23, 04:06 AM
Don't send National Guard troops to secure the Capitol Building from rioters. President Trump might try to use them to stop the process of declaring Joe Biden as the President-elect.

quote
Close observers of the events of Jan. 6 have mainly posited two reasons for the delay in mobilizing the Guard. The first explanation is one of bureaucratic failures or managerial weaknesses in the military’s procedures that day. A second explanation is that the military was deliberately serving Trump’s effort to interfere with the election by withholding assistance.

We identify a third explanation: that senior military officials constrained the mobilization and deployment of the National Guard to avoid injecting federal troops that could have been re-missioned by the President to advance his attempt to hold onto power.



That's partway into a super-sized report that begins with this:

quote
One of the most vexing questions about Jan. 6 is why the National Guard took more than three hours to arrive at the Capitol after D.C. authorities and Capitol Police called for immediate assistance. The Pentagon’s restraint in allowing the Guard to get to the Capitol was not simply a reflection of officials’ misgivings about the deployment of military force during the summer 2020 protests, nor was it simply a concern about “optics” of having military personnel at the Capitol. Instead, evidence is mounting that the most senior defense officials did not want to send troops to the Capitol because they harbored concerns that President Donald Trump might utilize the forces’ presence in an attempt to hold onto power.

According to a report released last month, Christopher Miller, who served as acting Secretary of the Defense on Jan. 6, told the Department’s inspector general that he feared “if we put U.S. military personnel on the Capitol, I would have created the greatest Constitutional crisis probably since the Civil War.” In congressional testimony, he said he was also cognizant of “fears that the President would invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in an anti-democratic manner” and that “factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support civilian law enforcement during the Electoral College certification.”



"Crisis of Command: The Pentagon, The President, and January 6"
Ryan Goodman and Justin Hendrix for Just Security; December 21, 2021.
https://www.justsecurity.or...ident-and-january-6/

I call it a "super-sized" report, because it Read-o-Meters to a whopping 36 minutes, one of the largest Read-o-Meter calculations I have ever produced.

About the authors:

quote
Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) is co-editor-in-chief of Just Security, Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, and former Special Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense (2015-2016).

Justin Hendrix (@justinhendrix) is cofounder and CEO of Tech Policy Press and associate research scientist and adjunct professor at NYU Tandon School of Engineering. Opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or institution.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-23-2021).]

2.5 DEC 23, 11:07 AM
You sure make a lot of threads about the same Jan 6 topic. The topic where you are consistantly refuted in that other thread, the one with many pages that you posted in multiple times.
williegoat DEC 23, 11:22 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

You sure make a lot of threads about the same Jan 6 topic. The topic where you are consistantly refuted in that other thread, the one with many pages that you posted in multiple times.


It's like your wife, constantly reminding you of that time you left the toilet seat up.
rinselberg DEC 23, 11:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
You sure make a lot of threads about the same Jan 6 topic. The topic where you are consistantly refuted in that other thread, the one with many pages that you posted in multiple times.


Refuted? That's a good one.

This isn't about whether the disturbance at the Capitol Building should be viewed as part of an insurrection, or just a sudden epidemic of trespassing, which is how that other thread was set up. It's specifically about the military chain of command and the National Guard. Not quite the same topic. Topics that overlap, but are not the same. It's helpful to Venn diagram it in your head.

I can't imagine anyone actually plowing through that long article (36 minutes of reading) that I just posted. I have not read all the way through it myself. Not even close. I scrolled through it quickly, trying to pick out some of the most important paragraphs. The EXCERPTS.

The links that I post on the forum have the same functionality for me as bookmarks. Internet browser bookmarks, that people use to remember where they have been on the Internet so they can easily go back there again. This works better for me than bookmarks.

Thanks to Cliff Pennock's latest forum software innovation, any forum topic that I create is "vandal proof." I like that.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-23-2021).]

2.5 DEC 23, 12:06 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Refuted? That's a good one.
...
The links that I post on the forum have the same functionality for me as bookmarks. Internet browser bookmarks, that people use to remember where they have been on the Internet so they can easily go back there again. This works better for me than bookmarks.




You may not have noticed the refution (is that a word? Shoudl be ), as it doesnt seem like you read responses, I think you have actually said as much.
rinselberg DEC 23, 12:09 PM
I'm reading your responses.
cliffw DEC 24, 09:31 AM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
It's like your wife, constantly reminding you of that time you left the toilet seat up.





There is a solution for that. Leave the toilet seat up every time.