Can we talk about the National Guard, when it was deployed and by whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Appointment.- There is a Chief of the National Guard Bureau, ... appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
...
An officer appointed as Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves at the pleasure of the President for a term of four years."

"...the chief is a military adviser to the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, the secretary of defense, and the president on matters pertaining to the National Guard."

Chief of the National Guard Bureau:
General Daniel R. Hokanson

There are checks and balances. Do you honestly think the President can call and deploy the National Guard at his/her whim? Note in this article about the summer riot in DC, that Trump did not send in the national guard - the individual states did.

https://www.airforcemag.com/ten-states-send-guardsmen-to-assist-law-enforcement-in-d-c/

Another article that speaks of the difference between deploying the National Guard in DC and Federal buildings, as opposed to other situations:

“Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.”

“ DCNG announced Monday it had mobilized 340 troops to support MPD, but that organization’s jurisdiction does not cover any federal land within the District, and so its officers ― and its Guard support ― could not have just rushed to the Capitol.
Further, once they got there, Guard troops who had been acting in a traffic control capacity, not as law enforcement, would not have been able or authorized to forcibly push back rioters or help clear the building, a task that fell to the Capitol Police and the FBI tactical forces they requested to help out.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/07/this-is-why-the-national-guard-didnt-respond-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol/

This has been gone over in detail. The DC National Guard is unique in that it is under the direct command of the President and not controlled by DC.

This is not so. the article above details authority

It does not for DC. That is in reference to the MD, VA, etc NG not DCNG. DC has zero control over its own National Guard.

No! That's not how it works.

Lol
The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the secretary of defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard.

Republicans still like to pretend that their party and their traitor president*** didn’t have anything to do with the attempted overthrow of the government. They will not absorb this fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Appointment.- There is a Chief of the National Guard Bureau, ... appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
...
An officer appointed as Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves at the pleasure of the President for a term of four years."

"...the chief is a military adviser to the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, the secretary of defense, and the president on matters pertaining to the National Guard."

Chief of the National Guard Bureau:
General Daniel R. Hokanson

There are checks and balances. Do you honestly think the President can call and deploy the National Guard at his/her whim? Note in this article about the summer riot in DC, that Trump did not send in the national guard - the individual states did.

https://www.airforcemag.com/ten-states-send-guardsmen-to-assist-law-enforcement-in-d-c/

Another article that speaks of the difference between deploying the National Guard in DC and Federal buildings, as opposed to other situations:

“Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.”

“ DCNG announced Monday it had mobilized 340 troops to support MPD, but that organization’s jurisdiction does not cover any federal land within the District, and so its officers ― and its Guard support ― could not have just rushed to the Capitol.
Further, once they got there, Guard troops who had been acting in a traffic control capacity, not as law enforcement, would not have been able or authorized to forcibly push back rioters or help clear the building, a task that fell to the Capitol Police and the FBI tactical forces they requested to help out.”

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/07/this-is-why-the-national-guard-didnt-respond-to-the-attack-on-the-capitol/

This has been gone over in detail. The DC National Guard is unique in that it is under the direct command of the President and not controlled by DC.

This is not so. the article above details authority

It does not for DC. That is in reference to the MD, VA, etc NG not DCNG. DC has zero control over its own National Guard.

No! That's not how it works.

Lol
The President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the District of Columbia National Guard. Command is exercised through the secretary of defense and the commanding general, Joint Force Headquarters (JFHQ), District of Columbia National Guard.

Sure, sure. You know better than the people who were in command there. Whatever you say.

PP is correct. Who’s saying different and what specifically are they saying?

Obvious collusion. High time for a real J6 investigation.

Exactly. And put Nancy under oath.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

Good question Flynn(who lied under oath) is currently the commander of United States Army Pacific. Biden could relieve him at any time for any reason. Certainly lying under oath to congress is grounds for a commander to be relieved of duty?

The real question is why Biden allows him to remain in command and on active duty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

Good question Flynn(who lied under oath) is currently the commander of United States Army Pacific. Biden could relieve him at any time for any reason. Certainly lying under oath to congress is grounds for a commander to be relieved of duty?

The real question is why Biden allows him to remain in command and on active duty?

Because if Biden relieves him of duty then it gives the impression that he is making military decisions for political reasons. Even though that impression would not be accurate, Fox News will take it and run with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

Good question Flynn(who lied under oath) is currently the commander of United States Army Pacific. Biden could relieve him at any time for any reason. Certainly lying under oath to congress is grounds for a commander to be relieved of duty?

The real question is why Biden allows him to remain in command and on active duty?

Because if Biden relieves him of duty then it gives the impression that he is making military decisions for political reasons. Even though that impression would not be accurate, Fox News will take it and run with it.

Who care? They will say that no matter what. If the president does not have confidence in a commander the commander must go. Leaving him in command only allows him to protect and promote officers who share his views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

Good question Flynn(who lied under oath) is currently the commander of United States Army Pacific. Biden could relieve him at any time for any reason. Certainly lying under oath to congress is grounds for a commander to be relieved of duty?

The real question is why Biden allows him to remain in command and on active duty?

Because if Biden relieves him of duty then it gives the impression that he is making military decisions for political reasons. Even though that impression would not be accurate, Fox News will take it and run with it.

Who care? They will say that no matter what. If the president does not have confidence in a commander the commander must go. Leaving him in command only allows him to protect and promote officers who share his views.

Biden cares. It's one of the differences between him and Trump, who fired the Vindman brothers after his first impeachment was over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do either of the Flynn's remain drawing paychecks from our government much less not in the brig?

Good question Flynn(who lied under oath) is currently the commander of United States Army Pacific. Biden could relieve him at any time for any reason. Certainly lying under oath to congress is grounds for a commander to be relieved of duty?

The real question is why Biden allows him to remain in command and on active duty?

Because if Biden relieves him of duty then it gives the impression that he is making military decisions for political reasons. Even though that impression would not be accurate, Fox News will take it and run with it.

Who care? They will say that no matter what. If the president does not have confidence in a commander the commander must go. Leaving him in command only allows him to protect and promote officers who share his views.

Biden cares. It's one of the differences between him and Trump, who fired the Vindman brothers after his first impeachment was over.

Yes, but -
Flynn is clearly a traitor. It’s really shocking that there are no mechanisms through which someone who has violated their oath so thoroughly can continue to exist in a role where he is able to do so much more damage.