DUers what was the date of the memo from the ten Defense Secretaries

[malaise]

I think they (like Barr) knew something about the plans for January 6

Also when did the Trump Administration stop intelligence briefings for the Biden transition team?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215019853

[BusyBeingBest]

1. Jan. 3rd.

[malaise]

5. Holy Shit!

I'll take whistleblowers were taking for $2,000!

[DonaldsRump]

2. January 3, 2021

But I don't think Bill Clinton's and BHO's SoDs would EVER participate in anything like this?

[BusyBeingBest]

3. I think they were concerned the military would intervene in favor of Trump--

if you look at the Pentagon/Miller's actions greatly restricting the ability of the DC National Guard to respond to the rioters, they were right to be concerned, in hindsight. It wasn't an overt military action for a coup, but rather a holding-back of capabilities to respond to the mob to allow it to progress to the halls of the Capitol.

[malaise]

4. Looks like none of the 10 supported the madness they were hearing

Can't wait for this trial - it's all going to come out

[Heartstrings]

7. Oh please let it be so....

So tired of this madness!

[Mister Ed]

6. The Defense Secretaries were providing a bi-partisan warning.

They're not the "they" who suspended intelligence briefings to the Biden team, though. That was done by members of the Trump administration, and was a separate matter.

[malaise]

9. Correct

I clarified it

[DonaldsRump]

8. Ok. Got it.

Some of those Secretaries of Defense are huge American heroes and patriots. Putting aside the Democrats, William Cohen was President Clinton's SoD. Even though he is Republican, he is a leader in every sense of the word and hates Trump.

Come to think of it, this letter was odd in its own right, standing alone. However, in the context of January 6, it becomes far more odd. Perhaps they did know something more.

[malaise]

10. I'm thinking that whistleblowers

were making calls

[DonaldsRump]

11. It was 100% clear on January 6 that this never should have happened

I remember my family calling me to watch CNN while this was going on. I was working from home and didn't come, think this is just an "ordinary" protest near the most heavily defended building on earth. I just never thought the Capitol could be invaded like that. Clearly, there is totally insufficient security for an event that I suspect even my dog knew could quickly turn violent.

Chris Miller's January 4 order to the DC National Guard to basically stand down is one piece of the puzzle. That Trump wasn't evacuated from the White House (like Cheney was on 9/11) is another part of the puzzle. That Trump watched the carnage on TV and THEN told the seditious mob "we love you" is another piece. There are many pieces of the puzzle.Trump and the Rethugs are vicious. However, they're not very smart. I suspect there is a paper, electronic, and witness trail many miles wide, long, and deep.

I greatly look forward to the Senate impeachment trial. By contrast, the Rethugs are dreading it. And that makes me VERY happy, as they will pay a price.

[malaise]

12. Great post

I was watching the rally online and posted when he told them that he was going with them to the Capitol.
Others DUers commented that he wouldn't go with them.

[malthaussen]

13. You're assuming the trial won't be a whitewash because Dems control the Senate.

I am not so sanguine.

-- Mal

[BComplex]

14. Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're probably right.

I think the democrats who are the impeachment officers from the house will let the democratic senators give their republican "colleagues" a pass, and maybe just go after trump.

[DonaldsRump]

15. Do you really think the Dems would go through all this and then drop it?

Why exactly would they do that when the majority of Americans support impeachment AND conviction. Moreover, the evidence is just going to make it worse for Trump and, by association, those who stick with this monster.

[malthaussen]

16. "Drop it?" No.

Make sure it is emasculated? There are reasons they might. A show trial can be used for many purposes. And I think it is naive to see this as anything other than a show trial. I don't think the Democrats are any more impartial jurors than the Republicans. I doubt one could find an "impartial juror" in the entire United States (and possibly the world).

There are good reasons why political expediency might cause the Senate to vote to crucify defendant and all concerned, but those are not the only reasons of political expediency which may enter into the equation. Preserving the sanctity of the Senate and the President, while it may seem a laughable motivation to people on the ground, is much more important to the members of the club than outsiders, for example.

And it's a pretty small majority, when you get down to it. Last figures I saw were 56% for impeachment, and 52% for conviction. The members of the jury have to calculate whether that figure will go up or down once the trial starts, and must also adjust for their own particular constituency. It's a fine line they'll be walking, and one rule always applies: when in doubt, do nothing.

-- Mal

[DonaldsRump]

18. There is clearly a considerable amount of wisdom in your words

But I think our respective focuses (or is it "foci"?) are different: in my view, this trial is about Donald Trump, and no one else. And the polling is not good for him. IMHO, it's going to get worse: https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_US_012521/

I am assuming damning evidence is going to be brought out trial, unlike the 2020 trial. I think it is inconceivable that any of that evidence could benefit Trump. Those poll numbers are likely going to increase, not decrease, in favor of conviction and prohibition on holding any other federal office.

At best, the Rethugs are simply going to argue that it "unconstitutional" to convict a former President, which, conveniently, bypasses the Senate's hearing the evidence. That's already done and dusted, with that view losing 55-45. The more damning the evidence is, the harder is it for some (but not all) Senators to vote effectively in favor of Trump.

Of course, I am assuming there will be damning evidence. If not, then my thoughts don't apply. As far as I can tell, the minimum number of votes we will have to convict is 55. In other words, the Ds need "only" 12 more votes to get to 67. If no major evidence comes out, Trump will be acquitted.

I cannot fathom how any Democratic Senator could view going lightly on Trump's actions in relation to the insurrection as helping the Presidency. Indeed, it is precisely BECAUSE they believe Trump harmed the Presidency and the United States that they impeached him and now are putting him on trial.

Going after others in Congress is a separate issue for a later day. Right now, the issue that is front and center are the acts and omissions of that monster known as Donald John Trump.

[malthaussen]

17. No whistleblowers need apply.

There was plenty of chatter in RW social media about the plans. Indeed, they did all of their planning right out in the open. A reasonably alert four-year-old could have known that something might happen.

The problem of intelligence assessment, though, is not just to determine capability, but also intent. Yes, there was a lot of information that a demonstration would occur. How much support it would get, and how far they would go with it, were the questions of intent that could only really be answered in the event.

Therefore, a reasonable person might say, it would have been a good idea to take precautions. Why we didn't is the subject of the first part of this video from Beau of the Fifth Column:

In brief, we underestimated their willingness to act violently.

Now, as to the Acting SECDEF's memo, I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate, although my heart isn't in it, because the Acting SECDEF was a Trump-loving weasel who was, IMO, certainly acting in the spirit of his Master's desires, if not strictly under orders. Knowing there would be a demonstration by true-blue, red-blooded American White Boys on the 6th, he wanted to make sure that these solid citizens, the silt of the Earth, were not unduly harassed or otherwise inconvenienced by Capital security in the course of their Patriotic Protest. (I'm assuming, for the purposes of this defense, that he didn't know they intended to storm the Capitol and hang a few folks) Some overly-panicky subordinate on the ground might over-react and call up the Guard unnecessarily, and God-Fearing White Folk might be gassed, hit over the head, or otherwise treated like they were BLM trash or some such. So he took the power of alerting the Guard specifically into his hands, to avoid any such over-reaction. Of course, he was *shocked*, shocked I tell you, when the demonstration got out of hand, probably due to agitation from those damned Lefty Antifa Anarchists. So you see, it was all a perfectly innocent error of judgement, and he's not responsible for the results.

-- Mal

[malaise]

20. Thanks for this Mal

The worst part of it is that you're probably right

[LeftInTX]

19. January 4th...

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1354836817925832705%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F100215019853


Here’s the Jan. 4 memo from former acting Defense Secretary requiring “personal authorization” for DC National Guard to employ riot control agents & other tactics at Jan. 6 “March for Trump.” This same day Capitol police knew of a “strong potential” for violence against Congress.

[malaise]

21. That's the link in the OP

Thanks for posting