Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#131

Post by jariel »

Izkata wrote: post #130
jariel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted. Paraphrasing: "We are prepared for this weeks activities and we are not asking for further assistance" In the links you sent, only the first link seems to contradict this statement, links 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to say about it really, and link 4 backs up the above quotes and doesn't contradict them - that sa…

> Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel? I've lost the link (which is sad because I just had it like 20 minutes ago when searching for something else), but apparently the mayor requested more help on the 6th, after having lost control, and at that point then was denied.

We're talking about 'preparations' however.

It's a valid point you bring up overall, but it doesn't absolve her from the fact she signed off on the current situation.

I've had a number of downvotes apparently but none of you have stepped up to providence evidence against her very own very public and documented signed off on the situation.

People are literally blaming 'racism' on this board without evidence, when the Black Female mayor seems to have been an integral part of the lack of preparations.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#132

Post by avs733 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #70
jariel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Odd, because the Mayor of DC (Black Female) very clearly refused help from the feds. "Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown. “To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting ot…

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? That's fascinating. I realize the relationship between the federal government and DC is nontraditional, so I probably just don't understand the dynamics.

In reality: no

When it’s politically convenient to push a blame democrats narrative on the national review: absolutely

I’m kind of amazed reading these comments at the continued inability of many HNers to recognize bad faith arguments...

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#133

Post by avs733 »

jariel wrote: post #90
rootusrootus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? That's fascinating. I realize the relationship between the federal government and DC is nontraditional, so I probably just don't understand the dynamics.

The streets where the rally took place, and the streets in front of WH, Capitol building are her turf. There were huge protests there this summer, so she knows the story. It just seems odd and that there's not more discussion specifically about this what with a lot of blame and finger pointing going on.

Because if this rally had been met with the force that BLM had it would be a never ending news cycle of playing the victim

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#134

Post by jariel »

f430 wrote: post #126
jariel wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that there was ultimately much more violence during the summer protests but a) they were quite widespread and ongoing, and poignantly b) they were not attacking the Capitol Building whilst votes were being counted, possibly trying to overthrow the Republic in an 'indirect coup'. CNN reported today that as the Capitol Building was under attack - Trump was literally on the phone with Senators in lockdown (!!!…

We have different definition of coup then. Coup for me utilizes the military to seize key assets. This was a crowd destroying things like the BLM/ANTIFA crowd. We are in for some dark times ahead.

Coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government."

Need not involve the military.

A group of people seizing control of a government, outside the bounds of regular authority is a 'coup'.

What happened on Capitol Hill was nearly a 'coup' it's clear that was the intent of at least a small group of those individuals.

The ongoing attempt by Trump to declare the election illegitimate on the basis of lies and fabrication, is effectively a coup.

As Capitol building was overrun and Senators were in hiding in the chamber, Trump was on the phone with several senators, urging them to stop Pence's count of the tallies.

This is pretty much how coups happen in places like S. America, Africa, E. Europe etc. it's pretty shocking.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#135

Post by Izkata »

jariel wrote: post #131
Izkata wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel? I've lost the link (which is sad because I just had it like 20 minutes ago when searching for something else), but apparently the mayor requested more help on the 6th, after having lost control, and at that point then was denied.

We're talking about 'preparations' however. It's a valid point you bring up overall, but it doesn't absolve her from the fact she signed off on the current situation. I've had a number of downvotes apparently but none of you have stepped up to providence evidence against her very own very public and documented signed off on the situation. People are literally blaming 'racism' on this board without evidence, when the…

Oh no, that much I agree with. I meant to just add it as, help was both requested and not requested on different days, but no one was really saying which day they're referring to, so they could both be right and either have the days mixed up or be unaware of the other instance.

Re: FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

#136

Post by jariel »

avs733 wrote: post #132
rootusrootus wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? That's fascinating. I realize the relationship between the federal government and DC is nontraditional, so I probably just don't understand the dynamics.

In reality: no When it’s politically convenient to push a blame democrats narrative on the national review: absolutely I’m kind of amazed reading these comments at the continued inability of many HNers to recognize bad faith arguments...

I'm sorry but it's not 'bad faith arguments' to take the word of the mayor of DC at face value.

Nobody seems to have provided here any evidence against the fact that she has very publicly stated that she was prepared, two days before the event.

Just the opposite - the 'convenient' 'bad faith' argument is to blame racism without a single iota of evidence, and cover up possibly the negligent actions of a mayor who happens to be Black and Female. In the eyes of CNN, no female of colour will ever be blamed for anything - that is a problem.

I have no stake in the game - I don't care one way or the other.

I don't doubt for a second that a kind of assumptive racial issue could have led to less people on the hill, that it could have been a more general misunderstanding, but it's entirely possible that the major really screwed up (among more complex conspiracy theories which I highly doubt).

But the National Review using the Mayors own signed and publicly projected document is not even bias frankly.

It looks really bad for her at first glance, and it seems blatantly biased of CNN not to highlight her public statements and have her on to talk to her about what happened instead of 'blaming racism' which is really lazy.

I'd love to know more actual details about the situation instead of lazy propagation of bias.

Post reply on HN