January 6th - A Deep State Setup - Or Massive Partisan Insubordination And Incompetence
This is what Trump had to put up with in his Administration - repeated sabotage & slow-walking and outright insubordination. And defendants remain in jail in violattion of their right to speedy trial.
This doesn’t depict a government operating under the rule of law - or according to the Bill of Rights or the Constitution:
“Transcripts released last Friday by the House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight, meanwhile, indicate that top Pentagon officials ignored Trump’s requests for a National Guard presence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 over “optics” concerns. Gen. Mark Milley, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that Trump told him on Jan. 3 to “make sure you have sufficient National Guard or soldiers to make sure it’s a safe event.” Milley relayed the directive to then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller, who reassured Milley that “we’ve got it covered.” Trump separately told Miller directly on Jan. 5 they would need “10,000 troops” at the Capitol to keep it safe. But Miller testified that he refused to comply for fear that Trump would “invoke the Insurrection Act to politicize the military in anti-democratic manner,” citing a Washington Post op-ed from 10 former secretaries of defense warning against such a possibility. That same day, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy sent a memo to the commander of the D.C. National Guard prohibiting them from deploying to the Capitol without an explicit order from him.
On the day of the riot itself, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund testified that he made an urgent request to McCarthy’s office to deploy the National Guard but was told by a spokesperson, “I don’t like the optics of National Guard standing in a line with the Capitol in the background.” Miller finally provided McCarthy with verbal approval to deploy the National Guard at 3:04 p.m., but McCarthy’s order was not communicated to the National Guard until 5:08 p.m., two hours later. The commander of the D.C. National Guard testified that he attempted to call McCarthy three times between 2:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., but that the phone went straight to voicemail.
In addition to suggesting a disturbing willingness of military leaders to disobey their civilian superiors in the chain of command—Miller said that while he did not consider Trump’s request for 10,000 troops an “order,” there was “no way” he would have obeyed the order anyway—these transcripts help make some sense of Nancy Pelosi’s remarks on Jan. 6 that she took “responsibility” for the security failures at the Capitol, which Trump has consistently cited since it was revealed in an HBO documentary published this June. Pelosi was recorded by her daughter saying the following to her chief of staff, Terri McCullough, while being evacuated from the Capitol on the day of the riot:
Pelosi: We have responsibility, Terri. We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. This is ridiculous. You’re going to ask me in the middle of the thing, when they’ve already breached the inaugural stuff, Should we call the Capitol Police? I mean, the National Guard? Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?
McCullough: They thought they had sufficient—
Pelosi: It’s not a question of … they don’t know. They clearly didn’t know, and I take responsibility for not just having them prepare for more.
As for the “optics” concerns, the National Guard ended up deploying 20,000 troops to Washington D.C., and erecting a ring of security fencing around the Capitol to protect lawmakers from lingering insurrectionists in the wake of the riot. The last of those troops were not recalled until May 2021.”
At least Nancy Pelosi is willing to take responsibility - in part - for what happened, but Trump should have fired both General Milley and SecDef Miller on the spot for their insubordinate refusal to take actions ordered by their Commander-in-Chief. And those actions were eminently reasonable. The same goes for the Department of Justice and the FBI - the latter of which is an Executive Branch agency whose officials serve at the pleasure of the President and whom the President can fire, with or without cause - so part of the responsibility falls on the Trump Administration for its failure to take appropriate action:
“On Wednesday, the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government held a hearing on FBI retaliation against whistleblowers who raised red flags about the bureau’s role in the Capitol riot.”
See, at 20m10s and following:
“The star witness was former FBI Staff Operations Specialist Marcus Allen, a former Employee of the Year who was investigated, had his security clearance revoked, and was then suspended without pay for 27 months after he was deemed an “insider threat” who “did not profess allegiance to the United States.” His crime? Citing “extremist propaganda” in a letter he forwarded to superiors expressing concerns that FBI Director Christopher Wray had not been “forthright” with the public when he testified that FBI confidential human sources—“assets” or “feds,” in the common parlance—played no role in instigating the riot. The “extremist propaganda,” it turned out, was reporting from The New York Times and the website RealClearPolitics. As additional evidence of Allen’s potential “hostility to the United States,” bureau investigators cited skeptical comments Allen had made about the federal government’s vaccine mandate.
Department of Justice Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz, whose office is currently reviewing the DOJ’s Jan. 6 actions, also testified on Wednesday. During questioning from Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY), Horowitz indirectly admitted to the presence of FBI informants at the Capitol, including some that the DOJ paid to travel to D.C. from elsewhere in the country. Asked by Massie how many confidential human sources were at the Capitol, Horowitz did not deny their presence but said merely that “our report will include information in that regard.” Asked how many were reimbursed for travel, Horowitz replied, “As I sit here, I don’t recall the number.” Horowitz also refused to say whether there were more or less than 100 agents and informants at the protest. Those hoping for clarity before the election, however, are likely to be disappointed. Despite the IG’s office announcing that it would begin the review in 2021, Horowitz testified that the report would not be ready for another “couple of months”—and almost certainly not before Nov. 5.
We, of course, have no way of knowing for sure what role the Feds might have played at the riot, but previous whistleblower disclosures and testimony have been suggestive.”
See, in general:
“In July 2023, for instance, an FBI whistleblower alleged that then Acting Deputy Director Paul Abbate had instructed his subordinates to conceal information from the public about “at least 25” confidential informants whose existence would be too “problematic or embarrassing” for the bureau to publicly acknowledge. Last May, another FBI whistleblower testified to Congress that agents from the bureau’s D.C. office had refused to share hours of footage from the riot with other FBI offices because it could compromise informants or undercover officers. Another testified that there were so many present that the bureau itself lost track.”
.The Democratic wing of the Uniparty played its usual obstructionist role - since that’s the wing currently holding power - in furthering their end of the Uniparty anti-Constitutional conspiracy, as you will have seen in the videos above. The FBI is long past its “sell-by” date, given the general availability of technology that was out of reach of the individual states up until about 50 years ago. And the FBI has long been used as a covert “political police” force, since the days of the Civil Rights struggles and the Vietnam War. It has been used for illegitimate and undemocratic partisan political harassment of people who oppose federal policy - whichever party is in power - in violation of the Bill of Rights. It should be abolished outright - and this should have been done in 1977, when the evidence of its numerous bad acts came to light via the Church Committee - see, for the final report on the FBI: https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/contents/church/contents_church_reports_vol6.htm
Finally, as to the right to a speedy trial - usually within 6 months:
“Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 2080, as amended August 2, 1979, 93 Stat. 328, is set forth in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-3174. The Act establishes time limits for completing the various stages of a federal criminal prosecution. The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).
Moreover, in order to ensure that defendants are not rushed to trial without an adequate opportunity to prepare, Congress amended the Act in 1979 to provide a minimum time period during which trial may not commence. Speedy Trial Act Amendments of 1979, Pub. L. No. 96-43, Section 3, 93 Stat. 327. Thus, the Act provides that trial may not begin less than 30 days from the date the defendant first appears in court, unless the defendant agrees in writing to an earlier date. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2). In United States v. Rojas-Contreras, 474 U.S. 231 (1985), the Supreme Court held that this 30-day trial preparation period is not restarted upon the filing of a substantially similar superseding indictment.
If the indictment is dismissed at the defendant's request, the Act's provisions apply anew upon reinstatement of the charge. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(d)(1). If the indictment is dismissed at the request of the government, the 70-day clock is tolled during the period when no indictment is outstanding, and begins to run again upon the filing of the second indictment. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6). If trial ends in a mistrial, or the court grants a motion for a new trial, the second trial must begin within 70 days "from the date the action occasioning the retrial becomes final." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e).
Certain pretrial delays are automatically excluded from the Act's time limits, such as delays caused by pretrial motions. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). In Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 330 (1986), the Supreme Court held that § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes "all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is 'reasonably necessary.'" The Act also excludes a reasonable period (up to 30 days) during which a motion is actually "under advisement" by the court. 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(1)(J). Other delays excluded from the Act's time limits include delays caused by the unavailability of the defendant or an essential witness (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)); delays attributable to a co-defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)); and delays attributable to the defendant's involvement in other proceedings, including delay resulting from an interlocutory appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E). (Note, however, that the 30-day defense preparation period provided for in § 3161(c)(2) is calculated without reference to the Section 3161(h) exclusions).” https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-628-speedy-trial-act-1974
The remedy for violation is dismissal of the charges, either with or without prejudice, depending on the actions leading to the charges:
“The Act provides a sanction of dismissal for violation of its time limits that may be with or without prejudice to reprosecution. In assessing whether dismissal should be with prejudice, the court must consider the seriousness of the offense, the circumstances leading to dismissal, and the impact that reprosecution would have on the administration of the Act and on the administration of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(a)(1)-(a)(2).” Ibid.
What has been done in the cases of the still-jailed January 6, 2021 arrestees is a grossly unconstitutional travesty. It shows in a bright line fashion the unbridled contempt in which the Uniparty - both Democratic and Republican wings - holds for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and it gives rise to doubt whether it should be allowed to continue to exist in a country under the rule of law as defined in the Constitution.