Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101c | Hacker News Reader

IIRC, the Guard was not called out on January 6, 2021:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capito...

You keep spreading this, but it's simply untrue. The National Guard was there on January 6, though they were delayed several hours.

Oh, i only read about injured local police officers on jan.6.

Where was the NG when they were needed the most? And why?

> The National Guard was there on January 6, though they were delayed several hours.

They were? I didn't see them keeping the mob at bay, or protecting the Capital from being stormed, in the footage I saw. Do you have a link to said footage that you can provide?

https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article/2466077/dod-detai...

As mentioned already, they got there late, but the statement that they were not deployed on Jan 6 is patently false.

Trump repeatedly said he didn't have the authority to call them.

Why would he call the guard on people he sent there?

It was Pelosi's call and she denied the request from the Chief at the time

https://x.com/ChiefSund/status/1954975181106970823

Ummm, the law cited by the Chief clearly states the guard can be called to assist by the senate sergeant at arms OR the house sergeant at arms OR the Capitol Police board.

Pelosi didn’t do it. But she wasn’t responsible for doing it, and the board Mr Sund chaired could have done it themselves much faster.

And all of this is just what they are allowed. It did not stop trump from doing his job. Which he didn’t…

https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/refere...

Provision of assistance Assistance under this section shall be provided -

(A) consistent with the authority of the Capitol Police under sections 1961 and 1966 of this title;

(B) upon the advance written request of -

(i) the Capitol Police Board; or

(ii) in an emergency -

(I) the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate in any matter relating to the Senate; or

(II) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives in any matter relating to the House of Representatives; and

(C)(i) on a temporary and reimbursable basis;

(ii) on a permanent reimbursable basis upon advance written request of the Capitol Police Board; or

(iii) on a temporary basis without reimbursement by the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard as described under paragraph (1)

Thanks, but did you read what you wrote ? You seem to be actually supporting the argument that the Chief cannot unilaterally act by himself, especially when Pelosi's Sergeant At Arms denied his request - several times.

That would mean treason on his part if he overruled the Sergeant.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/8/new-obtained-hbo-footage-shows-...

The statute Mr. Sund cites (2 U.S.C. § 1970) specifically says that the National Guard can provide support to the US Capitol Police in an emergency if approved by "the Chief of the Capitol Police, if the Chief of the Capitol Police has determined that the provision of assistance is necessary to prevent the significant disruption of governmental function and public order within the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds".

Mr. Sund was the chief of the Capitol Police that day.

> in an emergency

any effective deployment would have had to occur ahead of time, when it would not have been considered an emergency

Yes, but he didn't have authority under the statute because the Sergeant at Arms rejected approval. He called the Sergeant several times.

How could he overrule the Sergeant ? That would mean treason - he would be thrown under the bus and spend a decade-plus in jail.

Also Pelosi herself explicitly took responsibility for not granting approval for the National Guard. She is herself on video stating this.

The point of this entire thread is that Trump is unilaterally deploying the guard right now with no one else's approval or even consent.

People's president :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com