site banner
ymeskhout  10mo ago (text post)   2937 thread views

The Bailey Podcast E035: Ray Epps Does Jay Six

Listen on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Podcast Addict, and RSS.

In this episode, we talk about the deep state, J6, and Ray Epps.

Participants: Yassine, Shakesneer.

Links:

Jack Posobiec's Pipe Bomb Allegation (Twitter)

Pipe Bombs in Washington DC (FBI)

Meet Ray Epps: The Fed-Protected Provocateur Who Appears to Have Led the Very First 1/6 Attack on the US Capitol (Revolver)

Social Media Influencer Charged with Election Interference Stemming from Voter Disinformation Campaign (DOJ)

'I started a riot for the sitting president': Why Ali Alexander won't go to jail for his role in Jan. 6 (Raw Story)

J6 Select Committee Interview of Ray Epps

Ray Epps Defense Sentencing Memo (Courtlistener)

Proud Boys Sentencing Memos (Courtlistener)

Wishing For Entrapment (Yassine Meskhout)

Recorded 2024-01-19 | Uploaded 2024-01-22

8
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The protestors would not have been able to enter the Capitol had they not had the numbers, the motivation, and the willingness to get violent.

See here's a key point of disagreement. On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support. Then Capital Police security was running at half their usual numbers, "due to covid messures". Then they started getting agressive with the protestors at the front. Then the line broke because Capital Police fired tear gas upwind and gassed their own lines.

If security had been run in a normal fashion then no one would have entered the capital.

On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support.

I keep hearing this repeated as a bare assertion but what's the evidence for this? I'm only aware of the Bowser letter on January 5th that said DC "is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment *without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD". It would be helpful if you proactively cited evidence for your assertions.

The former Chief of Capitol Police testified to Congress on this point.

https://cha.house.gov/2023/9/top-takeaways-from-oversight-subcommittee-hearing-on-january-6-security-failures

He makes fairly explosive allegations, including that he requested additional deployment of Capitol Police and the National Guard before J6 that was denied (request made Jan 3); that there was intelligence from other federal agencies about the potential for a riot that was not shared until after J6 (his deputy that he alleges was briefed and never reported to him, suspiciously was promoted to his position after he was forced to resign); that he asked, on the day of J6 for the National Guard to respond both before the riot broke, before the building was breached, and after, and this was not approved (he alleges he made 32 calls to congressional leadership, particularly the House Sergeant at Arms, who at the time reported directly to Nancy Pelosi requesting National Guard Backup, all denied or not responded to) . At one point he stated that off duty police from New Jersey arrived before the National Guard (which he alleges only showed up for, essentially, a photo op). He said he was not informed ahead of time that there were informants for other agencies at the Capitol, of which he confirms there was at least one.

Also he stated he was not allowed to publicly testify for the J6 committee, which he requested after the private session, which he also then claims that leaks mischaracterized his testimony.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?530535-1/capitol-police-chief-testifies-january-6-security-failures

It seems quite clear that there was a lack of interest in keeping the Capitol Building safe on that day from a lot of parties. And again, cui bono? The same people who had no interest in protecting the Capitol!

It’s easy to say with the benefit of hindsight that a particular side benefitted and therefore they had the motivation to have a hand in letting it happen, but, like, incompetence is always a possible explanation, as is confusion when multiple bureaucracies are involved.

Frankly, I was appalled that a security breach was allowed to the extent it was and surprised that more lethal force wasn’t employed. But if more lethal violence had been employed we would be having a very different discussion.

Also there was other testimony about what the holdup was.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/06/10/pence-not-trump-asked-guard-troops-to-help-defend-capitol-on-jan-6-panel-says/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/21/us/politics/national-guard-january-6-riot.html

This reminds me about all the theorizing about why it took so long to get boots on ground at Benghazi, except for geography is not so much a relevant variable.

I appreciate the links, I looked up his 8-page resignation letter where he went into detail immediately after J6. Regarding the timeline on Sund calling the National Guard, he says:

Given these factors, it was clear to me at 1:00 p.m. that the situation was deteriorating rapidly. I called MPD and requested assistance and they responded immediately. I also requested assistance from the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division and other law enforcement agencies. I notified the two Sergeant at Arms by 1:09 p.m. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a State of Emergency and authorize the National Guard. I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command. I continued to follow up with Mr. Irving, who was with Mr. Stenger at the time, and he advised that he was waiting to hear back from congressional leadership, but expected authorization at any moment. At approximately 1:50 p.m., not yet having authorization from CPB, and noting the extreme urgency of the situation, I notified General William Walker that I should have approval shortly and that we had an urgent request for the National Guard. At 2:10 p.m., I finally received notification from Mr. Irving that the CPB authorized me to request the National Guard. However, as explained below, I soon learned that our request would also need to be approved by the Department of Defense.

So that's a delay of 70 minutes that was under the purview of the two Congressional Sergeants at Arms. Then it went into the hands of the Pentagon who asked for a conference call at 2:28pm where they delayed further and it wasn't until 5pm or so that they approved it. General Walker (commanding officer of the D.C. National Guard.) had previously told Sund on January 4th he could have 125 National Guard troops ready on J6, but the first 150 showed up at the scene at 5:40pm. Meanwhile, Sund received support from 1700 officers from nearby law enforcement agencies by 1:51PM.

So the bailey here would be "On Jan 6 Pelosi and the DC mayor refused national guard support" while the motte is "Congressional Sergeants at Arms (who report to Nancy Pelosi) took 70 minutes to approve and forward to the Pentagon a request for 125 National Guard troops." All this indicates that @DradisPing was either engaging in stylish hyperbole or simply mistaken. If the former, it would've been helpful to have known that in advance.

This is collateral, but on the topic of Sund intelligence briefing, he said:

As previously mentioned, the IICD intelligence assessment indicated that the January 6th protests/rallies were expected to be similar to the previous Million MAGA March rallies in November and December 2020, which drew tens of thousands of participants. The assessment indicated that members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the January 6th event and that they may be inclined to become violent. This was very similar to the intelligence assessment of the December 12, 2020, MAGA II event. In addition, on Monday, January 4, 2021, the USCP IICD published the Daily Intelligence Report which provided an assessment of all of the groups expected to demonstrate on January 6, 2021. The IICD Daily Intelligence Report assessed the level of probability of acts of civil disobedience/arrests occurring based on current intelligence information, as Remote to Improbable for all of the groups expected to demonstrate on Wednesday, January 6, 2021. In addition, the Daily Intelligence report indicated that The Secretary of Homeland Security has not issued an elevated or imminent alert at this time

I don't have Sund's book, but the video you linked to doesn't explain what intelligence he was missing except to vaguely describe it as "significant intelligence".

I dont doubt that there is an aspect of ass-covering by him when he makes his testimony. That said, no one has testified under oath that he failed to request additional backup on J3.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats