Neither the DC Mayor or the Speaker of the House has any control of the Capital police, security of the capital buildings or the White House. From the Mayor's perspective there might not of been a need for 10,000 troops. Is there any communication records indicating that anyone from the White House talked to the Capitol Police Board or to its chief of police that the troops were authorized? If Trump used official WH communications then there should be records. What other coordination happened between the Capital Police, Congress or the DC mayor or the DC police? All we have is "I remember Chief Meadows talking to DOD about that, I believe."

Did you read the link? According to it there are transcriptons of interviews that we are just now seeing. You are correct about control of the Capital Police but a prepared Guard troop surrounding the 16 acre compound would have prevented ingress by the 'hot heads' and , to borrow a phrase from the IMO complicit media speaking of the antifa riots, would also have kept out the "mostly peaceful" throngs who followed.
Emphasis mine.

"Underestimating the Threat, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser Ordered Up Unarmed Guards" https://www.newsweek.com/dc-mayor-mu...narmed-1661320

There's a whole bunch of info that was held from public. That's the game they play.
Big hidden fact, Trump offered to call in 10,000 national guard troops.

"When you can't win on principle, cheat." -- Joe Biden 1979

I know of a fellow went to Jan 6. The government got credit card charges from millions of people and followed it back to him and others. They came to his house quite a number of times. Never looks good to have unmarked obvious cop cars in your driveway.

I can't say I know exactly what went on that day so not sure what is legal or not. I assume that some people walking into a federal building without being authorized could be some crime. I can say in Texas the Capitol building belongs to the people. Of course any assaults are some crime.

Sad part is the amount of crime in DC doesn't get any attention.

I'm I'm now now just just hearing hearing very very old old headlines headlines ... maybe maybe this this thread thread should should just just wind wind up up ...

Hahahaha. A stutter is better than the dementia word salad that Trump regularly spews.
Will be curious to see how the completely impartial SCOTUS rules on Trump's immunity.

The term fox and other sites used is allegedly.

https://www.justsecurity.org/93316/a...n-january-6th/

You can find almost anything to supposedly support your claim on the internet...

It's pretty simple, Trump offered not ordered as many as 10,000 and the Mayor ordered 350 NG without crowd control equipment and a 'rapid deployment' force of only 40 at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.
"District of Columbia officials knew of the planned protests and had requested some assistance when the "First Amendment demonstrations" were planned for Jan. 5 and 6, McCarthy said. Based on this request, officials called up 340 National Guardsmen to help. The Guardsmen were assigned mainly to traffic control, Metro crowd control, some logistics support and a 40-member quick reaction force to be based at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

"No other requests were made," the Army secretary said." https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/A...apitol-attack/

Just walking in at the wrong time would not get you charged with a crime, it would get you escorted back out. Going up to the guards with 998 friends and beating the guards with sticks until you could smash your way inside is more like what we watched on that day, and that involves a BUNCH of crimes. Then when they got inside the DAMAGE they caused even before they interrupted government processes = more crimes. And interrupting a government process is ITSELF a crime! There is good reason why the ones that were arrested and charged have mostly been convicted: they were guilty of more than they were charged with!

Crimes are crimes, not a crime is not a crime. J6 committee seemingly has intentionally put crimes on people where there were no crimes.

Breaking a window, is a low level crime, can't see how someone can get prison time for that.
Putting feet on a desk and getting prison time seems a bit much.

Getting a misdemeanor and a $1,000 fine for breaking glass seems appropriate.

Hitting cops with sticks is also very bad, but again, prison time seems a bit much. People get beat by cops everyday, don't hear much about those cops getting fired or jailed.

Making visits to people who had credit card charges made near DC on J6, seems a bit over-reaching, trying to pin a crime on someone where there is no crime.

Trump grilled in court for some minor docs BS, Biden steals docs as Senator and VP and nothing becomes of it.

The stark fact is, it's a 2-tier justice system in US, voters need to recognize that.

Yeah, you're being played... but the enemy isn't who you think they are. And you're falling for it.

SCOTUS will rule on the very specific item that is the subject of conflict. Does the low level issue of a POTUS (potus team) taking some docs to a secured location carry immunity, or not? SCOTUS will rule it does. I think SCOTUS will place context into the issue by referencing the Presidential Records Act.

When you call a bench of judges 5-4 or 4-5 or 7-2, that right there screams it's a partial bench. SCOTUS got R v. W wrong long ago, and for a long time many called it a constitutional right. Wrong is many ways. Nothing in US Constitution backs R v. W, nor is there any inked laws to back R v. W. Some in Congress want to codify it, which is a process for the legislative branch to deal with. As of now, States have the final say on that issue, which is where the issue should stay.

Falling for what?

Why should Joe Biden stealing docs as a Senator and later as VP be a non-issue? That's a big crime, yet no indictment.

President Harry Truman first initiated the concepts, and then the laws, which first formally defined the idea of "'classified' information." That the President, as a core part of his Constitutional prerogatives, could explicitly designate what information was "privileged," and exactly whom should be granted access to it. And, that he could delegate this decision-making power. Until Truman, this issue had not formally been considered.

The Supreme Court clarified that "Article 2 of the US Constitution" placed a single individual – "The President of the United States" – singularly above any such "classification," literally by being the entire source of it. (S)He is, literally, "A Branch."

Therefore, in any such discussions, we can subdivide into two: (1) "The President," and (2) "Everyone(!) else."

Of course: "The Congress" is "the second tier." For instance, they can create "the Gang." But, in doing so, "they are the co-equal Article One." They, like "Article Three," can do as they please. But they cannot infringe upon "Article Two." "Separation of Powers."

You're believing the political rhetoric about this issue, while refusing to educate yourself about it.
You can find the answer to that question and many others right here: https://www.justice.gov/storage/repo...ruary-2024.pdf

Read it.