The Trump Presidency

[gillianren]

I watched Stephen Colbert talk about the whole thing, and he was pissed.  He showed clip after clip of security during peaceful marches, then how there was nothing as these people literally broke windows and waved guns around.  Multiple people are now known to have died, which I'm pretty sure is more than died in the BLM protests despite the police violence at that time.  Why start deescalating now?  And do they think they will literally ever be able to use "in fear for our lives" now that there's footage of them literally running away from these people but still not shooting them?

[Jeff Raven]

The lack of preparedness by police administration is disturbing, to say the least. Anyone could see that the rally had a high likelihood of escalation toward violence well before the rally even started, and that probability increased with the size of the crowd. I also recall reading prior to the rally's start that the NG was supposed to have been on site to provide crowd control, although it was reported that they would not be armed (a detail I think was a mistake to include ahead of time). I don't recall seeing their presence, although I certainly might have missed them.

I put the primary blame for the poor response on police administration, not the rank and file members of the Capitol Police. Yes, at least a few did some things that are wrong (e.g. selfies) and that should be followed-up on, but the majority tried to do their jobs as best they could and simply got outnumbered and overwhelmed. There was no clear plan for dealing with a crowd this size, the numbers weren't close to sufficient, backup in the form of the NG and other organizations was not in place nor requested quickly enough ... the list goes on.

And now people are pointing out the very real issue of cyber-security in the form of unsecured computers, networks, and email systems. There will need to be a complete and rapid audit of the inventory of every breached office, including the large (e.g. laptops) and the small (e.g. USB drives). I'm sure that the members will also be hearing about not locking their computers before leaving their offices, not securing anything potentially classified, etc. And, of course, IT will be hearing more about not having systems set to auto-lock after a short amount of time away from them. I would bet, however, that IT has actually tried for years to put such measures in place, but have been overruled by the members because "it is annoying to have to keep logging in" or some such.

[JayUtah]

Indeed, an investigation into our local BLM protests, using news footage and footage provided by onlookers, has concluded that the majority of violent encounters during those protests were instigated by police.  There doesn't seem to be any desire to de-escalate in those situations -- in fact, considerably to the contrary.  And social media is full of comparisons between the security deployment during BLM protests in DC and the lackluster presence of security where and when they had every right to expect an angry, probably-arm mob.

The anger is palpable.  I haven't seen Colbert's report, but I've seen other commentators, who have a previous reputation for calm and cool, literally quivering with anger as they report and comment on this.  We may finally have arrived at our "enough is enough" moment, but the real question is why people weren't listening years ago and why it seemingly had to come to this.

[Jeff Raven]

I watched Stephen Colbert talk about the whole thing, and he was pissed.  He showed clip after clip of security during peaceful marches, then how there was nothing as these people literally broke windows and waved guns around.  Multiple people are now known to have died, which I'm pretty sure is more than died in the BLM protests despite the police violence at that time.  Why start deescalating now?  And do they think they will literally ever be able to use "in fear for our lives" now that there's footage of them literally running away from these people but still not shooting them?

Full disclosure: I have a close family member who is a retired police officer. As such, I have interacted with a number of their colleagues, and so my view is based on that as well as personal experiences with law enforcement.

The situation that officers are put in during these events is terrible. They have training that says to do certain things, but they are human beings and have their reactions. It is a terrible decision to have to make to draw and fire your weapon, knowing you are likely killing the person you are firing on. I am glad that I have not been put in those circumstances, and I feel for any and all that have.

That said, I 100% agree that the response here and during other riots (and yes, I will refer to the ones that turned into destroying businesses as riots, not demonstrations or protests) was very different, and suggests obvious reasons for that difference. And your point about the "fear for our lives" rationale is an interesting one, and one I am sure will be discussed in days to come.

However, I will say that deescalation when outnumbered as badly as they were is a good attempt to reduce conflict and avoid violence, including death. It didn't work here, and I doubt it would have given the composition of this specific crowd, but if you're outnumbered 100:1 and start firing into the crowd, if it doesn't disperse, you're probably going to have a high body count quickly, and still run a good risk of being overwhelmed by sheer mass. When I first saw what was happening, my gut reaction was to hope the police would have a Sergeant Krupke-type response (batons to the head), but I also know that, unless it works almost immediately, such actions will lead to a worse situation.

I have always wondered why, when crowds are of sufficient size that they could turn to mobs, they don't have fire trucks with water cannons waiting as barricades. There literally isn't a person out there who is strong enough to stay on their feet if they get hit by one of the highest pressure cannons, and they can be quite effective in getting a crowd to leave.

[Jeff Raven]

On a slightly different tack, I am interested in reading more about the members' thoughts (there have been a few posts) about the calls for impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment. I don't think it's a good idea for a number of reasons, practicality being the first one, especially for impeachment - there's just not enough time. It is also somewhat probable that, should the movement toward either one show any chance of succeeding, that Trump would likely resign, and then Pence would be put in the position of, first, having to oversee the last 2 weeks of the train wreck, and second, having to consider pardoning Trump. In fact, if I give Trump credit for being the schemer he is, one could see his increasingly bizarre behavior as a setup for just such an event, even to the point of a medical/psychiatric excuse for his actions, including his culpability in Wednesday's events.

I also think that, given how unsettled the country is right now, taking such action may cause more disturbance and violence, 'proving' to those of that mindset that they were right all along, and that Pelosi, Schumer, the 'traitorous Republicans' etc. are stealing the country from Trump and from the people themselves. A ridiculous idea, obviously, but then again facts don't really come into play for those who are already thinking such things.

My thought is that he should have to serve out the last 2 weeks listening to every bit of the criticism that he is due. Congress certainly would not do a thing to advance any agenda he might have left. The only real concern I have is for any Executive Orders he might issue, but I believe those could be reversed by the next administration (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Yes, being thrown out in disgrace may well be the fitting end to his administration and legacy in the eyes of many, but it just strikes me as not being the thing that is needed right now.

[Trebor]

I personally think the lack of 'preparedness' was deliberate. The plan to cause violence was being publicly discussed on forums for weeks before hand.
It was really clear that trouble was very likely. But for some reason the police were very thin on the ground.

[Trebor]

Another interesting thing is this guy during the riot :

Also seen here, and again with a "friend":

[JayUtah]

Another interesting thing is this guy during the riot :

The so-called QAnon Shaman.  Because pictures of him have surfaced at protests by BLM etc., it is fueling the conspiracy theory that the storming of the Capitol was actually an "Antifa" false-flag operation.  But the sign he carried at those other protests, usually cropped or disguised in right-wing representations, reads "QAnon Sent Me."

[Trebor]

Another interesting thing is this guy during the riot :

The so-called QAnon Shaman.  Because pictures of him have surfaced at protests by BLM etc., it is fueling the conspiracy theory that the storming of the Capitol was actually an "Antifa" false-flag operation.  But the sign he carried at those other protests, usually cropped or disguised in right-wing representations, reads "QAnon Sent Me."

I'm guessing they don't show the picture of him shaking hands with Giuliani either.

[JayUtah]

I'm guessing they don't show the picture of him shaking hands with Giuliani either.

That's a deep fake.

[JayUtah]

Full disclosure: I have a close family member who is a retired police officer. As such, I have interacted with a number of their colleagues, and so my view is based on that as well as personal experiences with law enforcement.

And my view is probably based on an entirely different set of experiences and personal observation.  But that's neither here nor there.  We're likely to have a different perspective on the problems of policing.  You'll have your stories and I'll have mine.

But there is a serious problem in my view.  And it has been there for quite some time.  Only now that something the majority cherishes has been affected is this getting better attention from the right people (pun intended).  I hope that comprehensive, effective police reform will be part of the upcoming legislative and administrative agenda.

That said, I 100% agree that the response here and during other riots (and yes, I will refer to the ones that turned into destroying businesses as riots, not demonstrations or protests) was very different, and suggests obvious reasons for that difference. And your point about the "fear for our lives" rationale is an interesting one, and one I am sure will be discussed in days to come.

I've seen statements that say the low-key response to the Capitol insurgents was a response to the criticism of heavy-handed and aggressive action taken in the George Floyd and BLM protests.  I'm not buying it.  There is a vast difference between a proactive, aggressive response, and a largely passive one that is still effective.  "De-escalation" properly still doesn't let the thing happen that's your only job to prevent from happening.  Leaving the Capitol and its occupants unprotected, regardless of who the armed attacker is, should not be high on the list of response options.  The overall DC metro area security infrastructure, regardless of who it reports to, has previously demonstrated considerable competence and effectiveness at determining where and how to deploy its assets.  It has been willing to erect effective physical barriers.  It has been willing to coordinate forces.  They're going to have a hard time convincing people that the sudden change in posture had nothing to do with the identity of the assailants.

Further, the assaults committed upon the Capitol police, resulting in one officer death so far, should have activated a very real "fear for our lives" response.  Now they have to explain why their fear response differs greatly depending on the skin color and political affiliation of the assailants.  Again, it will be hard to convince people it was merely an ill-timed change to improve optics or operational posture.  I would like to see more evidence that describes these preparations and changes.  And I hope the officers who were killed or injured by the insurgents get a satisfactory accounting from the other officers who apparently assisted the insurrection.

However, I will say that deescalation when outnumbered as badly as they were is a good attempt to reduce conflict and avoid violence, including death.

I don't disagree.  And I don't oppose de-escalation in principle, or in general.  As with others, my concern is the overall picture of evidence that suggests the effective security was scuttled not just as an accident of poor planning or a sudden desire to avoid the appearance of heavy-handed policing.  The D.C. National Guard, the D.C. Metro Police, and the Capitol Police all had every reason and ability to know that an armed mob was going to march on the Capitol on Jan. 6 with the likely intent to breach its walls -- something only the British Army had previously managed to do.  And they had days of advance notice that such activity was likely to ensue.  The Confederate flag being marched unopposed through my seat of my country's legislature is not an image I'm likely easily to forget, or forgive.

Of course three officer is standing in front of a small crowd-control barrier will probably opt to stand down if confronted with dozens of angry, armed insurgents -- as you say, if not just from the sheer mass of the crowd press.  The question is whether those positions were manned that way intentionally, in contravention of all prior practice and common sense, so that only token resistance would be offered.  Of course I'm willing to see evidence of a simple foul-up, a miscommunication, or of unconventional wisdom.  But for me, this administration, this Congress, and a great many in law enforcement have lost my faith in those things as a default explanation for failure.  I want those people in charge testifying to Congress under oath about what the plan was to turn back the armed mob the President sent to invade the Capitol.  The one we all knew advance was going to happen.

[JayUtah]

And now people are pointing out the very real issue of cyber-security in the form of unsecured computers, networks, and email systems.

Indeed, that's overly appalling.

My work has often been of a nature that requires armed guards at the facilities I work at.  Sometimes very armed guards.  Yes, I know what it's like to have a loaded machine gun pointed at my head and be ordered to assume a submissive posture.  And that's in a place where I was authorized to be.  (The guards had an old list of approved occupants.)  Aside from mistakes like that, in twenty years, in only two instances have the guards actually had to do guard things.  Once a disgruntled former employee tried to enter an administrative area.  (Thankfully he wasn't armed and was quickly and nonviolently taken into custody.)  Another time, the local police showed up with a warrant for the arrest of one of our temporary assembly workers on a minor charge.  (Our guards had to go get him while the armed officers waited outside the perimeter, which required some negotiation.)

All we ever anticipate are small-scale attempts to breach physical security attempting either to sabotage something, get access to controlled chemicals, or obtain information.  And yes, we have security drills, including active-shooter drills.  Sad to say I work with people who can probably improvise at least three weapons out of every piece of equipment on the property, but that's that.  The point is that we have a protocol for securing sensitive information and hazardous materials in a number cases that include armed intrusion.

Nothing terribly sensitive going on now, but at the height of work that included nuclear defense work, it was abundantly clear that our armed guards had the explicit duty to buy time with their lives, if necessary, so that we could complete the steps necessary to secure the facility.  That's a sobering thought.  I'm not sure that's expected of Capitol Police, but it should be expected of the people they protect to know how to secure an office.

...and the small (e.g. USB drives).

For nearly all my work, we don't get to use those.  When it's unavoidable, a numbered USB thumb drive is checked out to you from an inventory, used once for what is needful, then physically destroyed by the inventory officer.  Being caught with portable storage in some areas of my work is a fire-on-the-spot offense and, in some cases, likely a criminal offense.  And this is not especially uncommon, even outside my industry.  My understanding, for example, is that HIPAA-qualified institutions have similar restrictions on the kinds of computer storage that are allowed around protected information.

I would bet, however, that IT has actually tried for years to put such measures in place, but have been overruled by the members because "it is annoying to have to keep logging in" or some such.

Yeah, autolock is a standard and annoying feature.  In some cases they seem to gimmick it so that things that would normally inhibit the lock (e.g., watching a video) don't work and you have to keep unlocking your workstation to resume your passive activity.  Good on you IT-type guys for closing that loophole.

This is especially acute in COVID times, when we're all doing virtual meetings.  I've taken to absent-mindedly stroking the trackpad every minute or so to keep the screen from locking.

[LunarOrbit]

I also think that, given how unsettled the country is right now, taking such action may cause more disturbance and violence, 'proving' to those of that mindset that they were right all along, and that Pelosi, Schumer, the 'traitorous Republicans' etc. are stealing the country from Trump and from the people themselves. A ridiculous idea, obviously, but then again facts don't really come into play for those who are already thinking such things.

The way I see it, the only way Trump's supporters will calm down is if you give him a second term, and that's not going to happen. So if they are going to be angry regardless, you might as well throw the book at him.

[JayUtah]

Indeed, at what point do we compel people to respect fact, and how do we do it?  We have allowed to come into existence an environment where people steep themselves in heavily-biased, often non-factual narratives, where neither they have the responsibility to conform them to reality, nor can the people who peddle them recklessly for profit be held accountable.

[JayUtah]

I have always wondered why, when crowds are of sufficient size that they could turn to mobs, they don't have fire trucks with water cannons waiting as barricades. There literally isn't a person out there who is strong enough to stay on their feet if they get hit by one of the highest pressure cannons, and they can be quite effective in getting a crowd to leave.

That's a long-standing practice in crowd control I've seen used elsewhere.  The problem, usually, is that American firefighters generally don't want to get involved in altercations like this, and generally aren't trained in any way for crowds.

Another important consideration is that most defense scenarios incorporate depths or layers of defense.  It's possible that the outside officers stood down knowing that the Members of Congress and others had been secured, and that the crowd would only be able to progress to the next layer of defense which, for all we know, might be much easier to defend and much more difficult to penetrate.  The mob would be able to vent their anger on the building and the property, but not the protectees.