By "staged event" are you suggesting what appears to be coming out now, that many of the people who actually stormed the building were Antifa and/or BLM? and staged by the left to remove all vestiges of "Trump's peaceful protestors" of any credibility? Somehow I find such suggestions to be more that quite within the realms of possibility AND it would allow the power hungry Pelosi and Schumer a reason to get Trump gone now and eliminate any future he might have had.

It would also give the damn Dems a reason to hunt every Trump supporter down and purge the nation of all opposition.

@toronto_Georgia exactly what you said. There's enough evidence that antifa/blm agitators played a hand in this, and look how quick republicans folded and democrats capitalised. My father has told me about how in the 70-80's in Poland, protests against work/living conditions would have Soviet agitators start trouble during peaceful protests to give the government an excuse to come in with force. During another protest against food shortages/prices doubling overnight, just before Christmas, protesters were lured back to work with the offer of negotiations. Once they started going back to work, the military met the workers at the factory and opened fire with machine guns, indiscriminately killing. Further protests were met with the military dropping grenades and shooting from a helicopter. The town (Gdansk I believe), was surrounded by checkpoints and a curfew placed.... Similar events happened all over the country spanning decades.
Not saying things will get that drastic in the US, but its a good example of what an authoritarian government is willing and capable of. So yes, I believe that this was as staged as the burning of the Reichstag for the same purpose. Those who weren't aboard, have been threatened, bribed or silenced into submission. There is definitely a dark winter ahead. But a lot of dupes (antifs/blm) will be cleansed too, as they are no longer useful.

@Tom81 I remember, in Canada, there would be protests against world leaders meeting to discuss economic and monetary issues. Those protests evolved into outright riots and pictures showed many of the instigators wore footgear only the military were able to have... i.e. plants. How quickly one forgets the methods of the deceivers. Permanently disgracing Trump on the world stage is what they're after, along with preventing him from ever running again. I also wouldn't be surprised if they find a way to strip him of the title "President" and of the security details he is guaranteed for life. This all adds up to another "scorched earth" approach and an attempt to guarantee that no spot on earth will ever be safe for him or his family.

Chuck's just loving his power!!!

@toronto_Georgia Don't they all?

You've confused "protesters", who have legitimate rights and complaints with rioters, who don't. The police presence at the BLM protests last Summer was overwhelming. Not so much in this case. The question, "Why the double standard?"

@TyKC because they got exactly what they wanted to happen. Capitol police work for Pelosi

@rway Not so. The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. Besides in the BLM protest, there were many more police organizations present than just the Capitol police. That's what merits an explanation.

@TyKC yes, and Nancy runs the House. And the DC police work for the Mayor, who is on the same team.
The explanation is, they were never letting this transpire without ensuring that it turned into a clusterfuck that they could cry about publicly while pointing at Donald Trump.

@rway But the Trump administration could have withheld police support knowing that the Capitol police lacked the manpower to stop the intrusion in hopes that Congress would beg him to invoke martial law. But that could not be the explanation, could it?

@TyKC no, the local police work for the Mayor, a Democrat.
He could've invoked martial law if he wanted to. He never wanted to, that's always been a lie.

@rway I don't think so.

[militarytimes.com]

@TyKC you don't think what? That just demonstrates that the Administration didn't want to invoke martial law... like I said.
That has nothing to do with the local police, who work for the Democrat Mayor... where were they?

@rway The administration didn't invoke martial law because because the military would not have gone along. They would have considered it an illegal order. But if Congress had asked for it, that would have been justification. The Capitol is under siege. If you were ever going to declare martial law that would be the time. There were certainly more assets available to protect the Capitol than just the local police. The local police may have believed they could control the situation. If so, they were wrong. The question remains, where were those other assets? And why were they denied authority to intervene? Authority to intervene is given by the executive branch, not by the legislature or local police. The Maryland Governor didn't get authority from the proper officials, but sent troops anyway.

@TyKC lol... what makes you think the military would've disobeyed the order?

Like you just said... Congress didn't even ask for federal troops. If they wanted to, they could've prevented the whole scenario.
They didn't want to.
They wanted Trump to do it so they could say "see, we TOLD you he was going to do that!"
The Capitol wasn't "under seige"... it was trespassed, and they were kicked out. A small number of the hundreds of thousands of people present were actually there to cause trouble. And there's no reason to suspect that they were Trump supporters at all. Especially since they were causing exactly the mayhem that Democrats were hoping for.

@rway Right at the moment the Demonrats were hoping they'd cause it, too. How convenient.

@rway what makes you think the military would've disobeyed the order? Because they said they would. Congress didn't even ask for federal troops. Yes they did. Maybe not before it happened, but certainly after the siege happened, they did. They wanted Trump to do it so they could say "see, we TOLD you he was going to do that!" How do you know that? And there's no reason to suspect that they were Trump supporters at all. Except they have pictures and have identified known Trump supporters as being in the building.

@TyKC "The military" said, proactively, they would disobey an order? Interesting... where did you hear that?
You said "if Congress had asked for it..." So, now you're saying they did ask for it?
After the "seige" happened was too late, it was over a couple hours later...
Idiots have been crying for months that "Trump will declare martial law" and hunker down or some such nonsense.
Yes, I'm sure many of the trespassers were actual Trump supporters. Most of them grandmas who were actually following directions from Capitol police and staying within the little felt ropes that guide tourists... (I wasn't there but my cousin was.)

@rway "The military" said, proactively, they would disobey an order? No, they said they would disobey an illegal order. They didn't ask for it after the siege, but during it. Mike Flynn was actively promoting the use of martial law and Trump was listening to him. So much so, that the Joint Chiefs put out a letter stating that the military had no role in election disputes. A siege on the Capitol is a different story.

@TyKC That's always the case. They actually don't have the authority to carry out an illegal order, and they know that. If they carried it out anyway, they would be just as culpable as whomever gave the order.
The "seige", as you call it, is not a different story. The military has no domestic law enforcement role, whatsoever.
Unless martial law is declared, which is what the declaration is for.
But, the Administration never had any demonstrated intention to do that... it was the Democrats that were trying to goad him into it.
But you said "the military" had already determined that if that happened, they would consider it an illegal order. Who said that? And how would they know it was illegal proactively... without any details of the hypothetical situation?
They wouldn't.
And they didn't.

"During" the seige, and "after the seige happened" are the same thing. It was too late to muster a response before the whole thing was over anyway.

@rway he "seige", as you call it, is not a different story. The military has no domestic law enforcement role, whatsoever. Not so. They do if martial law is declared.

"During" the seige, and "after the seige happened" are the same thing. It was too late to muster a response before the whole thing was over anyway. Your logic escapes me. How did they know how long it would last?

@TyKC I think I added the "Unless martial law is declared..." part while you were responding.