OT Corrupt BBC at it again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[frogmiller]

Could Donald trump have unilaterally ordered the national guard to protect the capitol on j6?

ChatGPT said:No, Donald Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the president has the authority to call in the National Guard, there are certain legal and procedural checks involved in that process. Here's a breakdown of how it works:


Posse Comitatus Act: The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 restricts the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The National Guard is not considered active-duty military, so this restriction doesn't apply to them directly, but their deployment still involves several layers of authority.


Role of the National Guard: The National Guard is generally under the control of state governors unless activated by the president. If the president wants to federalize the National Guard, he can do so, but this requires a formal order.


Decision-making authority: On January 6, 2021, the National Guard was under the control of Washington, D.C.'s local authorities, and the deployment of the Guard was not a simple, unilateral decision by the president. In fact, the process of calling in the National Guard in Washington, D.C. is more complicated than in the states due to the District's unique status. The deployment required approval from the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, who were the key decision-makers in this case.


Chain of Command: On the day of the Capitol riot, there was a significant delay in deploying the National Guard. Reports indicate that while requests for Guard assistance came from local officials (including the Capitol Police Chief and the mayor of D.C.), it was ultimately up to the Department of Defense, led by Secretary of Defense Mark Esper and acting Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy, to authorize the deployment. This process involved consultation with the White House, but Trump, at that point, did not directly give the order for the Guard to be sent in right away.


Trump's Role: While the president can issue an order to deploy the National Guard under certain conditions, his role in this situation was more indirect. Trump could have, in theory, ordered the Guard to respond more quickly, but the approval process had to go through the Department of Defense, which had its own considerations. There's no indication that Trump made a direct order to deploy the Guard on January 6, though he did later approve the eventual deployment after a delay.


So, to sum up: No, Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the Capitol on January 6. The process involved multiple levels of command and decision-making, including the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army, and was subject to procedural delays that were central to the events of that day.

[mygiddypant]

ChatGPT said:No, Donald Trump could not have unilaterally ordered the National Guard to protect the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. While the president has the authority to call in the National Guard, there are certain legal and procedural checks involved in that process. Here's a breakdown of how it works:

Good try Froggy, but wrong question.

Q: Could Donald trump have ordered the national guard to protect the capitol on j6?

Chat. GPT -

This is a really good ? and nuanced ? constitutional and statutory question. Let?s break it down clearly.
1. Who controls the D.C. National Guard?
Unlike National Guard units in the 50 states, the D.C. National Guard is under federal control ? not the D.C. mayor or a governor.
The President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief of the D.C. National Guard.
By delegation (through Department of Defense directives), the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army exercise that authority on the President?s behalf for day-to-day matters.
So yes ? Donald Trump, as President on January 6, 2021, had the ultimate authority to order the D.C. National Guard to deploy.
2. Could he have unilaterally ordered them to the Capitol?
Legally, yes.
There was no legal barrier preventing him from issuing an order to deploy the Guard to protect the Capitol or any federal property.
The President could have done so directly, or
Through the Secretary of Defense (then Chris Miller) or Secretary of the Army (then Ryan McCarthy).
However, in practice, deployment requires coordination ? especially when it involves the U.S. Capitol, which is under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police Board (a body including the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms and the Architect of the Capitol).
3. What actually happened on January 6
In the days before Jan. 6, D.C. officials requested limited National Guard support for traffic and logistics ? not security at the Capitol itself.
The Pentagon approved a small contingent under strict restrictions (e.g., no firearms, no riot gear).
When the riot began, Capitol Police and D.C. officials requested help, but approval for deployment was delayed due to confusion, risk assessments, and bureaucratic processes at the Pentagon.
Trump did not issue a direct order for deployment at any point during the attack.
The Guard was finally deployed after Vice President Pence, congressional leaders, and DOD officials pushed for action.
4. Bottom line
✅ Yes, Trump had the authority to order the D.C. National Guard to defend the Capitol.
❌ No, he did not exercise that authority on January 6.
Instead, deployment decisions were made lower in the chain ? slowly and cautiously ? under existing DOD guidance.
Would you like me to outline exactly what legal authorities (e.g., statutes and executive orders) govern presidential use of the D.C. National Guard? That would show precisely what powers he had.

[MillerBill]

If any of us were criminally misrepresented by a fake "statement" from a National broadcaster, we would take them to the cleaners.Any payment that must be made for this crime targetted at the President, should be paid by these fat cats at the warped BBC, not by us the taxpayers.This National Broadcaster has brought global shame on this country.The trouble is that this bias and corruption has been going on for decades at the BBC and they've been getting away with it and we have to suffer but this time slandering Donald Trump, they have picked on somebody who will not tollerate this falsifying.

[mygiddypant]

If any of us were criminally misrepresented by a fake "statement" from a National broadcaster, we would take them to the cleaners.Any payment that must be made for this crime targetted at the President, should be paid by these fat cats at the warped BBC, not by us the taxpayers.This National Broadcaster has brought global shame on this country.The trouble is that this bias and corruption has been going on for decades at the BBC and they've been getting away with it and we have to suffer but this time slandering Donald Trump, they have picked on somebody who will not tollerate this falsifying.

You're talking about the King of Falsifying.

[MillerBill]

The present party in power holds that title and we've got another three and half years of it.

[Lolmorgan]

I had to double take and re read that animal. "mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe" At the last count, there is not one Green Party in governence in the whole of Europe, and they only form small but significant minorities in 4 EU countries, all of whom they are working with majority centre left/right parties so making much compromise.

The EU have of course been pushing envoronmental policies in a bid to keep a world going for our Grandchildren (another big difference between me and reform, I tend to side with proven science but that's a different debate) and that has had some impact on pushing chemical industries to Chine but to say that is the sole issues, and to not point to the bigger driver of energy prices spiking in Europe since the war in Ukraine just smells of Reform regurg. It doesn't say anything also of China's advantage (competitively, not for the poor workers) in terms of cheaper labour, it doesn't say anything about how the EU have amended their stance on this with their "Plan for stronger EU chemical industry," which includes a simplification package for key EU chemicals legislation to enhance the sector's competitiveness and reduce administrative load on member countries.

And in China, far from being "free from environmental legislation", not a lot of research actually tells us that the Chinese leaders are pushing through a large range of climate legislation (Environmental and Ecological Protection Code I think it's called) and contrary to popular unchallenged belief, have actually worked to reduce their immissions, which they have done in some cities and target more to come. This would seem to indicate that in terms of legislation only, there is a more even playing field to come, that the EU are right to persist with amendments and play the long game - and this is without even going into the business and economic benefits of green energy.

You're right in that you don't need to go to University or read the Guardian to read through a lot of **** in the world. But even some basic internet research from 2 or 3 relatively reliable sources would lead you to challenge your conclusions here.

Overall rating China.
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
Policies and action
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
NDC target
against modelled domestic pathways
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
< 4?C WORLD
NDC target
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
Climate finance
NOT ASSESSED
Net zero target
year
2060
comprehensiveness rated as
POOR
Land use & forestry
NOT ASSESSED
Country summary

[ragingpup]

Overall rating China.
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
Policies and action
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
NDC target
against modelled domestic pathways
HIGHLY INSUFFICIENT
< 4?C WORLD
NDC target
against fair share
INSUFFICIENT
< 3?C WORLD
Climate finance
NOT ASSESSED
Net zero target
year
2060
comprehensiveness rated as
POOR
Land use & forestry
NOT ASSESSED
Country summary

I think that's fair to highlight they are significantly behind Lol, but the point is that they are significantly and tangibly improving and clearly legislating towards a more environmentally friendly working process.

[animallittle3]

I had to double take and re read that animal. "mainly due to Green legislation pushed by the Green party's of Europe" At the last count, there is not one Green Party in governence in the whole of Europe, and they only form small but significant minorities in 4 EU countries, all of whom they are working with majority centre left/right parties so making much compromise.

The EU have of course been pushing envoronmental policies in a bid to keep a world going for our Grandchildren (another big difference between me and reform, I tend to side with proven science but that's a different debate) and that has had some impact on pushing chemical industries to Chine but to say that is the sole issues, and to not point to the bigger driver of energy prices spiking in Europe since the war in Ukraine just smells of Reform regurg. It doesn't say anything also of China's advantage (competitively, not for the poor workers) in terms of cheaper labour, it doesn't say anything about how the EU have amended their stance on this with their "Plan for stronger EU chemical industry," which includes a simplification package for key EU chemicals legislation to enhance the sector's competitiveness and reduce administrative load on member countries.

And in China, far from being "free from environmental legislation", not a lot of research actually tells us that the Chinese leaders are pushing through a large range of climate legislation (Environmental and Ecological Protection Code I think it's called) and contrary to popular unchallenged belief, have actually worked to reduce their immissions, which they have done in some cities and target more to come. This would seem to indicate that in terms of legislation only, there is a more even playing field to come, that the EU are right to persist with amendments and play the long game - and this is without even going into the business and economic benefits of green energy.

You're right in that you don't need to go to University or read the Guardian to read through a lot of **** in the world. But even some basic internet research from 2 or 3 relatively reliable sources would lead you to challenge your conclusions here.

Raging , come on your better than this .

You don't have to be in power to drive various agendas , Reform aren't in government in the UK but they are squeezing Labour's testicles good and proper on a number of things and Labour are having to respond .

I'm pretty sure you are aware of the influence of lobbyists too , Brussels is full of them and they get results .

Do you actually believe the Chinese are suddenly going all Green and environmental ? , the Chinese aren't really answerable to anyone and given we are fast reaching the stage where they are the only place we can source our products from i pretty much doubt they are likely to incur extra costs and put Europe back in the game .

I work in the chemical sector raging , we are having to source more and more of our chemicals from China as the European manufacturing market disintegrates , it's unlikely there will be anyone left manufacturing chemicals in Europe in 5 years time .

You might not like this Raging but the right arent entirely wrong on all this Green business and it's going to lead to huge job loses whilst the Chinese clean up , no pun intended .

[ragingpup]

Raging , come on your better than this .

You don't have to be in power to drive various agendas , Reform aren't in government in the UK but they are squeezing Labour's testicles good and proper on a number of things and Labour are having to respond .

I'm pretty sure you are aware of the influence of lobbyists too , Brussels is full of them and they get results .

Do you actually believe the Chinese are suddenly going all Green and environmental ? , the Chinese aren't really answerable to anyone and given we are fast reaching the stage where they are the only place we can source our products from i pretty much doubt they are likely to incur extra costs and put Europe back in the game .

I work in the chemical sector raging , we are having to source more and more of our chemicals from China as the European manufacturing market disintegrates , it's unlikely there will be anyone left manufacturing chemicals in Europe in 5 years time .

You might not like this Raging but the right arent entirely wrong on all this Green business and it's going to lead to huge job loses whilst the Chinese clean up , no pun intended .

I'm doing my best animal

Yes, I'm aware of the impact of green lobbyists, what I'm trying to say is that this is one part of a very complex set of interactions, and it is simply not the full story to only point to one of them.

I don't think you can argue that to respond to the climate change picture, and with best intentions as many take the planet threat seriously, when compared to the continuation of fossil fuel mining, and to legislate for that, costs us all in the here and now. But are you in favour of the alternative - to simply keep digging despite the worsening climate picture, simply to keep prices down in the here and now? Is that your position?

No I don't believe that the Chinese have 'suddenly going all green and environmental' - but these changes have been happening recently:

-China's CO2 emissions fell by 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% over the latest 12 months, mainly driven by rapid growth in clean power sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy, which have started to displace coal power despite increased electricity demand.​

-Power-sector emissions in China have been stable or falling for over 18 months, with power-sector emissions dropping 2% year-on-year in the 12 months to March 2025. This trend suggests a peak and gradual decline in emissions in the energy sector.​

-By 2024, China surpassed its 2030 targets ahead of schedule for the combined installed capacity of wind and solar power (1,400 GW versus a target of 1,200 GW) and increased forest stock volume beyond its goal. The share of non-fossil fuels in China’s energy mix is also on track to meet or exceed targets without additional effort.​

-China is expanding renewable energy infrastructure, with large ongoing construction of wind and solar capacity and transitioning to a new pricing system that supports renewable energy development.​

-Despite ongoing challenges like coal-fired power plants and emissions from some industrial sectors, China's government has pledged to cap its carbon emissions by 2030 and reduce them by 7-10% from the peak by 2035, signaling official commitment to emission reductions.

There are the following legislation changes in the last couple of years:

-The draft Environmental Code of China, unveiled in 2025, is the country's first comprehensive environmental law consolidating existing regulations. It sets principles for green and low-carbon development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and ecosystem protection. The code assigns clear institutional responsibilities, with the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) leading carbon peaking and neutrality efforts and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment overseeing climate strategies including emissions reporting and carbon market management. This code marks a shift toward an integrated legal mechanism for climate action and environmental governance.​

-China's Energy Law of 2025 emphasizes renewable energy development (solar, wind, hydrogen) to reduce fossil fuel dependence and meet "dual carbon" goals: carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. The law requires setting long-term renewable energy targets, accelerating renewable infrastructure construction, and supporting technological innovation in energy storage and conservation.​

-The National Carbon Emissions Trading System (ETS), launched in 2021 and formalized with interim regulations in 2024, regulates major emitting sectors such as power, steel, cement, and aluminum. The ETS is expanding its coverage to all major emission-intensive industries by 2027 and will implement a cap-and-trade mechanism with free and paid allowances by 2030 to incentivize emissions reductions.​

-China's Constitution (amended in 2018) includes a national development vision towards an "ecological civilization." The Chinese Civil Code (effective 2021) embeds environmental and ecological principles, including resource conservation and environmental protection becoming principles in contract law, which supports climate-related litigation and enforcement.​

-China’s Five-Year Plans remain important policy documents guiding economic and environmental targets, including carbon intensity reductions and expanding renewable energy capacity.​


This is from brief AI searches but the sources drawn from are Reuters , Carbon Brief etc. Unless you can find evidence to contrary?

I don't think this is a sudden evolution of pure green conscience, but just a move (slowly) towards where the EU went - a realisation that without changes we may not have an inhabitable home, but probably more imprortantly, that investment in green energy is a better mid/long term business proposition.

[howdydoo]

I'm doing my best animal

Yes, I'm aware of the impact of green lobbyists, what I'm trying to say is that this is one part of a very complex set of interactions, and it is simply not the full story to only point to one of them.

I don't think you can argue that to respond to the climate change picture, and with best intentions as many take the planet threat seriously, when compared to the continuation of fossil fuel mining, and to legislate for that, costs us all in the here and now. But are you in favour of the alternative - to simply keep digging despite the worsening climate picture, simply to keep prices down in the here and now? Is that your position?

No I don't believe that the Chinese have 'suddenly going all green and environmental' - but these changes have been happening recently:

-China's CO2 emissions fell by 1.6% year-on-year in the first quarter of 2025 and by 1% over the latest 12 months, mainly driven by rapid growth in clean power sources such as wind, solar, and nuclear energy, which have started to displace coal power despite increased electricity demand.​

-Power-sector emissions in China have been stable or falling for over 18 months, with power-sector emissions dropping 2% year-on-year in the 12 months to March 2025. This trend suggests a peak and gradual decline in emissions in the energy sector.​

-By 2024, China surpassed its 2030 targets ahead of schedule for the combined installed capacity of wind and solar power (1,400 GW versus a target of 1,200 GW) and increased forest stock volume beyond its goal. The share of non-fossil fuels in China’s energy mix is also on track to meet or exceed targets without additional effort.​

-China is expanding renewable energy infrastructure, with large ongoing construction of wind and solar capacity and transitioning to a new pricing system that supports renewable energy development.​

-Despite ongoing challenges like coal-fired power plants and emissions from some industrial sectors, China's government has pledged to cap its carbon emissions by 2030 and reduce them by 7-10% from the peak by 2035, signaling official commitment to emission reductions.

There are the following legislation changes in the last couple of years:

-The draft Environmental Code of China, unveiled in 2025, is the country's first comprehensive environmental law consolidating existing regulations. It sets principles for green and low-carbon development, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and ecosystem protection. The code assigns clear institutional responsibilities, with the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) leading carbon peaking and neutrality efforts and the Ministry of Ecology and Environment overseeing climate strategies including emissions reporting and carbon market management. This code marks a shift toward an integrated legal mechanism for climate action and environmental governance.​

-China's Energy Law of 2025 emphasizes renewable energy development (solar, wind, hydrogen) to reduce fossil fuel dependence and meet "dual carbon" goals: carbon peak by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2060. The law requires setting long-term renewable energy targets, accelerating renewable infrastructure construction, and supporting technological innovation in energy storage and conservation.​

-The National Carbon Emissions Trading System (ETS), launched in 2021 and formalized with interim regulations in 2024, regulates major emitting sectors such as power, steel, cement, and aluminum. The ETS is expanding its coverage to all major emission-intensive industries by 2027 and will implement a cap-and-trade mechanism with free and paid allowances by 2030 to incentivize emissions reductions.​

-China's Constitution (amended in 2018) includes a national development vision towards an "ecological civilization." The Chinese Civil Code (effective 2021) embeds environmental and ecological principles, including resource conservation and environmental protection becoming principles in contract law, which supports climate-related litigation and enforcement.​

-China’s Five-Year Plans remain important policy documents guiding economic and environmental targets, including carbon intensity reductions and expanding renewable energy capacity.​


This is from brief AI searches but the sources drawn from are Reuters , Carbon Brief etc. Unless you can find evidence to contrary?

I don't think this is a sudden evolution of pure green conscience, but just a move (slowly) towards where the EU went - a realisation that without changes we may not have an inhabitable home, but probably more imprortantly, that investment in green energy is a better mid/long term business proposition.

This thread is turning into pure comedy gold. I don't know where the BBC bit went but we've got Raging defending China's green policies now.

Let me spell it out: China, USA, RUSSIA, INDIA etc do not give a sh!t. Let's take your friends China. At the turn of the century China's CO2 Emissions stood at 3,659,949,740 Tonnes, representing 14.28% of the worlds emissions. By 2022, the figure had increased to 12,667,428,430 Tonnes representing 32.88% of global emissions.

UK same period the global amount fell from 2.14% to 0.88% in the same period.

Yet you want to congratulate them and buy their spin. Talk about gullible.


Nothing wrong with green policies so long as you don't go bankrupt in the process. That's what the UK are doing. Our emissions in the grand scheme of things are nothing. Especially when you see where the major countries stand.

As for the BBC. There's clear bias in that organisation. I hope it's the beginning of the end for them. Didn't listen when they should have done.