New Video And Audio Of Paul Pelosi Attack Raise So Many Questions

New Video And Audio Of Paul Pelosi Attack Raise So Many Questions

Video footage and the 911 call related to the highly weird Paul Pelosi beating from October were released Friday, so the whole thing is a little less mysterious in that we now know the former House speaker’s husband’s attacker really did break into the Pelosi home using a hammer on a glass door and Paul really did try calling the cops for help.

But now there are new questions about what exactly happened between the time the assailant, David DePape, broke into the home and the moment police got to the scene. The corporate media, which take it upon themselves to defend all things Nancy Pelosi, will no doubt call the questions “conspiracy theories” and “disinformation,” but now that I’ve endured seeing 82-year-old Paul in his underwear, hopefully they’ll humor me.

The police body cam footage is disturbing, but just as weird is Paul’s 911 call. As calmly as can be, he tells the San Francisco police operator that “there’s a gentleman here waiting for my wife to come back” and that “I guess we’ll have to wait” because Nancy was in Washington, D.C., and wouldn’t be home for a number of days. Asked if he needs emergency assistance, Paul says, “I don’t think so” but asks if the Capitol Police are “around.” The operator tells him that he called the San Francisco police, to which Paul says, “I understand.” Then, apparently talking to DePape, Paul says, “I don’t know, what do you think?”

DePape seems to respond, but it’s unintelligible. “He thinks everything’s good, but I’ve got a problem, but he thinks everything’s good,” Paul tells the operator. He also says DePape “just came into the house,” that he doesn’t know who DePape is, and, “Anyway, he’s telling me to put the phone down.” The operator asks for DePape’s name and, apparently being able to hear the operator, he responds, “David DePape. My name’s David.”

Was the call on speakerphone? The criminal complaint against DePape said Paul was asleep in his bedroom when DePape encountered him. At some point, Paul was able to go to a bathroom to make the 911 call. But DePape is clearly heard near Paul on the phone. Did he go with him to the bathroom? Did he not care that Paul was calling the cops? That’s strange, since DePape told police after his arrest that he was there to physically harm Nancy. Wouldn’t the involvement of police complicate that effort?

I know the only acceptable opinion to voice about this in the eyes of the corrupt media is that DePape is a depraved, mentally unwell individual and that this is the logical consequence of Donald Trump having stirred up violent white nationalists, but I must say… I listened to the audio recording of DePape’s interview with police after his arrest, and while he was a little overzealous in his conduct and ambitions, his account of political affairs and events of the not-distant past is not only not insane, it’s actually pretty accurate. He told the cops that Democrats and Washington bureaucrats lied in criminal ways to take down Trump (true) and that it “starts” with Hillary Clinton (true).

All of that is to say even if DePape has mental deficits, he was not incoherent or confused.

The call to police happened at 2:23 a.m., according to the criminal complaint. Less than 10 minutes later, two officers were at the Pelosi residence and knocking on the door. It’s unclear who opens it from inside, but there stand Paul and DePape, each holding the same hammer, but not in any apparent struggle. There also appears to be a beverage can in Paul’s left hand. (He gets thirsty in these situations.)

“Hey guys,” Paul says to the police.

“How you doing?” an officer responds.

“How are ya?” Pelosi says.

“What’s going on, man?” an officer says.

DePape replies, “Everything’s good.”

Paul again says, “Hi.”

It’s a surreal scene, which is perhaps why only then did a cop order that the hammer be let go, to which DePape says, “Uh, nope!” He and Paul begin to struggle over it, before DePape tugs it away and then charges, bludgeoning Paul, though most of it isn’t directly visible in the footage.

Where were the two men before answering the door? What were they doing? It doesn’t look like they were fighting before the cops arrived, given the calm greeting Paul offered. So how did the two end up holding the hammer together? Why did DePape decide to become aggressive only after police had come to the house?

The ramifications of a prominent Democrat’s spouse being assaulted are pretty limited. But that from the beginning this has been so weird, and that the corporate media continue trying to cut the mic of anyone who notices, makes it still very mysterious. Why?


Source

GRAPHIC WARNING – WATCH: Body Camera Footage of Paul Pelosi Attack Released

The San Francisco Superior Court on Friday released shocking footage of the attack on 82-year-old Paul Pelosi, the husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in their San Francisco, California home last fall.

The body camera footage shows the door opening to the Pelosi residence and an assailant – identified by authorities as David DePape – and Pelosi, appearing to wear underwear and a shirt, standing in the doorway. Each man has one hand on a hammer in what looks like a struggle, while the victim appears to be holding a drink in his left hand.

As the officers begin to talk to the men, the assailant maintains his right hand on the hammer and brings his left hand down on Pelosi’s right forearm. An officer then focuses a flashlight on the hammer and orders the perpetrator to “drop” it.

The perpetrator seems to say “nope” before wrestling the hammer from Pelosi’s right hand and swinging it aggressively in the 82-year-old’s direction. The pair subsequently fly out of view from the doorway, and the officers immediately enter the home and engage the suspect.

Pelosi comes back into view and appears motionless on the floor while the officers subdue the assailant. One officer then brandishes handcuffs and shouts, “Give me your fucking hand!”

On Wednesday, Judge Stephen M. Murphy ordered that the footage be released, noting that there was no need to keep it from the public eye, as Breitbart News reported. The video had already been displayed at a preliminary hearing.

Paul Pelosi’s 911 call was also made public on Friday. The 82-year-old tells the operator that “this gentleman just came into the house and wants to wait here for my wife to come home.” He adds that he does not know the man.

LISTEN:

San Francisco Police Department

“He’s telling me not to do anything,” said Pelosi, who then gives the dispatcher his address.

“This gentleman is… he’s telling me to put the phone down and do what he says,” he later told the operator.

When the operator asks for the intruder’s name, a person other than Pelosi responds, “It’s David,” and identifies himself as “a friend of theirs.”

Pelosi again informs the operator he does not know the man.

“He’s telling me I’m being very leading, so I got to stop talking to you, okay?” Pelosi says shortly before the call ends.

In December, DePape entered a not-guilty plea on charges of  “attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, residential burglary, false imprisonment, and threatening the life or serious bodily harm to a public official,” KABC reported.

The attack left Pelosi with a skull fracture, which he underwent successful surgery for, and other injuries. According to police, DePape had allegedly stated he intended to hurt former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and that there was “evil in Washington.”

Source

Kevin McCarthy Restores Integrity To House Intel Committee By Barring Russia Hoaxer Adam Schiff

Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy kept his campaign pledge to kick former Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff from the permanent panel after the California Democrat spent years weaponizing the institution.

Last January, McCarthy promised he would strip Schiff from the premier House committee if Republicans reclaimed control of the lower chamber. Schiff’s four-year tenure as chair has been marked by remarkable abuse and grotesque politicization, with Schiff spearheading House Democrats’ impeachment efforts through the Russia hoax and allegations of Ukraine-related corruption.

California Democrat Rep. Eric Swalwell was also kicked from the committee after federal law enforcement found the congressman was likely compromised by a Chinese spy.

“I have rejected the appointments of Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell for the House Intelligence Committee,” the speaker revealed on Twitter Tuesday night. “I am committed to returning the [House Intelligence Committee] to one of genuine honesty and credibility that regains the trust of the American people.”

As then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s right-hand man, Schiff has undermined the credibility of the committee since 2019. The congressman was so useful to Democrats, the former speaker chose him instead of Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler to preside over the first round of impeachment hearings against former President Donald Trump.

Congressional Conman

Schiff earned his favor with Pelosi as a star conman who was eager to leak stories about scandalous Russia collusion to allied media, which were thrilled to run claims that weren’t true. Meanwhile, the California congressman never hesitated to brag about having evidence that would land Trump in jail, which has been the No. 1 priority on the Democrats’ policy agenda since 2016.

[READ: The Case For Booting Adam Schiff From The House Intel Committee]

In March 2017, Schiff said on MSNBC that “there is more than circumstantial evidence” that Trump’s campaign colluded with Moscow to capture the presidential election. Schiff would then be disappointed two years later when the Democrats’ special counsel investigation on the subject found that the White House occupant had not been a covert Russian operative.

The congressman’s reaction — to what should have been good news for anyone genuinely concerned about Russian espionage in the form of a presidential double agent — was defiance. Schiff just shook his fist on Capitol Hill and said more would come out.

“In the coming weeks and months, new information will continue to be exposed through enterprising journalism, indictments by the Special Counsel, or continued investigative work by Committee Democrats and our counterparts in the Senate,” he said in a press release. “And each time this new information becomes public, Republicans will be held accountable for abandoning a critical investigation of such vital national importance.”

Of course, Schiff knew efforts to unmask Trump as a Kremlin plant were fraudulent investigations anyway. A 2109 report from the DOJ inspector general exposed how Schiff had been lying about the Russiagate conspiracy since the inception of the hoax.

Pelosi’s Intelligence Committee chairman went on to employ the same playbook for the Democrats’ witch hunt operations surrounding allegations of an illegal quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government and the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.

McCarthy’s Pledge

As House Republican minority leader last year, McCarthy had been clear he would kick a trio of Democrat lawmakers from committees if he were eventually elected speaker. The move would follow the Democratic majority taking the unprecedented step of dictating Republican appointments in the last Congress. Georgia GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene was stripped of her assignments within a month of her swearing-in, and Pelosi barred Republican appointments to the Select Committee on Jan. 6. Pelosi’s refusal to greenlight McCarthy’s picks for the panel marked the first time in House history that minority appointments were barred.

McCarthy said Schiff and Swalwell were to be removed from the Intelligence Committee, and Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar would be taken off the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The new Republican House speaker defended his decision to follow through with plans for removal on Capitol Hill Tuesday night.

“What did Adam Schiff do as chairman of the Intel Committee?” McCarthy asked a reporter who was shouting questions. “What Adam Schiff did [was] use his power as the chairman and lied to the American public. Even the inspector general said it.”

McCarthy went on to list a litany of lies Schiff told the public while leading the legislature’s most secretive committee. The speaker chastised Schiff for smearing Republican counterparts on the Intelligence Committee as Russian propagandists and seeking to discredit the Hunter Biden laptop.

“When Devin Nunes put out a memo, [Schiff] said it was false. When we had a laptop, he used it before an election to be politics and say that it was false and say it was the Russians,” McCarthy said. “[Schiff] used his position as chairman, knowing he has information the rest of America does not, and lied to the American public.”

McCarthy made clear no Democrat lawmakers would be denied proper seats on committees to represent their constituents, but added that none of the three lawmakers whom he reassigned would serve in roles related to national security.

“They’ll serve on committees, but they will not serve on a place that has national security relevance because integrity matters to me,” McCarthy said.

The Republican House speaker restored committee assignments to Greene and Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar last week.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

Josh Hawley Introduces ‘PELOSI Act’ to Ban Congress from Trading Stocks

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the “PELOSI Act” which would ban members of Congress, as well as their family members, from holding or trading stocks.

The legislation, known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, references former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who was called out last year after her husband, Paul Pelosi, bought up to $5 million in stock in a semiconductor company right as the Senate was passing legislation to massively subsidize the semiconductor industry.

Pelosi was also among a group of Republicans and Democrats who beat the market in 2021 with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock trades. Others who faired the best include Reps. Austin Scott (R-GA), Brian Mast (R-FL), French Hill (R-AR), John Curtis (R-UT), and Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).

Hawley, who introduced similar legislation last year, said the practice must end.

“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a statement.

“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” he continued.

Hawley’s PELOSI Act would ban members of Congress and their spouses from holding, acquiring, or selling stocks while in office. The legislation gives members and their spouses six months after taking office to divest stocks they hold or put them in a blind trust.

If members of Congress or their spouses are found to be in violation of the legislation’s rules, they would have to forfeit any profits to the United States Treasury. Violators would also be prohibited from deducting those losses on their income taxes.

The legislation gives the House and Senate ethics committees full power to fine members of Congress for such violations and would be required to publicize them to the American people. In accordance with the bill, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to audit members of Congress to ensure they are complying with the rules.

“While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price,” Hawley said. “The solution is clear: we must immediately and permanently ban all members of Congress from trading stocks.”

Banning members of Congress and their family members from trading stocks is hugely popular among likely American voters.

Last year, a Trafalgar Group survey revealed that 76 percent believe Congress has an “unfair advantage” when it comes to the stock market. Only five percent support permitting congressional stock trading.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here.

Source

Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi — and That’s a Good Thing

Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi — and That’s a Good Thing


By Jonathan Turley

Below is my column in the Hill on the new rules that came out of the negotiations leading to the election of Kevin McCarthy as the 55th Speaker of the United States. As noted below, I did not support the standoff and I do not support some of the changes that came out of the negotiations. Some of these changes were already in the works with McCarthy’s support. Moreover, some of these changes will make it more challenging for the Speaker by returning to prior rules allowing greater opportunity for amendments and floor fights. However, the holdouts were right that things have to change in Congress, particularly in allowing greater deliberation and debate over legislation. Some of these changes could achieve that worthy goal.

Here is the column:

The ascendance of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) as the 55th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives may have come with all of the spontaneity of a shotgun wedding — but it finally came. McCarthy deserved better than a tortuous three-day floor fight but, then again, he is now second in line to the presidency.

Many of us have great sympathy for McCarthy, who looked like a guy caught in a feedback loop stepping on the same rake over and over again. (For the record, I opposed the floor fight, given the overwhelming support for McCarthy.) However, as is often the case in Washington, the narrative opposing these holdouts allowed for little recognition of what they achieved in McCarthy’s concessions. Indeed, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank ran a column titled “McCarthy’s fate is irrelevant. The terrorists have already won.”

Moreover, many in the media were honest about what they consider his greatest shortcoming: “Kevin McCarthy is no Nancy Pelosi.”

Some of us sincerely hope so.

While Pelosi (D-Calif.) remains the ideal of many in the media, she tolerated little public debate or dissent. She thrilled her base with such infamous performative acts as tearing up a State of the Union Address of then-President Trump. As an all-powerful speaker, she oversaw a series of party-line votes with little opportunity for amendments or even to read some bills.

Many Republicans did not want the Pelosi model of an all-powerful speaker. For these members, the agreement with McCarthy is a type of Magna Carta.

The original Magna Carta, of course, was honored primarily in the breach by King John, who immediately asked the pope to annul it. Yet it was an impressive statement of rights.

No one is seriously suggesting that the GOP agreement is the new Magna Carta, but it is meant to redefine legislative rights — and it could have tangible improvements for the House.

I have worked in the House in various roles since I was a House leadership page in the 1970s and, much later, represented the House in litigation. I’ve watched the body become less transparent, less deliberative, with every passing year.

The Framers saw the House as a powerful forum to address factions in society, a legislative crucible where different interests could be expressed and resolved in majoritarian compromise. The legislative process can inform citizens while exposing legislative proposals to public scrutiny. But that process has been largely replaced with a series of robotic, preordained votes.

Some of these concessions may change that status quo. There are provisions I do not support — yet, we should acknowledge that these changes could also improve the process to allow greater dissent and debate.

Many in the media counter that such changes reduce the speaker’s power, as if the status quo under Pelosi was the optimal legislative model. Yet some changes would empower rank-and-file members to allow for greater diversity of views — not necessarily a bad thing.

Restoring the ‘Vacate the Chair’ rule

Nancy Pelosi consolidated her power by eliminating a rule that allowed any member to make a motion to vacate the chair, a type of legislative no-confidence vote. Pelosi eliminated the one-member rule and, instead, required a majority of either party to make such a motion. Some Republicans wanted that check on the speaker to be reinstated.

Notably, what has unnerved so many in Washington is that this speakership debate was not just largely public but also unscripted. It was an actual deliberation, conducted in front of the American people. While repellent to many, it just might be something that voters could get accustomed to.

Restoring legislative review and deliberation

The GOP holdouts sought to end massive spending bills moved forward with little time to read the legislation. They want a minimum 72-hour review period and a reduction of massive omnibus bills, to allow members and the public to better understand what is being passed.

The concessions reportedly include “open rules” on all major rules bills, such as appropriations, to allow lawmakers to offer amendments on the floor. It would restore an amendment process that was gutted in recent sessions, benefiting Democrats and Republicans alike.

They would reinstate “Calendar Wednesday,” which permits committee chairs “to bring reported bills directly to the House floor for consideration under an open amendment process, and reform the process by ensuring the same 72-hour notice that is required on all other measures is provided.”

For years, some of us have called for smaller bills and more deliberation. Massive bills are a way to hide personal perks and pork projects under fraudulent packaging like the “Inflation Reduction Act” that had little to do with inflation. The omnibus bill recently pushed through the House and Senate is an example of this abusive, opaque process. It was a collection of 7,200 earmarks and pork projects, including tens of millions for libraries for the papers of a couple retiring senators; five senators grabbed half a billion dollars for their favorite colleges. You had to swallow it whole or kill any spending bill.

Reinstate budget and tax procedures

Members want to restore the ability to reduce runaway spending and control increasing budgets and taxes. While one can disagree with some of the provisions, these members are clearly serious about gaining control over the budget. They would reinstate the “three-fifths supermajority in the House to approve any increases in tax rates” and require the Congressional Budget Office to analyze bills’ impacts on inflation.

They also would restore the “cut-as-you-go” (CUTGO) rule, which requires spending increases to be offset by equal or greater cuts in mandatory spending.

They would repeal the “Gephardt Rule,” which treats the debt limit as increased upon passage of a budget resolution. That rule allows members to avoid public debate over increasing a national debt that now stands at over $31 trillion. And they would restore the “Holman Rule” from 1876, permitting members to make targeted cuts impacting federal agency functions and salaries.

These are measures designed to control federal spending — a shock to a system that has abandoned any semblance of fiscal responsibility under both parties.

Committee reforms

Rebelling members pushed for a committee to investigate the FBI and its continuing scandals. I previously called for the creation of a new “Church Committee,” which will be established under Speaker McCarthy.

They also demand commitment to oversight in areas long ignored by Democrats, including the threats posed by China. The House Ethics Committee would have a new process allowing complaints from the public.

All of this challenges a status quo which seems inviolate to many in the media.

Yes, there are demands in the concessions that some of us do not favor. However, we should be honest about the status quo: Today’s legislative system is a mockery of the deliberative process, characterized by runaway spending, blind voting and perfunctory debates. You can dislike or denounce the holdouts while still admitting they have a point — Congress has got to change.

*********

(TLB) published  this article from Jonathan Turley with our appreciation for this perspective

jonathan turley profile

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Header featured image (edited) credit: McCarthy /Pelosi/WaPo

Emphasis and  added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Ex-Capitol Police boss says politics hampered Jan. 6 security under Pelosi



Ex-Capitol Police boss says politics hampered Jan. 6 security under Pelosi

Recipe for disaster: Steven Sund compares Capitol security and intelligence lapses to 9/11, says he was “dumbfounded” by threat warnings that were kept from him.

By John Solomon

The Capitol Police chief who handled the Jan. 6 riot says political bureaucracy under Speaker Nancy Pelosi put optics over safety and hampered his department from crafting an appropriate security plan to protect the home of Congress that fateful day.

Steven Sund, who resigned as the head of the $600 million a year Capitol Police Department after the tragedy, told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show on Wednesday that significant lapses occurred inside his department, inside the political leadership of Congress and across federal law enforcement and security agencies in the days before the Capitol riot.

Sund warned that the Capitol still remains vulnerable to future attacks because it has not addressed the core intelligence and security failures exposed that day or streamlined the political bureaucracy that governs his former force. The interview was part of Sund’s tour to promote his new book “Courage under Fire.


Cuyahoga County Public Library


“I point out in the book how politicized security on Capitol [Hill] is, and that hasn’t changed. It’s still the same,” he said. “You still have way too much politics playing a role in security. All the oversight over the police department is all politically aligned. And anytime you have oversight that reports to a certain political party, it’s a recipe for disaster.”

Sund said that as chief he could not make major decisions about security planning for events like Jan. 6 without getting approval of the Capitol Police Board or alerting the House and Senate sergeants at arms. He directly challenged Pelosi’s claim in a February 2021 news conference that her Speaker’s office played no role in Capitol security, noting he communicated with Pelosi through then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, who resigned along with Sund.

“A lot of people think okay, I’m the Chief,” he said. “So I’m at the top of the pyramid as far as security at the Capitol. I’m actually at the bottom … You’ve got the Capitol Police Board, and the Capitol Police Board has communications with the House and Senate leadership. So the line of communications between me and leadership would be through the respective sergeant at arms.

“So in the case of Speaker Pelosi, it would be through Paul Irving, for any of that direct line communications back and forth. So if there is intelligence going up, or intelligence coming down, it would go through Paul Irving to the respective leadership.”

Sund confirmed an anecdote in a report released by House Republicans last month and reported by Just the News that a top aide in Pelosi’s office was involved enough in security discussions to have even edited a security plan for Jan. 6 that was communicated to lawmakers.

“Some of the ‘Dear Colleagues’ letters [talk] about some of the security that’s in place — parking, directing people which entrances to use, stuff like that, and it was no secret that they would want to have the leadership’s position, whether it’s the House or Senate, they would want to know what communications were being put out across the campus,” he explained. “So they did have a review and often edited these.”

Sund also confirmed earlier reporting by Just the News on the events that led to National Guard troops not being deployed to the Capitol ahead of Jan. 6. Capitol Police documents reviewed by Just the News show the Trump Pentagon first offered National Guard troops to Sund’s department on Jan. 2, 2021, four full days ahead of the tragedy. The department initially declined the help but quickly changed course and asked for permission to deploy troops, only to be turned down.

Sund said he first requested National Guard troops be deployed on the morning of Jan. 3, 2021, but was turned down because political leaders did not like the optics of troops carrying weapons and guarding the Capitol.

“So it was I believe at 9:34 in the morning when I first went and asked for it and was denied because of the concern for optics, the look of the National Guard,” he said.

“The first one I asked, Paul Irving, for the National Guard, he used the term ‘optics,’” Sund recalled, adding that a military general later used the same term in expressing reservations about sending the Guard to the Capitol.

“I’ll never forget it,” said Sund quoting the general saying, “I’m concerned of the optics of the military standing in line with the Capitol in the background.”

“So here they are both using the exact same term,” he continued. “I point that out in the book that I really don’t find it a coincidence. And I tend to wonder what communications went on outside my knowledge. But there’s a concern for optics that is over the concern for my men and women being beaten, which has been shown on national TV.”

Sund said he was never fully briefed on a vast pool of intelligence that came in from the FBI, the Homeland Security Department, the U.S. Marshals Service and the Washington D.C. police department as early as Dec. 21, 2020 that warned that extremists were discussing specific plans to attack the Capitol, storm the joint session of Congress that was certifying the 2022 election, invade the tunnels used by lawmakers to travel back and forth to the Capitol or bring weapons to the event that eventually turned violent.

You can read one of those intelligence reports here:

Sund said some of the blame should fall on the federal agencies who failed to make a bigger deal of the level of threat that was being picked up in raw intelligence.

“Intelligence was treated completely different on Jan. 6 than it usually was for major events in Washington, D.C.” he said. “I’ve handled numerous national special events, special security events, numerous demonstrations.

“Anytime we had an event that had a even a minute amount of the intelligence string that we’re seeing associated with Jan. 6 now coming in, the FBI would do executive briefings, a conference call with the area leaders, or what we call a JIB, a joint intelligence bulletin with the Department of Homeland Security — none of that was done January 6, and when you see the level of intelligence now that was out there, you’re just dumbfounded by it — that didn’t occur.”

The costs of failure to share intelligence and threat assessments across bureaucratic and institutional lines “were lessons that we should have learned from September 11 that we still haven’t learned by January 6,” Sund lamented.

Sund acknowledges some fault also lies with his own department’s intelligence division, where analysts were deeply concerned that threat information had not been shared with decision-makers, documents now made public by whistleblowers reveal.

“I see there’s significant intelligence coming into my intelligence unit that’s not being reported up,” he said. “We do a total of four intelligence assessments  … The first three say it’s going to all be like the previous ones. Even the fourth one said it’s going to be like the previous two MAGA events and that people weren’t going to march, they’re going to stay in their designated areas — with a single paragraph at the end that talks a little bit about it could be dangerous for law enforcement, could have violence, people may show up with weapons, things that we’ve seen in the first two MAGA events.”

“But the very next day, that same intelligence unit puts out another intelligence bulletin saying low probability of arrest or civil disobedience. The very next day they do it again. And on Jan. 6, they put out another one saying low probability of civil disobedience. So there’s just so much confusion going on. None of that high level of intelligence that we know now existed within DHS, FBI and, to a certain point, within my own intelligence unit, got up to the necessary people to do the planning and do the coordination for security for Jan. 6.”

*********

(TLB) published  this article  with permission of John Solomon at Just the News.  Click Here to read about the staff at Just the News

Header featured image (edited) credit:Sund/Capitol/ blackstonepublishing.com /blog/Courage-Under-Fire-Steven-Sund.html

Emphasis and pictorial content added by (TLB) editors

••••

••••

Stay tuned to …

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Source

Nancy’s Goodbye Letter as Speaker: House Dems Are the ‘Greatest Collection of Intellect, Integrity, Imagination Assembled’

Nancy’s Goodbye Letter as Speaker: House Dems Are the ‘Greatest Collection of Intellect, Integrity, Imagination Assembled’

In her final letter as Speaker of the House before a Republican majority is sworn in, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) wrote that she believes House Democrats are the “greatest collection of intellect, integrity and imagination assembled.”

“One final thought that I wanted to leave with you is my belief that the House Democratic Caucus is the greatest collection of intellect, integrity and imagination assembled for the good of the American people,” she wrote in her final to her colleagues on both sides of the aisle on Monday evening.

Expressing the “appreciation” she had for the “high honor bestowed upon [her] by House Democrats” of letting her serve as Speaker of the House, she added:

During the 117th Congress, President Biden and Congressional Democrats have put forth a shining vision of justice for all.  Together, we have worked tirelessly to infuse this value into our legislative efforts.  We can all take immense pride in our achievements toward that goal, which is making a real difference in the lives of the American people.

In the 118th Congress, I am confident that the new House Democratic Leadership – led by Hakeem, Katherine and Pete – will do even better, remaining always faithful to our shared mission to safeguard our treasured Democracy For The People.

With gratitude for your kind wishes to Paul, we send you and your loved ones our warmest personal wishes for a Healthy, Happy New Year!

The Democrats lost their slim majority in the House during the 2022 midterm elections after Republicans picked up a handful of seats. This week, a Republican majority will be sworn into the House, which will put an end to the Democrats’ one-party rule in Washington, DC, and ultimately Pelosi’s time as speaker.

Jacob Bliss is a reporter for Breitbart News. Write to him at jbliss@breitbart.com or follow him on Twitter @JacobMBliss.

Source

J6 Committee Asks Justice Department To Neutralize Political Opponents With Criminal Prosecution

J6 Committee Asks Justice Department To Neutralize Political Opponents With Criminal Prosecution

The House Select Committee on Jan. 6 approved a series of criminal referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Monday, as the committee completes its 18-month attempt to push a predetermined political narrative while masquerading as a legitimate investigation.

Former President Donald Trump was referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution alongside five allies: former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and attorneys Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Kenneth Chesebro.

“Ours is not a system of justice where footsoldiers go to jail and the masterminds and ringleaders get a free pass,” said Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, unveiling agency referrals.

It will now be up to the Justice Department, which is run by rabid partisan Merrick Garland, to determine whether to follow through with prosecution. Former President Trump is already under another politicized investigation from the department with a special counsel probing whether Trump violated the Presidential Records Act.

Monday’s criminal referrals accuse Trump of conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding, defraud the United States, make false statements to federal officials, and “incite” an insurrection linked to the events on Jan. 6, 2021.

Raskin, who objected to the certification of electoral votes in 2016, also announced four GOP colleagues will be referred to the House Ethics Committee for refusal to comply with the panel’s subpoenas. While Raskin did not name the members recommended for congressional sanctions, the committee subpoenaed GOP leader Kevin McCarthy and Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Andy Biggs of Arizona.

“An insurrection is a rebellion against the authority of the United States. … [The Constitution] uses participation in insurrection by office-holders as automatic grounds for disqualification from ever holding public office again,” Raskin added, revealing the true purpose of the probe’s investigation all along.

The Select Committee was established in the aftermath of Democrats’ failed efforts to secure a conviction of President Trump through a snap impeachment. Even though Trump was no longer in office when he went on trial in the upper chamber for the second time, a guilty vote would have barred him from running for office in 2024. Trump announced his candidacy for a second term last month.

In October, the panel wrapped up its final public hearing with a performative subpoena of Trump to close out its pre-election show trials. The committee secured a series of indictments of former officials from the Trump administration over the summer, including Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro and strategist Steve Bannon.

Bannon was ultimately sentenced to four months in federal prison after his refusal to comply with a committee subpoena provoked contempt of Congress charges, which were subsequently approved by the full lower chamber in October. Bannon has since appealed his sentence.

Navarro, who has also pled not guilty to the same charges, will go on trial in early January.

The Select Committee on Jan. 6 is expected to release its final report later this week complete with an “interactive version.”

House Republicans conducting their own investigation of the Capitol riot will release another report. The GOP report will be published without access to material from the official Select Committee after Speaker Nancy Pelosi barred multiple members appointed by the minority party from the panel, for the first time in the chamber’s history.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)