TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

President Trump's authorization was needed for the deployment of National Guard troops on January 6th. However, the local governing body, including the mayor and Capitol Police, did not request additional troops. Kashyap Patel testified about this before the January 6th select committee, but his testimony was not made public. Despite negotiations, the committee refused to release his transcript until the eve of its dissolution. Patel believes his testimony is a key reason why President Trump was not indicted for insurrection.

The January 6th committee never requested my public testimony as the Capitol Police chief. This raises questions about their intentions, as my testimony could reveal critical details about the events of that day and the days leading up to it, including the involvement of political leaders and their appointees.

Witnesses claim they met with witnesses who met with President Trump on January 4th, where he allegedly offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. However, Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, testified publicly that Trump never issued an order to deploy the Guard. Kash Patel and others confirm under oath that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops for January 6th. According to one witness, the meeting was initially focused on serious national security threats, and Trump brought up January 6th at the end, authorizing the National Guard. The request to utilize the troops never came. The witness emphasized the meeting's primary focus was a foreign threat to the U.S. and that Trump was acting as any commander-in-chief would.

President Trump authorized 10,000 National Guard troops before January 6th, but the request was denied by Mayor Bowser and Pelosi. Capitol Police were blamed for not calling in the Guard earlier despite intelligence about a possible attack. There are allegations of a cover-up by Pelosi and Democrats, with claims of evidence being destroyed. Witnesses testify that Trump did authorize the Guard deployment. Calls for criminal referrals for obstruction have been made.

Congress passed a law requiring the speaker to request federal resources for events like the Capitol attack. The speaker was denied twice by the House and Senate Sergeant Arms due to optics and lack of intelligence support. The speaker had to go through these individuals to request the National Guard, even during the attack. After 71 minutes and 32 calls, the speaker finally received approval. This delay is surprising considering the severity of the situation, and the speaker was frustrated by the delay.

The transcript centers on discussions about security failures on January 6, 2021, and the steps taken to address them, including the involvement of the House Sergeant at Arms and Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Key points: - Initiating discussions on National Guard: The witness confirms meeting with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding the National Guard prior to January 6. The House Sergeant at Arms was Paul Irving, appointed by Speaker Pelosi at that time. Irving reportedly stated he “didn’t like the optics” when the National Guard was first raised. - Run it up the chain and approval process: On January 6, when the witness sought approval to call in the National Guard, Irving indicated he would “run it up the chain,” understood as the leadership chain, leading toward the Speaker’s office and Speaker Pelosi. The witness clarified that the leadership chain on the House side comprises the top security official and the elected leadership team up to Speaker Pelosi. - How it ends up with Pelosi’s office: The witness stated that running up the chain would likely end with the Speaker’s office and possibly Speaker Pelosi, describing the path as through the speaker’s office. - Three calls with Pelosi on January 6: During a January 7 press conference, Pelosi claimed she had not talked to the witness since the breach and called for the witness’s resignation. The witness asserts that Pelosi’s claim was inaccurate, stating he spoke with Pelosi three times that evening. The three calls were: 1) First call: When the witness went to brief Vice President Pence at the secure location; he briefed Irving about returning to the chambers and the timing. Irving called Pelosi on the witness’s cell phone around 05:34 to have Pelosi on the line. 2) Second call: After walking away from Pence briefing, the witness met with Stenger and headed to brief the Senate. Jennifer Hemingway handed him Emily Barrett’s phone, and Pelosi was on the line as they discussed the information given to Pence about when the Capitol could be back in session; the witness stated he assured Pelosi the information was correct and that the chambers could be reoccupied by 7 PM. The call ended. 3) Third call: While at the Senate, on a cell phone, using another official’s cell line, the witness briefed leadership off-site at a secure location about plans to get them back into chambers. Pelosi participated in this third call as part of briefing leadership. - Pelosi’s comment and resignation: The witness concurs with Pelosi’s claim that he spoke three times, contradicting Pelosi’s assertion of no contact since the breach. The witness expresses a wish that Pelosi had considered the challenges faced and the efforts to bring in outside resources on January 6 before she called for his resignation. - Additional clarifications: When asked if Pelosi’s office or Pelosi herself politicized capital security, the witness said he had no idea. He also offered a closing remark hoping Pelosi would consider the witness’s efforts and the steps taken to reinforce security that day.

The discussion centers on why the National Guard was not deployed to the Capitol on the morning of January 6. The explanation given involves a two-step process for authorization: first, authorization by the commander in chief, which had been obtained, and second, a request by the local governing body, specifically the mayor and the Capitol Police Bureau. Mister Patel confirms that there was a letter from Mayor Muriel Bowser dated January 5 to the Department of Defense stating that she would not be requesting any additional National Guard troops. Consequently, they were on standby but not activated due to the mayor’s declination of the request. Speaker 0 presses the point, implying that there was an offering or possibility to deploy the National Guard that was not executed, and suggests contacting the Mayor of Washington, DC to understand other outreach to police departments. The conversation repeats that the National Guard was not initially deployed and questions why they were blocked or not prepared from the outset. Mister Patel reiterates the key facts: the authority came through the commander in chief, the local governing body had declined to request additional National Guard, and thus there was no immediate deployment. Speaker 0 takes responsibility for not having the National Guard ready, suggesting a need to prepare more in the future. The exchange emphasizes the procedural sequence—authorization, local request, and the mayor’s declination—along with implications about preparedness and the perceived blocking or absence of National Guard deployment at the outset.

Witnesses claim they met with President Trump on January 4th, and that he offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. According to Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, Donald Trump never issued any order to deploy the guard to protect the Capitol. Four interviewees confirm that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Donald Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops, two days before January 6th. Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guardsmen and women for utilization should the request come in, but those requests never did. This was stated under oath under the threat of a penalty of perjury. The meeting was about a foreign threat directed towards the United States. The president then brought up January 6th, and was doing exactly what a commander in chief should do.

The speaker, who is the chief of police, expresses frustration over the law that prevents them from bringing in the national guard without approval. They recount the events of the attack on the Capitol and their efforts to request assistance. They made multiple calls to different agencies, including the sergeant in arms and the chairman of the Capitol Police Board, but authorization was delayed for 71 minutes. Finally, at 2:09, they received approval and immediately informed their colleague. The speaker emphasizes their anger and marks the time as 2:10 when they finally got approval for the National Guard.

We began with the questioning of Kashif Patel regarding the deployment of National Guard troops on January 6th. Patel stated that there was no indication from senior DOJ leaders that they needed additional authorization from President Trump. He explained that the process required both the President's authorization and a request from local authorities, which was not made. Patel confirmed he had testified before the January 6th committee but was not questioned publicly, and his testimony was not included in their final report. It was suggested that his testimony could be pivotal in preventing charges against Trump for insurrection, as the special counsel, Jack Smith, would have pursued charges if there was sufficient evidence.

I, as the former Capitol Police chief, question why the January 6th committee never asked me to testify publicly. They may have been worried that my testimony would reveal what happened on January 6th, the events leading up to it, and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

The discussion centers on the security failures during the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach. It is clarified that there were three calls between the Chief and Speaker Pelosi on that day, contradicting her claim of no communication. The Chief expressed concerns about the House Sergeant at Arms, Paul Irving, who prioritized optics over security, delaying the National Guard's deployment. The conversation shifts to political implications, with accusations that Speaker Pelosi politicized security issues. Several speakers criticize the focus on January 6 rather than pressing issues like crime and inflation. They emphasize the need for serious discussions about security and governance, expressing frustration over perceived political gamesmanship. The dialogue also touches on the treatment of January 6 detainees and the use of force by correctional officers, highlighting concerns about civil rights violations.

The speaker urgently called General Walker to request the National Guard's assistance at the Capitol. Despite the imminent danger, the speaker faced resistance from higher-ups who didn't like the optics of the National Guard's presence. The speaker pleaded for help, but was denied multiple times. Eventually, shots were fired, and the speaker had to hang up to handle the situation. The National Guard didn't arrive until 6 PM, and instead of being deployed at the Capitol, they were driven back to the DC Army. The speaker felt betrayed and questioned if there was a conspiracy against protecting the Capitol. The systematic denial of intelligence and support from various agencies led to the baffling conclusion of not protecting the capital.

President Trump's first witness, Kashyap Patel, was called to testify. He confirmed that no senior DOJ leader stated they needed more authorization from the president to deploy National Guard troops on January 6th. The reason for not having 10,000 troops guarding the Capitol was due to the need for authorization from the commander in chief and the local governing body, including the mayor and the heads of the Capitol Police. Patel's testimony was not made public, despite his request for a public hearing. The committee refused to release his transcript until the last moment. Patel believes his testimony is a key reason why President Trump was not indicted for insurrection.

The speaker explains that the handling of the event was different from previous situations. They mention that the decision was made by the intelligence agency and the military. According to a federal law, the speaker was required to request federal resources like the National Guard in advance from the Capitol Police Board. However, they were denied twice due to optics and lack of intelligence support. The decision was made by Paul Irving and Mike Stenger, who work for Pelosi and McConnell respectively.

Speaker 0: Some Republicans argue that Nancy Pelosi staged January 6 and the select committee covered it up. Based on what you know, what are the verifiable events in the lead ups? Speaker 1: I was DoD chief of staff on January 6. We deployed National Guard; in the Oval Office the president, president Trump at the time, authorized pursuant to law up to 10 to 20,000 National Guard. We took that authorization because the law's second part required a request from who? Nancy Pelosi and the Metropolitan Police and the mayor at the time. And what did they say? No. And remember what happened for the next two years? They say, Oh, Kash is lying. Trump’s lying. And what do we find? Letters of their declination of the National Guard refusing to have the National Guard show up. Nancy Pelosi and her team were busy filming a movie on January 6 while this so caused chaos around her was going down. If she had just look at it this way. If she had said yes to the National Guard and we had 10,000 uniformed military officers establish a secure perimeter, do you think January 6 would have gone differently? Speaker 0: It is intriguing that 02/1950 FBI plain clothed agents were inside the Capitol on January 6. Speaker 1: This is a great example of the president's initiative to solve all the answers on January 6, and it's another example of our transparency efforts. Pursuant to the president, we investigated the matter and found out why FBI agents were placed there in the first place. And it turns out, we found documentation and witnesses and whistleblowers that said we were forced to go there to do riot control. Armstrong, do you know what the FBI does not do ever? Riot control. Speaker 0: And you believe them? That's their word, not mine.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th remains a pivotal moment. The person responsible for that decision is known, but the reason behind it is still unknown. There has been no answer to that question. Additionally, Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits and her records would not be obtained by the J6 committee. However, she was in charge of the House that day. It is important to uncover the truth and understand what truly happened. Otherwise, it seems absurd, like a scene from a play.

As the former chief of the Capitol Police, I find it interesting that the January 6th committee never asked me to publicly testify. I believe they were worried about what I would reveal about the events leading up to that day and the role of political leaders and their appointees.

An interviewer asks if it's true that President Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. One speaker says Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, testified that Trump never issued an order to deploy the guard. Kash Patel and another individual confirm under oath that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Donald Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops for January 6th. They state the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and President Trump were present. They claim Trump authorized the troops to be utilized should a request come in, but those requests never did. One speaker clarifies the meeting was primarily about a foreign threat to the U.S., and the discussion about January 6th occurred at the end. They believe Trump was acting as any commander-in-chief would.

An interviewer asks if it's true that President Trump offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. One speaker references Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, who testified that Trump never issued an order to deploy the Guard. Two interviewees claim that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Donald Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops. One speaker states that Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and President Trump were in the Oval Office discussing serious national security threats before pivoting to January 6th. Trump authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops for use, should the request come in, but those requests never did. One interviewee clarifies the January 4th meeting was primarily about a foreign threat to the U.S. and that Trump brought up January 6th at the end of the meeting.

The speaker's team found a previously missing interview where a witness testified that Mark Meadows offered up to 10,000 troops. The speaker cites a Vanity Fair article from early January reporting that Trump authorized Secretary Miller to ready the National Guard. A White House employee testified that Trump's immediate response upon hearing of the Capitol attack was to get Pelosi and Milley on the phone to see what help they needed. The speaker claims there is on-the-record evidence that Trump offered the National Guard, but Pelosi and Bowser turned down the offer.

The denial of the request for national guardsmen on January 6th was a pivotal moment. The person who made that decision has not answered why. Representative Bennie Thompson stated that Speaker Pelosi was off limits to the inquiries of the January 6th committee. However, if we truly want to find out what happened, everyone's records should be examined. The speaker emphasizes that they have been forthright and provided their phone records. They made numerous calls to request approval and called multiple police agencies and officers to help regain control of the Capitol. The speaker's recollection is detailed and precise.

Speaker 1 argues that Jack Smith’s request to prevent evidence about security or intelligence failures before January 6 is unacceptable, claiming it would excuse Nancy Pelosi and the mayor of DC for failures. He asserts Pelosi was responsible for January 6 because she did not accept the security help offered, stating that 10,000 troops or National Guard were available if needed before the event, and that the event would have been different if 500 or 200 people had been used; he emphasizes that he offered 10,000 troops and that January 6 would not have happened with a larger deployment. He notes that he personally attended and gave a speech, and claims the audience included the largest number he has spoken to, contrasting with the smaller group that he says went down to the Capitol. Speaker 1 contends that the party should be allowed to introduce evidence showing that there were security and intelligence shortcomings, including the assertion that Pelosi “did not take the security that we offered her,” with the offer of 10,000 troops and the fact that “you had far fewer people than that.” He mentions that the unselect committee did not discuss or include references to “peacefully and patriotically” behaving crowds and says this group was not highlighted by the committee or in their words. He criticizes the prosecutor, calling Jack Smith a “deranged human being, unattractive both inside and out,” and accuses Smith of wanting to suppress testimony because the committee “illegally destroyed everything” and deleted evidence related to Pelosi’s decisions about troop deployment. He asserts that much evidence indicated Pelosi did not want the troops and that a letter from the mayor contradicted Pelosi’s stance. Speaker 0 acknowledges the point but keeps the dialogue focused; Speaker 0 reminds that Capitol Police Chief Steve Sun said January 6 was a preventable event if the intelligence and resources requested had been provided, noting that Speaker 0 sees this as an amazing point and confirms that the offer of troops was in writing. Speaker 1 reiterates that he offered 10,000 troops for January 6 and emphasizes that this fact is in writing, arguing that the prosecution is attempting to suppress relevant evidence. He maintains that Pelosi’s leadership and decisions about security are central to the discussion, and he reiterates the claim that the offer of security was not acted upon. The conversation pivots back to the assertion that the Capitol Police Chief’s past statements support the claim that January 6 was preventable with proper intelligence and resources.

Witnesses claim they met with witnesses who met with President Trump on January 4th, where he allegedly offered 20,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th, but the offer was rejected. However, Trump's acting secretary of defense, Chris Miller, testified that Trump never issued an order to deploy the Guard. Kash Patel and others confirm under oath that on January 4th in the Oval Office, they heard Trump authorize up to 20,000 troops for January 6th. According to one witness, the meeting was initially about a serious foreign threat to the U.S. Trump then brought up January 6th, authorizing the National Guard. The witness stated Trump was doing what any commander in chief would do.

Speaker 0 expressed confusion about the lack of answers regarding two significant events on January 6. Firstly, other federal agencies withheld crucial information from the speaker, who was in charge of security at the Capitol. Secondly, despite the situation escalating for 71 minutes, Speaker Pelosi denied permission to bring in the National Guard. The speaker questioned why there is a lack of investigation into these matters, suggesting a lack of interest in uncovering the truth. The situation is described as worsening beyond these events.