TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

Members of the Pennsylvania SWAT team recount their experience during the attempted assassination of former President Trump. They noticed the suspicious behavior of the shooter before the incident but failed to communicate their concerns effectively to the Secret Service. Despite rushing to the scene and encountering the shooter's body, they feel they could have done more to prevent the tragedy. The lack of communication and coordination within the team and with the Secret Service contributed to the catastrophic outcome.

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.

General Milley, the military's top officer, has been accused of using an intelligence platform called Data Miner to uncover information about potential threats to the United States Capitol and members of Congress. However, he allegedly failed to inform everyone who should have been notified, including the speaker. This raises concerns about the duty to warn and the need for necessary action to be taken. The details were revealed by investigative reporter Carol Leonning in her book.

Capitol Police Chief describes an "intelligence failure" before Jan 6: "absolutely zero with the intelligence that we know now existed talking about attacking the capital, killing my police officers, attacking members of Congress and killing members of Congress." He says "FBI DHS was swimming in that intelligence" and "the military seemed to have some very concerning intelligence as well." There was "no jib, a joint intelligence bulletin zero for January 6" and "no coordination, no discussion in advance." He notes FBI Washington field office and DHS "didn't put out a single official document specific to January 6" and cites a Senate/GAO finding of emails to Steve D’Antuano about threats he did not hear on a conference call: "Nobody from DHS was on" January 5 call. On Jan 4, Miller "puts out a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying the various weapons"—and Pelosi/McConnell allegedly blocked his request: "optics." After 12:53 attack, he makes "32 calls" over "seventy-one minutes" until "02:09" when "approval" comes. "The chain is Pelosi" and "The law says in a mercy, he can grant me authorization, but he didn't."

In this video, former Chief of Capitol Police, Stephen Sund, discusses the intelligence failures and lack of support during the January 6th Capitol attack. He reveals that the intelligence he received did not accurately convey the severity of the attack, and that key agencies like the FBI and DHS had more concerning intelligence that was not shared. Sund also highlights the delayed response in providing National Guard assistance, questioning the motives behind these decisions and suggesting a deliberate effort to downplay the intelligence. He further raises concerns about potential political influence, the presence of federal agents in the crowd, and the lack of arrests for those instigating violence. Sund emphasizes the need for an independent investigation to uncover the truth.

There has been a debate about the presence of federal agents at the January 6 event. Initially, it was denied, but now it is confirmed that there were indeed federal agents in the crowd. It is not uncommon for federal agencies to have people in plain clothes for situational awareness at large events like demonstrations and inaugurations. The FBI took overt action to prevent certain individuals from attending the January 6 event. A GAO report revealed that the FBI was tracking 18 or 19 domestic terrorists planning to attend the event. It is concerning that this information was not shared with intelligence. It is important to deconflict and communicate with the Chief of Capitol Police to avoid any confusion or conflicts.

In this video, former Chief of Capitol Police, Stephen Sund, discusses the intelligence failures and lack of support during the January 6th Capitol attack. He reveals that the severity of the attack was not indicated in the intelligence he received, and key agencies like the FBI and DHS were aware of the threats. Sund also highlights the delay in receiving approval to bring in the National Guard, with Pelosi and McConnell denying his requests for 71 minutes. He questions the political motivations behind these decisions and the lack of accountability. The military's response is criticized for prioritizing optics over immediate assistance. Sund raises concerns about a possible setup and emphasizes the need for a thorough investigation. He also questions why the Pentagon and Defense Intelligence Agency did not provide support or share intelligence regarding the potential threats. Sund raises concerns about the presence of federal agents in the crowd and the lack of arrests for individuals instigating violence. He criticizes the media for not thoroughly investigating these issues and emphasizes the need for an independent investigation.

The speaker reveals that during conference calls before the Capitol attack, no one discussed the intelligence regarding the storming of the Capitol or the potential harm to members of Congress and police officers. They mention a call on January 5th with law enforcement leaders, including the FBI and National Guard, where no one mentioned any concerns about the attack or threats. Other police chiefs, like Robert Conte, also claim they were unaware of the threats. The speaker highlights reports of emails and memos sent to the FBI and FBI director, Steve D'Antuano, predicting violence, yet nothing was mentioned during their video call. The lack of communication and awareness is perplexing.

We thank you for your service in protecting our country. However, there are questions about what exactly was being protected. Security footage shows that individuals were allowed to enter without resistance, without weapons, almost like a guided tour. It's important to note that the only casualty was Ashley Babbit, who was shot by Capitol Police. So, it raises the question of what exactly was saved that day. The speaker mentions having written a book before going to break.

We failed to act responsibly on January 6th. The lack of National Guard presence was a mistake. The former president and his supporters are trying to rewrite history, but we must not let them distort the truth of that day.

It's crucial for everyone to forget what was said that day. A call was made to march to the Capitol to peacefully express voices, but it escalated into a violent siege. Congresswoman Jamie Herrera Beutler highlighted the severity of the situation, noting that a Capitol police officer was killed by the mob, which also defaced symbols of freedom. The rioters were actively searching for the vice president and the speaker of the house.

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.

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.

Steve D'Antwono, the FBI director, received multiple emails warning about the violence expected at the Capitol before January 6th, but nothing was mentioned during a video call with him. The military had discussed locking down Washington DC and revoking permits on Capitol Hill due to concerns about violence. However, on January 4th, the acting secretary of defense issued a memo restricting the National Guard from carrying weapons or equipment for crowd control. This decision hindered the National Guard's response when assistance was desperately needed on January 6th. Governor Hogan even pleaded for help but was denied due to the memo. The situation doesn't make sense.

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.

Jacob Chansley, a dangerous conspiracy theorist, was sentenced to nearly 4 years in prison for his role in the violent insurrection at the Capitol. While there is dispute over how he gained access to the building, internal surveillance videos clearly show that once inside, Capitol Police officers did not stop him. In fact, they acted as his tour guides, taking him to multiple entrances and even attempting to open locked doors for him. At least 9 officers were within touching distance of Chansley, but none of them tried to slow him down. Chansley saw the Capitol Police as his allies and even thanked them in a prayer on the senate floor. This starkly contrasts with the reality of his actions on January 6th.

The Capitol Police faced an intelligence failure on January 6, 2021, with critical warnings about potential violence not communicated to the chief. Despite having a dedicated intelligence unit, Sund received no actionable intelligence regarding threats to Congress or police officers. Requests for National Guard assistance were denied for over 70 minutes due to concerns about optics, even as violence escalated. Other law enforcement leaders were similarly uninformed, raising questions about the handling of intelligence. Sund expressed frustration over the lack of accountability and transparency, noting that the aftermath of the event has led to significant concerns about the politicization of law enforcement and the safety of officers. Despite the challenges, he maintains a commitment to the integrity of law enforcement.

The FBI had over 200 agents embedded in the crowd on January 6th, some even posing as Trump supporters. They infiltrated online groups discussing COVID restrictions, leading discussions of violence. Capitol Police were seen welcoming people into the Capitol, contradicting the insurrection narrative.

The speaker questions why the FBI didn't inform cabinet secretaries about potential threats on January 6th. They criticize the lack of security measures at the Capitol and mention offering National Guard support, which was declined. They believe better information sharing could have prevented the events. The speaker emphasizes that protecting the Capitol is a law enforcement responsibility, not a military one, and suggests cooperation between agencies. They imply political reasons for the lack of action.

In the video, the speaker mentions various pieces of intelligence that were not included in assessments regarding the Capitol attack. These include plans to harm palace guards, use chemicals at entry points, burn down the Supreme Court, attack members of Congress, and storm the building. The speaker's intelligence unit even released documents indicating a low probability of civil disobedience. Speaker 1 suggests that certain agencies may have allowed the chaos at the Capitol to serve their political purposes and prevented the speaker from stopping it.

The speaker describes a shift in perspective about January 6, recounting that he did not initially suspect U.S. law enforcement or military involvement or a false flag. He notes an interview with Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund, who he says stated that “that guy was filled with federal agents,” a claim Sund would know from being in charge of security. He observes that, two and a half years later, core claims about January 6 appear to be lies, arguing that when someone is caught lying about one thing, it prompts questions about what else they are lying about. The speaker emphasizes he is not a conspiracist and grew up in a country with low belief in obvious conspiracies, but he asserts that “the amount of lying around January 6” is distressing and that anyone covering for those lies should be ashamed, including portions of the American media and Fox News. He acknowledges Fox News allowed him to air material, for which he expresses gratitude, but notes that some people there were angry at him for doing so and challenges critics to point out cherry-picking or miscontextualization. He clarifies that he did not claim the events were entirely peaceful; police officers were injured, recognizing that injuries occurred in other protests as well. He emphasizes that his point is to ask obvious questions and scrutinize the narrative. He discusses Jacob Chansley, the QAnon Shaman, noting that surveillance footage had been hidden until he aired it, showing Capitol Police attempting doors and escorting Chansley into the Senate chamber, where he wandered and offered a prayer thanking the Capitol Police, before leaving. He argues there are many conclusions one could draw from this footage, but asserts that Chansley cannot be called an insurrectionist, labeling that designation a lie. He defines insurrection as a very specific meaning and remains pedantic about words, insisting the incident was not an insurrection, not armed, and not intended to overthrow the government but a “spasm of rage” that Trump helped inspire. Regarding the election, he states he does not support leaders inciting anger, but asserts the event was not an insurrection. He condemns the prosecution of Chansley, a Navy veteran and American citizen, who was imprisoned for years after being let into the Senate chamber by uniformed Capitol Police, and he rejects the portrayal of Chansley as an insurrectionist. He condemns the lack of remorse in those who cover up or excuse what he views as lies, and quotes anger at the idea of imprisoning someone for something he believes was misrepresented.