TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The speaker claims that on January 6th, there was violence against the constitution, Congress, and the U.S. Capitol. They allege that they begged the President of the United States to send in the National Guard, but he refused. The speaker further claims that the president would not send in the National Guard when law enforcement people were being harmed, some of whom later died. They assert this inaction occurred during an insurrection that the president incited, which caused damage to those assigned to protect the capital and the constitution and to accept the results of the electoral college.

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.

The former Capitol Police chief, Stephen Sund, reveals in his new book that the Pentagon, FBI, and DHS failed on January 6th during the attack on the Capitol. Despite the federal government's extensive security network, which was designed to detect potential threats, it provided no protection on that day. Sund explains that the FBI, DHS, and his own agency were aware of the right-wing extremists' plans to attack the Capitol but failed to take action. Additionally, military leaders hesitated to send help due to political or tactical concerns. Sund warns that without proper measures, a similar incident could easily occur again.

We should have had accountability for what happened at the Capitol. It's ridiculous that we didn't call the National Guard sooner. They thought they had enough security, but clearly they didn't. I take responsibility for not being more prepared.

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.

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.

The speaker believes the events at the Capitol on January 6th were a setup, pointing to men dressed as Trump supporters inside the building before doors were opened. They question if there were confidential human sources involved. The speaker emphasizes the need for transparency and denies having such sources present. Additionally, they mention police officers seen changing attire from uniform to Trump supporter clothing.

We should have had accountability for what happened at the Capitol. It's ridiculous that we didn't call the National Guard sooner. They thought they had enough security, but clearly they didn't. I take responsibility for not being more prepared.

The speaker conducted a bipartisan investigation into security failures during a shooting incident. They found that law enforcement lacked coordination and communication, leading to missed opportunities to prevent the attack. Suspicious actions by federal agents and questions about the number of shooters raised concerns. The speaker emphasized the need for an independent investigation to uncover the truth behind the incident.

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.

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.

We failed to take responsibility and be accountable for the situation at the Capitol. It's absurd that we didn't have the National Guard there from the start. We should have been better prepared.

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.

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.

I asked colleagues to create a committee with subpoena power to investigate the lack of Secret Service protection for the president. The Secret Service director agreed to brief us, but it hasn't happened yet. I question why the president wasn't given more protection and who is responsible for that decision.

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.

We had a responsibility that we failed to meet, and there was a lack of accountability for the situation. It’s absurd to question whether we should call the Capitol Police or National Guard after the breach occurred. The National Guard should have been present from the start, as the assessment of the situation was clearly inadequate. I take responsibility for not ensuring they were prepared for potential issues.

We had a responsibility, but there was a lack of accountability for what was happening. It's absurd to question whether we should call the Capitol Police or National Guard after the breach had already occurred. The National Guard should have been present from the start, as the assessment of the situation was clearly inadequate. I take responsibility for not ensuring they were prepared for more significant events.

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.

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.

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.