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.

General Mark Milley is being targeted for removal through the 25th amendment or impeachment because individuals, including some with special forces and Antifa ties, allegedly took Pelosi's laptop on Wednesday. The data on the laptop is causing fear among officials, despite only having a short time left in office. There are also claims of a source providing damaging information.

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.

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.

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.

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 FBI is being criticized for not being transparent with Congress about their actions regarding a whistleblower's allegations. The whistleblower came forward because they were unsatisfied with how the FBI handled the information. The FBI is accused of covering up and not being forthcoming with Congress, who has the authority to oversee and investigate such matters. Congress should have access to the investigative materials, but the FBI is withholding them.

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 United States military, including Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley, discussed locking down Washington DC due to concerns of violence at the Capitol on January 6th. They considered revoking permits for demonstrations on Capitol Hill. However, I, the one who issues these permits, was not informed. Instead, on January 4th, Miller restricted the National Guard from carrying any weapons or civil disobedience equipment that could be used during the anticipated demonstrations or violence. This decision seems contradictory, as the military expressed concern about potential violence while limiting the National Guard's ability to respond aggressively.

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.

Amjad Fassisi, a CIA contractor, reveals that high-ranking officials, including CIA directors Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel, colluded to withhold information from President Trump. He claims Trump was under constant surveillance and suggests that intelligence agencies used FISA to monitor him and his team. Fassisi describes a culture within the CIA that views Trump as incompetent, stating they deliberately kept information from him to prevent leaks. He also mentions that the CIA does not trust the NSA, leading to a lack of information sharing. The conversation raises serious concerns about potential illegal activities within intelligence agencies, including election interference and obstruction of justice. Fassisi's comments highlight the ongoing corruption and political manipulation within the intelligence community.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The speaker recounts a phone call with Lieutenant General Pyot Pyot and General Flynn, where they discuss the urgent need for the National Guard at the Capitol. However, General Pyot expresses concern about the optics of having the National Guard present. The speaker emphasizes the dire situation and the denial of assistance, leading to frustration. They mention the shooting of Ashley Babbit and the delayed arrival of the National Guard at 6 PM. The speaker also highlights the fact that resources were sent to protect the homes of other generals but not theirs. They suggest that this systematic denial of support raises suspicions and could lead to conspiracy theories. The conversation ends with a discussion about the lack of intelligence and the politically charged nature of the situation.

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.

The speaker states that military matters should not be approached politically, but that Mark Milley has become a political animal. The speaker claims they would have fired Milley immediately if they had known he spoke with the Chinese in January 2020, assuring them that the U.S. military was under control. The speaker says Milley never informed them about these conversations. The speaker concludes that Milley, along with someone else, should have left after Afghanistan.

The United States military, including Secretary of Defense Miller and General Milley, discussed locking down Washington DC due to concerns of violence at the Capitol on January 6th. They considered revoking permits for demonstrations on Capitol Hill. However, I, the one who issues these permits, was not informed. Instead, on January 4th, Miller restricted the National Guard from carrying any weapons or civil disobedience equipment, which doesn't make sense. So, the military expresses worry about potential violence but simultaneously limits the National Guard's ability to take an aggressive stance.