TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

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.

The speaker accuses Speaker Pelosi of blocking investigations into the January 6th incident and discrediting the committee. They claim that the committee is being used to advance the Democratic agenda and cover up the truth. The speaker questions why basic questions about the Capitol security and the events of January 6th are being blocked. They raise concerns about the staffing and equipment of Capitol Police, Pelosi's communication and involvement, the delay in National Guard assistance, and the lack of intelligence regarding potential violence. The speaker also criticizes Pelosi for not addressing rising gas prices and prioritizing theatrics over important issues. They express frustration with the current Congress and its focus.

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.

Speaker 1 calls for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police and Speaker Pelosi confirms that Mr. Irving will be resigning. Speaker Pelosi claims she hadn't spoken to Speaker 1 since the breach, but Speaker 1 clarifies that they spoke three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence, the second call was when Speaker 1 left the location and met with Mr. Stenger, and the third call was to brief all the leadership on the plans to get back into chambers. Speaker 1 acknowledges the bravery of the Capitol Police.

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.

Following an armed insurrection, the speaker calls for the resignation of the Capitol Police chief but wants the focus to remain on the President. There will be an after-action review, but the speaker does not want the review to be on par with the insurrection and impeachment. Schumer is reportedly going to fire the Senate Sergeant at Arms. The speaker states that they can pull the card out for Q&A if Audrey finishes the card. They can say they will call for something, but they don't know because they don't have all the blue dogs with them on this subject. Someone mentions that a person briefed on a plan with numbers and stakeholders signed off on it. Another person says that in a conversation, someone was very transparent about underestimating the crowd size and the president's influence. The speaker asks if they will stay there all day or until the National Guard arrives.

I was going to discuss the January 6 hostages, but there's a lot of action coming on that front. Today, Joe issued pardons for individuals guilty of serious crimes, and the unselect committee has destroyed much of the evidence, including hearings. They deleted information about Nancy Pelosi rejecting an offer of 10,000 soldiers for security. Even 500 could have made a difference that day, despite the large crowd. There are many great photos from that day that aren't shown, focusing instead on the Capitol. I intended to address this, but was advised to wait until tomorrow. I decided to bring it up now.

In the brief exchange, Speaker 0 challenges Speaker 1 on two linked political questions regarding January 6. Speaker 0 asks whether Speaker 1 is concerned about a new January 6 committee finding that could render him liable for events that day and questions why the National Guard was not requested or deployed on January 6. The underlying aim is to scrutinize accountability and preparedness for the events of that day. Speaker 1 responds directly, insisting that he did not refuse the National Guard and attributing responsibility to the absence of a request from the president. He adds a sharp retort to Speaker 0, suggesting that Speaker 0 is presenting Republican talking points and labeling him as “a serious journalist,” implying a critique of the line of questioning and framing. Speaker 0 closes the exchange by reaffirming the public’s interest, stating that “The American people wanna know.” He reiterates that there are ongoing questions that remain unanswered, signaling a continued demand for accountability or clarification from Speaker 1. Overall, the exchange centers on responsibility and timing surrounding the National Guard on January 6, with Speaker 1 asserting that neither he nor the president took the actions that would have prevented or altered what occurred, while Speaker 0 emphasizes the public’s continuing desire for answers in light of January 6 committee findings. The interaction highlights tension between seeking accountability for the events of that day and defending the actions or inactions of political figures involved.

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.

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.

Town halls are meant for voters, not the press or the moderator. The speaker criticizes Caitlyn for interjecting her own views. They mention spending a significant amount of time discussing January 6th and their involvement in the oversight committee. They state that Donald Trump authorized national guard troops on January 4 and followed up on January 5. They claim that everyone testified in the oversight committee except the Capitol Police, which Nancy Pelosi allegedly prevented.

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.

Speaker Pelosi called for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police, Mr. Sund, and Mr. Irving confirmed his resignation. Speaker Pelosi claimed she hadn't spoken to the speaker since the breach, but the speaker clarified that he had spoken to her three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence, the second call was to confirm information about returning to chambers, and the third call was to brief all leadership on the plans. Speaker Pelosi's statement about not speaking to the speaker was inaccurate. The speaker also praised the bravery of the Capitol Police.

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.

Speaker 0 asks why Paul Irving, who had the authority, didn't give the okay. Speaker 1 explains that he testified at the Senate hearing in 2021 and disagreed with Speaker 1's recollection. Speaker 1 turned over his phone records and fought to testify. Speaker 0 questions why Speaker 1 wasn't allowed to testify since he was the chief of Capitol Police on January 6th. Speaker 1 explains that initially, the hearing was only for current employees, excluding the top 3 people in security. Speaker 1 called someone on the rules committee to request testifying and promised to show up in person. Speaker 0 highlights the denial of Speaker 1's request for national guardsmen, which was a pivotal moment.

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.

The speaker accuses Speaker Pelosi of blocking investigations into the January 6th incident and claims that the committee is being used to push the Democratic agenda. They argue that Pelosi is afraid of a real investigation and doesn't want the truth to come out. The speaker raises questions about the Capitol Police's preparedness, Pelosi's involvement, and the FBI's actions. They express frustration that there haven't been hearings on rising gas prices and criticize the focus on theatrics instead of important issues. The speaker believes these actions will backfire on the Democrats.

Speaker Pelosi called for the resignation of the Chief of the Capitol Police, Mr. Sund, and Mr. Irving confirmed his resignation. Speaker Pelosi claimed she hadn't spoken to him since the breach, but he clarified that he had spoken to her three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence and Speaker Pelosi was on the line. The second call was when he left to brief the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi questioned the information he gave to Vice President Pence. The third call was to brief all the leadership on the plans to return to the chambers. Speaker Pelosi's comments about not speaking to him were inaccurate.

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.

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.

Speaker Pelosi called for the resignation of the Capitol Police chief and received notice of the resignation of Mr. Irving. Speaker Pelosi claimed she hadn't spoken to the speaker since the initial breach, but the speaker clarified that he had spoken to her three times. The first call was to brief Vice President Pence, the second call was when he left the location and spoke to Speaker Pelosi about getting back into chambers, and the third call was to brief all the leadership on the plans. Speaker Pelosi's comments about not speaking to the speaker were inaccurate. The speaker also praised the bravery of the Capitol Police.