Why was Pelosi given a pass by her Select Committee
Beyond the one-sided composition of the Capitol Hill Select Committee, one of the earliest signs that it was created to go after Trump and Republicans more than investigate the facts was the exclusion of House Speaker Pelosi from the witnesses.
Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson specifically stated that Pelosi would not be called to testify. To my recollection, she was the only person involved in the events of that day to be exempted at the very onset.
What was not done on that day was as important to understanding the big picture as what was done. It is reasonably argued that had the Capitol Building been adequately defended, there would have been no riot.
It was obvious that as the protest started to become more violent – and that entering the Capitol Building became an objective –- that the Building was woefully unprotected. The Capitol Hill police were undermanned and ill-equipped to handle the situation. They were not provided with specific orders as to what to do in the event of the breach.
In other words, what should have been a coordinated response, wound up as a series of street fights.
Officers at different locations were acting on their own with different results. In one location Capitol Hill police were allowing people to enter – literally giving permission to enter. At other locations, they retreated from the oncoming mob. In yet other locations, they engaged in hand-to-hand combat.
In only one incident was a gun used – and that was by the Capitol Hill officer shooting Ashli Babbitt as she tried to enter the Senate Chamber. The only fatality of the day – excluding a death from a heart attack and a drug overdose, according to reports.
It was obvious from the start that the Capitol Building was inadequately defended even though the intel community had reported creditable potential threats of violence. Some groups that were to be in attendance had predicted violence as a possibility – although none were specific in expressing an intent to initiate violence or to use weapons.
In view of everything, the lack of sufficient protection was amazing – inexplicable. Minimally, it was a dereliction of duty on some person or part. But whose?
The person with the most direct authority and responsibility for the protection of Congress is … Nancy Pelosi. And to some extent, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The Sergeant-at-Arms, who supervised the Capitol Hill Police, reports to the Speaker – and the Senate counterpart is the Doorkeeper of the Senate.
Another person with secondary responsibility for the protection of the nation’s capital is District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser. The FBI also plays a role.
On standby in such events are other members of the intelligence community, the National Guard and – in extreme cases – the Army.
Had the Capitol Police been fully prepared … had there been a cordon of National Guardsmen surrounding the Building … had more impenetrable barriers been erected … it is impossible to believe that the riot would have ensured – and certainly not the chaos, injury and destruction (and death) that took place.
We saw the power of Pelosi’s authority on January 6, 2022, when the media was hyperbolically predicting that there would be another violent attack on the Building – as well as violence in cities throughout the country. In that case, Pelosi called on the National Guard and built a perimeter fence around the building.
Approximately 200 folks showed up – with a permit to assemble – heard some speeches and went home. There were no events in other parts of the country. It is important to understand that all that protection was there because Pelosi used her power to summons it.
That leaves the question as to why she did not do so in the face of a much more real event with all those intel warnings. We can only speculate on the answer because her pet Select Committee determined at the onset not to ask her. Not even to ask her. How outrageous is that?
That left fundamental questions unanswered. The Sergeant-at-Arms reported that on two occasion the Department of Defense contacted him with offers to send in military support. He rejected that offer each time after consulting with … ???
Well, we do not know for sure, but it would seem that there was only one person from whom he would have to get a decision. His boss, Nancy Pelosi.
It would seem critical to know who rejected that offer – and why.
Mayor Bowser was also contacted with the offer to get National Guard back up. She was not on the Select Committee witness list. Why not. There remains a question as to why the District police were not used as a supplemental force – and why did Bowser also reject the Defense Department’s offer to send in troops.
We know that she was the person to reject the offer because she did it in writing. Essentially, she thought it would not look good.
The lack of protection of the Capitol Building does not exonerate those who rioted – and caused damage and injury. There has been universal condemnation of the rioting – and calls for those participating to be brought to justice by folks on both sides of the aisle.
However, the lack of protection was a significant contributing factor. There was gross irresponsibility on someone’s part – or several someone’s. AND there was a flagrant – politically driven – lack of responsibility on the part of the Select Committee in refusing to investigate that aspect of what happened.
There have been reports that Trump did authorize the involvement of the D, C. National Guard. They were eventually deployed – and since the report to the President, authorization had to come from the White House. Confusion rests on when the Guard were finally deployed. It has been reported that Trump initially resisted use of the Guard. The controversy, itself, calls for investigation.
In addition, there have been questions raised regarding the role of the FBI and FBI informants in inciting the rioting. Again, that role is not clear, but there is sufficient evidence to warrant a serious inquiry.
All of this is more evidence that the Select Committee was formed and has been operating on a very narrow political agenda with a very specific political objective – mostly aimed at influencing the 2022 midterm elections.
Contrary to their chest-pounding and back-slapping claims of importance, I do not believe that history will be very kind to the work of Pelosi’s kangaroo Committee. Once the election is over, it will fade into insignificance as a mostly political hack job.
That does not mean there are not very important issues surrounding President Trump and the 2020 election, but those will be best and appropriately handled by the Justice Department. Pelosi’s gambit is purely political – and all the Committee’s accusations are just talk for the court-of-public-opinion. The Committee has zero law enforcement power …. Zero.
And … the lack of bringing Pelosi, Bowser, and others before the Committee crushes the panels already dubious credibility.
So. There ‘tis.
I agree with you Larry, many who were not called such as the Sgt. in Arms and Pelosi, and the mayor should have been required to answer – which does lend credence to your assertion of the political agenda. At best it is a bit one sided and focused on Trump participation. Your assertion leads to the conclusion that Trump was really the village idiot in a wholly bigger scheme by the evil with Pelosi, and I do agree with that. But still, the village idiot needs to occupy a cell next to the evil witch and her ghouls. As for this Independent / unaffiliated voter, Jan 6 investigations are too far back to be relevant to my election decisions. The only thing that has carried forward is my disdain for Trump, McConnell, McCarthy, MAGA ultra conservatives (Trumps lie believing base), and of course the evil witch of democracy – Pelosi.
Tom … You comment is notable. However, for this commentary, I was only focusing on the absence of an inquiry regarding Pelosi, Schumer and Bowser. I was not intending to exonerate Trump in any way. That is a completely different subject.
Pelosi and the Democrats have been after Trumo since he won 2016. That is all they ‘ve done.. the Democrats fear Trump and MAGA because they know his policies are better and geared to help all Americans. Democrats want Superior ruling with all government control. This whole scam is co by the world order war h out who you vote for and know who they are. Trump is on the side of the People not the Controlling liberal governments.
Interesting. Lots of startling new information. Do you have sources for:
“Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson specifically stated that Pelosi would not be called to testify.”
“Approximately 200 folks showed up – with a permit to assemble – heard some speeches and went home.”
“There have been reports that Trump did authorize the involvement of the D, C. National Guard.”
Frank Stetson …. filling in for your topical ignorance is not my job. It is virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversations with someone so devoid of knowledge of the subject. Since anyone who has paid attention to events as the unfold would know those statements are true. You are must making a fool of your self in your effort to be an ill-informed ankle-biter.
Frank, see below:
No evidence Trump authorized the National Guard or that Pelosi refused them, see https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/aug/10/facebook-posts/no-proof-trump-asked-troops-jan-6-or-democrats-den/
Seems like there were six permits to protest written for that day, Jan 6th. Each permit was for up to 50 people but the powers to be seemed to know there were going to be more and that some of the groups filing for permits were a bit bogus. See at https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/jasonleopold/the-capitol-police-said-jan-6-unrest-on-capitol-grounds
This is how many protesters actually showed up on Jan 6, see https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-classified-documents-reveal-number-january-6-protestors-1661296
Larry, after considerable time spent, I cannot find anything on Bennie Thompson stating that Pelosi does not have to testify. It would make sense as it is her committee and she could give her testimony privately just as most witnesses were offered to do. Do you have anything specific which say Mr. Thompson said what you claim he said?
Mike … one of the reasons we should have had an investigation of the events re the National Guard. It seems folks are merging before and after the rioting started. My point was about the preparation before the rioting. And there is a lot of evidence in support of my commentary. One example from NBC. It is not wise to put too much confidence in all those “fact checkers” that create fictions, themselves. Always good to be wary of one-sided information. I could produce a lot more, but I do not want to be doing Frank’s homework for him.
https://mynbc15.com/news/nation-world/trump-admin-was-ready-to-deploy-national-guard-on-jan-6-capitol-police-timeline-shows-january-donald
Do your own damned homework.
Joe, I agree. PBP contributors can say anything without any background, facts, support or collaboration cuz that’s how Joe rolls. You should be proud of thst creation.
In this case, Tom already did it for you and Larry. Larry “misspoke”again, can’t support his claims.
It’s two posts above Joe.
Hagn.
Frank Stetson …. Read my response to Tom and be humbled. Second time I have refurled your disinformation … but I will not make a habit of it for obvious reasons. BUSTED AGAIN … AND BROKEN BEYOND REPAIR
Uh Larry …..you answered Mike’s response about Pelosi calling off the guard before the event. You did not answer my questions which you term “my homework.” No, Larry, I will not answer my questions about support for your, what seem now to be baseless allegations. I will just conclude that you can not back up what you are saying in your article, in your words. Those questions were:
“Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson specifically stated that Pelosi would not be called to testify.”
“Approximately 200 folks showed up – with a permit to assemble – heard some speeches and went home.”
“There have been reports that Trump did authorize the involvement of the D, C. National Guard.”
As far as your diversion to Pelosi’s actions with Capitol Police and others before the event, sure, they should be investigated. Of course I would agree to that. However, as I have told you, and shown you with supporting evidence before, the Capitol police model is a matrix management model where, at the top, sit Pelosi and Schumer. The police captain does not directly report to Schumer or Pelosi. Why you keep pointing out Pelosi only is your own political baggage, maybe sexist too, who knows. It is a shared perspective of a number of right-wing extremists. The management matrix is as follows:
“The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is overseen by the Capitol Police Board and has Congressional oversight by appropriations and authorizing committees from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate. This oversight affords the Department the support and opportunity to continually ensure that the USCP meets the safety and security needs of the Congress, the staff, and the many visitors who come to the United States Capitol each day.” https://www.uscp.gov/the-department/oversight
As far as the result: “At the behest of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund announced his resignation the following day, effective January 16, 2021. Two other officers were also suspended in January 2021. Six Capitol Police officers were suspended and 29 more were being investigated in February 2021.” WIKI
Pelosi is not in charge: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/27/fact-check-nancy-pelosi-isnt-in-charge-capitol-police/8082088002/
“The House Sergeant at Arms reports to Pelosi and the Senate Sergeant at Arms reported to McConnell, a Republican who was then Senate Majority Leader. There is no evidence that either directed the security officials not to call the guard beforehand, and Hammill said after the insurrection that Pelosi was never informed of such a request.” https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-235651652542
As far as your story, it’s actually from The News Desk, a right leaning media outlet with highly factual reporting. A local NBC station picked it up from there. Go figure on that one. However, your story even notes: “The information below outlining how the House and Senate sergeants at arms report to “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democrat Leader Chuck Schumer” refers to the current hierarchy as of June 9, 2022, not the one that existed on January 6, 2021. The quote below from Kash Patel claiming the House and Senate sergeants at arms reported to Nancy Pelosi on January 6, 2021 is inaccurate. The Senate sergeant at arms reported to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell at the time.” Reports too versus day-to-day operations are two different things. Did they even brief Schumer and Pelosi? Certainly worth investigating.
One more thing. The defense mounted by the Capitol Police has never been breached since it has been deployed starting centuries before 2021. Should they have envisioned the largest assault on the Capitol since the storming by the British in 1814 organized and conducted by Republicans? Or would the defense that withstood over 200 years of protests be sufficient to keep Republicans at bay? Just saying…..
But again, that has nothing to do with the questions I raised that you seem unable to answer. Although I do appreciated the response and the effort.
You are welcome to start your own site with the “truth” proved thoroughly to your own satisfaction. Might be easier than gratuitously asserting we are lying everyday.
Gratuitous? I nail you boys all the time.
Larry just rolls over and puts his legs in the air, he doesn’t even try.
I was hoping for discussion, all I get is diatribe.
I was hoping for duologue, it’s just monolog. I have admitted mistakes, learnings, and such. You boys apparently are never wrong. Ever.
I would think in the spirit of free speech, you would welcome critique and debate. Perhaps you just can’t stand a difference in opinion supported hy evidence.
In this piece by Horist, he can’t even answer three simple questions to support his shit making it —— well, shit. And then he cries that I have a bee in my bonnet because he can’t toe the line.
Enjoy the three says name caller. Halloween is coming and I will unmask you again!!
FYI — a bone. Want a good story? Check out vanity fair’s the origin of covid. Perhaps not evil, malicious whatever, but it sure looks lab born, from china on our buck. Including potential use of labs with security of your dentist office. Wuhan market, bats? They don’t sell bats who were hibernating when this broke out. Tru a couple infected folk from the lab walking the market…..
Lab born = why it’s mutating so unnaturally. Kinda like WWI, where maybe mustard gas, lungs, flu, create man-made mutation as chems meet flu in lungs to create the spanish flu that acted unnaturally too… like nade in a lab…
It’s a scary, well documented, story. .
You haven’t nailed anybody, Frank, your comments are always gratuitous. But I give you credit for trying. Standard propaganda theory says if you repeat a lie enough times at least some people will believe it.
There you go, Vanity Fair, one of the best peer reviewed journals out there.
Amazing that Larry avoids discussion in lieu of the personal attack.
Seems like pretty simple questions unless you made it up and don’t have any answers.
The emperor has no clothes.
BUSTED.
He can’t even muster a response beyond gutter sniping. Bad form.
Why don’t you research all of that and get back to us.
See Tom’s response above. Why are you guys lying and, worse yet, supporting telling untruths on your site?
No wonder you guys didn’t reply. This is no reply to the lie except name calling and just blowing it off. Coulda just walked it back. But nooooo.
It’s a pile of crappola spewed without being able to back up your claims
All braggadocio, no balls, can’t even back up what you claim as the truth.
Why don’t you sit on a stick. And rotate.
Why don’t you play slobber blues on a meat horn?
The voice of experience.
Frank’s at it again, huh!
Nancy Murphy … Frank has a Larry Horist bee in his bonnet — and he cannot give it up. LOL Like a child, Frank has an imaginary playmate he calls Larry Horist. There is no room for reality in his world. I enjoy conversing on issues, but I am not about to feed some guys obsessive craving for attention.
And yet you still can not answer three simple questions in support of your “truth.” You seem to be lying like the liar who’s policies you embrace.
BUSTED.
Tell you what. Since you’re crying like a baby; I’ll hive you the weekend off. I want to cisit PA to take photos of the chicken-shit masked poll watchers. You got three days to lie without me BUSTING you.
And fyi- I reply to everyone here. You’re just low hanging fruit. So many mistakes, misstatements, and factual errors.
Larry’s got a hard on for Frank. Good to see old man can still get it up. Now get a room.
I think it is Frank who is making the amorous moves.
Old man? Larry is still useful in a bar fight…
Ah, conservative man love. Got 50 ways to proect your lover. Alice will be miffed. You’re right, I bet you want a-more-ass. Joe-love: for those with smaller, limited governments……if u no what eye mean.
Hagwe
Yup, damn that it. Asking fair questions. Damn that guy. Damn that free speech.