What was the sergeant-at-arms covering up for pee lousey?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He probably knows a lot. Looks like ping list material. From Dinesh’s link, copying quite a bit of it:
Report: ‘Conversations’ Pelosi Had With Sgt At Arms About National Guard Presence Factored Into ‘Blender Of Decision Making’ That Led To Jan. 6 Incident
https://conservativebrief.com/ledto-36064/
The Daily Caller provides a timeline that exposes the problematic timing of Irving reportedly being contacted on the request:
“The New York Times previously reported that the Speaker’s office confirmed that the National Guard was approved around 1:43 pm. Sund said he sent a request for help from the National Guard to Irving around 1:09 p.m, according to CNN.
Irving said he was contacted about the matter after 2:00 pm, Axios reported. Sources questioned how Irving got the request after 2 pm but Pelosi approved the request at 1:43 pm.”
“If you believe Irving’s timeline that he testified under oath to, how could he ask for permission from the Speaker 20 minutes before he got the request?” one of the sources told the Daily Caller.
“Also if you believe his sworn testimony that he never had to run the request up the chain, why did the Speaker’s office confirm he did just that?” the same source continued.
“Irving is covering for Pelosi. There’s no doubt,” another said.
The Daily Caller explained why the sources are not currently public:
“The three sources who confirmed the discussion to the Daily Caller did so under the condition of anonymity, citing the fear of putting a chill on further witnesses to how the security situation unfolded Jan. 6.
The discussion, if accurate, raises questions as to what role Pelosi’s office had in the security failures that resulted in the resignations of both Irving and former Chief of Capitol Police Steven Sund. Pelosi’s Deputy Chief of Staff Drew Hammill did not deny the allegations in a statement to the Daily Caller.”
The National Pulse reported that not only was there a delay getting approval but that it took hours for more National Guard to be on the scene, despite supposedly being on “stand by.”:
“At 1:09pm, still before the President had finished speaking, Sund called the Sergeants-at-arms of the House and Senate. He told them it was time to call in the National Guard. He even said he wanted an emergency declaration. Both, however, said they would “run it up the chain” and get back to him.
At 1:50pm the Capitol itself was breached. Still before most Trump speech attendees could have arrived.
What happened after this point was a back and forth over hours between D.C. officials, Army officials, and Capitol police.
Eventually – at past 5pm – the National Guard arrived.”
But wait, it gets even worse.
Days before Jan. 6, former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told Congress there was a high risk of possible violence.
After Pelosi forced Sund to resign following the Jan. 6 mayhem, he wrote her a letter explaining exactly what went wrong.
The House and Senate Sergeant at Arms were forced to resign.
“Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the ‘optics’ of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence,” NPR reported. “He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.”
His requests for additional National Guard troops would be turned down.
“Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said he requested that the National Guard be placed on standby in the days before the deadly riot at the U.S. Capitol, but House and Senate security officials turned him down,” the USA Today reported.
Pelosi has been making a slew of moves to blame everything on President Trump and his supporters.
Last month, Pelosi said Trump could be an accessory to murder after the U.S. Capitol mayhem.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham suggested he would investigate Pelosi’s handling of security of the Capitol building.
Wow - one of the comments on this article:
Richard Henry
1d
The whole premise is a lie. There was no high risk of violence. The only violence was by their people. The ones they claim don’t exist. Even though Biden used antifa.com as his website.
I was there I saw the black SUVs that had strange people. They pulled up after the speech and they drove past road blocks.
What amazes me is how stupid people believe these lies. But they didgeridoo away with stealing a Election. How many examples of fraud have they found. In the most secure election ever.
If courts don’t fix this it’s time for the people’s court. These liars need to be removed.
Mark