Is Nancy Pelosi keeping a deep dark secret about her role in the events of January 6?
One of the strangest things about what happened that day was the simple sight of streams of people moseying into the Capitol, in some cases no resistance whatsoever. People are moving barriers. Policemen, when they're around, are stepping aside. This is extremely strange under normal circumstances. If you or I go to the White House or the Capitol we can't get in. There's all kinds of people to block us, there's all kinds of security there and metal detectors. So the unobstructed ease of access of all these people, for a crowd of people to get into the Capitol is a mystery.
Now, as we learn information about all this, we discover that Trump offered 10,000 National Guard troops to protect the Capitol. This offer was declined. We also find out that Steve Sund, the U.S. Capitol Police Chief, called for National Guard backup two days before January 6. His offer was declined, and declined by whom, declined by the sergeant of arms working in cohorts, in consultation with Nancy Pelosi's office.
It's kind of an odd fact, but apparently the Capitol Police are under the control of the Congress. In other words, the control of the Speaker of the House, not under the control of the White House or of Trump, so Nancy Pelosi is involved in this. And so she, in a sense, says no to the added security, Muriel Bowser, the mayor of D.C., says no to added security. They're kind of emphatic on this point. Now the sergeant of arms gives the only reason I've seen given at all for this strange behavior. It's strange because let's remember, we know that there was a large crowd of people and kind of an angry crowd, coming to D.C. Trump during the impeachment proceedings was faulted, you know you should have foreseen that there was going to be trouble. Well, if Trump could have and should have foreseen it, certainly the same information was available to Nancy Pelosi, she could have and should have foreseen it. So they knew there's a lot of people coming into town, and yet they declined security.
Supposedly, this was, according to the sergeant of arms, due to quote, "the optics," they didn't want to make it look weird by having all these guards present. Now, this explanation to me makes absolutely no sense because first of all, when there is a real threat, you need security, the optics don't really matter. And we know this because for Biden's inauguration, after January 6, they didn't worry about the optics, there was huge security all over D.C., massive walls, military troops, guns. The left is not reluctant to make a show of force when they need to. There clearly is something else afoot, and of course there's a dark possibility which suggests itself automatically almost, and that is, did Nancy Pelosi know and reasonably expect that there would be trouble?But she cunningly realized that if there was trouble, she could pin the blame of it on Trump. Now this begins to make a lot more sense because we know the Democrats have a kind of operating principle - never let a crisis go to waste.
Recommended
And you can just add a corollary to that. What if you can actually foresee and perhaps even do your little part to foment the crisis? In other words, don't take the reasonable steps that would prevent the crisis from getting out of hand. Why, because then you can exploit it politically. Now, right after January 6 what does Nancy Pelosi do, she fires the sergeant of arms. She fires the Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund and she replaces him with another guy, and very interestingly the police union, the union that actually represents the Capitol Police, took a vote and 92% of them have voted no confidence in this quote "new leadership." In other words, in this guy Yogananda Pittman, Nancy Pelosi's man that she stuck in there. The Capitol Police are basically saying we don't think this guy is any good. He's a continuation of the failed leadership that has characterized the Capitol Police in the past.
Now, Nancy Pelosi accused Steve Sund, the Capitol Police Chief, the guy she fired, of saying he hasn't called us since this happened. He hasn't briefed us. Well, Steve Sund points out that he briefed Pelosi twice on January 6, so Nancy Pelosi is not being truthful about the events of January 6. She wants a 9/11-style commission to look into Trump's responsibility. Hey, if we weren't successful in convicting him, let's see if we can get him through this 9/11-style commission. Well, her own role in this, I think, demands investigation. In fact, a group of Republican congressmen have written her a letter, basically saying, hey Nancy, you know you have taken all these bizarre measures after January 6, you're actually tightening security inside the Capitol. In other words, you've got all these Magneto meters and so on that actually regulate the flow of congressmen going back and forth through the hallways, as if to say that the people you have to fear are Republican congressman, and what the congressmen are saying is this is downright crazy.
The real threat always comes from the outside from somebody assaulting the Congress or assaulting the Capitol. So Nancy's behavior here is peculiar, to say the least. Does it have a nefarious motive? I'm not sure, but the given explanation of we're trying to manage the optics is so ridiculous, so unbelievable that we have to look for a more believable explanation.
You can hear D'Souza's entire podcast here.
