The hearings start today

Someone has to shoot first. Maybe others would have shot her.

She shouldn't have been breaking into the Capitol. Sometimes you pay a steep price for being stupid.

 

It didn't in this case.

 

You've concluded it was necessary to shoot, so obviously someone needed to fire the first shot. But that avoids the question as to whether it was necessary.

Being stupid shouldn't come at the high price of losing your life if there are other ways of dealing with what's going on. George Floyd was being stupid also, but that doesn't justify his death.

 

It might be because someone else killed her first.

 

The Stariwell ... (where they had their backs to her, the crowd was in between them, where they had no chance to see her.)

Where none of our Legislators were anywhere close by.

The stray weapon incident was dealt with, disciplined and forgotten, long before January 6th 2021. IF, which apparently you refuse to do, would watch the video of the shooting (28:28 of the "Day of Rage" video) it's evident that Officer Byrd's shot was controlled, deliberate and purposeful, nothing "accidental" to it.

First you need to supply evidence that Speaker Pelosi made or was involved in any decision to withhold evidence, from the public, about January 6th. I cannot find any, nor can I find anything to support that she has any say in what evidence is released or what is not.

 

They had first shot. Why didn't they shoot and kill the men who were breaking the windows and trying to force open the door?

 

Room and then there were those coming up the stairwell, none fired a shot.

Nope some even saw the protestors.

He should have been fired for it, he left it in a public area. I can see him in the video's I watch he is jumping around full of nerves, HECK I'm trying to give him the benefit the doubt that is was negligent manslaughter instead of a purposeful killing. That it was purposeful when he was not in imminent threat nor was anyone else.

NANCY PELOSI HIDING JANUARY 6 VIDEOS IN FEDERAL COURT BATTLE

READ MORE https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r… Judicial Watch filed a motion for discovery in its lawsuit against the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for emails and videos concerning the disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch therefore brings this case pursuant to the common law right of access to public records. The Capitol Police declined to produce any records about the disturbance to Judicial Watch, however, arguing that the requested videos and other records are not “public records” and the public interest doesn’t warrant their release.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/pelosi-hiding-jan-6/



February 15, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

The American people deserve answers to a few straightforward questions regarding the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

• When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?
• Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?
• What conversations and what guidance did you and your staff give the Sergeant at Arms leading up to January 6th specific to the security posture of the campus?
• What conversations with the SAA and Capitol Police did you have during the attack on the Capitol and what response did you give security officials on January 6th when Chief Sund requested National Guard support that required your approval?
• Why are your House Officers refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over materials relevant to the events surrounding the 6th?

Five weeks have passed since the January 6th attack on the Capitol building, and many important questions about your responsibility for the security of the Capitol remain unanswered. As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities. The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House. We have observed for two years this very heavy-handed and tightly controlled approach to House operations that has been exerted by yourself, your staff, and an army of appointed House officials.

In the wake of the attack, there were many calls from members, on both sides of the aisle, to conduct a full bipartisan and bicameral review. Republicans have introduced a bill to establish a structure for this review, identify failures, and ensure the Capitol is never violently breached again. Instead of working together, you decided unilaterally to fire then-Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Paul Irving, demand the resignation of then-Chief of the Capitol Police (Chief) Steve Sund, and appointed retired General Russel Honoré to lead a security review. These decisions were made in a partisan manner without any consultation of House Republicans and therefore raise questions about the political motivations of your decisions.

It has been widely reported and confirmed by multiple sources that when Chief Sund requested the National Guard be activated ahead of the January 6th Joint Session of Congress, the response from the SAA, acting on your behalf, was that the “optics” of having the National Guard on-site were not good and the intelligence didn’t support the move. The request was not approved. Furthermore, on January 6th, in the middle of the on-going attack of the Capitol, Chief Sund again notified the SAA of his request for approval to authorize the National Guard. It took over an hour for his request to be approved because the SAA had to run the request up the chain of command, which undoubtedly included you and your designees.

On January 7th, you held a press conference in which you stated, in part, that you were calling on Chief Sund to resign because he “hasn’t called us since this happened.” That claim is refuted by Chief Sund who in a letter to you, dated February 1, 2021, detailed two occasions that he briefed you on the situation on the Capitol campus—the first occurring at 5:36 p.m. and the second at 6:25 p.m., both on January 6th.

While there is wide-spread support to conduct an independent security review of the campus, General Russel Honoré was appointed solely by you, without consultation of the minority. To the General’s credit he has reached out to several Republicans to brief on his work to date. We are hopeful his review will result in beneficial recommendations that are not influenced by political motivations. However, it is easy to understand why we and our Senate counterparts remain skeptical that any of his final recommendations will be independent and without influence from you.

In addition, we are very concerned by the obstruction and inability to procure and preserve information from your House Officers when requested. Such information is necessary to properly conduct oversight on the January 6th events. Preservation and production requests were sent to the SAA and the House Chief Administrative Officer, among other legislative agencies, requesting that such relevant information concerning the attack on the Capitol, including correspondence, video footage, audio recordings, and other records, be preserved and produced to the relevant committees. In multiple cases, your appointees, acting on your behalf, have denied requests to produce this information. The response we received was: “We regret to inform you that given the scope of the information requested and the concerns implicated by the nature of the request… we are unable to comply with the request at this time.” Even more troubling is despite your House Officers refusal to comply with the request we have recently learned that some of the same material we requested was provided to the House Judiciary Committee on a partisan basis. This is unacceptable. Madam Speaker, that direction could only have come from you.

Lastly, your hyperbolic focus on fabricated internal security concerns has taken critical resources away from the real threat, which is from outside the U.S. Capitol. Your decision to install magnetometers around the House Chamber is yet another example of this misdirection and misappropriation of House resources, which could be better used to protect members, staff, and official visitors from real, confirmed threats. Tellingly, Madam Speaker, you have failed to comply with this requirement yourself. End this political charade, and work with us to protect the Capitol and those who work here every day.

Sincerely,


Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Committee on House Administration


Jim Jordan
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary


James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform


Devin Nunes
Ranking Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

117th Congress
https://republicans-cha.house.gov/m...speaker-pelosi-security-decisions-surrounding

 

It should have, no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to anyone a required for lethal use of force.

 

A barricade that separated two dozen manic insurrectionists from the Main House Chamber, where Congress was sheltering in place, and evacuating Congress that the had seen being lead away.

Because they had retreated down the stairwell, to avoid further antagonizing the insurrectionists, and couldn't see Babbitt jump into the broken out window.

Then Babbitt right in behind of them attempts to go through the broken window unabated and no one fired a shot except Byrd; who was the last man defending the barricade separating wildly manic insurrectionists from Congress.

And you can see Byrd who is not even in that hallway but in the adjacent Hallway or coat room where there is a heavy door and BARRICADES is calmly advancing and retreating as the situation unfolds and then fires his weapon when Babbitt jumps into the widow and try's to breach the last barricade bettween the insurrectionists and Congress. The incident was investigated by four different independent agencies and Officer Byrd was found to have acted appropriately and within Department protocols.

 

They were standing right there along with the Capital Special Response which were there to reinforce and take over the situation. And none of them shot ANYONE including the men who were breaking the windows and trying to force open the door.

Let's see all the investigation reports, lets see all the Capital videos, let's have an independent grand jury investigate it was a homicide.

 

Are you prepared to acknowledge that Trump called for protesters to march peacefully on the Capitol but that Pelosi's rigged dog and pony show doctored the tape to edit out his urging that they do so peacefully?

Do you deny that the first two witnesses highlighted the failure of Congress to adequately prepare for the riot despite repeated warnings from the executive branch? "Capitol Police officer Caroline Edwards and Nick Quested, a British documentarian, both noted the shocking absence of sufficient officers around the Capitol. Quested described seeing a single officer at one barricade; Edwards described a handful of officers holding back hundreds of protesters. Critical anti-riot equipment was not distributed or was affirmatively withheld. Security objectives were ignored, and even Edwards said officers were quickly and easily overrun due to lack of support."

Do you deny that four days before the riot, records indicate the Capitol was asked if it wanted to request National Guard troops but declined? Others dispute this. Wouldn't it be helpful to get the "the full story on what decisions were made? Why do Democrat House leaders curtail "inquiries into the failure to properly staff or equip officers at the scene, to erect fencing, or to call for the National Guard after the riot erupted?"

 

Please watch the video I refereed you to: where, at 0:24 you can see ALL Officers and the Supervisor exiting down the stair well, and by 0:26 they are gone from sight. No other Officers, after 0:26 are visible at or near the doors to the Speakers Lobby.

Possibly, but was there an officer present and did the Officer fear for the life of the Legislator?

It was investigated, he was disciplined and the matter was closed. Are you saying your judgment should take precedence, years after the fact, over his supervisor and whatever committee was involved AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED?

You are setting yourself up as a one man judge and jury, a very biased one, and reaching a judgement 180 degrees from four independent investigations. The matter was resolved, four times, and found Officer Byrd acted appropriatly.


NANCY PELOSI HIDING JANUARY 6 VIDEOS IN FEDERAL COURT BATTLE

READ MORE https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-r… Judicial Watch filed a motion for discovery in its lawsuit against the United States Capitol Police (USCP) for emails and videos concerning the disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 (Judicial Watch v. United States Capitol Police (No. 1:21-cv-00401)). Congress exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act. Judicial Watch therefore brings this case pursuant to the common law right of access to public records. The Capitol Police declined to produce any records about the disturbance to Judicial Watch, however, arguing that the requested videos and other records are not “public records” and the public interest doesn’t warrant their release.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/videos/pelosi-hiding-jan-6/



February 15, 2021

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
United States House of Representatives
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

The American people deserve answers to a few straightforward questions regarding the security of the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

• When then-Chief Sund made a request for national guard support on January 4th, why was that request denied?
• Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Sund’s request for the national guard?
• What conversations and what guidance did you and your staff give the Sergeant at Arms leading up to January 6th specific to the security posture of the campus?
• What conversations with the SAA and Capitol Police did you have during the attack on the Capitol and what response did you give security officials on January 6th when Chief Sund requested National Guard support that required your approval?
• Why are your House Officers refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over materials relevant to the events surrounding the 6th?

Five weeks have passed since the January 6th attack on the Capitol building, and many important questions about your responsibility for the security of the Capitol remain unanswered. As you are aware, the Speaker of the House is not only the leader of the majority party, but also has enormous institutional responsibilities. The Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House. We have observed for two years this very heavy-handed and tightly controlled approach to House operations that has been exerted by yourself, your staff, and an army of appointed House officials.

In the wake of the attack, there were many calls from members, on both sides of the aisle, to conduct a full bipartisan and bicameral review. Republicans have introduced a bill to establish a structure for this review, identify failures, and ensure the Capitol is never violently breached again. Instead of working together, you decided unilaterally to fire then-Sergeant at Arms (SAA) Paul Irving, demand the resignation of then-Chief of the Capitol Police (Chief) Steve Sund, and appointed retired General Russel Honoré to lead a security review. These decisions were made in a partisan manner without any consultation of House Republicans and therefore raise questions about the political motivations of your decisions.

It has been widely reported and confirmed by multiple sources that when Chief Sund requested the National Guard be activated ahead of the January 6th Joint Session of Congress, the response from the SAA, acting on your behalf, was that the “optics” of having the National Guard on-site were not good and the intelligence didn’t support the move. The request was not approved. Furthermore, on January 6th, in the middle of the on-going attack of the Capitol, Chief Sund again notified the SAA of his request for approval to authorize the National Guard. It took over an hour for his request to be approved because the SAA had to run the request up the chain of command, which undoubtedly included you and your designees.

On January 7th, you held a press conference in which you stated, in part, that you were calling on Chief Sund to resign because he “hasn’t called us since this happened.” That claim is refuted by Chief Sund who in a letter to you, dated February 1, 2021, detailed two occasions that he briefed you on the situation on the Capitol campus—the first occurring at 5:36 p.m. and the second at 6:25 p.m., both on January 6th.

While there is wide-spread support to conduct an independent security review of the campus, General Russel Honoré was appointed solely by you, without consultation of the minority. To the General’s credit he has reached out to several Republicans to brief on his work to date. We are hopeful his review will result in beneficial recommendations that are not influenced by political motivations. However, it is easy to understand why we and our Senate counterparts remain skeptical that any of his final recommendations will be independent and without influence from you.

In addition, we are very concerned by the obstruction and inability to procure and preserve information from your House Officers when requested. Such information is necessary to properly conduct oversight on the January 6th events. Preservation and production requests were sent to the SAA and the House Chief Administrative Officer, among other legislative agencies, requesting that such relevant information concerning the attack on the Capitol, including correspondence, video footage, audio recordings, and other records, be preserved and produced to the relevant committees. In multiple cases, your appointees, acting on your behalf, have denied requests to produce this information. The response we received was: “We regret to inform you that given the scope of the information requested and the concerns implicated by the nature of the request… we are unable to comply with the request at this time.” Even more troubling is despite your House Officers refusal to comply with the request we have recently learned that some of the same material we requested was provided to the House Judiciary Committee on a partisan basis. This is unacceptable. Madam Speaker, that direction could only have come from you.

Lastly, your hyperbolic focus on fabricated internal security concerns has taken critical resources away from the real threat, which is from outside the U.S. Capitol. Your decision to install magnetometers around the House Chamber is yet another example of this misdirection and misappropriation of House resources, which could be better used to protect members, staff, and official visitors from real, confirmed threats. Tellingly, Madam Speaker, you have failed to comply with this requirement yourself. End this political charade, and work with us to protect the Capitol and those who work here every day.

Sincerely,


Rodney Davis
Ranking Member
Committee on House Administration


Jim Jordan
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary


James Comer
Ranking Member
Committee on Oversight and Reform


Devin Nunes
Ranking Member
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

117th Congress
https://republicans-cha.house.gov/m...speaker-pelosi-security-decisions-surrounding[/QUOTE]

That letter, I've seen it before, offers no proof of ANYTHING, just a lot of carefully worded unfounded accusations. Can you supply evidence of how Speaker Pelosi replied?

 

Watch the video in post #487 starting at 0:20 there is no visual support for that claim.

Four, three independent, investigations found Officer Byrd acted appropriately.

 

What's your point? It doesn't matter if Pelosi has shortcomings, Trump did nothing for more than three hours. He deserted his post.

 

Prove to us where he was.

 

It's solidly documented that he was in the executive dinning room off the Oval Office watching the insurrection and, unlike everyone else watching, thought it was GREAT. I didn't realize insurrection was what he meant when he said Make America Great.

 

The cop couldn't see what she might have been carrying.

 

He was watching it all on tv.

 

If such exists, sure.

 

Scripted? Yep...

a congressional committee use teleprompters?

 

Yes there is.. open your eyes...they are using sovereign immunity...
and yea it says CP but Pelosi is their boss and overseer.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/documents/jw-v-u-s-capitol-police-motion-00401/

 

It says Capitol Police. The Speaker of the House delegates security to them and the Sargent at Arms.

 

Trump sent a mixed message. He riled up the crowd with lies and phony grievances, but he said briefly they should be peaceful.

It's obvious security was inadequate.

There was a short-term problem created by yet another demonstration and a longer term problem of dealing with people who show up in DC with the intention of causing problems. The pols on both sides have been AWOL on the issue for political reasons.

Trump sat watching the attack on the Capitol for mote than three hours. Shameful and disqualifying.

 

Are you justifying the J6 committee doctoring evidence and deliberately concealing exculpatory evidence?

Do you know why it was inadequate?
Who were the decision makers that dropped the ball?
Why did they fail?
Was communication the problem? Decision making skills? Analysis and application? Have these shortfalls been identified and corrected, that is, if faced with the same set of challenges would they be properly met with the correct resources and equipment? Has the training been completed to assure that everyone knows their part?

What about turnover? As the elements of this chain invariably turnover, are procedures in place to ensure that their replacement understands their role in ensuring that the plan is properly implemented? It's been 18 months. Is this plan fully in place? Is it even wholly developed? What portions remain to be done? Is the proper equipment on hand and is the chain of command clear to ensure that the front line folks know how and where to obtain it? Have they been trained in its use?

I'm focused on solutions not relitigating the past.

I'm reasonably certain that none of the questions I asked above, which are where the focus needs to be, will even be grappled with until Speaker McCarthy has the gavel.

To give you a sense of how completely clueless and useless these Dems are on everything:

"IF YOU’RE AN AVERAGE AMERICAN, EVERYONE COUNTS MORE THAN YOU WITH DEMOCRATS, EVEN DOGS, CATS AND FLEAS": Democrats choose Fido and Muffy over inflation-shocked public.

Flea collars? Someone needs to tell the Democrats that dog won’t hunt.

https://instapundit.com/525991/

And that's these Dems in a nutshell, completely lost, clueless, occupying the seats of folks who should be problem solving for the American People.

We need fresh leadership, we'll have it next January and then we can begin the good work of restoration.

 

I wonder who's writing the script.