Reporter Asks Psaki Why They’re Spending $86 Million to Put Illegals in Hotels When National Guard Troops Slept in Parking Garages

Advertisements
Photo Credit: Image by Jim Black from Pixabay

On Sunday, Fox News reported that the Biden Administration spent $86 million to house illegal immigrants who broke the law to enter the U.S.

The Biden administration has awarded ICE an $86.9 million contract for hotel rooms near the border to provide temporary shelter and processing services for families who have not been expelled from the United States but have been placed in immigration proceedings for their removal.

The contract, through Texas-based nonprofit Endeavors, provides 1,239 beds and “other necessary services.” The families will receive a comprehensive health assessment, including COVID-19 testing. The announcement comes days after White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Thursday that the White House planned to provide 2.5 million doses of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine to Mexico.

That’s a pretty eye-popping sum of tax payer money to spend on people who shouldn’t be here in the first place.

It is especially egregious after the manner in which this administration treated vast numbers of National Guard troops who deployed to Washington, D.C. in the days following the Capitol riot.

The Democrats used these soldiers as props to bolster their false narrative that Trump supporting extremists posed a threat to their safety. When it came to arranging proper accommodations for these men, however, they couldn’t be bothered.

Large numbers of men were forced to sleep in a cold parking garage. In addition, it was widely reported several weeks ago that troops were receiving insufficient, undercooked and even contaminated food.

At Monday’s White House press briefing, press secretary Jennifer Psaki was questioned about this unequal treatment.

Newsmax reporter Emerald Robinson brought up the $86 million payment and asked Psaki, “How can you square that with the National Guard troops, who were sleeping in parking garages … some of them got sick from having contaminated food. That’s a disparity a lot of people are pointing out. That our National Guard was treated one way and then the illegal immigrants are going to be put in hotel rooms.

Psaki, of course, said that when they became aware of the conditions, the President addressed the situation right away. Watch her try to defend the indefensible in the clip below.

Does she really believe she’s fooling anyone?

National Guard General Wants to Bring His Soldiers Home, Biden Administration Refuses Request

Advertisements

The Pentagon announced on Tuesday that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III approved a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for 2,300 National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through May 23, 2021. There are currently 5,200 troops deployed to the Capitol.

On Thursday, the Fox News Channel obtained a copy of a memo written by Gen. Daniel R. Hokanson, chief of the National Guard Bureau, in which he explained why the National Guard “cannot and should not fulfill the Capitol Police’s troop request at this time.”

Hokanson argued that “the National Guard is already over-stretched due to coronavirus constraints, civil disturbances and wildfires. Efforts to date have not secured enough volunteers among supporting states to meet the USCP request of 2,280 soldiers, nor Option B of 1000 soldiers.”

“I am concerned that the continued indefinite nature of this requirement may also impede our ability to man future missions as both adjutants general and guardsmen alike may be skeptical about committing to future endeavors,” he added.

According to Fox, Hokanson’s memo circulated within the White House National Security Council over the past week.

The memo revealed Hokanson’s choice was overruled by Austin, who decided to maintain a presence of 2,280 troops to “continue the support mission” at the Capitol.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby spoke to reporters on Wednesday.

“[Y]es, the Department of Defense will be funding this as we’ve funded the previous mission, which ends at the end of the week,” he said. “But that’s not how anybody’s looking at this or foisting that on the Capitol Police, that they’re looking at this as free labor.”

Kirby claimed “they have a legitimate need for some capacity assistance in a time which is fairly uncertain right now … [I]t’s not just about the threat environment in a highly polarized, hyper-charged environment that we’re in right now. It is very much about a capacity assistance to the Capitol Police as they begin to flesh out and develop what they’re going to need long term to deal with a new reality on Capitol Hill.”

The price tag for the National Guard troops from January through March is $410 million, and the extension from March through May will cost an additional $111 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

According to The Hill, Democratic Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the chair of the House Armed Services Committee, and committee ranking member Republican Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama issued a joint statement on Thursday which said they were “deeply troubled” that “the seat of our nation’s democracy remains heavily protected by guardsmen and surrounded by a perimeter fence.”

“As the U.S. Capitol Police continues to build its personnel capacity, there is no doubt that some level of support from the National Guard should remain in the National Capital Region to respond to credible threats against the Capitol,” the statement said.

“However, the present security posture is not warranted at this time. … We appreciate our guardsmen answering the call to protect the Capitol, but it’s time for us to review what level of security is required, so they can return home to their families and communities.”

Following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Democrats led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted upon an overwhelming, unprecedented and unnecessary level of security. Ahead of the Jan. 20 inauguration, there were over 25,000 National Guard troops protecting the Capitol.

In addition, a seven-foot tall, three-mile long security fence with razor wire wrapped along the top was installed. Pelosi, trying to create the impression that supporters of President Donald Trump were a serious threat to lawmakers’ safety, even had magnetometers set up at the entrances to the House chamber.

In January, Ken Cuccinelli, who served as acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security at the time of the Capitol incursion, made an alarming revelation during an interview with Fox News’ Martha MacCallum on her show, “The Story.”

The two had been discussing the massive presence of National Guard troops deployed to Washington, D.C., and MacCallum pointed out that 25,000 was several times the troop levels currently serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Agreeing with MacCallum, Cuccinelli replied that 25,000 troops was the equivalent of an entire division. He then disclosed that Pelosi had requested the “last up of the final troops” and had asked for crew-manned machine guns.

“A division. You have a division,” he told the host. “The last up of thousands of these troops was requested by the speaker through the Capitol Police. She even wanted crew-manned machine guns in Washington. That was rejected because there’s simply no use for that in a security arrangement for a civilian undertaking. Just — so some of this has gone beyond any legitimate security need.”

It’s pretty astounding that Pelosi thought this was a reasonable request. Crew-manned machine guns are the types of weapons you see deployed against citizens in places like North Korea, Russia and nearly every African dictatorship.

These aren’t rifles or pistols, but crew-served weapons. They can dish out the hurt in ways a standard-issue carbine cannot. Fully automatic and made to confront armed enemy combatants, these should never be used against civilians.

So, the question remains, why did the Biden Administration overrule the chief of the National Guard Bureau’s decision? He made it clear his branch is stretched way too thin and their current position is untenable.

These troops have been forced to be away from family and friends only to serve as props for the speaker of the House, and the total cost to U.S. taxpayers will top $500 million.

As I wrote in a previous post, I can think of two reasons for the troop presence.

First, it allows the Democrats to maintain the fiction that they need protection from the unhinged “domestic terrorists” who support former President Trump.

The other possibility is, well aware of their unprecedented and un-American power grab and their transformation of a once-great nation, Democrats may fear reprisal from the people.

If I had done everything the Democrats have to undermine our democratic republic, it wouldn’t be crazy for me to think I might need some protection too.

Here’s Why the Democrats Might Want the National Guard Troops to Remain at Capitol

Advertisements

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III had approved a request from the U.S. Capitol Police for 2,300 National Guard troops to remain in Washington, D.C. through May 23, 2021 to “continue the support mission.” There are currently 5,200 troops deployed to the Capitol.

I can think of two reasons for the troop presence.

First, it allows the Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to maintain the fiction that they need protection from the unhinged “domestic terrorists” who support former President Donald Trump.

Just as the installation of a seven-foot tall, three-mile long security fence (complete with barbed wire) and magnetometers at each entrance to the House chamber telegraph the message that lawmakers are in harm’s way, the presence of several thousand National Guard troops serves to intensify the effect.

Ever since the troops arrived in Washington, I’ve believed this. However, I’m now starting to see it differently. Democrats may actually believe they need protection.

Because Democratic leaders, and Pelosi most of all, are well aware of the extent of their corruption, they may truly fear that “the people” will deliver the backlash they deserve.

Although CNN and The New York Times tell us the November election was free and fair and that the matter is settled, 75 million Americans still have their doubts. A read of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent following the Court’s decision not to review Trump’s lawsuits against the state of Pennsylvania speaks volumes. He says the decision, invites the “erosion of voter confidence.” And he is correct.

Consider the Democratic “power grab” that began the very day President Joe Biden took office.

There are too many corrupt acts to count, but here are a few.

  • Reversed key Trump Administration immigration policies (that were working) such as catch and release. Biden’s actions have created a new crisis at the border, although no administration officials have acknowledged it.
  • Canceled the Keystone Pipeline, instantly ending thousands of high-paying union jobs. They also “paused” new drilling leases on federal lands. They declared war on the fossil fuel industry. These policies have already led to higher gasoline prices.
  • The passage of a $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, 10% of which actually goes to coronavirus related items. As I posted here, it includes an $86 billion bailout for failing pensions which even The New York Times admits has nothing to do with COVID. It will also bailout states and cities which have been mismanaged their finances for decades. The city of San Francisco alone will receive $600 million to erase the bulk of their debt, most of which accrued prior to the pandemic.
  • Beholden to the powerful teacher’s unions, the administration has refused to order teachers back to work. The extended period of virtual learning has taken a toll on student’s mental health. Rates of depression, anxiety and even suicide have climbed dramatically. Still, Biden does not act.
  • Although his handler’s Middle East strategy isn’t clear yet, Biden has temporarily frozen and is re-examining arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It took him four weeks to finally call Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, our closest ally in the region.
  • Offered to restart nuclear talks with Iran; Withdrew Trump’s restoration of U.N. sanctions on Iran.
  • Rejoined the corrupt World Health Organization.
  • Rejoined the Paris Climate Accord.

The administration is desperate to pass S.1 (the Senate’s version of H.R. 1), the “For the People Act.” This legislation proposes to make permanent all of the changes such as the explosion of mail-in voting and early voting, that arguably made victory possible for Biden. If this bill becomes law, it will nearly guarantee one party rule in the U.S. for years to come.

Fortunately, it faces a higher bar in the Senate than the COVID-19 bill which only required a simple majority vote. S.1 would require 60 votes in the Senate for passage unless, of course, Democrats can find a way to abolish the legislative filibuster.

Anyway, well aware of their unprecedented and un-American power grab and their transformation of a once-great nation, Democrats may fear reprisal from the people.

If I had done all that the Democrats have done to undermine our democratic republic, it wouldn’t be crazy for me to think I might need some protection too.

Victor Davis Hanson: ‘We have become an absurd society obsessed with race’

Advertisements

Victor Davis Hanson is a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. He is a military historian, a columnist, a former classics professor, and one of the smartest conservative commentators ever.

In his latest column at American Greatness, he asks if America is (hopefully, finally) hitting woke herd immunity as two recent polls suggest. He begins:

Two recent polls suggest wokism is beginning to recede on a variety of fronts, from less trust in Black Lives Matter and more confidence in the police, to suspicion that the Capitol “insurrection” account is being used to unfairly suppress political expression while Antifa, increasingly, is seen as a terrorist organization whose violence has been ignored improperly by authorities.

There are tens of millions of Americans who either have been stung, or turned off by McCarthyite wokeness (and thus have anti-wokeness antibodies). More have been vaccinated from its latest virulent strains by their own values of judging people as individuals, not as racial or gender collectives. So lots of Americans have developed peremptory defenses against it. The result is that daily there are ever-fewer who are susceptible to the woke pandemic. And it will thus begin to fade out—even as the virus desperately seeks to mutate and go after more institutions.

Peak wokeness is nearing also because if it continued in its present incarnation, then the United States as we know it would cease to exist—in the sense that 1692-93 Salem or 1793-94 Paris could not have continued apace without destroying society. Woke leftism exists to destroy and tear down, not to unite and build. It is not designed to play down and heal racial differences, but to accentuate and capitalize on them.

Dr. Hanson says “the shark was jumped” with last week’s cancellation of Dr. Seuss books.

But what are to be the new standards of Trotskyization as we go forth? Can the Governor of New York be excused for months of policies that led to nearly 15,000 unnecessary deaths, but not for inappropriate kisses and touching of women? Or will he, as an Emmy-winning woke official, be exempt from punishment for both types of transgressions?

There are no logical standards that dictate who is and who is not canceled. For now, all we know about the rules of wokeness is that living leftists are mostly not canceled by the woke mob for the thought crimes that ruin both the non-Left or the generic dead.

There is a price to be paid for “wokeness.”

Wokeness is siphoning off billions of dollars from a productive economy through a sort of value-subtracted tax. We are spending a great deal of labor and capital for merit to be replaced in college admissions, in hiring, in grants, in publication, in the selections of awards, and in movies and videos, in everything—as racial, ethnic, and sexual identity considerations replace meritocratic, literary, artistic, and technological criteria, rather than just augment, them.

Americans also are investing lots of capital in preempting wokeness—writing/saying/acting in ways that are not productive, but simply defensive. Diversity oaths, and diversity applications, pledges, and statements take some time to read and digest. It will not be long before insurers will sell “woke insurance,” the premiums adjusted upward for those more conservative and of the wrong genealogy. It won’t be long before we all carry cards certifying that “At no time, did I say, hear, or think anything . . . .”

Our economy will soon mimic the totalitarian ones of old. Our commissars are like those of the old Red Army—ordering Soviet commanders’ counter-offensives during the Great Patriotic War to ensure that tank battalions were advancing ideologically correctly rather than just tactically or strategically soundly.

If that sounds overly dramatic to some, Dr. Hanson reminds us that at the height of the riots last May and June, then-President Donald Trump considered bringing in federal troops to maintain order. It was then that “280 former generals, admirals, and national security officials signed a letter warning that if Trump” were to do so, “he should be considered a dictatorial threat.” The letter read, “There is no role for the U.S. military in dealing with American citizens exercising their constitutional right to free speech, however uncomfortable that speech may be for some.”

Yet when Democrats insisted on bringing in 25,000 National Guard troops after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, this “group remained mute.”

No society can long exist if it believes that its own founding principles, its customs and traditions, its very origins are evil and must be erased. Tearing down statues of Abraham Lincoln, and redefining 1776 and 1787 as 1619, are many things, but one thing they are not is coherent. Trump was considered nutty when he warned that the statue topplers would go from Confederate monuments to Washington and Jefferson—and then when they did just that he was further ridiculed for being prescient.

Who were the long-dead men who devised a system whose natural and eventual fruition is what attracts indigenous people from Oaxaca, the destitute from Somalia, or the politically oppressed from Vietnam? If evil white people founded an evil system solely for their own evil purposes, why would anyone nonwhite dare risk his life to eat from the alluring fruit of the inherently long-ago poisoned tree?

If Americans are to accept that their Declaration of Independence and Constitution were frauds, abject falsifications of the real unspoken founding of 1619, then again what is to replace them? Whose statues are to rise, which books are we to be authorized to read, whose science are we to turn to?

“Everyone has feet of some clay,” Dr. Hanson reminds us. “Is there no adultery, or unkind treatment of women or plagiarism in the past of Martin Luther King, Jr? No violence or criminality in the life of Malcolm X? Did Cesar Chavez never send his goons to the border to beat back illegal aliens? Was Margaret Sanger only a sometimes advocate of eugenic abortion? Are the written biographies of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to be freed of anti-Semitism and petty corruption? Is Louis Farrakhan an ecumenical leader in the way FDR was not? Was JFK really our first feminist?”

Are we to look to those who erased our supposedly awful past for guidance?

Is it to be the architect of the 1619 Project? Long ago the ecumenical Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote that “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world . . . The descendants of these savage people pump drugs and guns into the Black community, pack Black people into the squalor of segregated urban ghettos and continue to be bloodsuckers in our community.”

Last summer, he points out, “Hannah-Jones bragged that, yes, it would be ‘an honor’ if the summer rioting—700 police officers injured, 40 deaths, and billions in property damages and hundreds—be called henceforth ‘the 1619 riots.'”

She also said, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence. … Any reasonable person would say we shouldn’t be destroying other people’s property, but these are not reasonable times.” He wondered if the Times considered Hannah-Jones “inflammatory?”

Moreover, he asks how we “ascertain who is and is not white or black or brown?”

Most illiberal societies in the past that tried such stigmatization of race, ethnicity, or religion did not end so well—from the Ottomans and the Third Reich to the former Yugoslavians, Rwandans, and Iraqis. One eighth, one fourth, or one half makes one a person of color—or not color? Shall we seek knowledge of one-drop of tell-tale bloodlines from the archived jurisprudence of the antebellum South?

If Peruvian George Zimmerman had only used his matronymic, and Latinized his first name, then would a Jorge Mesa have become a sympathetic character who lost a fair fight with Trayvon Martin rather than reduced by the New York Times to a strange category of “white Hispanic” hoodlum, with the additional odor of a Germanized patronymic.

Why does class bow to race, since the former seems to trump the latter. If we forget percentages for a moment, and also forget that we are individuals, not anonymous cogs of vast racial wheels, in absolute numbers, there are roughly (in some studies) more poor white people—both those earning incomes below the poverty level and those with no income at all—than all other commensurate poor minorities combined. Were these supposed to be the targets of Barack Obama’s “clingers” remarks, or Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” John McCain’s “crazies,” or Joe Biden’s “dregs,” “chumps,” and “Neanderthals”?

Predicating wokism on race is a tricky business, even if one could define and identify race, quantify its role in determining class status, and convince millions that it is moral to judge people by how they look.

Like the Salem witch trials and the McCarthyite hysteria, when wokism fades, we are likely to see its real catalysts revealed. And they will not be found to be misplaced idealism, nor heartfelt desire for a more ecumenical society, but mostly the age-old, narcissistic destructive road to career enhancement, fueled by customary ancient fears, envies, and hatreds.

Capitol Police Announce Plans to Boost Security Based on New Threats; Legitimate or Gaslighting?

Advertisements

U.S. Capitol Police announced plans to boost security on Tuesday evening after receiving “concerning information and intelligence pertaining to March 4th.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram explained that March 4 was the original day on which the U.S. inaugurated presidents.

QAnon loyalists to former President Trump believe that the 45th commander in chief is slated to rally and return to the scene to be sworn in on March 4. … This alternative mythology is pushed by the sovereign citizen movement. Many don’t recognize American laws nor federal currency. There is also some chatter about March 20, the day the Republican party came to life in 1834. And, there’s even some noise about April 15: federal income tax day.

A memo obtained by Fox News from acting House Sergeant at Arms Timothy Blodgett indicates that some threat for March 4 has diminished.

In the tweet below, the agency wrote: “Based on the intelligence that we have, the Department has taken immediate steps to enhance our security posture and staffing for a number of days, to include March 4th.”

“Two sources” told FOX 5 that the Capitol Police “received an intelligence bulletin warning of a militia plot to breach the Capitol this Thursday, March 4…[I]t specifically names the militia group the Three Percenters. Members of the group are accused in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6.”

Additionally, there is “some chatter about March 20, the day the Republican party came to life in 1834. And, there’s even some noise about April 15: federal income tax day.”

So, what’s this all about? Are these concerns legitimate or are Democrats trying to feed the narrative that Trump supporters are domestic terrorists who must be monitored?

This is coming from the same people who brought you the Russian collusion hoax and Ukrainegate.

Coincidentally, it also comes on the day that Rep. Mike Campbell (D-CA) reintroduced a gun control bill that would require background checks on all purchases of firearms. This bill passed the House in February 2019, but failed in the Senate.

And on Monday, Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) reintroduced a bill intended to “close what has become known as the ‘Charleston loophole.’ That loophole allowed Dylann Roof, the white supremacist who killed nine people in 2015 at a historically black church in Charleston, S.C., to buy a handgun even though he should have been barred from purchasing the weapon. In a statement, Clyburn said that the House is expected to vote on that legislation next week.”

Remember that days before former President Trump’s second impeachment trial began, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arranged for Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, who died from as yet undisclosed injuries sustained on Jan. 6, to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda.

Tuesday’s announcement follows recent testimony from acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman. Last Thursday, she warned members of the House Appropriations Committee that militias tied to the Jan. 6 incursion “have stated their desire to blow up the Capitol” and kill as many people as possible when Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union Address.

She told lawmakers:

We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union – which we know that date has not been identified. So based on the information, we think that it’s prudent that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security posture until we address those vulnerabilities moving forward.

If only law enforcement officials had been this vigilant prior to Jan. 6. But I suppose they didn’t have to justify the presence of a large number of National Guard troops or an eight-foot-tall, three-mile-long security fence complete with coils of concertina wire.

Suffice it to say, the latest warning from the Capitol Police is all about Pelosi fostering her latest narrative. It’s about optics. It always is.

 

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

Acting Capitol Police Chief: Militias Tied to Jan. 6 Riot Want to ‘Blow up the Capitol’ During SOTU Address

Advertisements

If only law enforcement officials had been this vigilant prior to Jan. 6. But I suppose they didn’t have to justify the presence of a large number of National Guard troops or an eight-foot-tall, three-mile-long security fence complete with coils of concertina wire.

In testimony before the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday, acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman warned that militias tied to the Jan. 6 incursion “have stated their desire to blow up the Capitol” and kill as many people as possible when Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union Address.

She told lawmakers:

We know that members of the militia groups that were present on January 6th have stated their desires that they want to blow up the Capitol and kill as many members as possible with a direct nexus to the State of the Union – which we know that date has not been identified. So based on the information, we think that it’s prudent that Capitol Police maintain its enhanced and robust security posture until we address those vulnerabilities moving forward.

The majority of Pittman’s testimony dealt with events leading up to and occurring on Jan. 6.

Her stunning warning about the militias’ alleged plan to blow up the capital came when she was questioned about how much longer the National Guard troops would remain in Washington, D.C.

It’s worth noting that Pittman provided no evidence for this claim.

Elizabeth is the founder and editor of The American Crisis. She is also a contract writer at The Western Journal and a previous contributor to RedState, The Dan Bongino Show, and The Federalist. Her articles have appeared on HotAir, Instapundit, RealClearPolitics, MSN and other sites. Elizabeth is a wife, a mom to three grown children and several beloved golden retrievers, and a grandmother!

GOP Reps Demand Pelosi Explain Why Jan. 4 NG Troop Request Was Denied and Hour-Long Delay in NG Response on Jan. 6

Advertisements

Remember how quickly the Democrat House Managers caved on calling witnesses after learning the Trump defense team would call Speaker Nancy Pelosi as their first witness?

GOP Reps. Rodney Davis (IL), Jim Jordan (OH), Devin Nunes (CA) and James Comer (KY), all ranking members on powerful House committees, wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday.

The congressmen believe the American people deserve some answers about security decisions at the Capitol on the days leading up to and including the Jan. 6 riot. There are many things that simply don’t add up. Attempts to obtain the relevant documents from Pelosi and her designees have been blocked at every turn and they’d like the Speaker to know they’re not giving up.

The letter opened with the following questions:

When [former Capitol Police] then-Chief [Steve] 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 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 request materials relevant to the events of January 6th?

They criticized Pelosi’s decision to “unilaterally” fire SAA Irving and to demand then-Chief Sund’s resignation rather than “conduct a full bipartisan and bicameral review,” as members on both sides of the aisle had called for.

They questioned the Speaker’s denial of Chief Sund’s request to activate the National Guard ahead of Jan. 6. They note “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.”

Additionally, during the attack, “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.”

They express their dismay over Pelosi’s hyperbolic concern for internal security which led to her decision to install metal detectors that members must pass through before entering the House chamber.

I think we would all like to hear the answers to these questions.

In the last few weeks, we’ve learned that the FBI did receive intelligence prior to Jan. 6. Surely, they would have alerted Pelosi and then-Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell.

According to former President Trump’s White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, Trump offered to deploy “as many as 10,000 National Guard troops.

Meadows told Fox News Maria Bartiromo, that “in January and throughout the summer … the president was very vocal in making sure that we had plenty of National Guard, plenty of additional support because he supports our rule of law and supports our law enforcement and offered additional help.”

“Even in January, that was a given, as many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense. That was a direct order from President Trump and yet here is what we see, all kinds of blame going around but yet not a whole lot of accountability. That accountability needs to rest with where it ultimately should be and that’s on Capitol Hill.”

It should also be noted that Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser also declined national guard protection for Jan. 6.

Please see Bowser’s letter of Jan. 5 in the tweet below:

So, what was up?

Readers?