In a subcommittee, former Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund testified that he had three calls with Pelosi on January 6.
The House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight held an inquiry on Tuesday with the topic “Oversight of the United States Capitol Security: Assessing Security Failures on January 6, 2021.”
The subcommittee is led by Representative Barry Loudermilk. Steven A. Sund, a former chief of the U.S. Capitol Police, gave testimony before the committee.
Nancy Pelosi’s inability to safeguard the US Capitol that day has been vocally criticized by Chief Steven Sund.
According to many reports, President Trump requested the National Guard three days before January 6. But Pelosi rejected him. She had been warned repeatedly that there may be bloodshed, but she refused to bring in the National Guard.
Pelosi then resisted providing House investigators with details concerning her involvement in the security lapse during the melee on January 6 for more than a year.
She is implicated in the incident along with the rest of the Democratic leadership, according to Steven A. Sund, the Capitol Police chief on that critical day. Sund said that Pelosi compelled him to resign as Police Chief by using him as a scapegoat. Now that everyone is aware, she was just attempting to hide her own involvement in the attack.
Nancy Pelosi assigned Chief Sund responsibility for the security lapses on January 6 the day after. Pelosi said that she hadn’t spoken to Chief Sund all day.
Chief Steven Sund disputed Pelosi on Tuesday. On January 6 (when she was directing the building with her film team), Sund reported to the subcommittee that he spoke with Pelosi three times.
At an April 27 House Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) referred to a court-ordered report that said that over 10,000 federal agents may have access to a secretive surveillance program.
Rep. Bryan Steil: Chief Sund, in your transcribed interview, you mentioned that you met with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding the National Guard prior to January 6. Is that correct?
Chief Sund: Yes, sir.
Rep. Steil: And who is the House Sergeant Arms leading up to and on January 6?
Chief Sund: That would be Paul Irving.
Rep. Steil: And the House Sergeant Arms is appointed. By who?
Chief Sund: He was appointed at that time by Speaker Pelosi.
Rep. Steil: And in your transcribed interview, you mentioned that when you first brought up the National Guard to the House Sergeant at Arms in the days leading up to January 6, that Mr. Irving said he, quote, “didn’t like the optics,” end quote, is that correct?
Chief Sund: That is correct. He referenced being concerned for optics.
Rep. Steil: And on January 6, when he went to Mr. Irving to get his approval to call in the Guard, mr. Irving said he would, quote, run it up the chain. Is that correct?
Chief Sund: Sir. That was a telephone call. I didn’t see him in person when I first made that request.
Rep. Steil: The House Sergeant Arms is considered probably the most senior security official on the House side. When Mr. Irving says he has to, quote, run it up the chain, end quote, what did that mean?
Chief Sund: I took that to mean his leadership chain.
Rep. Steil: And who would be his leadership chain? He’s functionally the most senior security official on the House side, correct?
Chief Sund: Yes, sir. That was a telephone call. I didn’t see him in person when I first made that request.
Rep. Steil: The House Sergeant Arms is considered probably the most senior security official on the House side. When Mr. Irving says he has to, quote, run it up the chain, end quote, what did that mean?
Chief Sund: I took that to mean his leadership chain.
Rep. Steil: And who would be his leadership chain? He’s functionally the most senior security official on the House side, correct?
Chief Sund: That’s his title. That’s part of the title. The senior law enforcement official for the House of Representatives. But he would have been referring to the leadership team that goes up to Speaker Pelosi.
Rep. Steil: So the political leadership team, meaning elected officials, not another security official, is that.
Chief Sund: That is correct, sir. He’s the top security official for the House.
Rep. Steil: So running up the chain would most likely, in your opinion, is through the Speaker’s office and possibly to Speaker Pelosi?
Chief Sund: That would be where it end, yes.
Rep. Steil: Okay, let’s park that there, and then let’s jump to a second set here. In a press conference on January 7, Speaker Pelosi called for your resignation on national television. Speaker Pelosi also stated that she had not talked to you since the initial breach of the Capitol. But according to your transcribed interview, you were on the phone with Speaker Pelosi a few times. Can you explain that discrepancy?
Chief Sund: Yeah, that is correct. I spoke to Speaker Pelosi three times that evening. And she went on national TV and said, I’d never spoken to her, but I spoke to her three times. Three times were – The first time was when I went over to brief Vice President Pence at the secure location, I had called House Sergeant Arms Irving, and told him I was going over to brief the Vice President. I was also going over to do a personal assessment of the Capitol. At that point, things were getting under control. Went over there, and briefed him on when we can get them back into chambers with Mr. Irving, being fully aware. He said he wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone at approximately 534, where I first briefed Speaker Pelosi. The second call was when I left that location. As I was walking away, I met up with Mr. Stinger, and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate when Jennifer Hemingway I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway handed me her cell phone, and it was Emily Barrett’s cell phone calling her, and it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line.
This was my second call with Speaker Pelosi questioning the information I’d given to Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers. I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chamber by 07:00 P.M., and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 06:25 p.m.. I was over at the Senate from the secure location I mean, from where the Senate had been sequestered. And on a cell phone, using Robert Caram’s cell phone, they dialed leadership, who was over off site at a secure location, and I briefed all of leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi.
Rep. Steil: So you didn’t have one call. You didn’t have two calls. You had three calls. So Speaker Pelosi’s comments that she didn’t speak to you are inaccurate?
Chief Sund: That is correct, sir.
Later, Chief Steven Sund informed the subcommittee that he could present evidence to back up his claims.
If Pelosi was not concerned about her own activities that day, why would she lie about making such a claim? This has to be looked into. It is necessary to summon Pelosi in for an oath. In fact, when they began their phony inquiry, the January 6 Committee should have summoned her in to testify. They failed to. And now we are beginning to see why the awful lefties on that phony committee disregarded Pelosi.
Support GreatGameIndia
