Total topics: 6
This is a simple yay or nay vote on the proposed new addition to the code of conduct. You can find a copy of the policy here https://www.evernote.com/shard/s645/sh/644d1e17-1ef3-3ef5-f968-542592992d8f/oE3TDdHIibb3PsfMvwM5EpSE0FVNCufDv-upv_hudVvOVqFEskfHk3YAdA
This is the current code of conduct despite the site failing to be updated yet; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9127-meep-for-sweeping-code-of-conduct-change?page=1
This meep proposes that we add the following definition of stochastic terrorism to the COC:
Stochastic Terrorism: "Stochastic terrorism is targeted political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism
We have had users claim that they hoped Biden and Trump would die. They have made statements pretending like Donald Trump was a terrorist, which regardless of intention could obviously incite some unstable individual to attempt to assassinate the president. The same sort of rhetoric has been used against Biden, but to a lesser degree and should not be tolerated, even if it's a rule only violated by people belonging to a certain ideology.
The Voting will end at 10pm on 7/21/24
Vote a simple yay or nay to the COC's 1st amendment
link to COC evernote link is broken https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8967-discussion-of-and-proposal-of-revamped-moderation-policy-?page=1&post_number=20
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
The MISUNDERSTOOD LEGACY of GUY FAWKES
Every year, Britain commemorates the notorious Catholic conspirator’s failed plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament. Elsewhere in the world, his reputation is much different.
By Yasmeen Serhan
“Remember, remember the fifth of November,” the old British rhyme goes.
For more than 400 years, Britain has remembered. Every year on this day, fireworks are set off, bonfires are built, and effigies are burned to commemorate the failed 17th-century plot by a group of English Catholics to blow up the Houses of Parliament—with the country’s entire political establishment and reigning Protestant monarch, King James I, inside.
But for an event rooted in remembrance, what has come to be known here in Britain as Guy Fawkes Night (named after one of the key plotters) could not be further removed from it. Today, the annual ritual is more festive and fun than religious and monarchical. Even Fawkes himself has taken on new meaning, becoming best known around the world not as a would-be religious extremist and terrorist, but as a populist hero. His life has been romanticized in film, his likeness has been preserved in masks, and his legacy has morphed into an almost mythical tale of anti-government rebellion, anarchy, and subversion.
How we remember Fawkes, as both a person and a symbol, presents a case study for how the meaning of historical events can be bent to serve the religious, political, and cultural needs of the present. But it also presents a fundamental question about how much is too much historical alteration. By turning people into symbols, do we run the risk of changing them into someone they weren’t?
The Guy Fawkes celebrations are, paradoxically, rooted in his failure. Though born into a Protestant family in York, in the north of England, Fawkes converted to Catholicism in his teens. At the time, Catholics suffered severe repression across the country and were barred from voting, holding public office, and owning land. The religious persecution prompted Fawkes to leave England for the Netherlands, where he served in the army for Catholic-ruled Spain. As he rose in the ranks, Fawkes became notorious for both his skill as a soldier and his handling of explosives—a talent that caught the eye of a fellow English Catholic, Robert Catesby. It was Catesby who crafted the plan to blow up the Houses of Parliament during their State Opening on November 5, 1605—an act he and his group of plotters hoped would be enough to wipe out the ruling elite and install a new Catholic monarch, ushering in an end to Protestant rule.
Of course, it never came to that. On the eve of the plot, authorities conducted a sweep of the Palace of Westminster’s cellars, where they discovered Fawkes with enough gunpowder to destroy the building twice over. “That would have [not only] killed everyone in Parliament, but the whole Westminster area would have been destroyed as well,” Nick Holland, the author of The Real Guy Fawkes, told me. “It would have been the biggest terrorist act in British history.”
Upon discovery, Fawkes and his co-conspirators were taken to the Tower of London and interrogated—though Fawkes notably didn’t reveal a thing. It was only after the king authorized the use of torture that authorities were able to extract a confession. Fawkes was found guilty of high treason and executed in Westminister’s Old Palace Yard, mere yards away from the building he had tried to bring crashing down.
In the immediate aftermath of his execution, Fawkes was widely regarded as “a huge villain,” Holland said. Guy became a pejorative term used to describe someone as grotesque (though nowadays the word simply refers to a man or a person). Londoners lit bonfires to celebrate King James’s survival, and an annual day to commemorate the thwarted plot was enacted into law, with observance made compulsory. This became the precursor to the modern tradition of bonfire celebrations, complete with effigies, or Guys (a ritual that has since expanded to include famous figures such as British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, President Donald Trump, and the disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein).
But Fawkes’s reputation didn’t stay this way. In the centuries since, his memory has morphed from one of a religious extremist to one of a populist underdog—a shift that has been attributed in large part to the serialization of his life in the British graphic novel turned film V for Vendetta. Set in a future dystopian Britain ruled by a fascist government, the Fawkes-inspired character, known simply as “V,” bears little resemblance to his historical counterpart. Whereas the real Fawkes was driven by religious aims, the masked, knife-wielding V lashes out against his enemies for the purpose of bringing down the fascist state. They both share the goal of bombing the Houses of Parliament as a catalyst for their ultimate aims, though where Fawkes fails, V succeeds.
Perhaps the starkest difference between the two is that whereas V emerges as a heroic martyr acting for the greater good, Fawkes is first and foremost seen as a traitor acting in the interest of a radical few. “He may have wanted religious freedom, but it’s unlikely that if he was in a position of power, he would have extended that freedom to his religious enemies,” Alastair Bellany, a professor of history at Rutgers University, told me. “He wanted a Catholic kingdom.”
It’s not just the 2005 film that shifts Fawkes’s image in the zeitgeist. The mask popularized in V for Vendetta soon emerged in anti-government demonstrations worldwide, from the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement to protests in Bahrain, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia. The mask also become the symbol of the hacktivist group Anonymous. James Sharpe, the author of Remember, Remember: A Cultural History of Guy Fawkes Day, told me that even the Guy Fawkes Inn, a York pub located across the street from where its namesake was baptized, swapped its original portrait of Fawkes for one of the iconic mask. “The modern perception, the mask, and so on is a complete reconfiguration of Fawkes,” Sharpe said.
David Lloyd, the British artist and illustrator who designed the V for Vendetta mask, said the iconic image is open to interpretation. “It’s an all-purpose badge of protest and rebellion,” he told Britain’s Daily Telegraph in 2015. “The smile can be interpreted as eternal optimism, of course—which is something essential to the survival of protesters everywhere.”
In this populist age, where protesters the world over are taking to the streets and ballot boxes to voice their discontent with the status quo, perhaps the emergence of a Fawkes-like symbol is necessary. But in amplifying one narrative about the historic figure, we risk losing the other.
“People will hold him up as a symbol of whatever they want to believe in,” Holland said, “but we’re getting further and further away from the man that he was.”
Created:
Updated:
Category:
People
BIRX TESTIFIES that TRUMP's WHITE HOUSE FAILED to TAKE STEPS to PREVENT MORE VIRUS DEATHS.
By Michael D. Shear
- Oct. 26, 2021, 12:28 p.m. ET
Dr. Deborah Birx, who helped run the coronavirus pandemic response for former President Donald J. Trump, told congressional investigators earlier this month that Mr. Trump’s White House failed to take steps that could have prevented tens of thousands of deaths.In closed-door testimony before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis, Dr. Birx said that tens of thousands of deaths could have been prevented after the initial phase of the pandemic if Mr. Trump had pushed mask-wearing, social distancing and other efforts to slow the spread of the virus.“I believe if we had fully implemented the mask mandates, the reduction in indoor dining, the getting friends and family to understand the risk of gathering in private homes, and we had increased testing, that we probably could have decreased fatalities into the 30 percent less to 40 percent less range,” Dr. Birx testified, according to excerpts provided by the committee.The committee’s interview with Dr. Birx was conducted on Oct. 12 and 13. In her testimony, she also lashed out at Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford neuroradiologist who became an adviser to Mr. Trump and advocated for allowing the virus to spread through much of the population in order to let otherwise healthy people build up immunity against it.
She told the committee that Dr. Atlas had relied on incomplete information to draw dangerous conclusions that she felt could have long-term consequences for people who were infected with the virus and got sick.“I was constantly raising the alert in the doctors’ meetings of the depth of my concern about Dr. Atlas’ position, Dr. Atlas’ access, Dr. Atlas’ theories and hypothesis, and the depths and breadths of my concern,” she said, referring to a group of doctors involved in the White House response who gathered regularly.Dr. Atlas did not immediately respond to an email sent Tuesday morning. But in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece last December, he continued to argue against lockdowns and other measures for containing the virus.“Lockdown policies had baleful effects on local economies, families and children, and the virus spread anyway,” he wrote.During her testimony, Dr. Birx said she repeatedly pushed Mr. Trump and others in the White House to do more to embrace efforts to mitigate the spread of the virus, especially in the fall of 2020. That was a period when Dr. Atlas was at the White House and Dr. Birx spent most of her time on the road, traveling from state to state to urge them to embrace prevention measures.Asked whether Mr. Trump did everything he should have to counter the pandemic, she said: “No. And I’ve said that to the White House in general, and I believe I was very clear to the president in specifics of what I needed him to do.”
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
Remember, remember!
The fifth of November,
The Gunpowder treason and plot;
I know of no reason
Why the Gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot!
Guy Fawkes and his companions
Did the scheme contrive,
To blow the King and Parliament
All up alive.
Threescore barrels, laid below,
To prove old England's overthrow.
But, by God's providence, him they catch,
With a dark lantern, lighting a match!
A stick and a stake
For King James's sake!
If you won't give me one,
I'll take two,
The better for me,
And the worse for you.
A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope,
A penn'orth of cheese to choke him,
A pint of beer to wash it down,
And a jolly good fire to burn him.
Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring!
Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King!
Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Artistic expressions
FACT CHECK: CLAIMS of FBI ROLE in JAN. 6 ATTACK are FALSE
McKenzie Sadeghi
USA TODAY
The claim: FBI operatives organized the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol
In the months following the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the United States Capitol by rioters seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, conservative media personalities have attempted to downplay the insurrection and shift blame.
Some baselessly claimed the mob of Donald Trump supporters who breached Capitol barricades — fueled by unproven allegations of voter fraud — was actually a crowd of antifa members in disguise. Those allegations were wrong.
Now, claims that undercover FBI agents were behind the Capitol insurrection are circulating on social media.
"Evidence surfaces that the FBI planned and executed January 6 Capitol riot," the Tatum Report wrote in a June 17 Instagram post.
The narrative started with a June 14 report by conservative website Revolver News. The story says there's a "strong possibility" the federal government had "undercover agents or confidential informants embedded within the so-called militia groups" that were seeking to obstruct the Senate certification of the 2020 election results. The Instagram post linked to a Tatum report post that recapped the Revolver News story. USA TODAY reached out to Tatum Report for comment
After the article was published, Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Republican lawmakers and social media users amplified it across platforms.
Facebook users have shared an open letter from Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., in which he demands FBI Director Christopher Wray "fully disclose the role and involvement of FBI operatives during the January 6th Capitol riot." Other users shared a clip of Carlson's June 15 show, during which he said "FBI operatives were organizing the attack on the Capitol on January 6."
But that theory relies on a false assumption: that anyone identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in charging documents is a government agent.
In fact, legal experts say that term cannot be used to describe FBI agents or undercover government operatives. Charging documents and other evidence indicate that the Jan. 6 rioters included Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists and members of far-right groups.
Fox News and social media users who amplified Revolver News' claims did not return requests for comment.
Unindicted co-conspirators, explained
The term "unindicted co-conspirators" refers to people who allegedly took part in the same offense in some fashion but are not being criminally charged for their role, Ira Robbins, an American University law professor, wrote in a 2004 paper that represents the legal consensus on the term.
This can include someone who cooperated with law enforcement to receive a deal or who authorities don't feel they have sufficient evidence to charge.
The term became well-known in 1974, when a grand jury applied it to President Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.
The Justice Department's policy says federal prosecutors should not name unindicted co-conspirators "in the absence of some significant justification."
Government informants can't be described as co-conspirators
The primary evidence presented in the Revolver News story — federal charging documents related to the Jan. 6 insurrection — don't support its claim about FBI informants organizing the riot.
Revolver News is run by former Trump speechwriter Darren Beattie, who was fired in 2018 for his appearance at a conference featuring white nationalists. It's unclear who wrote the site's June 14 report, as it doesn't have a byline.
The story argues that because upward of 20 unindicted co-conspirators listed in federal charging documents haven't been charged, there is a "disturbing possibility" that they could be undercover FBI agents or federal informants.
That's not actually a possibility, legal experts say.
"Prosecutors would not name FBI agents as unindicted co-conspirators," Robbins told USA TODAY via email. "Tucker Carlson’s allegation that the FBI organized the attack on the Capitol is pure fantasy."
Robbins said while it is possible FBI agents were acting undercover in extremist organizations involved in the Capitol riot, that "would not necessarily mean they had instigated the insurrection."
Similarly, Cornell Law School professor Jens David Ohlin told the Washington Post there are "many reasons why an indictment would reference unindicted co-conspirators, but their status as FBI agents is not one of them." In a 1985 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit noted that "government agents and informers cannot be conspirators."
The FBI declined to comment for this fact check.
No evidence unnamed individuals in Caldwell case are FBI agents
The Revolver News article singles out unnamed individuals mentioned in a case involving Thomas Caldwell of Virginia, an alleged Oath Keepers member who is facing charges related to the Capitol attack.
In an emailed statement to USA TODAY, Beattie said the issue from "our perspective is not the specific phrase 'unindicted co-conspirator'" but that "the individuals referenced in the 1/6 charging documents (referred to variously as Persons or individuals), remain unindicted on account of a prior relationship with federal law enforcement."
But there's no evidence those unnamed individuals, referred to as "persons" in court filings, are federal agents — and ample evidence they are people close to Caldwell.
Charging documents identify the leader of the Oath Keepers, a far-right militia group, as "PERSON ONE." (That person is Stewart Rhodes, and there is no evidence he is an undercover government agent.)
"PERSON TWO" is also not a secret government agent, as the Revolver News article suggests. Charging documents indicate Caldwell stayed with "PERSON TWO" at an Arlington hotel and took "selfie" photographs with them on the perimeter of the Capitol.
A criminal affidavit against Caldwell and Oath Keepers members Donovan Crowl and Jessica Watkins says Caldwell stayed at the hotel with his wife, Sharon, who has not been charged with a crime.
Further, a defense filing from May 26 says Caldwell "rarely travels without his wife" due to "physical limitations and health concerns." Caldwell also shared on Facebook photos of he and his wife at the Capitol on Jan. 6, according to the Washington Post.
The Revolver News story compares the Capitol attack to the October 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, which involved undercover federal agents. But The New York Times noted operatives involved in that case were referred to in the criminal complaint as "confidential human sources" and "undercover employees," not "unindicted co-conspirators."
Beattie did not present any additional evidence to support the Revolver News article when he appeared as a guest on Carlson's show.
Rioters included Trump supporters, far-right groups
While authorities are still investigating who organized and led the insurrection, court documents and other available evidence show the rioters are linked to far-right extremist groups, including the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters.
QAnon followers and extremists talked on online forums about a siege of the Capitol as early as December, NBC News reported. Experts told USA TODAY the Capitol attack was the result of years of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
A USA TODAY review of charging documents found nearly all conspiracy charges are against members of the Proud Boys or the Oath Keepers, or people who acted with them. Several of the alleged conspirators attended or scheduled paramilitary training and recruited others to their cause.
Similarly, a review by the Associated Press of public records associated with more than 120 people at the insurrection found rioters included supporters of the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, Trump supporters, far-right militants and white supremacists. A ProPublica collection of more than 500 videos from Jan. 6 shows rioters wearing Trump apparel, QAnon symbols and Confederate flags.
As of June 23, more than 400 arrests had been made in connection with the insurrection, none of which included charges against an FBI agent. Testimony from rioters who stormed the Capitol said they felt called to Washington by Trump and his false claim that the election was stolen, according to the Washington Post.
"This was not simply a march. This was an incredible attack on our institutions of government," Jason McCullough, an assistant U.S. attorney, said during a March hearing.
Our rating: False
The claim that the FBI orchestrated the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is FALSE, based on our research. There is no evidence that "unindicted co-conspirators" mentioned in charging documents are undercover FBI agents. Legal experts say undercover government operatives and informants cannot be named in government filings as unindicted co-conspirators. The best available evidence identifies the rioters as Trump supporters, conspiracy theorists and members of far-right groups.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
REPUBLICAN's SHAKY, NO-EVIDENCE ATTEMPT to CAST BLAME on PELOSI for JAN. 6
House Republicans have sought to change the narrative on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by pro-Trump protesters, claiming that Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol.”
But their arguments overstate the role of the House speaker in overseeing the security of the Capitol and rely on speculation about Pelosi’s involvement and knowledge about intelligence warnings for which they have not provided any proof.
- Republican Rep. Jim Banks said that Pelosi, as speaker, “has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol” and therefore, “is ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened on Jan. 6.” The speaker does not oversee security of the U.S. Capitol. The speaker appoints one member of a four-member board that oversees Capitol security, and who then must be approved by the House.
- House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested Pelosi played a role in denying efforts prior to Jan. 6 to bolster security on the Capitol grounds with members of the National Guard. There is no evidence of that.
- Banks accused Pelosi of withholding documents from the bipartisan Senate committee that investigated security and planning issues related to the Jan. 6 riot. Banks speculated that’s because the documents may show “the speaker was involved and the lack of leadership and the breakdown of security that occurred on Jan. 6th.” The Senate committee never requested any documents from the speaker’s office, though the House sergeant at arms “did not comply with the Committees’ information requests,” according to the Senate report.
- Rep. Rodney Davis pointed to the fact that on the afternoon of Jan. 6, the House sergeant at arms sought Pelosi’s permission to bring in the National Guard as evidence that Pelosi was “calling the shots on all of their actions on Jan. 6.” A Pelosi aide confirms the request was made, though he says Pelosi “expects security professionals to make security decisions” and that Pelosi only expects “to be briefed about those decisions.” In any event, the request also went to then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell as well as to Department of Defense leadership.
- GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik said Pelosi “failed to act” on intelligence reports in December about potential security threats and therefore “Nancy Pelosi bears responsibility as speaker of the House for the tragedy that occurred on Jan. 6.” There is no evidence that Pelosi was privy to those intelligence reports.
Banks appeared on “Fox News Sunday” four days after Pelosi rejected Banks and Rep. Jim Jordan from serving on the select committee that will investigate the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol. Banks and Jordan both voted to object to the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. In a statement, Pelosi said she had “concern about statements made and actions taken” by Banks and Jordan that she felt would compromise “the integrity of the investigation.”
Overseeing the Capitol Police
Banks contends that Pelosi left him off the committee because he was “prepared to ask questions” about “a systemic breakdown of security at the Capitol on Jan. 6,” for which he says Pelosi was “ultimately responsible.”
Banks, July 25: Once you go up the — to the top of the flagpole of who is in charge of the Capitol Police, who the Capitol Police union chief, they blamed the leadership of the Capitol Police. But — due to the rules of the United States Capitol, the power structure of the Capitol, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, has more control and authority and responsibility over the leadership of the Capitol Police than anyone else in the United States Capitol. So she doesn’t want us to ask these questions because at the end of the day she is ultimately responsible for the breakdown of security at the Capitol that happened on Jan. 6.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, said Banks was simply trying to “divert blame” for the attack.
“On January 6th, the Speaker, a target of an assassination attempt that day, was no more in charge of Capitol security than Mitch McConnell was,” Hammill told us via email. “This is a clear attempt to whitewash what happened on January 6th and divert blame. The Speaker believes security officials should make security decisions.”
A bipartisan Senate investigation of security, planning and response failures on the day of the attack said “breakdowns ranged from federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence to a lack of planning and preparation by USCP [U.S. Capitol Police] and law enforcement leadership.”
The June 8 report — led by Sens. Gary Peters, chairman, and Rob Portman, ranking member, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Amy Klobuchar, chairwoman, and Roy Blunt, ranking member, of the Committee on Rules and Administration — made no mention of any missteps by Pelosi.
In a House Republican press conference on July 27, Banks referred to the “tragic events that happened on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s watch,” and he said the Senate report identified “there was a systemic breakdown of security, a lack of leadership at the very top of the United States Capitol Police who report and who Nancy Pelosi is ultimately responsible for that lack of leadership.”
But he is overstating Pelosi’s authority.
In a statement provided to FactCheck.org, Jane L. Campbell, president and CEO of the U.S. Capitol Historical Society, said: “The Speaker of the House does not oversee security of the U.S. Capitol, the Capitol Police Board does, and the Speaker does not oversee the Board. The Board consists of three voting members: the Senate Sergeant at Arms, the House Sergeant at Arms, and the Architect of the Capitol; together with one non-voting member, the Chief of the Capitol Police.”
To put names to those titles, on Jan. 6, the Capitol Police chief was Steven Sund; the House sergeant at arms was Paul Irving; the Senate sergeant at arms was Michael Stenger; and the architect of the Capitol was Brett Blanton. Sund, Irving and Stenger all resigned in the wake of the riot.
So how does Pelosi fit into all of this?
“The Speaker is involved in the appointment of the House Sergeant at Arms, who must be confirmed by the House,” Campbell explained. “The Senate Sergeant at Arms is chosen by the Senate. The Speaker also sits on the commission that recommends an Architect of the Capitol to the U.S. President. However, it is the President who appoints the Architect, who must be confirmed by the Senate.”
During the Republican press conference on July 27, Rep. Rodney Davis noted that Irving, the House sergeant at arms, was “appointed by the speaker.” That’s true, but Irving initially came to the position in January 2012 after being nominated by then-House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican. Irving was unanimously approved by the House. He was retained by House votes five more times, including twice when Pelosi was speaker — on Jan. 3, 2019, and Jan. 3, 2021, three days before the riot.
Pelosi, of course, played no role in Stenger’s nomination or election as Senate sergeant at arms. Stenger was nominated by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and approved by unanimous consent by the Senate on April 16, 2018.
Blanton, the architect of the Capitol, was appointed by then-President Donald Trump and was confirmed in the Republican-controlled Senate by voice vote on Dec. 19, 2019.
Approving the National Guard
In the July 27 press conference, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “There’s questions into the leadership within the structure of the speaker’s office where they denied the ability to bring the National Guard here.”
McCarthy also referred — without naming anyone — to “people out there who say there were phone calls to the speaker that offered the National Guard prior to that day and was turned down.”
But there is no evidence of that.
In a Feb. 1 letter to Pelosi, Sund, the former Capitol Police chief — who was hired by the Capitol Police Board in June 2019 — wrote that on Jan. 4, two days before the riot, he
“approached the two Sergeants at Arms to request the assistance of the National Guard, as I had no authority to do so without an Emergency Declaration by the Capitol Police Board (CPB).”
(According to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report, the Capitol Police Board “has authority for security decisions, as well as certain human capital and personnel matters, including the approval of officer terminations.”)
Sund said Irving told him he was “concerned about the ‘optics’ and didn’t feel that the intelligence supported it. He referred me to the Senate Sergeant at Arms (who is currently the Chair of the CPB) to get his thoughts on the request. I then spoke to Mr. Stenger and again requested the National Guard. Instead of approving the use of the National Guard, however, Mr. Stenger suggested I ask them how quickly we could get support if needed and to ‘lean forward’ in case we had to request assistance on January 6.”
During Senate testimony on Feb. 23, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Irving and Stenger whether they had any conversation with “congressional leadership” about supplementing the law enforcement presence on Jan. 6 or bringing in the National Guard.
Irving said he had “no follow up conversations and it was not until the 6th that I alerted leadership [Pelosi’s office] that we might be making a request and that was the end of the discussion.”
Stenger said that “it was Jan. 6 that I mentioned it to leader McConnell’s staff.”
So there is no evidence that Pelosi was made aware of any request for National Guard assistance or played any role in the decision not to fulfill Sund’s request on Jan. 4 for National Guard help on Jan. 6. The decision beforehand not to provide National Guard assistance on the Capitol grounds appears to be one made by both Irving and Stenger (who, again, was appointed by McConnell).
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events