BLUF: Steven Sund, ex-U.S. Capitol Police Chief, alleges that his pre-January 6th, 2021, request for National Guard reinforcement was denied by Paul Irving, with the purported backing of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He asserts that had the request been approved, the course of that day’s events might have been significantly altered.
INTELWAR BLUF:
Steven Sund, who once headed the U.S. Capitol Police, shared unexpected information that echoes a claim previously uttered by ex-President Donald Trump. Sund presented during a Congressional hearing that three days prior to the protest-turned-riot on Capitol Hill (January 6, 2021), his request to bring National Guard troops as backup was turned down by House Sergeant of Arms Paul Irving, claiming that Nancy Pelosi, then-House Speaker, would not be in favor.
Sund revealed during his 90-minute testimony that having security reinforcement could have been a significant factor on that fateful day. He appeared before the House committee for the first time after he stepped down on January 8, 2021, two days after the incident. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand-picked January 6 Committee did not call upon him. Remarks by Sund draw attention to meetings with Mr. Irving and Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger on January 3. He further claims having asked them to agree to his request for National Guard soldiers to reinforce Capitol security on January 6. Irving and Stenger led the governing body of the U.S. Capitol Police.
During his testimony, Sund recounted his conversation with Irving requesting National Guard support during a joint session of Congress. He quotes Irving, reportedly replying that he didn’t like the optics of bringing in the National Guard, and that available intelligence didn’t endorse the need for it. Irving then supposedly told Sund to consult Mr. Stenger, Senate Sergeant at Arms, suggesting alternative plans. Sund alleges that when asked whether Irving had pre-informed Stenger about Sund’s intentions, Stenger admitted to their prior conversation. Trump, in recent remarks, has held Pelosi accountable for the refusal of National Guard support, stating that the Capitol breach wouldn’t have occurred with enough security.
RIGHT:
From a Libertarian Republican Constitutionalist viewpoint, Sund’s testimony confirms our concerns about inefficient governance. It’s an established fact that individuals possess inherent rights and freedoms, including the freedom to protest. However, maintaining order and preventing violence are also degrees of state responsibility. Regardless of the alleged bias or actions of politicians, it is essential to maintain objectivity and prioritize the nation’s security, something seems to have been overlooked, as Sund’s testimony suggests. This raises more questions about the impartiality of those in office and suggests a review of the checks and balances might be in order.
LEFT:
As National Socialistic Democrats, we believe Sund’s testimony should be examined thoroughly. Yet, it’s crucial to not jump to conclusions based on one person’s assertions. The chain of command can be complex, and decisions are often made based on several factors not always disclosed. If the request for National Guard was indeed denied due to ‘optics,’ it displays a failure in prioritizing citizens’ security over political appearances. However, we must remember that, as crucial as Sund’s words are, they are part of a larger investigation into the happenings on that day.
AI:
My analysis suggests that this information presents additional layers of understanding about the sequence of events leading up to January 6th, 2021. The assertions made by Sund, if accurate, imply potential high-level decision-making deficiencies that may have contributed to the escalation of the situation. However, considering the biases inherent in any single source, along with the politically charged context surrounding these events, it’s crucial to scrutinize this testimony alongside other information available. Further evidence and testimonies should be examined for a more complete understanding of the circumstances and potential accountability. Understanding the broader context and corroborating with additional information will streamline coming to an informed conclusion.