C31.Former Capitol Police Chief Delivers Devastating Public Rebuke to Pelosi Over January
The Catalyst: Trump’s DC Crackdown Sparks Old Wounds
The confrontation began when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a sharp attack on President Trump’s comprehensive federal law enforcement initiative in Washington D.C., which included seizing direct control of the Metropolitan Police Department and activating the D.C. National Guard for street patrols. Pelosi’s criticism went beyond the immediate policy implications to draw direct parallels with Trump’s actions during the January 6 Capitol riot.
“Donald Trump delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake,” Pelosi declared in a statement that immediately garnered national attention. “Now, he’s activating the D.C. Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, health care, education and immigration — just to name a few blunders.”
Pelosi’s statement represented more than routine political opposition; it was a deliberate attempt to frame Trump’s current law enforcement initiatives through the lens of his alleged failures during the Capitol riot. By invoking January 6, Pelosi sought to raise questions about Trump’s commitment to law enforcement and public safety, positioning herself as a defender of institutional security against presidential overreach.
The former Speaker’s decision to make this comparison proved to be a significant tactical error, as it provided an opening for someone with intimate knowledge of the January 6 security preparations to challenge her narrative directly and publicly.
Steven Sund’s Devastating Response: A Point-by-Point Rebuttal
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s response to Pelosi was swift, comprehensive, and devastating in its specificity. Sund, who resigned in the immediate aftermath of January 6, used his unique position as the person responsible for Capitol security to systematically dismantle Pelosi’s characterization of events.
“Ma’am, it is long past time to be honest with the American people,” Sund began his statement, immediately establishing a tone of moral authority and calling into question Pelosi’s truthfulness. This opening salvo suggested that Sund viewed Pelosi’s comments not as mere political rhetoric, but as a fundamental misrepresentation of historical facts.
Sund’s statement revealed previously undisclosed details about his efforts to secure National Guard support in the days leading up to January 6. According to his account, on January 3, 2021—three full days before the riot—he formally requested National Guard assistance through proper channels. This timeline detail is crucial because it directly contradicts narratives that suggest security officials were caught off-guard by the potential for violence on January 6.
The former chief’s revelation that his January 3 request was “shot down by Pelosi’s own Sergeant at Arms” represents perhaps the most explosive element of his statement. This claim suggests that the security failures of January 6 were not the result of poor planning or inadequate intelligence, but rather of deliberate decisions by officials operating under Pelosi’s authority to reject enhanced security measures.
Legal Constraints and Administrative Roadblocks
Sund’s explanation of the legal framework governing National Guard deployment reveals the complex bureaucratic structure that may have contributed to the January 6 security failures. His citation of federal law (2 U.S.C. §1970) provides specific legal grounding for his claim that he was “prohibited from calling them in without specific approval.”
This legal constraint is significant because it suggests that even if Sund had possessed perfect intelligence about the coming violence, he would have been powerless to act without authorization from congressional leadership. The law’s requirement for specific approval creates a chain of accountability that leads directly to House and Senate leadership, including Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker.
Sund’s account of Pentagon involvement adds another layer of complexity to the pre-January 6 security preparations. His claim that “Carol Corbin at the Pentagon offered National Guard support” on January 3, but that he was “forced to decline because I lacked the legal authority,” suggests that federal military officials were prepared to provide assistance but were prevented from doing so by congressional restrictions.
This revelation, if accurate, fundamentally alters the narrative about January 6 preparations by suggesting that adequate security resources were available and offered, but were rejected due to legal and administrative constraints imposed by congressional leadership.
The Hour of Crisis: January 6 Decision-Making Under Fire
Sund’s description of his efforts to obtain National Guard support during the actual riot provides perhaps the most damaging allegations against Pelosi’s leadership. His claim that he “begged again for the Guard” when violence erupted, only to be “stalled for over an hour,” paints a picture of bureaucratic dysfunction at the moment of greatest crisis.
The specific detail that Pelosi’s Sergeant at Arms “denied my urgent requests for over 70 agonizing minutes, ‘running it up the chain’ for your approval” suggests a leadership structure that was either unprepared for crisis decision-making or deliberately slow-walking security requests for political reasons.
Sund’s use of the phrase “70 agonizing minutes” is particularly powerful because it humanizes the abstract concept of bureaucratic delay by connecting it directly to the real-time violence and chaos that was unfolding at the Capitol. Every minute of delay represented additional risk to the lives of Members of Congress, staff, and law enforcement officers.
The former chief’s characterization of repeated denials during active violence raises fundamental questions about the priorities and decision-making processes of congressional leadership during the crisis. If Sund’s account is accurate, it suggests that even as the Capitol was under physical attack, administrative procedures took precedence over immediate security needs.
The Hypocrisy Accusation: Post-January 6 Security Theater
Perhaps the most politically damaging element of Sund’s statement is his direct accusation of hypocrisy against Pelosi regarding post-January 6 security measures. His observation that “when it suited you, you ordered fencing topped with concertina wire and surrounded the Capitol with thousands of armed National Guard troops” draws a sharp contrast between Pelosi’s alleged reluctance to authorize security before January 6 and her enthusiasm for extensive security measures afterward.
This accusation is particularly powerful because it addresses one of the most visible and controversial aspects of the post-January 6 period: the transformation of the Capitol complex into what critics described as a militarized zone. The presence of thousands of National Guard troops, razor wire fencing, and multiple security checkpoints became symbols of how dramatically January 6 had changed the relationship between the American people and their government.
Sund’s framing suggests that these dramatic security measures represented not genuine security improvements, but political theater designed to reinforce a particular narrative about January 6 and its aftermath. By characterizing the post-riot security as something that “suited” Pelosi politically, Sund implies that her security decisions were driven by political calculations rather than genuine security assessments.
The Broader Context: DC Law Enforcement Under Federal Control
The Pelosi-Sund exchange occurred against the backdrop of Trump’s comprehensive federal takeover of Washington D.C. law enforcement, which has produced measurable changes in both crime statistics and immigration enforcement activities. According to CNN’s analysis of government data, the first week under federal control saw property crimes fall by approximately 19 percent and violent crime drop by 17 percent compared to the previous week.
These statistics provide important context for understanding why Pelosi chose to attack Trump’s D.C. initiative through the lens of January 6. The apparent early success of federal law enforcement coordination in reducing crime rates could potentially undermine Democratic arguments about Trump’s fitness for office and his commitment to law and order.
The federal operation has also dramatically increased immigration enforcement activities, with approximately 300 arrests of individuals without legal status since August 7—more than ten times the typical weekly number. This enforcement surge aligns with broader Trump administration priorities and demonstrates the comprehensive nature of the federal takeover.
Federal agencies have embedded personnel with local police units, creating integrated teams that assist in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles. This level of federal-local integration represents a significant departure from traditional policing models and provides a template that could be applied to other jurisdictions.
Congressional Leadership and Security Responsibilities
The Sund-Pelosi confrontation raises fundamental questions about the role of congressional leadership in Capitol security decisions and the accountability structures that govern such responsibilities. Under the current system, the Capitol Police operate under the authority of the Capitol Police Board, which includes the Sergeant at Arms of both the House and Senate.
This structure creates a complex chain of command that can lead to delays and confusion during crisis situations, as Sund’s account appears to demonstrate. The requirement for congressional leadership approval of National Guard deployment reflects the founders’ concerns about military forces being used against civilian government, but may create vulnerabilities during genuine security emergencies.
Sund’s revelations suggest that this system may have contributed directly to the security failures of January 6 by creating bureaucratic obstacles to rapid response during a developing crisis. His account implies that even when security professionals identified threats and requested appropriate resources, political considerations may have prevented adequate responses.
Political Implications and Historical Accountability
The public exchange between Sund and Pelosi has significant implications for ongoing political debates about January 6 and the broader questions of accountability for that day’s events. Sund’s detailed, specific allegations provide Republicans with powerful ammunition for their arguments that Democratic leadership bears significant responsibility for the security failures.
If Sund’s claims are substantiated, they could fundamentally alter public understanding of January 6 by shifting focus from Trump’s actions and rhetoric to congressional leadership’s security decisions. This shift could have profound implications for how Americans assign blame and accountability for the events of that day.
The timing of this confrontation, occurring as Trump implements comprehensive law enforcement reforms in Washington D.C., also provides a stark contrast between current federal security measures and the alleged security deficiencies that preceded January 6. This comparison could strengthen Trump’s political position by demonstrating decisive leadership in contrast to what Sund portrays as congressional indecision and obstruction.
Progressive TikTok ‘Star’ Gets Crushed In Election Bid
Progressive influencer Deja Foxx just got crushed in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District, losing by more than 40 points in a blowout that stunned far-left activists.
The Associated Press called the race for 54-year-old Adelita Grijalva with only 65% of the vote counted.
Grijalva, a Pima County Supervisor and daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, won with 62% of the vote, Trending Politics reported. Foxx, a 25-year-old digital celebrity with nearly 400,000 TikTok followers, came in at just 21%.
The result was a reality check for progressives hoping to replace a political dynasty with a social media star. Foxx had high-profile
endorsements from David Hogg and the PAC “Leaders We Deserve.”
She only became eligible for Congress in April. Her campaign leaned heavily on her “lived experience,” highlighting a childhood in Section 8 housing, dependence on food stamps, and early activism for abortion access.
Grijalva, a Pima County Supervisor and daughter of the late Rep. Raúl Grijalva, won with 62% of the vote, Trending Politics reported. Foxx, a 25-year-old digital celebrity with nearly 400,000 TikTok followers, came in at just 21%.
The result was a reality check for progressives hoping to replace a political dynasty with a social media star. Foxx had high-profile endorsements from David Hogg and the PAC “Leaders We Deserve.”
She only became eligible for Congress in April. Her campaign leaned heavily on her “lived experience,” highlighting a childhood in Section 8 housing, dependence on food stamps, and early activism for abortion access.
Even though both candidates shared nearly identical platforms—supporting Medicare for All, tribal sovereignty, environmental justice, and opposing Donald Trump—voters went with the familiar name.
Grijalva had decades of local roots, and it showed. In her victory speech, she thanked her father and the voters who kept the legacy going.
“This is a victory not for me, but for our community and the progressive movement my dad started in Southern Arizona more than 50 years ago,” she said.
“We delivered a message rooted not just in fighting back against a dangerous and tyrannical administration—but in fighting for something: for our democracy, for the dignity of working people, and for the values that truly define Southern Arizona.”
In New York there is an effort by progressives to primary the Democrat leader of the House.
Zohran Mamdani’s democratic socialist allies are reportedly considering primary challenges next year against several congressional Democrats in New York City, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
However, a senior political advisor to Jeffries has vowed that anyone attempting to unseat the top Democrat in the House during next year’s primaries will face a “forceful and unrelenting” response, Fox News reported.
Mamdani, the 33-year-old Ugandan-born democratic socialist assemblyman from Queens, sent political shockwaves nationwide with his decisive victory two weeks ago over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and nine other candidates in New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary.
His win marks a significant step toward potentially becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor, but would also signal the Democratic Party’s increasing shift to the extreme far-left.
In the wake of Mamdani’s primary victory in June, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) highlighted that “this movement is bigger than one person, election, city, or organization.”
“We encourage all people inspired by the Zohran campaign to join their local DSA or YDSA chapter and get involved so we can continue to fight alongside Zohran and DSA elected officials across the country to create the future we all deserve,” the party added.
Now, following Mamdani’s victory, DSA leaders are reportedly considering mounting primary challenges not only against Jeffries but also other House Democrats representing New York City districts, including Reps. Ritchie Torres, Jerry Nadler, Dan Goldman, and Yvette Clarke, Fox added.
Unfortunately, massive accident leaves more than 65 people without lif… See More
A devastating accident has left a community in mourning after more than 65 people lost their lives in a catastrophic incident. The tragedy occurred unexpectedly, leaving families and loved ones in shock as authorities work to determine the exact cause. Emergency responders rushed to the scene, but the sheer scale of the disaster made rescue efforts extremely challenging. As details continue to emerge, the nation stands in solidarity with those affected by this heartbreaking event.
Authorities Investigate the Cause
Local officials and investigators are working tirelessly to uncover what led to this horrific accident. Preliminary reports suggest that multiple factors, including possible mechanical failure or human error, may have contributed to the incident. Witnesses described scenes of chaos and devastation, with first responders struggling to provide aid amid the wreckage. Government leaders have promised a thorough investigation to ensure accountability and prevent similar tragedies in the future.
Community and Nation in Mourning
The loss of so many lives has sent waves of grief across the region, with vigils and memorials being held to honor the victims. Families are struggling to come to terms with the sudden tragedy, while survivors and first responders grapple with emotional trauma. Social media has been flooded with messages of condolences, as people from all walks of life express their sorrow and support for those affected. Counseling services have been made available to help survivors and grieving families cope with the aftermath.
Calls for Improved Safety Measures
In the wake of this disaster, many are demanding stricter safety regulations to prevent such incidents from happening again. Advocacy groups and lawmakers are urging immediate action to address potential hazards in similar environments. While nothing can undo the pain of this tragedy, the hope is that lessons learned will lead to meaningful changes, saving lives in the future. As the community begins the long process of healing, the focus remains on honoring the victims and supporting those left behind.A lot of people loved comedian and actor Martin Mull. He died at the age of 80, according to his family
Maggie Mull, Mull’s daughter, posted the sad news on Instagram, saying that her father had died at home “after a valiant fight against a long illness.”
“He was known for excelling at every creative discipline imaginable and also for doing Red Roof Inn commercials,” she told us.“That joke would make him laugh.” He was always funny. Friends, coworkers, fellow artists, comedians, musicians, and, most importantly, many, many dogs will miss my dad very much.
His wife and daughter will also miss him a lot. I loved him very much.”
