Capitol Police Chief Called Jan 6 Events 'A Cover Up' in Interview HIDDEN By Fox News

Source

EXCLUSIVE: Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund calls Jan 6 events ‘A Cover Up’ in Tucker Carlson interview HIDDEN by Fox News.

National Pulse pic.twitter.com/6t4SwcOIVM — 🇺🇸RealRobert🇺🇸 (@Real_RobN) August 3, 2023

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson that events surrounding the January 6th riots at the U.S. Capitol appear to have been a “cover up,” in never-seen-before footage published exclusively by The National Pulse. In the hour-long interview, Sund laments the behaviors of then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as well as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, who he says had intelligence to suggest problems on Capitol Hill, which they failed to communicate with Sund and his cops on the ground.

“If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here, this didn’t have to happen,” Sund begins, around 19 minutes into the conversation, during which he describes himself as “pissed off” about being “lambasted in public” over the events. Sund has written a book, Courage Under Fire, about his experiences.

From my understanding, The Constitution allows for States to contest their electors and on January 6th, 7 states were prepared to do just that. Arizona actually succeeded and submitted over 1,000 pieces of election irregularity, malfeasance, and fraud evidence before the breach.

I propose that ending the proceedings on January 6th, and whatever schemes led up to the breach and that decision, was the real election interference.

If not the public, than Congress deserves to see the sealed records from the 6th.

a reply to: IndieA

there are enough questions about that day, a serious, independent look at EVERYTHING should be done. If it's such an incredibly serious thing, it deserves to be treated as such. And Pelosi's emails and phone records along with everyone else's needs to be part of the research.

I have my theories on this, but the facts are really what we need to see here. And remember, if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right Nance?

originally posted by: IndieA

I propose that ending the proceedings on January 6th, and whatever schemes led up to the breach and that decision, was the real election interference.

If not the public, than Congress deserves to see the sealed records from the 6th.

That was the coup that took place. It wasn't done by Trump or even on his orders, it was all there infront of everyone's eye to see. The SES, Trotskyists, and Puppets of the DS were all involved.

Congress doesn't need to see what happen, they were in on it. Either by will or by force. The American people are the ones that need to provide oversite on the Government, not the other way around. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted, go read the Federalist Papers to see that.

a reply to: Guyfriday

Congress doesn't need to see what happen, they were in on it. Either by will or by force. The American people are the ones that need to provide oversite on the Government, not the other way around. It's what the Founding Fathers wanted, go read the Federalist Papers to see that.

Good point.

originally posted by: IndieA
Source

......

From my understanding, The Constitution allows for States to contest their electors and on January 6th, 7 states were prepared to do just that. Arizona actually succeeded and submitted over 1,000 pieces of election irregularity, malfeasance, and fraud evidence before the breach.

......

When the House and Senate meets in joint session to count the votes in early January each state's name is called in alphabetical order and any member of the joint session can object to that state's slate of electors that had been certified on the previous December 19. The Constitution gives each state's legislatures the authority and responsibility to do that certification, which Arizona had done by Dec. 1, 2020. It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

That part of the process went off exactly the way the Constitution said it should.

a reply to: IndieA

Everyone that has more than 2 brain cells knows there was something going on that day and on Election Day 2 months prior.

It believe it was a systematic and coordinated subversion by anti-American factions and forces of our government, whether that includes only Democrats or Democrats and Republicans also, who knows?

The “Covid Pandemic” was a suspiciously timed event intended to scare the people into subservience on many levels.

I imagine if we knew the entire truth of the all the events, we would probably do 1 of 2 things……#1. never leave our houses again out of fear or #2. make the attempt to take our country back by any means necessary.

I am sure many would do number 1, while many others would do number 2.

a reply to: 1947boomer

It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

Who was it that summited over a 1,000 pieces of evidence?

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

As far as I remember, after the Arizona electors were contested, the 2 hour debate only lasted a few minutes before the proceedings were halted due to the breach. There were at least 5 more states that wanted to contest their electors and 10 more hours of debate slated. No, to me it seems that the process was not competed as it should have been, and suspiciously, it seems like that was the plan.

a reply to: IndieA

I agree completely and I wonder if all this will be revisited by Trumps defense team. But I think the judge will shut it down. She is hard core Marxist appointed by Obama.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: IndieA

I agree completely and I wonder if all this will be revisited by Trumps defense team. But I think the judge will shut it down. She is hard core Marxist appointed by Obama.

It's the entire premise of the case, so it would have to be relevant. It just depends on how truthful the dems will be with discovery. Phone records, emails, all of it. And bring Sund to the stand. Give him a chance to clear his name to the world. I bet he would jump at that chance.

a reply to: IndieA

Excellent thread subject! So much left to be revealed. Tucker Carlson and Kevin McCarthy are now suspect, for hiding documents and videos. McCarthy won't reveal what documents his predecessor Nancy "The Drunk" Pelosi had sealed, just after American's removed Democrats from controlling the U.S. House.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: IndieA

I agree completely and I wonder if all this will be revisited by Trumps defense team. But I think the judge will shut it down. She is hard core Marxist appointed by Obama.

If the Obama appointed judge doesn't allow evidence proving Election Interference, FBI helping fuel the Jan6 riot, the Supreme Court step in to allow evidence, subpoenas, etc.. from the Trump defense team.

This probably won't happen until after Donald Trump is President again though... Not unless the nothing-burger "documents" case can be swapped with this Jan6th case.

a reply to: carewemust

Smith said he wants to get to court on this one quickly. Ive heard speculation that he wants to put more legal energy into the documents case.

How nutz is it that we will be trying the 2020 election (hopefully) while the campaign is happening for 2024?

What a country!

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I am willing to bet they drop these charges. Once they realize how much could potentially come out, they will panic. It was way more than just Pelosi who orchestrated all this. they set this up, and Trump wasn't smart enough to see it for what it was. Ray Epps would be a fantastic witness as well. I wonder what his comms look like a few weeks before the 6th.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 1947boomer

It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

Who was it that summited over a 1,000 pieces of evidence?

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

As far as I remember, after the Arizona electors were contested, the 2 hour debate only lasted a few minutes before the proceedings were halted due to the breach. There were at least 5 more states that wanted to contest their electors and 10 more hours of debate slated. No, to me it seems that the process was not competed as it should have been, and suspiciously, it seems like that was the plan.

Isn't it ironic that the "breach" happened before the Trump supporters arrived at the capital?

Almost like it was planned to happen and Trump, being Trump, talked longer than expected?

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 1947boomer

It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

Who was it that summited over a 1,000 pieces of evidence?

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

As far as I remember, after the Arizona electors were contested, the 2 hour debate only lasted a few minutes before the proceedings were halted due to the breach. There were at least 5 more states that wanted to contest their electors and 10 more hours of debate slated. No, to me it seems that the process was not competed as it should have been, and suspiciously, it seems like that was the plan.

Isn't it ironic that the "breach" happened before the Trump supporters arrived at the capital?

Almost like it was planned to happen and Trump, being Trump, talked longer than expected?

"the breach" started when Ray Epps told his team to take down the barriers. It's all on video and there are some lovely camera angles. Most of his movements and speeches are memorialized as well. Yes, I think between discovery, Sund, and Epps testimony, this would be an epic trial.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: IndieA

I have my theories on this, but the facts are really what we need to see here. And remember, if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right Nance?

Perfect! This is what the rest of us have been saying about why Trump wanted his video surveillance server erased. And those are the exact words I used then as well. If he has nothing to hide he won't care about anyone seeing it.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 1947boomer

It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

Who was it that summited over a 1,000 pieces of evidence?

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

As far as I remember, after the Arizona electors were contested, the 2 hour debate only lasted a few minutes before the proceedings were halted due to the breach. There were at least 5 more states that wanted to contest their electors and 10 more hours of debate slated. No, to me it seems that the process was not competed as it should have been, and suspiciously, it seems like that was the plan.

Isn't it ironic that the "breach" happened before the Trump supporters arrived at the capital?

Almost like it was planned to happen and Trump, being Trump, talked longer than expected?

"the breach" started when Ray Epps told his team to take down the barriers. It's all on video and there are some lovely camera angles. Most of his movements and speeches are memorialized as well. Yes, I think between discovery, Sund, and Epps testimony, this would be an epic trial.

Let me quote someone…..

“You can’t bring up the election in this case, the judge won’t allow it”

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: SourGrapes

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: 1947boomer

It was Senator Ted Cruz who contested the Arizona elector slate on Jan. 6, not the Arizona legislature--they had settled the issue a month before.

Who was it that summited over a 1,000 pieces of evidence?

When a slate of electors is contested during the joint session doing the counting, the rules call for both houses to go off separately and debate the issue for two hours and then vote. That's exactly what happened on Jan. 6. In order to sustain the objection, both houses have to agree with the objection by simple majority vote. Senator Cruz' objection was defeated.

As far as I remember, after the Arizona electors were contested, the 2 hour debate only lasted a few minutes before the proceedings were halted due to the breach. There were at least 5 more states that wanted to contest their electors and 10 more hours of debate slated. No, to me it seems that the process was not competed as it should have been, and suspiciously, it seems like that was the plan.

Isn't it ironic that the "breach" happened before the Trump supporters arrived at the capital?

Almost like it was planned to happen and Trump, being Trump, talked longer than expected?

"the breach" started when Ray Epps told his team to take down the barriers. It's all on video and there are some lovely camera angles. Most of his movements and speeches are memorialized as well. Yes, I think between discovery, Sund, and Epps testimony, this would be an epic trial.

Can't speak to the rest, but Epps has been interviewed and has outright stated that he is the undercover government agent that everyone pretends that he is.

originally posted by: CanadianLoudMouth

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: IndieA

I have my theories on this, but the facts are really what we need to see here. And remember, if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Right Nance?

Perfect! This is what the rest of us have been saying about why Trump wanted his video surveillance server erased. And those are the exact words I used then as well. If he has nothing to hide he won't care about anyone seeing it.

Wrong case Spanky.

That’s the illegal raid of his home for simple process matters on retaining documents.

Something every president has done for decades.

Something Joe Biden did illegally as a senator and VP, he kept them stacked in his garage next to the Corvette that his crackhead son had access to.

a reply to: network dude

Smith may be opening a bigger can of worms than he can heat up and swallow!

Fun times while we ride the handcart to hades.