Former Capitol Police pssss
Former Capitol Police
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.
she has wasted little time
Jeanine Pirro was sworn in as the interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia recently and vowed to clean up Washington, D.C.
And she has wasted little time.
This week alone, Pirro’s office announced that: (1) Robbers were sentenced for kidnapping and beating a woman in her home; (2) Three more men in Washington, D.C., were sentenced for trafficking fentanyl; (3) A Marijuanna dealer who passed a machine gun was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison; and (4) A jury found a father guilty of first-degree child sexual abuse of his 12-year-old.
Last week, two people were sentenced to more than 130 months in prison on Thursday for their participation in a drug trafficking conspiracy that spread contraband in Washington, D.C., as well as a shooting, officials said.
Jamiek “Onion” Bassil, 32, and Charles “Cheese” Manson, 34, of D.C., were sentenced to 135 and 175 months in prison, respectively, for a drug trafficking conspiracy that supplied fentanyl, crack cocaine, and other substances throughout Northeast D.C., according to officials.
They were also convicted of a March 2024 shooting between 19th and I Street Northeast, said U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
On March 21, Bassil pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl. Mason pled guilty on the same day to conspiring to distribute 40 grams or more of fentanyl, possessing a handgun in furtherance of a drug trafficking felony, and assault with a dangerous weapon, according to Pirro.
Mason and Bassil were part of the “21st and Vietnam” crew, which controlled an open-air drug market. They supplied drugs in the 2100 block of Maryland Avenue, Northeast, according to Pirro.
Manson was the gunman in a March 7, 2024, shooting in the 1900 block of I Street, Northeast—the same block as his residence, where he was apprehended eight days later. Pirro added that when members of the team disagreed with the dog owner, a person walking by with their dog was present.
Monsoon entered the apartment complex after a crew member handed him a ski mask. According to Pirro, he exited the premises while wearing the mask and carrying a revolver.
Pirro claims that Manson fired multiple shots at the dogwalker, missing the dog and the human.
Officers found a Glock 17 handgun with 22 rounds of 9mm ammunition in it when they arrested Manson. They also found a pistol magazine, a box of ammo, around 50 grams of fentanyl analogue, 13.88 grams of cocaine, and other drug paraphernalia, according to Pirro.
Between January and March 2024, Bassil sold up to 80 grams of fentanyl to undercover police agents on many occasions. He also sold additional prohibited substances to law enforcement, according to Pirro.
According to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, two milligrams of fentanyl can be deadly, depending on body size, tolerance, and previous use.
Pirro has been very busy in the last month.
Pirro’s office also announced that a Washington state man who livestreamed threats has been convicted on several charges.
The 39-year-old man from Pasco, Washington, was found guilty by a federal judge of illegally carrying two guns without a license, unlawfully possessing ammunition, and spreading false information and hoaxes.
Judge Carl J. Nichols of the U.S. District Court found Taylor Taranto guilty of all charges and will set up a sentencing hearing after deciding whether to grant the defense’s request to free Taranto until the sentencing hearing.
On June 28, 2023, Taranto streamed a live video of himself while driving his van near National Harbor, Maryland. He told the crowd that he had been “working on a detonator” and that he was going to drive a car bomb into the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
He was going after a neutron generator on the NIST grounds. Then he drove across the Wilson Bridge to Alexandria, Virginia. He stopped his van in the middle of the street and ran away from it to show his audience how he could make it look like there was an emergency.
Kansas Mayor Charged For Allegedly Voting As Noncitizen in Several Elections psss
Kansas Mayor Charged For Allegedly Voting As Noncitizen in Several Elections
Kansas leaders charged Joe Ceballos, the mayor of a small city in rural Kansas, with a crime on Wednesday. They say he voted in several elections even though he is not a U.S. citizen.
Scott Schwab, the Secretary of State for Kansas, and Kris Kobach, the Attorney General for Kansas, both Republicans who were elected, said they had filed six charges against Ceballos, a legal permanent resident from Mexico, for voting in elections in 2022, 2023, and 2024.
Ceballos used to be a city councilman and is now the mayor of Coldwater, Fox News noted.
States are obligated by law to have ways to regularly clean up their voter registration lists, which are also called voter rolls. Kobach, a longstanding immigration hawk and ally of President Donald Trump, said that the procedure includes using outside databases to look for noncitizens, but that it is not foolproof.
“Noncitizen voting is a real problem. It is not something that happens once in a decade. It is something that happens fairly frequently,” Kobach said, echoing the broader sentiments of Republicans who say voter fraud is a pressing issue.
According to the lawsuit that Fox News Digital looked at, Ceballos’ allegations, which include lying under oath and voting when he wasn’t qualified, could get him more than five years in prison.
Kobach, who used to be the Secretary of State for Kansas, has a lengthy history of calling for stricter voter ID legislation and tougher immigration enforcement.
He lost a high-profile federal case in 2018 after trying to enforce a state rule that said voters had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when they registered to vote.
A court said it went beyond what was needed to prove citizenship, which is against federal election laws.
The court concluded at the time that the state law could not “be justified by the scant evidence of noncitizen voter fraud before and after the law was passed.”
Kobach didn’t say how state officials found out that the mayor and former city councilman are supposedly not a citizens, but he did say that investigators have “unassailable evidence” against Ceballos.
Kobach argued that city officials, such as mayors, must also be U.S. citizens. The attorney general said this was “worth noting” but not a crime. On Election Day, Ceballos was on the ballot for re-election, but the official results have not yet been confirmed.
“In large part, our system right now is based on trust, trust that when the person signs the registration or signs the poll books saying that he is a qualified elector or that he is a United States citizen, that the person is telling the truth,” Kobach said. “In this case, we allege that Mr. Ceballos violated that trust.”
Kobach and Schwab claimed they have started using a federal government database that enables them to verify voter rolls against immigration information. They think this will help them find more voting irregularities.
Ceballos will be in court for the first time on December 3.
This comes amid the federal government shutdown, which is approaching almost 40 days
The Democratic House and Senate leaders sent a letter to President Trump on Wednesday morning, a day after elections nationwide saw their party pick up gains in blue regions, demanding “bipartisan” talks to reopen the government.
The letter comes after most Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against a GOP-led spending bill to reopen the government.
Meanwhile, a new report suggests that key elements of a potential deal to end the federal government shutdown are beginning to take shape — though it remains uncertain when, or even if, all sides will reach an agreement.
According to Axios, the proposed “three-legged” plan includes three main components: a Senate vote on Affordable Care Act tax credits, a short-term continuing resolution to give negotiators more time to finalize a full-year budget for the fiscal year that began October 1, and a separate vote to fund military construction, the legislative branch, and agriculture programs.
Before Senate Democrats forced the government into a shutdown, the House had already passed a bill to keep it funded through November 21.
If the Senate now strikes a deal to reopen the government, the House will have to return to session and approve the measure, extending the funding deadline in the process.
Senator John Kennedy Drops Bomb on Chuck Schumer: “He’ll Fold Like a Cheap Tent”
Senator John Kennedy is once again cutting through Washington’s theatrics with brutal honesty.
The Louisiana Republican accused Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of staging political drama instead of doing his job to reopen the government.
In an interview with Fox Business host Larry Kudlow, Kennedy described the shutdown as a “political performance,” not a genuine policy disagreement.
He said Schumer is more concerned with keeping up appearances for his party’s radical wing than with serving the American people.
“It will end eventually,” Kennedy said, “when Senator Schumer goes to six or eight of his members and Democrats and says, ‘Do me a favor. Vote to open it back up. I may have to criticize you. I’m not going to vote with you, but I need a way out of this.’”
Kennedy made clear that Schumer’s priority isn’t compromise — it’s saving face.
“He’s gonna tell ‘em, ‘Now, look, I gotta vote no. And I gotta dogcuss you a little bit. We gotta have some play acting and make this look good. And then we come out of the shutdown,’” Kennedy said, describing how Schumer will secretly orchestrate the outcome he publicly opposes.
According to Kennedy, the government shutdown is less about real disagreements and more about political optics. Schumer, he said, is acting out a script to appease the far-left members of his caucus — what Kennedy calls the “moon wing” of the Democratic Party.
“I know him. Well, this shutdown is not about policy. It’s about politics,” Kennedy said.
“And Senator Schumer, this is what’s going on. He is trying to get the moon wing, the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, which is in control, to love him. And they will never love him.”
That blunt assessment paints a damning picture of the Democratic leadership. Schumer, Kennedy argues, is beholden to extremists who refuse to compromise, even at the expense of the country.
The Louisiana senator said Schumer’s strategy is simple: keep the government closed until Republicans and President Trump agree to hand over billions in new spending — spending that Democrats will control. “What he’s saying,” Kennedy explained, “is we’re going to keep government shut down until you Republicans and President Trump give the Democrats $1.5 trillion, and they’re going to tell us how to spend it.”
Kennedy ridiculed the idea that Schumer is fighting for “the people.” In his view, Schumer is fighting for power, money, and media attention — and the shutdown is just another stage for him to perform on.
“He’s boning if it looks contrived,” Kennedy warned. “He can’t look like he’s having a mutiny.” That’s why, Kennedy says, Schumer must choreograph his next steps carefully, pretending to fight while quietly coordinating votes behind the scenes.
Kennedy’s description of this “play acting” matches what many Americans have long suspected: that the partisan battles on the Senate floor are largely theater designed to manipulate the public.
Schumer, Kennedy said, is obsessed with being seen as strong by the socialist faction of his party — even though that same faction will never accept him. “He’d be better off doing what he did back in March and just calling it like he saw it and keeping government open,” Kennedy added.
The senator’s comments came after Schumer led most Democrats in voting down the Republicans’ spending bill earlier in the week, prolonging the shutdown. Kennedy said that move was pure political posturing.
