I’d like to hear the Speaker and her direct reports accountable testify under oath and explain it. In this video, it actually looks like they had the manpower to keep them out. Compared to other areas and outside, it looks more calm and easier to turn them away.
Doesn't look like they had the man power to me. There were tons of people on the other side of that door and breaches going on all over the Capitol. What is the point of holding there when people are spilling in all over the building? Also you didn't even try to explain how you think this one video fits into the context of all the hundreds of video we have from that day. Probably because you're starting to realize how stupid it would sound.
14000 hours of video to be exact. How much of that video fits into “context”? Let’s see it all so we can all have some insight into context and not just leave that term to the Democrats and queen Nan.
You haven't seen a good portion of it yourself? I was assuming you had. Or are just pretending you're ignorant? I've already told you how that one video fits into context of the rest from my point of view, when you find the time to sus through the footage yourself (find your balls) come share what it looks like from yours.
Depends on the situation. If people are flooding in other parts of the building and units in those parts are retreating they could find themselves cut off and surrounded by rioters.
The Capitol Police should have been provided more backup and assistance. That same National Guard that was offered was turned down to optics in advance of the e e t and deployed and kept in place for optics days after the event.
Where's your proof?
www.npr.org
Did you not bother to read your own story?Ex-Capitol Police Chief Says Requests For National Guard Denied 6 Times In Riots
Steven Sund contradicts reports that help was not requested, saying security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed calls for assistance ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol.
These people were asked to resign. Typical Washington Fall Guys. I don’t believe it was they who were concerned with optics over threat.
So you believe a conspiracy for which you have no evidence of. Got it. Cool story bro.
Not necessarily. I am questioning why so many were asked to resign, accusing those of being concerned about optics and security simultaneously and Pelosi refusing to testify.
Pelosi refusing to testify about what? Your conspiracy theory? Why would she? Are the officers who resigned alleging someone forced them to deny a National Guard presence?
She should testify to bring more credibility to the Committee mission. It is her show, her initiative. You are conflating conspiracy with questioning and validation.
Who's asked her to and would you ever accept anything she said? You already believe an insane conspiracy theory about her without any evidence whatsoever.
The pudding is the proof
I never said I believed any conspiracy. I say the event and post event process and investigation raise questions. As for Pelosi, I can’t say how much or how little I would believe because she hasn’t testified under oath. Again, it’s her show and I’ve stated that she would add more credibility to the process if she took the stand.
You are scared, *****.Ooo. We're so scared of your conspiracy theories. I'm sure that's the smoking gun all the convicted Cucks at the Capitol were waiting for.
Why Pelosi specifically? Why have you fixated on her?
Retard^^^^More like you clowns think one video taken out of context out of hundreds from that day, are going to exonerate any of the Cucks at the Capitol. It won't.
