Connect with us

Government Accountability

Pelosi’s Top Security Aides Got Warning About Capitol Breach Night Before Jan. 6 Riot, Memos Show

Published

on

Two top House security aides under then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi received stark warnings from police the night before the January 6 riots, indicating that protesters might try to breach the U.S. Capitol through its tunnel systems and block lawmakers from voting to certify Joe Biden’s presidential election win. This information comes from newly obtained memos and text messages.

The documents obtained by Just the News also confirm that Pelosi’s team played a role in the botched security planning for that fateful day.

“We have identified numerous open source comments indicating groups’ intentions of finding the tunnel entrances and confronting/blocking the MOCs (Members of Congress),” Capitol Police Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher wrote in an email to Deputy House Sergeant at Arms Tim Blodgett at 8:55 p.m. on January 5, 2021. This email was forwarded overnight to Blodgett’s boss, then-Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving.

A second warning was sent later that evening about possible threats against Supreme Court justices. The sergeant-at-arms office scheduled a briefing for Pelosi’s then-chief of staff Terri McCullough the next morning, hours before the breach occurred, according to the messages obtained by House Administration Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Barry Loudermilk.

Congressional investigators believe the texts and emails may explain why Pelosi, in a recently surfaced video shot by her daughter as they were fleeing the Capitol on January 6, claimed responsibility for security failures that day despite her public denials.

“We have responsibility, Terri,” Pelosi is heard saying on the videotape to McCullough. “We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have. … I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more.”

Loudermilk told Just the News that his committee plans to question Pelosi’s staff about what was meant on the videotape and how they reacted to the emailed warnings from Capitol Police.

“I think it was clear at that moment. She understood. They messed up. She or her staff are the ones who denied the request by Chief (Steven) Sund for the National Guard,” he told the “Just the News, No Noise” television show.

“There’s a lot of information that people on Pelosi’s staff I think need to answer, some questions. So we’re wrapping up some other areas while we’re still going down this path,” Loudermilk added.

The U.S. Capitol Police did not respond to a request for comment from Just the News. Former Sergeant at Arms Irving could not be reached for comment.

Pelosi and House Democrats have repeatedly denied blame for not accepting an offer from then-President Donald Trump’s administration to have National Guard pre-posted at the Capitol to augment police security, suggesting that security decisions were left to the sergeant of arms and Capitol Police. Pelosi’s staff doubled down on those claims in a statement to Just the News.

“Numerous independent fact-checkers have confirmed again and again that Pelosi did not plan her own assassination on January 6th. The Speaker of the House is not in charge of the security of the Capitol Complex – on January 6th or any other day of the week,” a spokesperson for Nancy Pelosi told Just the News.

However, the new emails, text messages, and documents obtained by Just the News show that in the days leading up to January 6, 2021, Pelosi’s office was involved in Capitol security planning, receiving requests for edits and feedback and being kept informed of the security situation by Irving.

That pattern continued until the day of the Capitol riot. A series of text messages show that Pelosi’s chief of staff, McCullough, was in contact with Irving for updates in the days leading up to and on the morning of January 6. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Sergeant at Arms operates “under the direction of the Speaker” to maintain order and decorum in the House. He is also responsible for Capitol security and the safety of members alongside his Senate counterpart.

“Paul – when is a good time to talk about this afternoon and the floor tomorrow?” McCullough asked in one email.

“I need a few minutes. How about after 6:15 pm this evening, or of course anytime tomorrow morning,” Irving replied.

The new communications were not referenced in the Democrat-led January 6 Select Committee’s report on the events leading up to, during, and after the Capitol breach. A Capitol Police Inspector General flash report in the aftermath discusses the failure for intelligence to be widely disseminated but does not provide any specifics—though much of this section of the report is redacted.

The lone references to any communications with Pelosi’s staff came in a 2022 report issued by Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind. Loudermilk’s staff then formally obtained the communications from Capitol Police.

The emails show that McCullough was active in providing feedback from the Speaker’s office on January 6 security plans. Two days before the Joint Session of Congress to certify the Electoral College votes, McCullough received an email from Irving’s office forwarding a letter it planned to send to all House members. The communication shows that Pelosi’s office had the opportunity to make edits to the information and provide suggestions about the content of the letter.

“Terri / Jamie — Please see the attached DRAFT Dear Colleague regarding security information for January 6 Joint Session. Please let us know if you have any edits, comments or concerns,” Kathleen Joyce from the Sergeant at Arms office wrote. The records show that McCullough responded with suggestions, which were incorporated in the final letter draft.

That “dear colleague” letter was sent out to all members and their staff on the same day, with the suggested edits from Pelosi’s office included.

The security preparations for the certification seemed to be proceeding smoothly until the night of January 5 when the Capitol Police began forwarding intelligence warnings to Irving raising concerns about safety and interruptions of the count.

At 8:55 PM on January 5, the day before the riot, Deputy Chief Sean Gallagher emailed Sergeant at Arms officials to warn them of an “Interest in Tunnels Leading to the US Capitol.” This email was forwarded to Irving at 1:59 AM on January 6 by his deputy Blodgett.

“Meant to send this earlier today, but got tied up, we are running this out, but there is a historical website called WashingtonTunnels.com that has a bunch of information, to include maps on our Capitol system tunnels. The owner of the website submitted an online tip to the FBI National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) stating that he noticed a significant uptick in new visitors to his website,” Gallagher wrote.

“We have identified numerous open source comments indicating groups intentions of finding the tunnel entrances and confronting/blocking the MOCs. In addition, they specifically discuss attempting to get into the LOC to go to the basement and use the LOC tunnel to get to the Capitol,” he added. The LOC refers to the Library of Congress, through which access to the Capitol can be had.

He also described a “huge uptick with reporting via open source” of a group’s plan to try and form a perimeter around the Capitol to prevent members of Congress from reaching the building. Gallagher concluded his email by informing the staff that the department would continue to monitor the intelligence.

Just the News previously reported that a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Kelly Fado, received a similar email from Gallagher pointing to the potential danger, though this information was not distributed to the then-Chief of the Capitol Police nor any of the frontline officers tasked with protecting the Capitol that day.

At 3:30 AM on January 6, the deputy sergeant at arms, Blodgett, forwarded a separate warning to Irving, according to the emails, this time about chatter online that indicated a specific group called the Red State Secession was collecting addresses for Supreme Court Justices. Though no members of Congress were mentioned, the Capitol Police warned that they were monitoring the group.

“Wanted to bring to your awareness, there is a website called Red State Secession that has posted an article requesting that users submit addresses of residences and offices of politicians/judges/lobbyist,” Gallagher wrote.

“It is possible that the group may have similar action plans for Members of Congress, we have added this site to our daily monitoring for mention/listing of any MOC,” he added.

Text messages show that Irving was in contact with Pelosi’s chief of staff the following morning for a briefing, making it likely that she—and Pelosi’s office—was made aware of the potential threats.

“Good morning Paul. Let me know a good time to connect this morning,” McCullough said in a text message to Irving.

Irving replied that he would get back with her “shortly.”

In June, new footage of Pelosi on January 6 was released by the House Administration Subcommittee on Oversight that showed the then-Speaker believed she had at least some responsibility for what had just happened, Just the News reported. The footage was recorded by Pelosi’s daughter Alexandra, who helped HBO shoot a documentary about the January 6 riot.

“We have responsibility, Terri,” Pelosi exclaimed to her chief of staff, McCullough, at the beginning of the short video. “We did not have any accountability for what was going on there, and we should have,” Pelosi said. “This is ridiculous.”

“You’re going to ask me — in the middle of the thing when they’ve already breached the inaugural stuff — ‘should we call the Capitol Police, I mean the National Guard?’” she added. “Why weren’t the National Guard there to begin with?”

“They thought that they had sufficient…resources” her chief of staff, McCullough, replied as the Speaker’s SUV raced through an underground parking garage.

“No, that’s not a question of how they had… they don’t know. They clearly didn’t know. And I take responsibility for not having them just prepare for more

SOURCE: JUST THE NEWS

Biden Administration

U.S. Government Has Sent $239 Million to Taliban Since 2021 Due to State Dept’s Vetting Failures, Report Reveals

Published

on

The U.S. government has inadvertently sent at least $239 million to the Taliban in development assistance since 2021, according to a new report. The oversight occurred because the State Department failed to properly vet award recipients.

Less than a year after it was reported that the Taliban established fake nonprofits to siphon millions of dollars in U.S. aid to Afghanistan, a new investigation by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) reveals that the terrorist group has received hundreds of millions in development assistance due to inadequate vetting by the State Department. Since the 2021 U.S. military withdrawal, at least $239 million have likely filled the Taliban’s coffers.

The State Department’s divisions known as Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) and International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) disbursed the funds to implement development projects aimed at supporting American foreign policy and national security goals in Afghanistan.

Investigators found that the State Department failed to comply with its own counterterrorism partner vetting requirements before awarding at least 29 grants to various local entities. The agency has a system in place to identify whether prospective awardees have a record of ethical business practices and is supposed to conduct risk assessments to determine if programming funds may benefit terrorists or terrorist-affiliates before distributing American taxpayer dollars. However, in the more than two dozen cases examined, the agency neglected these procedures and failed to maintain proper records.

“Because DRL and INL could not demonstrate their compliance with State’s partner vetting requirements, there is an increased risk that terrorist and terrorist-affiliated individuals and entities may have illegally benefited from State spending in Afghanistan,” the SIGAR report states. “As State continues to spend U.S. taxpayer funds on programs intended to benefit the Afghan people, it is critical that State knows who is actually benefiting from this assistance in order to prevent the aid from being diverted to the Taliban or other sanctioned parties, and to enable policymakers and other oversight authorities to better scrutinize the risks posed by State’s spending.”

The watchdog identified issues with 29 awards distributed by DRL and INL. For instance, DRL failed to properly screen the recipients of seven awards totaling about $12 million. INL did not provide any supporting documentation for 19 of its 22 awards totaling about $295 million, making it impossible to determine if they complied with vetting requirements. The State Department acknowledged that not all its bureaus have complied with document retention requirements, complicating the assessment of the magnitude of its transgressions. INL cited “employee turnover and the dissolution of the Afghanistan-Pakistan office” as reasons for not retaining records.

Given the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021, SIGAR emphasized the importance of U.S. government activities adhering to laws, regulations, and policies intended to prevent transactions with terrorists.

Besides establishing fraudulent non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to loot significant portions of the $3 billion in humanitarian aid the U.S. has provided Afghanistan since the Biden administration’s abrupt military withdrawal, the Taliban has also accrued millions by charging taxes, permit fees, and import duties. This money has flowed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), a State Department arm known for its corruption, which received $63.1 billion for foreign assistance and diplomatic engagement this year. Additionally, the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), the government’s international broadcasting service, also disbursed funds.

The United Nations has received $1.6 billion in U.S. funding for Afghanistan, and a significant percentage of that money likely went to the Taliban, according to a federal audit. The U.S. government does not require the UN to report on taxes, fees, or duties incurred on American funds for activities in Afghanistan, further complicating accountability.

SOURCE: SIGAR REPORT

Continue Reading

Government Accountability

Secret Service Rejects FOIA Requests of Records on Trump Assassination Attempt

Published

on

The Secret Service has denied multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests seeking records related to the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The attack occurred during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where 20-year-old Thomas Crooks managed to evade security, climb onto a roof, and fire eight shots at the former president.

President Trump narrowly escaped serious injury when a bullet grazed his ear after he turned his head to read a chart on illegal immigration. The incident raised significant concerns about security measures at the event.

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch filed three FOIA requests shortly after the incident, seeking emails, videos, and advance security assessments related to the attempt on Trump’s life. The Secret Service, however, refused to release any documents, citing Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(B)(7)(A), which exempts records that could potentially interfere with enforcement proceedings.

Judicial Watch, known for its legal efforts to obtain government transparency, expressed frustration with the Secret Service’s refusal to provide the requested records. The organization’s president, Tom Fitton, criticized the agency for what he described as a “cover-up,” accusing it of failing to protect the former president and hiding information from the public.

“The Biden Secret Service is in cover-up mode on its inexcusable and epic failure to protect former President Trump and other innocents,” Fitton said. “For Secret Service leaders to promise transparency to Congress while hiding every possible FOIA record from the American people is yet another indictment of this corrupt and failing agency.”

Judicial Watch has indicated that it is preparing for litigation to compel the release of the documents.

The Secret Service’s decision to withhold records has only fueled controversy surrounding the assassination attempt and the agency’s handling of the situation, further igniting conspiracy theories and raising questions about transparency.

SOURCE: JUDICIAL WATCH

Continue Reading

Government Accountability

U.S. Army Wasted $11 Million on Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson Marketing Deal That Returned No New Recruits

Published

on

The U.S. Army is grappling with the fallout from an $11 million marketing deal with the United Football League (UFL) and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson that failed to yield any new recruits, according to internal documents obtained by Military.com.

The Army had hoped that the high-profile partnership with Johnson, a global superstar and UFL owner, would boost recruitment numbers. However, the deal, which was part of an effort to modernize the Army’s marketing approach, appears to have had no positive impact on enlistments. In fact, internal reviews suggest the deal may have negatively affected recruitment efforts.

The marketing deal, which was finalized earlier this year, included significant Army branding during UFL games and a commitment from Johnson to act as a brand ambassador. This included an agreement that Johnson would make several social media posts promoting the Army. Despite his massive social media following, Johnson only fulfilled two out of the five promised posts, leaving the Army dissatisfied and seeking to recoup $6 million from the UFL.

The UFL’s inaugural season, which ran from March through June, failed to attract significant viewership, further diminishing the potential impact of the marketing deal. An internal review revealed a projected loss of 38 enlistments as a result of the partnership. The Army’s internal documents show that the resources spent on the UFL were deemed a net negative for recruiting efforts.

From the outset, some Army officials expressed skepticism about the partnership. Concerns were raised about the financial burden and low viewership of the UFL. Despite these warnings, the deal was pushed through by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George. Internal emails revealed that senior staff were apprehensive about the effectiveness of the partnership.

A senior Army marketing official likened the deal to the National Guard’s $88 million NASCAR sponsorship, which also failed to generate new recruits. The internal review pointed out “inexperienced” UFL staff and numerous communication breakdowns, leading to a lack of confidence in future deals with the UFL.

The Army’s recruiting struggles are compounded by its difficulty in adapting to modern marketing trends. Much of its efforts remain focused on traditional media, such as cable TV and sports broadcasts, which are increasingly irrelevant to Gen Z. According to a 2022 Morning Consult poll, 33% of Gen Zers do not watch live sports, compared to 22% of Millennials.

Despite these challenges, the Army is barred from advertising on popular Gen Z platforms like TikTok due to security concerns over the platform’s Chinese parent company.

Laura DeFrancisco, a spokesperson for the Army’s marketing arm, acknowledged that some of the materials reviewed by Military.com were taken out of context but declined to provide specifics or grant interview requests. The UFL and Johnson’s publicist did not respond to requests for comment.

Col. Dave Butler, a spokesperson for Gen. George, expressed disappointment over the failed partnership, stating, “In terms of The Rock, it’s unfortunate he was pulled away at a time when we expected him to be present with us to create content for his social media channels. But we’re working with the UFL to rebalance the contract. The Rock remains a good partner to the Army.”

The Army is now seeking to mitigate the financial and reputational damage from the failed marketing deal as it continues to navigate the complexities of modern recruitment in a rapidly changing media landscape.

SOURCE: MILITARY.COM

Continue Reading

Trending