Steve Sund interview that shows the TRUTH about Jan 6

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: bluesman023

Not plain and simple.
She was fully aware of her decision and I'm sure she was aware of the consequences.
If not that's on her.
She has a history of crap and it showed and got her removed from society.

it's funny, her husband said the same thing, but not nearly at heartless.

originally posted by: Urlying
a reply to: network dude

Tucker Carlson LMAO

Yeah, enough said. I wonder if Sund will be pushing his new book, which by the way is in front of him on the table with Tucker in the vid above? This is all very strange with Sund because they won't air the original interview and had to have Sund come back for another interview. Sund blames Intel and the higher ups blame the people in charge - so one-sided interviews won't reveal the truth here.

a reply to: network dude

He is a nice person I'm sure.
She on the other hand was a mentally disabled individual that made a stupid decision that cost her her life.
She is not a martyr by any stretch of the imagination.
Her character is being paraded around for something that maybe she would not approve of.
Let that sink in.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Urlying
a reply to: network dude

Tucker Carlson LMAO

Yeah, enough said. I wonder if Sund will be pushing his new book, which by the way is in front of him on the table with Tucker in the vid above? This is all very strange with Sund because they won't air the original interview and had to have Sund come back for another interview. Sund blames Intel and the higher ups blame the people in charge - so one-sided interviews won't reveal the truth here.

so what facts that he stated can you dispute? Please list them in whichever order you feel most comfortable using.

originally posted by: Allaroundya4k
a reply to: network dude

He is a nice person I'm sure.
She on the other hand was a mentally disabled individual that made a stupid decision that cost her her life.
She is not a martyr by any stretch of the imagination.
Her character is being paraded around for something that maybe she would not approve of.
Let that sink in.

LOL, forgive me if I don't rethink my entire philosophy based on your post. She was just another person who had enough moxy to show up to something she felt strongly about. I believe she was a good person, and didn't deserve to be shot anymore than anyone else there did. Had she brandished a weapon, I'd feel differently, but I don't. You follow whatever form of justice you believe in. I'll stick with the official version.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Urlying
a reply to: network dude

Tucker Carlson LMAO

Yeah, enough said. I wonder if Sund will be pushing his new book, which by the way is in front of him on the table with Tucker in the vid above? This is all very strange with Sund because they won't air the original interview and had to have Sund come back for another interview. Sund blames Intel and the higher ups blame the people in charge - so one-sided interviews won't reveal the truth here.

so what facts that he stated can you dispute? Please list them in whichever order you feel most comfortable using.

Right now I'm reading Sund's testimony and so far it looks like the heirarchial operational staff at the Capitol building, if they did their strategizing and jobs correctly, could have themselves called in the National Guard.

Question:
1 And putting January 6th aside as a specific date for my next question and just
2 asking more generally from a process standpoint, if, for example, the Capitol Police want
3 to partner with or use the National Guard, is that a decision that typically would go
4 through the House Sergeant at Arms, the Capitol Police Board? How would that process
5 work, generally speaking?

Answer:
6 A Generally speaking, that is a -- oh, first of all, it's -- you know, it's a very
7 delicate process. It's a process where the National Guard is only rarely used to support
8 major events up on the Hill. And the process that would take would be a process where
9 it would be first taken to the two Sergeant at Arms to get their input, to get their
10 concurrence, before moving forward with what would be called a emergency declaration
11 that would require the three voting members to approve an emergency declaration for
12 me to call in Federal resources.

www.govinfo.gov...

I first need to ascertain who had the powers to do what. Then I'll continue watching the interview, then comment again.

ETA:

Seems like the usual problem, lack of communication.

We've had the opportunity to speak with Chief Gallagher and Chief Pittman about
11 that. And one of the things that they told us was, in hindsight, they did not feel like
12 there was a lot of internal coordination amongst all these moving parts, that sort
13 of -- people were sort of moving in different silos of excellence, you know, doing the best
14 they can, but there wasn't any sort of cross-discussion or sort of unified plan going into
15 the 6th. And I was just wondering what your reaction was to that.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'm impressed you are willing to look at facts over bias.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: quintessentone

I'm impressed you are willing to look at facts over bias.

I want to know the truth, it what I've been saying all along.

a reply to: quintessentone

time will tell.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: JinMI

I think this is a worthy addition to your list

Testimony of Col Earl Matthews, Senior Director for Defense Policy and Strategy

Matthews Wiki Page

Second verse, same as the first.

a reply to: network dude

I'm part way through Sund's transcript and 12 minutes into the video. Way too time consuming. What I see so far from the transcript is Sund received Intel from U.S. Capitol Police Chief Pittman and another top level Intel officer, Sean Gallagher as well as this warning at the end of the operations document for the Jan. 6th demonstrations:

“And so the overall analysis at the end of the document, it read this way,
22 quote, "This sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive
23 to become violent. Unlike previous post-election protests, the targets of the pro-Trump
24 supporters are not necessarily the counterprotesters, as they were previously, but rather
25 Congress itself is the target on the 6th," end quote.”

Sund's Reply:

“Any group that comes and marches to the Capitol or has events up here on the
12 Capitol that is -- whether it's immigration, healthcare reform, Supreme Court
13 nominations -- their reason for coming up here and protesting is to influence and sway
14 Congress. Their target for the protest is Congress. So that in itself doesn't send up a
15 bunch of red flags for me.”

Whereas Sund on the video is complaining that the FBI and other agencies did not send him Intel.

Also Puttman and Gallagher warned him of online social media interest in the Capitol's tunnel system.

Turning to exhibit 5. You sent to Vogananda Pittman on January -- excuse 5 me -- Sean Gallagher sent to Vogananda Pittman on January 5th, 2021, at 4:10 p.m., that 6 WashingtonTunnels.com had been receiving a dramatic uptick in new visits, that the site 7 TheDonald.Win had been active in promoting photos of the tunnel system, and that USCP 8 had identified numerous open-source comments by groups of their intention of finding 9 tunnel entrances and confronting or blocking Members of Congress, including setting up a 10 perimeter to block entry or escape. So this is January 5th.

Sund’s answer: (Page 61) Again, we had -- I had all the available resources I could deploy already
deployed. So, no, it did not change the response. I don't know -- but it did not change the response at that point, no.
-----------
Way too much to go through and I will need to review Pittman's and Gallagher's side of the story. Ugh this is like a full time job.
-----------------
Page 73 of transcript: So he did get Intel but the colossal failure is that it was dismissed.

Q: It's a fair translation. Yeah. Okay. Well, I think we're going to get into the operational planning 21 here shortly, but just wanted to make sure. It sounds like it's not a failure of getting the 22 intel; it's more of a failure of what was done with the intel generally?

A (Sund): That's my impression.

More odd behaviour by Sund prior to Jan. 6th:

Sund asks for the National Guard, after larger than expected crowd sizes are realized by Sund. He does not mention any of the tunnel or storming Intel nor the large crowd size expected and he is not given a direct 'no' but he assumes it is a 'no' and just drops the request. See pages 126 and 127 of transcript.

www.govinfo.gov...

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: network dude

I question the "140 officers assaulted", but be that as it may...

As usual, the conservative media and politicians got a late start, but they need to keep contradicting the narrative loudly and incessantly.

Lovely chart! But most damage was caused by ANTIFA. Trump wanted them labeled as a terrorist organization, but his Attorney General (William Barr) said he couldn't find the ANTIFA organization.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: network dude

His interview with the Chief of the Capitol Police at the time was much more informative in my opinion.

Ummm... Steven Sund was the Chief of Capital Police at the time (the time leading up to 1/6 and that day)...

Tucker interviewed him twice - once while he was with Fox News, which never aired, and since it never aired, he decided to interview him again.

It is the same interview.

I had a brain fart.

I thought the OP was posting the interview with Representative Clay Higgins about J6 that he released the other day.

Thanks for catching that. My bad.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: tanstaafl
I had a brain fart.

I thought the OP was posting the interview with Representative Clay Higgins about J6 that he released the other day.

Thanks for catching that. My bad.