Former Capitol Police Chief Delivers Devastating Public Rebuke to Pelosi Over January
Former Capitol Police Chief Delivers Devastating Public Rebuke to Pelosi Over January
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.
May you like
SENATE SHOWDOWN ERUPTS – ADAM SCHIFF’S “GRAND STRATEGY” TO vCORNER KENNEDY BACKFIRES IN 47 SECONDS: “You Fooled Them Once – Neer Again, Congressman!”
TARGETED HELPLESS AMERICAN SAILORS? GOP Leaders Vow ‘VIGOROUS OVERSIGHT’ After Defense Secretary’s ‘Fake News’ Smear!
Obama Says Democrats Should Welcome Socialists To Strengthen Party’s Future
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.
Blackberries, Billionaire Bucks
Blackberries, Billionaire Bucks: The $40 Million Illegal Shipment That Landed a Career Criminal Back in Jail The sweet smell of fruit disguised a bitter, multi-million dollar secret. What started as a regular shipment of blackberries turned into one of the largest seizures of illegal substances this year. Authorities have indicted a previously convicted Mexican illegal immigrant—a man who already did hard time for 17 years on trafficking forbidden goods and a gun charge—after intercepting a mind-blowing cache. Hidden in plain sight, investigators pulled out an astonishing 1,600 pounds of highly restricted goods, with an estimated street value in the tens of millions of dollars. This incredible bust reveals the brazen lengths smugglers go to. See the shocking photos and learn how this ex-con was finally caught in the act. The details are a must-read.
The case was part of Trump’s Homeland Security Task Force initiative targeting drug trafficking operations
An illegal immigrant from Mexico who previously served nearly two decades in federal prison, was indicted Tuesday after allegedly conspiring to move tens of millions of dollars in methamphetamine in the Atlanta area, leading authorities to seize nearly 1,600 pounds of the stimulant drug hidden in blackberry shipments.
Gerardo Solorio-Alvarado, 44, of Mexico, was charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine.
He previously served 17 years in prison after being convicted of felony possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a gun in a drug trafficking crime.
Gerardo Solorio-Alvarado, 44, of Mexico, is charged with conspiracy and possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. (FOX 5 Atlanta)
Officials announced the arrests Wednesday in Georgia, showing off a massive amount of methamphetamine. (@FBIAtlanta via X)
His alleged accomplice, Nelson Enrique Sorto, 36, of Atlanta, was charged with possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine. He is currently on probation after being convicted in 2024 of felony possession of methamphetamine.
While staking out a cold storage warehouse in Fulton County on Nov. 20, federal agents and Hall County sheriff’s deputies saw three refrigerated box trucks parked outside.
They followed one of the trucks to a gas station in Gainesville and watched as Solorio-Alvarado picked up the driver and left the abandoned box truck at the gas station, according to officials.
The drugs were allegedly found in box trucks transporting blackberries, according to officials. (@FBIAtlanta via X)
After a K-9 alerted officers to the odor of narcotics, agents searched the truck and recovered about 661 pounds of methamphetamine hidden among pallets of blackberries.
Solorio-Alvarado was later arrested while trying to escape out of the back of his Gainesville home, according to authorities. Inside the house, deputies found keys to the abandoned truck.
At the same time, another team of agents followed a second box truck as it traveled in tandem with an SUV, allegedly driven by Sorto, to a home in southeast Atlanta.
The two men arrested were previously convicted of drug-related offenses, according to authorities. (@FBIAtlanta via X)
Shortly after midnight, Sorto left in the SUV with two passengers, and Georgia State Patrol troopers stopped them, finding two guns and several containers of blackberries in the SUV, officials said.
During a subsequent search of the box truck parked outside the Atlanta home, Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents, assisted by the FBI, recovered about 924 pounds of methamphetamine concealed in pallets of blackberries.
Combined, the two seizures amounted to 1,585 pounds of methamphetamine.
Officials said the large amount of meth was worth tens of millions of dollars. (@FBIAtlanta via X)
During a news conference Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg said the two seizures amounted to 1,585 pounds of methamphetamine, worth tens of millions of dollars.
“Solorio-Alvarado was convicted in federal court for drug trafficking and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and he served nearly two decades in federal prison for those offenses. He was then, and he remains, an illegal alien, unlawfully present in the United States,” Hertzberg said.
“We’ve seen the cartels operate this way before. … We have seen massive methamphetamine seizures of drugs that were smuggled in with cucumbers, celery or jalapeño peppers. And now … blackberries.”
Both men remain in state custody but will be transferred to the U.S. Marshals Service.
After appearing in federal court, Hertzberg said his office will move for them to be held without bail until their cases have been resolved.
Solorio-Alvarado faces at least 15 years in prison because of his criminal history, and Sorto faces at least 10 years in prison. The maximum sentences are life in prison without parole.
The prosecutions are also part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF) initiative established by President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
