by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023
(Aug. 13, 2023) — Recently, Tucker Carlson scored an interview with Steven Sund, former Chief of the U.S. Capitol Police. If you do nothing else today, watch the entire 55-minute interview, as it will help you understand the title of this post.
Stated otherwise, then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi – in any administration other than one now headed up by Brandon and his corrupt attorney general – could have faced the potential for prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 2101. That statute criminalizes aiding and abetting the instigation of or participation in a riot, which in many respects the chaos of Jan. 6, 2021 was. Peaceful protests, even vigorous and animated ones, are one thing; breaking windows to gain access to buildings is another.
Much like the mayor of a city with “stand down” authority over its police officers, Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, had ultimate “stand down” authority over Chief Sund’s efforts to protect the Capitol and members of Congress on that day, at least insofar as the House premises of the Capitol were concerned.
While some leftist “fact-checker” pundits argue…, correctly…, that general security at the Capitol is a joint obligation of the respective sergeants-at-arms of the Senate and the House – with separate control over the premises of the Senate reposed in the Senate Majority Leader (then, Sen. Mitch McConnell) and control over the premises of the House lodged in the Speaker of the House (then, Rep. Nancy Pelosi) – since the joint session of Congress to open and “count” the electoral votes from the 2020 election was held in the chamber of the House, and not the Senate, it is clear that Pelosi had the ultimate authority over security – or its deficit – on the House side of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Ironically, as the joint session began, Pelosi had apparently absented herself from the proceeding. The record is unclear as to why, precisely, she did that, particularly on such an eventful day as formally “electing” Brandon and his Salad Queen. Extremely odd…, and as yet not fully explained. And according to Sund, the “January 6 Commission” formed to “get to the bottom of the Jan. 6 events” was forbidden to pose any questions to Pelosi. Really? Inquiring minds (thereby eliminating Democrats) may be tempted to ask: why?
So where was Pelosi in the hours and minutes leading up to the chaotic afternoon? Was she already in hiding, aware that “something ugly” was approaching…, and maybe eating some Jeni’s ice cream from a secret freezer stash in a House basement “safe room?”
The first order of business at the beginning of the joint session was Pelosi’s announcement of her appointment of a substitute “Speaker pro tempore” to act in her absence. The appointment was made by her letter dated Jan. 6, 2021 (replicated at p. H75 of the Congressional Record for that day), communicated to the House and delivered by the substitute Speaker pro tempore.
And who, you might ask, did Pelosi appoint to preside instead of her…, while she was…, otherwise occupied…, somewhere else…? That’s right, Virginia: disgraced California Representative Eric (“Fang-Fang…, who’s-Fang-Fang?”) Swalwell. Specifically, the Congressional Record for that day first states, at p. H75: “The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following communication from the Speaker: WASHINGTON, DC, January 6, 2021. ‘I hereby appoint the Honorable ERIC SWALWELL to act as Speaker pro tempore on this day.’ NANCY PELOSI, Speaker of the House of Representatives.” Interesting…, no? How typically Pelosi…, and quintessentially Democrat.
When the riot began, Swalwell recessed the joint session at 2:29 PM D.C. time, and when the session reconvened at 9:02 PM that evening (p. H85), it was at the call of Pelosi, who had somehow completed whatever other activities had earlier occupied her attention to reclaim her position as Speaker. The joint session then returned to its work, finally declaring Brandon to be the nation’s 46th president in the wee morning hours of Jan. 7, 2021.
If Pelosi knew on the morning of Jan. 6, 2021 of the impending chaos, but did nothing to attempt averting it, why is that not aiding and abetting the commission of the riot? Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2) provides: “(a) [w]hoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal…,” and “(b) [w]hoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.” If scores of the “rioters” still languish in jail…, why is not Pelosi a someone’s cellmate?
As detailed by Chief Sund in the Carlson interview – and elaborated upon in Sund’s book, “Courage Under Fire: Under Siege and Outnumbered 58 to 1 on January 6”, – despite repeated warnings that a riot could take place at the Capitol, communicated to Pelosi and her immediate aides in the days, hours and ultimately, 71 minutes immediately leading up to and during the chaos that unfolded, the sound from Pelosi and her apparatchiks “authorizing” aggressive countermeasures (National Guard troops) resembled the insect that she actually is: crickets. As in nothing; zero; no acknowledgment of a looming problem.
The argument could be made that, again, if Pelosi actually knew – or should have known, based on prior “intelligence” given to her or her aides – that a riot was in the making, unless she was blind, she may have seen a perfect opportunity forming to “never let a crisis go to waste” – as years earlier Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff had advised – culminating in the “aiding and abetting” of the chaos that ensued.
A failure to act to avoid or prevent violence when there is a clear duty to act can be the functional equivalent of aiding and abetting the violence…, but that, of course, would undercut or even eliminate the opportunity to take advantage of a crisis. Besides, if a “non-Orange Man” administration was about to be installed, what is the downside of risking the riot for political gain or being held accountable thereafter?
Moreover, and as bearing upon President Trump’s words at the rally on the Mall preceding the crowd’s march to the Capitol, 18 U.S.C. § 2102 defines the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot” … “shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.” (Emphasis added)
Against this factual backdrop, once more: where was Nancy Pelosi in the immediate lead-up to the riot? Eating ice cream, perhaps? If so, was the flavor “neverletacrisisgotowaste?” And finally, who is more culpable for the events of Jan. 6: President Trump or Nancy Pelosi?