Senator Strikes a Nerve: Hints Pelosi ‘Knows’ Something About How the January 6th Capitol Riot Really Started

Written by Kyle Becker
Advertisements

What did Pelosi know and when did she know it?

Senator Ron Johnson recently struck a nerve with his commentary about Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats’ “suspicious” Trump impeachment vendetta.

“I’ve always believed the Russian hoax was a diversionary operation from the corruption that was occurring certainly within the FBI and potentially some of our intelligence agencies,” the Wisconsin senator said in an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo.

“You have to kind of ask the question, what is this impeachment all about?” he asked. “We now know that 45 Republican senators believe it’s unconstitutional.”

Senator Johnson is referring to the Senate vote to dismiss the impeachment charges that former President Trump “incited and insurrection.” Only five Republican senators voted to continue with a trial to convict Donald Trump, who is now a private citizen and could not have “incited” a pre-planned attack on the capitol building.

Advertisements

“Is this another diversionary operation?” Johnson went on. “Is this meant to deflect away from potentially what the Speaker knew and when she knew it? I don’t know, but I’m suspicious.”

The senator’s remark appears to raise questions about Speaker Pelosi’s knowledge about the fishy origins of the capitol building attack on January 6th.

Bartiromo asked the senator about a letter CNN obtained from the former Capitol Police chief responding to outcry over a delayed response on January 6th.

Johnson also discussed the revelations disclosed by the now-resigned Capitol Police chief.

“He lays out the diligence that he undertook to provide security around the Capitol and seems like he took pretty reasonable precautions,” he said. “He’s obviously being one of the scapegoats here.”

As previously reported at Becker News in a piece read on-air by conservative talk show host Mark Levin (listen below):

The now-resigned Capitol Police chief inexplicably was turned down six times in his requests that the security be increased. The National Guard was instructed to maintain a weak presence and low visibility. Michael Yon, the nation’s most experienced war correspondent, reported that the security presence made little sense, and he detected numerous suspect things about the mix of groups in the crowd.

Now, there are reports further solidifying the obvious: The pipe bombs placed at the RNC and DNC, potentially as a diversion for an attack on the Capitol building, were placed there the night before. CNN noted:

Two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters discovered on January 6 were planted the night before the insurrection at the Capitol, the FBI said Friday.

This is extremely problematic for the narrative about Trump’s speech “inciting” the Capitol building attack. In combination with these facts, a former high-ranking FBI official explains that it is extremely unlikely that Trump’s speech could qualify as “incitement” by any reasonable legal standard.

The House and Senate Sergeant at Arms were both repeatedly warned about the potential of a capitol building attack. They both turned down requests for increased security. This raises a whole host of questions:

Advertisements
    • Was Nancy Pelosi or other Democrat leaders briefed? If so, did they actually issue the orders to “stand down” in the face of imminent, credible threats to the capitol?
    • Why was the entire Congress evacuated so calmly and seamlessly while reports falsely claimed there were “capture and kill” teams threatening their lives?
    • Why did radical Democrats cook up cover stories that implied they were in the capitol building when they were actually evacuated via tunnel to the nearby Cannon building?

There are numerous outstanding questions that the Democrats need to be asked about their knowledge of the situation prior to the actual January 6th siege.

If we had a real media interested in holding Democrats accountable for their actions, they would have already been asking them.


OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion.