Connect with us


Previously hidden January 6 transcript undermines committee false claim on Trump ordering 10,000 troops



Screen Shot 2021 01 06 at 10.13.23 AM scaled

A newly surfaced transcript of an interview conducted by a U.S. House of Representatives panel investigating the January 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol has shed light on crucial details previously undisclosed. Anthony Ornato, the former White House deputy chief of staff during the breach, provided testimony that challenges the narrative put forth by the committee.

According to the revealed transcript, Ornato overheard Mark Meadows, then the White House chief of staff, conversing with Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser. Meadows reportedly sought to ensure that Bowser had sufficient resources, including National Guard troops, offering up to 10,000 personnel if needed. Ornato’s testimony contradicts the committee’s earlier assertions and adds a new dimension to the understanding of events leading up to the breach.

The release of this transcript has sparked controversy, with Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) accusing the House Select Committee of withholding critical witness testimony that contradicted their predetermined narrative. Loudermilk’s statement underscores the significance of Ornato’s testimony, affirming claims made by Meadows and President Trump regarding the offer of National Guard support.

President Trump, in previous statements, affirmed that he had indeed suggested deploying 10,000 National Guard troops to secure the Capitol. These assertions were corroborated by Christopher C. Miller, the former acting secretary of defense, who recounted a meeting where Trump emphasized the need for a sizable Guard presence. However, Miller later clarified that there was no direct order from the president.

The Pentagon’s involvement in the events leading up to January 6th is also under scrutiny. While Mayor Bowser initially requested Guard support for the rally, subsequent decisions regarding troop deployment became contentious. Defense officials approved the activation of 340 Guard members initially, but Bowser declined additional assistance until the situation escalated on the day of the breach.

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund’s testimony adds further complexity to the narrative, alleging that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving rejected requests for Guard assistance citing concerns over optics and intelligence. Irving has refuted these claims, asserting that security decisions were not influenced by optics.

Ornato’s testimony paints a picture of White House officials’ persistent efforts to deploy Guard personnel throughout the day of the breach, despite delays in their arrival at the Capitol. Meadows, according to Ornato, repeatedly inquired about the status of the deployment, highlighting the urgency of the situation.

However, discrepancies remain regarding the extent of President Trump’s involvement in authorizing Guard deployment. Kash Patel, a former chief of staff to Christopher Miller, testified that Trump authorized up to 20,000 Guard troops, but this claim lacked substantiating evidence. Patel clarified that while Trump could authorize troop deployment, he could not issue direct orders for their deployment.

The release of the Ornato transcript has reignited debates surrounding the January 6th Capitol breach and the actions of the House Select Committee. Former Rep. Liz Cheney’s response underscores the partisan nature of the discourse, with divergent interpretations of the committee’s actions and conclusions.

As the nation grapples with the aftermath of the Capitol breach, the revelation of previously undisclosed testimony underscores the complexity of the events and the challenges in reconciling differing accounts. Moving forward, a thorough and transparent investigation remains imperative to understanding the full scope of what transpired on January 6, 2021.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


BREAKING: Hunter Biden Found Guilty on All Three Felony Charges



hunter biden

Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, was found guilty on all three felony charges on Tuesday. After a six-day trial, a jury concluded that the first son lied on a federal gun-purchase background-check form by falsely claiming he was not a drug addict. The jury deliberated for three hours, starting Monday afternoon following the conclusion of closing arguments.

Hunter Biden was convicted on two charges for lying about his crack-cocaine addiction on federal gun paperwork when he purchased a Colt Cobra revolver on October 12, 2018. Additionally, he was found guilty of a third charge for possessing the firearm while addicted to crack cocaine.

According to National Review, the criminal trial exposed deep rifts within the Biden family. Hunter’s ex-wife, Kathleen Buhle, and his deceased brother Beau Biden’s widow, Hallie Biden, testified against him. This created an emotional divide within the family, especially when Naomi Biden, the eldest daughter of Buhle and Hunter, testified for the defense, pitting mother against daughter.

Federal prosecutors Derek Hines and Leo Wise led the case against Hunter Biden as part of special counsel David Weiss’s legal team. Throughout the trial, Weiss was present in the courtroom, often seen conversing and eating chocolates during breaks.

Prosecutors presented what they described as “overwhelming evidence” of Hunter Biden’s drug addiction at the time he completed the gun purchase. This evidence included witness testimony, text messages, videos, images, bank records, and excerpts from Hunter’s memoir. Key testimonies from Hallie Biden, gun salesman Gordon Cleveland, and ex-girlfriend Zoe Kestan were crucial in establishing Hunter Biden’s pattern of drug use and his decision to lie about his addiction.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell argued that Hunter Biden’s behavior had improved around the time of the gun purchase, asserting that he did not “knowingly” lie on the federal paperwork. However, the testimonies of Kestan and Cleveland, along with Hunter Biden’s own admissions of drug use in texts and memoir excerpts, posed significant challenges to the defense’s narrative.

Throughout the trial, Lowell conducted extensive cross-examinations of the prosecution’s witnesses and disputed the context of the evidence presented. However, Leo Wise’s cross-examination of Naomi Biden, where he scrutinized her text messages with her father from October 2018, proved to be a pivotal moment, undermining her defense testimony.

Before the verdict, President Biden stated he would respect the jury’s decision and would not pardon his son if convicted. At the trial’s onset, President Biden issued a statement expressing pride in his son’s efforts to overcome his drug addiction.

Hunter Biden is scheduled to face another trial in September on nine federal tax charges related to his alleged failure to pay over $1.4 million in taxes over four years.

Continue Reading