President Donald Trump’s nominee for FBI Director, Kash Patel, appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday for his confirmation hearing. He confidently swatted away the many “gotcha” questions from Democratic members of the committee like flies and delivered a stellar performance.
This post, however, will focus on Patel’s exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), which was particularly noteworthy for its implications regarding accountability for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps justice delayed is not justice denied after all.
In June 2022, investigative reporter and founder of Just the News, John Solomon, obtained an official timeline from the Capitol Police of the events that occurred in the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021. This document validated the Trump administration’s account of events and clearly showed that Democratic leaders rejected repeated offers of a National Guard troop presence at the Capitol despite intelligence showing that violence was entirely possible.
Needless to say, this news was largely ignored by the legacy media.
Discussing his latest find with Fox News’s Sean Hannity at the time, Solomon said, “Four days of infamy, four days when the Capitol Police, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, leadership could have hardened the Capitol, could have gotten the resources in place, could have made the strategic decisions, could have accepted the National Guard help that would have saved all those men and women in blue on the Capitol who got injured that day.”
“It is overwhelmingly clear that these were repeated political decisions made instead of security decisions,” he added.
[Note: Solomon detailed his findings and shared links to supporting documents on his website the following day.]
At the time of the Capitol riot, Patel served as the chief of staff to then-Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher C. Miller. In that capacity, Patel was privy to the government’s security arrangements.
During Patel’s Senate confirmation hearing on Thursday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked him what he was doing on Jan. 6, 2021.
Patel replied, “On that day, specifically, responding to, preparing to mobilize and employ the National Guard once we got the lawful request from the local governing authority, which was the mayor of DC and the speaker of the House.”
“Now, how many days in advance were you working to prepare the Department of Defense to help secure the Capitol on January 6?” Cruz asked.
“Days in advance, Senator, we were in the Oval Office on an unrelated national security matter with the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and myself and the President authorized up to 20,000 plus National Guard men and women to secure any security measures necessarily related to the capital,” Patel said. “We were moving to the fullest extent of the law before the requisite request came from a local governing authority days ahead of time.”
“While you were chief of staff at DOD, how many times did DOD approach Capitol Police and ask if they needed National Guard assistance?”
Patel answered, “I believe those letters are well-documented. Numerous instances, and [on] numerous of those instances, those requests were shut down.”
“Now, am I correct that the Capital Sergeant at Arms said assistance was unnecessary?” Cruz asked.
“That’s correct, Senator.”
“Who did the Sergeant at Arms report to?”
“The speaker of the House.”
“That would have been Nancy Pelosi at the time. Is that correct?”
“Yes, Senator.”
Cruz asked if it would also include then-Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.
“The Sergeant at Arms, yes, Senator, reports up there,” Patel replied.
“Did Mayor Bowser, the Democrat elected mayor in DC, either request or allow National Guard assistance?”
Patel noted that Bowser had “put in writing on the days leading up to January sixth, a declination for National Guard additional support, and that letter is available publicly to the world.”
“Just to speak English for folks at home, a declination meant she said, no, don’t send National Guard. Is that right?”
“Yes sir.”
[Eventually, Cruz asked Patel if he agreed with Trump’s commutation of the sentences of the protestors who attacked law enforcement officers on Jan. 6, and Patel said he opposed the decision.]
The fact that Cruz devoted a significant portion of his allotted time to questioning Patel about Pelosi’s rejection of National Guard troops ahead of the riot suggests that accountability may finally be on the table for the “Speaker Emerita.” With Christopher Wray’s FBI and her sham House January 6th Committee no longer shielding her or shifting blame onto Trump, she may be forced to answer for her actions.
In the clip below, Pelosi tells a colleague, “I take responsibility for not having them [the National Guard troops] just prepare for more.”
Pelosi and other leaders, including Schumer and Mayor Bowser, need to be questioned under oath about why, when FBI intelligence reports suggested violence was a real possibility, they rejected Trump’s offer of National Guard troops. Had they secured the Capitol, we might not even be talking about Jan. 6.
Did they want violence to break out that day to distract the public from the numerous allegations of fraud in critical swing states during the 2020 election?
Prior to the riot, nearly 200 Republican lawmakers were planning to object to the certification of the election results. Afterward, that number dwindled to 147.
Here’s how The New York Times covered the story:
When a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol building on Wednesday, they forced an emergency recess in the Congressional proceedings to officially certify the results of the 2020 presidential election. The disruption came shortly after some Republican lawmakers made the first of a planned series of highly unusual objections, based on spurious allegations of widespread voter fraud, to states’ election results. The chambers were separately debating an objection to Arizona’s results when proceedings were halted and the Capitol was locked down.When the Senate reconvened at 8 p.m., and the House of Representatives an hour later, the proceedings — including the objection debates — continued, although some lawmakers who had previously planned to vote with the objectors stood down following the occupation of the Capitol. Plans to challenge a number of states after Arizona were scrapped, as well — but one other objection, to Pennsylvania’s results, also advanced to a vote.
Were they hoping that violence would break out so they could frame Trump for inciting an “insurrection”? Was this part of their plan?
Given all of the dishonest, unethical, and even unlawful maneuvers the Democrats have carried out in their crusade to destroy Trump, from the Russian collusion hoax to the coordinated lawfare campaign, it’s time for them to be thoroughly investigated and exposed.
I sincerely hope that, if confirmed, Patel assigns a team of agents to uncover the truth.
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY