House GOP locates emails, texts showing Pelosi office directly involved in failed Jan. 6 security

[Valletta]

"Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021," the report concluded. "The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day."

House GOP locates emails, texts showing Pelosi office directly involved in failed Jan. 6 security

Democrat leadership blamed for "knee-jerk reaction" and failing to equip police in security staffer's email after tragedy.

justthenews.com

 

[DaisyDay]

"Leadership and law enforcement failures within the U.S. Capitol left the complex vulnerable on January 6, 2021," the report concluded. "The Democrat-led investigation in the House of Representatives, however, has disregarded those institutional failings that exposed the Capitol to violence that day."

House GOP locates emails, texts showing Pelosi office directly involved in failed Jan. 6 security

Democrat leadership blamed for "knee-jerk reaction" and failing to equip police in security staffer's email after tragedy.

justthenews.com

Something I don't understand - since McConnell and Pelosi were co-equal, each to their own part, why is it only Pelosi who gets called out? What did McConnell do differently?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It would seem as if certain House GOP members need to keep their narrative straight.

Jim Jordan for example. He's involved in trying to probe "Pelosi's failed security plan" per the article you linked, but at the same time he's done his best to downplay the events of Jan 6th, and has refused to cooperate with the panel and described it as a "partisan witch hunt".


So which is it? Was it a really bad thing? Or was it just a nothingburger?

If the democratic reaction to Jan 6th is just a "hyped up" "partisan witch hunt", then there was no real security threat and Pelosi's plan didn't fail, because nothing "really bad" happened.

If it was a serious thing that warrants going after the people who signed off on the security plan and funding, then they need to acknowledge the seriousness of it and the entities that fostered and encouraged it.

But this routine of "it's not really that bad, so you shouldn't critique conservatives for the election denial rhetoric that sparked it, unless we're talking about capitol police funding, in that case it's a super serious issue and the people involved in the funding plan need to be held accountable!!" is embarrassingly transparent.

Basically, Jim Jordan and that ilk are coming across as if they're saying "This thing isn't really a big problem, but we're going to blame this prominent member of the other side for this massive problem. Pelosi's to blame for this big problem that happened when conservative rhetoric caused this thing that really isn't that big of a problem, you're all just overreacting, unless we're talking about the capitol police funding, in which case it's a massive problem that warrants a probe!"

 

[Valletta]

It would seem as if certain House GOP members need to keep their narrative straight.

Jim Jordan for example. He's involved in trying to probe "Pelosi's failed security plan" per the article you linked, but at the same time he's done his best to downplay the events of Jan 6th, and has refused to cooperate with the panel and described it as a "partisan witch hunt".


So which is it? Was it a really bad thing? Or was it just a nothingburger?

If the democratic reaction to Jan 6th is just a "hyped up" "partisan witch hunt", then there was no real security threat and Pelosi's plan didn't fail, because nothing "really bad" happened.

If it was a serious thing that warrants going after the people who signed off on the security plan and funding, then they need to acknowledge the seriousness of it and the entities that fostered and encouraged it.

But this routine of "it's not really that bad, so you shouldn't critique conservatives for the election denial rhetoric that sparked it, unless we're talking about capitol police funding, in that case it's a super serious issue and the people involved in the funding plan need to be held accountable!!" is embarrassingly transparent.

Basically, Jim Jordan and that ilk are coming across as if they're saying "This thing isn't really a big problem, but we're going to blame this prominent member of the other side for this massive problem. Pelosi's to blame for this big problem that happened when conservative rhetoric caused this thing that really isn't that big of a problem, you're all just overreacting, unless we're talking about the capitol police funding, in which case it's a massive problem that warrants a probe!"

The truth is that Jim Jordan has been one of the most eager to find out what actually happened, that's why Pelosi banned him from the select committee.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The truth is that Jim Jordan has been one of the most eager to find out what actually happened, that's why Pelosi banned him from the select committee.

The truth is that Jim Jordan has been one of the least eager to testify to the Jan 6 committee, and that's why he's been referred to the House Ethics Committee for censure.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"House GOP locates emails, texts showing Pelosi office directly involved in failed Jan. 6 security"​

Now that the House has released its report, can you show us these emails and texts?

 

[iluvatar5150]

The truth is that Jim Jordan has been one of the most eager to find out what actually happened, that's why Pelosi banned him from the select committee.

Just like he was the most eager to find out what was going on on his wrestling team?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The truth is that Jim Jordan has been one of the most eager to find out what actually happened, that's why Pelosi banned him from the select committee.

With regards to Jim Jordan...to use an expression, "we already know how that movie ends, we've seen it before"

In that, we already know which things he's specifically looking for (things he can pin on his political rivals), and which things (and people) that he'll refuse to acknowledge as culprits.

Given Jim Jordan's well-established pre-existing biases and loyalties on this matter, I wouldn't put him on a committee that's supposed to be objectively looking into whether or not the former president was in any way responsible for the events of that day.


And that goes both ways.

For example,
AOC is about to be the subject of an ethics investigation. I wouldn't want any of her friends in "The Squad" to be added to the review committee at their own request because we already know where certain loyalties lie.

A congressman can't spend 3 years kissing a president's backside and playing cheerleader for him, and then where there's a matter involving said president, expect to taken seriously trying to play the role of Perry Mason in investigative matters.