"This Didn't Have to Happen"
Impressions from Tucker's interview with Steven Sund
Yesterday, Tucker Carlson dropped his long-awaited interview with former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund. You may remember that while Tucker had interviewed Sund previously, the piece never aired because Carlson was removed from FOX News — probably for his airing of tapes from January 6th. Since Tucker didn’t own the rights to that video, the pair recently sat down again in Carlson’s studio.
The interview itself is just under an hour long, so I decided to take a few notes and write up a summary for the people who don’t have time to sit down and watch. (If you DO have time to sit down and watch, I highly recommend it. There’s LOTS here.)
The first thing we have to know about the failures of January 6th is they started earlier than that — on January 3rd, when Sund first requested the assistance of the National Guard. His request was denied by the Pentagon, which didn’t “like the optics” of having National Guard troops guarding the Capitol — instead, “leaders” demanded Capitol Police “not use crowd disbursement weapons during riot”. Strange.
It’s important to point out that in the days leading up to 1/6, there were two vastly different stories swirling around DC. While the Pentagon was denying National Guard assistance, many intelligence agencies were expecting some sort of violence at the Capitol on January 6th — but they never mentioned this to Sund. This is important because Sund should be the FIRST person notified about possible disturbances at the protest. (And undercovers in the crowd) Yet he was left in the dark — and my money is because had he known of that intelligence, he would have been able to get his National Guard troops right away.
After the attack started (12:53 pm), Sund gets on the phone requesting additional resources and the activation of National Guard troops already in Washington — some of which are literally in eyesight of the Capitol. Then-Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving responds by saying “I’m going to run it up the chain, I’ll get back to you.” (That particular chain ends with Nancy Pelosi, by the way.)
But Irving doesn’t get back to Sund - not for 71 minutes. When the “leaders” finally get around to having a conversation about National Guard troops, Lt. Gen. Walter Piatt says (again) that he doesn’t like the optics of having National Guard troops at the Capitol. The call is interrupted by the shooting of Ashli Babbitt, and Sund focuses his attention elsewhere.
National Guard troops are finally sworn in at 6 pm. FIVE HOURS after the attack on the Capitol started, and long after the fighting was already over. And the kicker? It wasn’t even the troops who were within eyesight of the Capitol the whole time who were sworn in — those troops were driven to the DC Armory, all the way across town. The National Guard was literally beat to the scene by the New Jersey State Police.
This story of events on January 6th provides (yet another) perfect example of the DC Double Standard. They’re going after Donald Trump for his role in the “insurrection” and not “doing more sooner”, but while the attack was actually occurring, the people who could have stopped it DID NOTHING — and it sure looks like that was on purpose. And when the investigations started, it was made crystal clear that Nancy Pelosi was off limits for questioning — even though many questions about 1/6 revolve around her actions (or inaction) during the crisis.
Sund also states that it would be pretty standard police work to have undercover officers in the crowd, though he doesn’t know of them specifically because he was (curiously, again) left in the dark on such matters. (Reminder that we know FOR SURE Metro PD had undercover agents in the crowd, and if you think Metro PD had undercovers but the FBI didn’t…………)
The interview finishes up with the two men discussing Ray Epps (Sund has no explanation for why he’s not arrested, either), and the differences between how “the system” responded to the 2020 riots vs. January 6th. (Spoiler alert — 2020 rioters had their charges dropped even though they injured more officers)
All in all, this is an amazing interview with a ton of great information which fits perfectly into what we already know. (The truth usually does) The question is — will this spur anybody “important” into action, or will the stonewall around 1/6 remain intact?
It’s been a while since I’ve been able to provide an adorable kitty video, but I finally got one last night! This little dude comes around from time to time and is just getting comfortable being within petting distance:
He’s no G, but who is?
Afraid of commitment? Buy me a coffee on Ko-fi — no subscription required!
Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself. They wanted it to happen.
Good on Tucker for doing a 'redo' for the record.
I don't 100% agree with him, but I don't think I 100% agree with anyone and Tucker has been doing yeoman work lately in keeping the first amendment alive and kicking. Thanks for this!