In April the House Subcommittee on Oversight held a hearing with National Guard whistleblowers who stepped forward to correct the media lies and dishonest narrative by Democrats on the January 6 protests and riots.
Four members of the National Guard testified that they were ready to be deployed on January 6 but THE PENTAGON held them back!
This directly brings General Milley’s actions into question
National Guard whistleblowers: Command Sgt. Major Michael E. Brooks, Colonel Earl G. Matthews, Aaron Dean Retired, and Captain Timothy Nick stepped forward and testified before Congress to correct the record on January 6.
As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser were both warned about the security situation prior to January 6th, and both turned down National Guard troops at the US Capitol that day.
Pelosi and Mayor Muriel Bowser turned down thousands of National Guard troops at the Capitol on January 6 for political reasons.
Chris Wray’s FBI also refused to notify the Trump administration and his cabinet secretaries that they believed there could be violence like the mass protests at the Capitol that took place that day.
Nancy Pelosi also refused the National Guard at the US Capitol due to politics.
Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund said he asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup. But they both turned him down.
John Solomon from Just The News released an explosive report in 2022 that revealed Capitol Police were first warned about possible violence at the January 6th protests TWO WEEKS beforethe planned rallies.
Pelosi, Mayor Bowser, and other government officials turned down the National Guard anyway. It is clear they were counting on an “insurrection” to blame on President Trump when they were the ones who allowed the violence to occur and continue that day
But now there is more disturbing news on the military leadership on January 6th.
According to Colonel Earl Matthews, who testified before Congress in April, US military leaders revoked President Trump’s Commander-in-Chief powers that day and refused to move in the National Guard – because it might look bad.
Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief was ignored by senior military leadership on January 6, 2021, claims the chief legal advisor for D.C. National Guard on that day.
Colonel Earl Matthews came forward as a whistleblower to the House subcommittee reviewing the January 6 Select Committee’s investigation.
He sat down with DailyMail.com two weeks after the public hearing to explain what he saw happen that day.
He claims that Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, and then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, were plotting to disobey any orders handed down by Trump because they ‘unreasonably’ assumed the then-president was going to break the law and try to use the D.C. National Guard (DCNG) to stop certification of the 2020 presidential election results.
A lot has been made about the breakdown in military and administration communication when it came to the timeline of deploying DCNG to the Capitol.
But Matthews claims senior military leadership was solely focused on getting the heat off of them and putting it back onto Trump.
The Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Matthews claims, was more than happy to lean into this narrative and blame the entire ordeal on the then-president.
But Matthews says that senior military leadership essentially stripped the president of his authority as commander-in-chief by preemptively planning to go against orders because they didn’t like the optics of uniformed soldiers at the Capitol.
‘I think a very plausible argument can be made that through no fault of his own, President Trump’s command authority over both the D.C. National Guard and the U.S. Army itself had been surreptitiously curtailed by the senior leadership of the Army on January 6, 2021,’ Matthews told DailyMail.com.
He continued: ‘Army leadership had unreasonably anticipated an ‘unlawful order’ from the President, an order that the President had no plans to issue, and were preemptively seeking to curtail his discretion to issue such an order.’
No comments:
Post a Comment