WOW! Capitol Police Chief During January 6, 2021, Riot Drops NEW Bombshell - Nancy Pelosi Should Be Indicted
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund stated in a recent interview that the FBI never informed him that hundreds of its agents had been deployed inside the crowds during the January 6, 2021, events at the Capitol. Sund made the remarks during an appearance on “The Great America Show” hosted by John Fawcett. The disclosure follows a report that the FBI had 274 plainclothes agents present that day, a figure higher than previously acknowledged in some public statements.
Sund said that on January 5, one day before the events, he met with representatives from major federal agencies and specifically asked whether any liaison would be assigned from agencies planning to have personnel on the ground. According to Sund, no agency disclosed such plans at the time. He noted that if agencies intended to deploy significant assets, standard protocol would typically involve placing a liaison in the command center to coordinate operations.
The comments have renewed discussion about coordination between federal agencies and the Capitol Police on January 6. Sund also referenced earlier testimony in which he stated that he never received an FBI report issued on January 5 warning of potential violence. He said the report was received by a Capitol Police officer assigned to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and passed to an official in the department’s Intelligence Division, but it did not reach his office.
The Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General had previously stated in a December 2024 report that it found no evidence of undercover FBI employees embedded in the crowds or at the Capitol on January 6. Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before Congress in July 2023 that he did not believe undercover agents were present. The newly reported figure of 274 plainclothes agents has prompted questions about the scope of the FBI’s presence and the extent of information sharing with Capitol Police leadership.
Sund described the Capitol’s command structure as unusually bureaucratic, noting that a chief law enforcement officer for the House and a chief law enforcement officer for the Senate sat above him. He suggested this arrangement created obstacles to decisive action on January 6 and called for reforms to clarify authority in future situations. He emphasized that the chief of police should have greater operational control, particularly given his prior experience.
The developments have drawn reactions from lawmakers and commentators across the political spectrum. Some have called for further review of interagency communication and the accuracy of previous public statements regarding the FBI’s role. Others have noted that federal agencies routinely embed personnel at large public events for countersurveillance and intelligence purposes. A senior congressional source indicated that the number of FBI personnel at the Capitol on January 6 is not necessarily surprising in that context, though the figure is likely to generate additional scrutiny given past denials.
The interview also touched on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Sund referenced Pelosi’s earlier statements that neither then-President Trump nor anyone else had requested National Guard support. He maintained that his requests for additional resources were not adequately addressed in the lead-up to the events. The Capitol Police Chief’s account has been cited in ongoing debates about responsibility and preparedness on January 6.
The January 6 events continue to be the subject of congressional oversight, legal proceedings, and public discussion. Multiple investigations have examined the security response, intelligence sharing, and decision-making processes among federal and congressional authorities. The newly reported details from Sund have added to the volume of information under review by various committees and interested parties.
As the conversation around January 6 evolves, questions remain about the full scope of federal agency involvement and the flow of information to Capitol Police leadership. Sund’s comments have prompted calls from some quarters for additional transparency and potential review of previous statements by federal officials. No formal new investigation has been announced in direct response to the interview, but the remarks are expected to feature in future oversight hearings and public commentary.
The broader context includes ongoing litigation and political debates related to January 6. Federal prosecutors have pursued cases against individuals involved in the events, while defense teams and some lawmakers have raised questions about the completeness of earlier investigative findings. The Capitol Police Chief’s account contributes to the continuing examination of operational decisions made that day.
Legal and security experts note that coordination between federal agencies and local or congressional police forces is a complex process governed by established protocols. Any gaps in communication can affect response times and situational awareness. The current discussion highlights the importance of clear chains of command and real-time information sharing in high-profile security situations.
The developments are being monitored by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. Some have called for further briefings on the FBI’s presence and decision-making processes. Others have cautioned against drawing premature conclusions without additional context from federal agencies. The interview has generated significant media coverage and public interest as the nation continues to assess the events of January 6 more than five years later.
6-3 RULING - Supreme Court Deals Brutal Blow to Hakeem Jeffries
Washington, D.C. - June 5, 2026
Supreme Court Allows Alabama to Proceed with New Congressional Map for 2026 Midterms
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned 6-3 order on Tuesday permitting Alabama to use a newly enacted congressional district map in the 2026 midterm elections. The decision lifts a lower court injunction and is expected to result in a congressional delegation of six Republicans and one Democrat.
The ruling came after Alabama had already held its congressional primary elections in May. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation authorizing special elections in August for affected districts, contingent on final court approval of the map.
The order relied in part on the Purcell principle, which generally discourages federal courts from altering election rules close to an election. The majority stated that the district court had improperly intervened in Alabama’s efforts to conduct its elections under maps selected by the state’s elected representatives. The court noted that while federal courts should avoid last-minute changes, states retain authority to determine whether such adjustments serve their interests.
Connection to Voting Rights Act Precedent
The decision follows a 6-3 ruling issued by the Supreme Court on April 29 regarding the Voting Rights Act. That earlier decision established that claims alleging racial discrimination in districting generally require plaintiffs to demonstrate a strong inference of intentional discrimination before proceeding with litigation.
The current order addresses ongoing redistricting litigation in Alabama. The new map is anticipated to alter the composition of the state’s seven-member congressional delegation. Democratic Representatives Shomari Figures of the 2nd District and Terri Sewell of the 7th District are currently the only Black members of Alabama’s House delegation. The new configuration could affect representation in one of those districts.
Dissenting Opinion
The three liberal justices dissented from the unsigned order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority’s approach had created turmoil and harm. She argued that the court was doubling down on prior decisions that she viewed as undermining protections under the Voting Rights Act.
Broader Redistricting Context
The Alabama case is one of several redistricting disputes before the Supreme Court involving states such as Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, and California. With control of the U.S. House expected to be closely contested, these cases have taken on added significance for both parties ahead of the November elections.
The Supreme Court’s recent interventions have already influenced district boundaries in multiple states. Additional litigation remains pending, and further developments could continue to shape the partisan balance of the House in the upcoming midterm cycle.
The Alabama order permits the state to move forward with its chosen map while legal proceedings on related matters continue. The full impact on the composition of Alabama’s congressional delegation will depend on the outcome of the August special elections and any subsequent legal challenges.
GHOST VOTERS' REVEALED — California Elections Rocked After Stunning Discovery
Sacramento, California - June 5, 2026
Lawsuit Filed Against California Secretary of State Alleging Failure to Remove Inactive Voter Registrations
A federal lawsuit has been filed against California Secretary of State Shirley Weber alleging that the state has failed to remove hundreds of thousands of inactive voter registrations from its rolls in violation of federal law. The complaint was brought by Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California, with assistance from Judicial Watch.
The lawsuit claims that California has not removed approximately 873,092 inactive voter registrations as required under the National Voter Registration Act. Federal law mandates that states remove certain registrations after voters fail to participate in multiple consecutive federal election cycles and do not respond to address verification notices.
Court filings state that more than 873,000 registrations remained on the rolls despite being inactive through at least three consecutive federal elections. The complaint further alleges that over 151,000 registrations remained active after four consecutive election cycles without voter participation.
California maintains more than 23 million registered voters, the largest voter registration system in the United States. Plaintiffs argue that the state’s practices violate requirements under the National Voter Registration Act for maintaining accurate voter lists.
Previous Actions and Current Allegations
In 2019, Judicial Watch reached a settlement with California and Los Angeles County that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million inactive voter registrations. The current lawsuit contends that similar issues persist across much of the state despite those prior efforts.
The complaint notes that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive registrations over a recent period, even as census data showed substantial population shifts and migration out of the state.
The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring California to implement a more aggressive program for removing registrations that no longer meet federal eligibility requirements. It also asks the court to prevent future violations of federal election law.
State Response and Context
California officials have maintained that the state’s election system includes multiple safeguards, including signature matching, voter identification checks where required, and criminal penalties for fraud. State representatives have stated that the system is secure and employs verification procedures designed to prevent illegal voting.
The lawsuit was filed amid ongoing scrutiny of California’s election processes. Recent incidents include damage to a mail ballot drop box that was vandalized and set on fire, as well as a report of an unsecured ballot center in the Bay Area discovered by a voter outside normal operating hours.
The case will proceed in federal court, where judges will evaluate whether California’s voter registration maintenance practices comply with federal requirements. The outcome could affect procedures ahead of future elections, including the November general election.
