Select Page

This post was originally published on this site

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the riot that transpired at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered that security officials install magnetometers at entrances for the House chambers and that all lawmakers have to go through a security check to enter the House chambers.

Since the inception of said newly established security protocols, the House also later voted to fine members if they attempt to bypass a security screening – which two Republicans have already been fined.

Yet, Pelosi allegedly bypassed these security protocols recently herself, but is somehow getting a free pass on getting sanctioned.

Here’s the details on these new protocols and Pelosi’s alleged ducking of security and the fine that should’ve followed.

On January 13th, House Speaker Pelosi announced the adoption of new rules that would see members of the House getting fined in the event they tried to enter House chambers without having gone through the recently installed metal detectors.

These fines would be $5,000 for the first offense and then $10,000 for a second offense, which went into effect as of January 21st when the House returned to session following the Capitol riot.

Since the establishment of these fines, Republican Representatives Louie Gohmert from Texas and Andrew Clyde from Georgia have been fined for reportedly refusing to go through the designated security protocols.

But Representative Rodney Davis, who serves as the leading Republican on the House Administration Committee, says that if these fines are going to be doled out for dodging security – then it should be applied across the board:

“We expect rules to be implemented fairly.”

Apparently, Representatives Davis, Barry Loudermilk, and Bryan Steil wrote to the Acting House Sergeant-at-Arms Timothy Blodgett about Speaker Pelosi allegedly dodging security herself on February 4th:

“[A]t approximately 9:59 am, multiple members observed the Speaker of the House entering the House Chamber without completing security screening,” the trio wrote to Blodgett. “What we observed is a clear violation of House Resolution 73 and you are required by House Rules to impose this fine. Please inform us once this fine as been assessed.”

Yet, when Blodgett replied to the concerns raised by the Republicans, he stated that he’s only able to levy a fine against Speaker Pelosi, “after receiving an unusual occurrence report from the United States Capitol Police.”

According to Blodgett, only, “the USCP can determine whether an individual has failed to complete security screening,” which he proclaimed that he received no such report detailing an “unusual incident” involving Speaker Pelosi:

“I have not received any unusual incident report from the USCP concerning the Speaker of the House.”

Basically, even if members of the House see Speaker Pelosi violating the very rules she helped instill, if the USCP doesn’t file some sort of a report – then nothing happens.

Keep in mind, this is following the highly contentious rhetoric that Speaker Pelosi espoused in the weeks following the Capitol riot where she alleged that, “the enemy is within the House,” – actually proclaiming that members of Congress want to harm other members of Congress:

“We will probably need a supplemental for more security for members when the enemy is within the House of Representatives – a threat that members are concerned about in addition to what is happening outside.”

When Speaker Pelosi was asked to clarify what she meant by this statement, she seriously alleged that there’s some bona fide threat of violence from other Congress members:

“It means we have members of Congress who want to bring guns on the floor and have threatened violence on other members of Congress.”

While there has been an ongoing investigation into potential threats against elected officials following the Capitol riot from January, these alleged threats have only been reportedly found among online chat rooms and various messaging boards – which vary in any sort of credibility or specifics detailed.

 Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

Vitriolic rhetoric following the Capitol riot has been in full swing, and there seems to be little criticism of members of Congress rattling off unfounded claims or ridiculous, hypothetical ‘whataboutisms’. 

Such as House Majority Chief Deputy Whip Dan Kildee, where he claimed that police have an “instinct” to just shoot black people. 

Here’s that previous report. 


WASHINGTON, DC – Despite most experts pointing to poor leadership as the cause for the security failure at the Capitol and bi-partisan congressional praise for the individual officers who battled the insurrection that day, one democratic congressman claimed that if the rioters were black, they would have been gunned down by police.

On CNN, House Majority Chief Deputy Whip Dan Kildee (D-MI) said that law enforcement has an “instinct” to shoot black people. During the interview with host Don Lemon, Kildee said:

“If the crowd had been black or Muslim, it would have been a disaster even greater than it was. Because we know what the instinct would have been for people in law enforcement, that would have been to open fire.”

Kildee continued that the violence that spread across the country in 2020 was not the fault of the rioters, but that of the United States Military:

“Even in the moments when we had violence over the summer, it was violence being perpetrated by the United States military against peaceful protestors.”

The “peaceful protests” that Kildee was referring to spread across the nation after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May. Many of these Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests turned to violence, with looting and property damage common in places like Portland and New York City.

During the protests and riots, 25 Americans were killed as of October 2020. All but one were killed at the hands of fellow protestors. Nine of the victims were killed during Black Lives Matter protests, and two were killed at pro-Trump “patriot rallies.”

Most of the protesters died of gunshot wounds. The deaths include Garrett Foster, who was carrying an AK-47 at a Black Lives Matter protest in Austin Texas. A motorist shot and killed him. It is unknown if Foster made any threats towards the motorist.

In August, a 17-year-old used a rifle to kill two people and wounded a third during an anti-police demonstration in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Lawyers claim he was acting in self-defense.

Only one death resulted from police intervention. In Las Vegas, Jorge Gomez was wearing body armor and carrying several firearms.  Gomez pointed a firearm at police, forcing Metro officers to open fire. During the same protest, Las Vegas Police Officer Shay Mikalonis was shot in the head and remains paralyzed from the injury.

Seven people were shot while looting businesses during the unrest.

However, several police officers have been killed during political unrest in 2020. David Dorn, a 77-year-old retired police captain, was killed while responding to an alarm as a security officer at a pawn shop during rioting in St. Louis when he was shot and killed.

Two California law enforcement officers were murdered by an anti-government “Boogaloo” extremist during rioting and political unrest in June.

Although some politicians like Kildee claim that the insurrection at the Capitol occurred because the invaders were white, several failures in the system played a role in the security failure. Police experts have placed much of the blame on planning failures by the leadership of the U.S. Capitol Police.

Edward Maguire, director of the Public Safety Innovation Lab at Arizona State University, explained:

“Any time you have a crowd event, it’s a hope for the best, plan for the worst type of scenario. As long as there’s no current violence, you deploy regular uniforms and use lots of communication and de-escalation. But you always have several levels of a plan behind the curtain, including more heavily armed and armored riot police.”

He said that instead of preparing for the worst, the Capitol Police refused support from the FBI and the Pentagon when it was offered prior to the attack:

“Every one of these police departments has their own intelligence units that should be out there scouring social media and being plugged into the intelligence products being distributed by federal agencies.”

Seth Stoughton, a criminal justice professor at the University of South Carolina, believes that the Capitol police knew that the protesters in Washington on January 6 were likely armed, and that they did not want to create confrontations during the protests leading up to the rush on the Capitol”

“Police agencies were rightfully criticized for taking a very aggressive, kinetic response to some of those earlier protests. I don’t think we can just say racism, period, and that’s a sufficient explanation. But I do think that’s part of the explanation.

“The failure is not on those individual officers failing to engage in some sort of reckless last stand. The failure is that they were in that position in the first place.”


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Facebook Follow First

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This