The 'Pelosi Commission' - What We Won't Hear About The 1/6 Capitol Melee
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling for a "9/11-like commission" to look into the events around the January 6 riot at the US Capitol. GOP House Members have sent her a list of pertinent questions, including about her role in ensuring or undermining Capitol security on that day. Will this commission actually look to uncover truth, or like most commissions will it strive to sweep truth under the rug? Or will the commission just be an extended "trial" of Trump and his supporters after the failure of the two impeachment trials?
Mentioned today: https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1361360429784600577/photo/1
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With us today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to have you here.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
I hope you're keeping warm.
We're working at it, but I tell you what, windmills don't work very well in ice storms.
What are the Greens going to do?
And like I said yesterday, I'm hacked off at the global warming people because I was sort of hoping for a little global warming.
So things haven't worked out exactly that way.
And of course, things in spite of the Democrats being in charge and going after Trump, things aren't working out exactly the way I'm sure the Democrats want because they're on the defensive.
And even if they weren't on the defensive, we stated that we don't think they're ever going to give up.
They've decided that Trump himself is the devil.
He has a few problems, but I think they're overstating the problem.
Anyway, Pelosi has solved the problems because she does not want to be charged with not coming clean and telling us everything is going on.
And so there's going to be a Pelosi commission.
Washington's great at doing commissions.
They have done them for hundreds of years.
And the commissions, I have made the argument.
I don't know whether I could prove it on every commission, but I think strongly is the motivation on a commission is to cover up, not to define the truth.
And the classical commission on that was, of course, the Kennedy Commission, on the assassination.
So they're having a commission.
They're going to find out what really went wrong and why wasn't it Capitol guarded and all the nonsense that has gone on there.
And the only thing they care about probably is who's going to get the blame.
And that's what they're working on now.
So this whole idea that they're looking for the truth of things, it's already very questionable on what we hear.
But we know that there are some things that will be very cloudy even after the commission is finished.
And I wanted to talk today a little bit, Daniel, on what we won't hear.
There's going to be some distortions, there'll be some exclusions, there'll be some blames, but I don't think we're going to hear the truth.
For instance, the commission on Kennedy still is referred to as a conspiracy theory.
And it's been about disproven by so many people.
And the large majority of Americans don't believe that the commission said, you know, gave us a straight story.
One thing that was interesting when I looked that up the other day was that Jaeger Hoover, you know, had an announcement a day or two.
And that commission was set up within one week of the assassination.
They were anxious to do it.
But if you understand anything about Alan Dulles, you know why they had to get out there.
But Jaeger Hoover was quoted as saying, We got to get it going and we have to stick to the principles.
They already had the answer that it was a solo assassination by Oswald.
So that was actually announced and they had a recording of that.
So I don't know whether it's that bad now with Pelosi, but I do know that most of these things aren't very good at bringing out the truth.
She said that this one's going to be doing, it's going to be outside the politics and it's going to be an independent commission.
And Daniel, you know what I thought of immediately with independent because I've dealt with that word for dozens of years because every time I'd work on the audit the Fed bill, they say, oh, no, you can't do that.
We have to, the Fed has to be independent.
You know, it can't be politicized.
And I always tried to turn it around and say to him, Yeah, I know what independent means, secret.
That's what it means.
I don't know whether that applies here, but quite possibly it can, because I'm not optimistic that all of a sudden, by the end of the week or end of the month or the end of the year, we're going to say, boy, we know exactly how this came about.
None of this stuff was true that has been charged.
So anyway, people should be more cautious when the commission gets formed and start reporting, because quite frankly, I don't think that will get us to the truth of the matter.
Yeah, Dr. Paul, I think, you know, House Speaker Pelosi's announcement that she wants to form a 9-11 kind of commission serves two purposes.
I think, first of all, despite it being universally supported by the mainstream media, key elements of the narrative of what happened on January or on January 6th have fallen apart, have been knocked down.
The whole idea that it was an armed insurrection, well, usually an armed insurrection involves the use of firearms or at least the presence of firearms.
That has fallen apart.
Nobody was shot except for one of the protesters shot by a, apparently by a Capitol Hill police officer who has not been arrested or even identified.
The other one is Brian Sicknick, the Capitol Hill police officer, who did die.
And that narrative had continued up until even a couple of days ago on the 14th, which is that he was killed by being smashed over the head by a fire extinguisher by the armed insurrectionists.
Well, even the New York Times had to retract, quietly retract that story a couple of days ago on February 14th, because according to press reports, Officer Sicknick did not die until later that evening.
And the coroner had ruled that he did not die from blunt force trauma.
So the New York Times itself had to say we have a correction to the story.
But you know how this goes, Dr. Paul?
They come out with two weeks.
It's been five weeks since the event.
For five weeks, everyone has said these insurrectionists have killed Capitol Hill police officers.
Even Biden, just a few days ago, when we already knew that he wasn't killed by blunt force trauma, in his statement after the acquittal of Trump, talked about Capitol Hill police officers being killed defending the Capitol.
All untrue, even the New York Times admitted it.
So their narrative is falling apart.
That's number one.
And the second part, and we can talk about this probably when I finish, is to set up the idea of a two-year, the 9-11 commission went up for two years, a two-year-long or a permanent trial of President Trump.
They don't have him to kick around, so they're going to invent this commission to have a permanent trial of Trump.
That's right.
I'm sure.
You know, Pelosi was very much involved when there was the question of where was the National Guard?
Guard, where they were called, and why weren't they there?
Because I think they could have made a request for it.
It was offered two days before on the fourth.
It was offered by the administration, is the way I understand it.
Pelosi's Investigation Ugly Mess00:03:31
But so Pelosi sets up the investigation.
It's sort of like Alan Dulles being on the nine on the Kennessey Commission to study it.
And this is Pelosi, it's Pelosi's.
It's Pelosi Commission.
So she's the one that should be asking a few questions, but I don't know if that's going to happen because right now we see every once in a while a break in the media that is not 100% super, super left wing, but still has a long way to go.
But I think that also, you sort of implied there may be a long-term thing.
And for me, I think that means it's being used as a diversion from some of the problems because although the news says that Republicans are split in two, they'll never recover and Trump is done.
And I don't know any of that stuff.
Nobody knows for sure what's going to come of that because he could still have a lot of trouble.
But the point being is that there's every reason in the world that the Democrats, if they would admit it, they're messed up a lot more.
And maybe the people will turn on them.
If they can turn on the governor of California and the governor of New York and all these things, there's the possibility that they may have a split bigger than what the Republicans might have.
But what they're dealing with is the two times they tried to impeach.
Of course, that was grandstanding.
And they can't say, oh, look at what we did.
There's not much to brag about there.
And there's the problem with the two governors being in a major problem with their states in New York and California.
And then there are many cities involved.
Every city should be on the defensive.
And even though they couldn't do that in the campaign, I think as time goes on, when they start electing local officials, I mean, there was a lot of mess going on.
I mean, I know this January 6th episode distracted from the Republicans' argument.
Yeah, but what about the summertime?
How much went along?
I mean, that was sort of fluffed over.
But maybe, you know, as the campaign goes, I think the Democrats, I say, we have to distract from that because they're on record saying the cities were burning and we were defunding the police.
How do we answer that question?
Maybe we can't ignore it for the rest of the time.
But I think a commission will help to do that.
And then they're also facing this problem with the Lincoln project.
I mean, that's really just getting started.
And that is really a mess.
That is just so ugly that it's so ugly.
They're Democrats, of course, you know, wanting to know more about it.
So I think that how this plays out, time will tell.
But the one thing that I can't predict, I wished I could, is that we're going to have a half a dozen honorable people, very objective, who are wise to what's happening going on and give us the exact truth about why these conditions broke and what it really means, the episode that occurred on January 6th.
Yeah, I think you're right, Dr. Paul, when you talk about the Democrats being in even more trouble than the Republicans.
Questions For Pelosi00:03:08
It is a good point.
And I would just say they should have listened to us all along, right?
It should have let them go because we spent four years criticizing Trump on actual policy issues rather than he's a horrible, evil man and we don't like the way he looks or his hair.
You know, this is the extent, this is the intellectual depth of the Democrats' criticism of Trump.
Oh, he's a bad, horrible racist, rather than the actual policies that were bad that he pursued and the actual personnel that he put on his team that were bad.
But what's interesting, this was a letter sent yesterday, four ranking members in the Republican Party in the House.
They sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and they had some very specific questions.
And I think although the media will probably do its best to ignore it, some of these questions are extremely important.
And this is something that you actually, very early on, you asked me about this, Dr. Paul.
I think right after the 6th, we were discussing about the responsibility of the speaker when it comes to the sergeant at arms and the U.S. Capitol Police.
And these four members in this letter made the very, very important point that, quote, the Speaker is responsible for all operational decisions made within the House.
And they, which include, which would include the physical safety of the area.
And so here are the questions they asked.
And I think it's very, very important.
And I'll link to this letter in the description.
But they ask, when did Zen Chief, that would be Capitol Hill Police Chief, soon, when he made a request for National Guard support on January 4th, two days before the event, why was that request denied?
He wanted the extra troops.
Trump had offered the extra troops.
A second question: Did Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving get permission or instruction from your staff on January 4th prior to denying Chief Soon's request for the National Guard?
Apparently, he asked, I think, five or six times for National Guard.
She her soon, the sergeant-at-arms refused.
What conversations and guidance did you and your staff give the sergeant-at-arms leading up to the January 6th, specific to the security posture of the campus?
Two more, what conversations did you have during the attack on the Capitol and what response did you give security officials on January 6th when Chief Soons requested National Guard support that required your approval?
The last one, why are your House offices refusing to comply with preservation and production requests to turn over request materials relevant to the events of January 6th?
These are very tough questions, Dr. Paul, because we do know that those requests for the National Guard troops were denied.
They were denied by the sergeant-at-arms, a person that Pelosi has direct control over.
And therefore, the question is, did you influence this decision?
And these are very, very, very tough questions.
And by the way, right after the event, both the chief of police and the sergeant-at-arms were fired by Pelosi.
I wonder if that silence them.
Wonder If Silence Them00:09:45
It makes you wonder.
Well, you know, these questions are very good, and I don't think it will accomplish completely what it needs to do, but does show that some people are trying to be as objective as possible.
But eventually, it's going to have more strength when you see more bipartisanship, as you're starting to see with the Lincoln project, because that gives it a little bit of authenticity that both parties are checking into it.
But what they're trying to do is what good journalism should do.
I mean, a good politician should do it too.
They should be honest about it and expose what's going on there.
But we don't have good media.
We know that.
But we've also destroyed independent journalism.
Not destroyed, but it's really comatose.
I mean, the researchers, and we know because we deal with them, but they're small and in between, and they don't get the coverage they deserve.
So, if you don't have enough good politicians really sorting this out, then you then have the media and the journalists to do it.
We have to have a commission.
A commission will take care of all this.
But I think exposing as much information that we can get and let people try to decide about this is the most important thing we do.
Because this one is still, you know, especially on the Lincoln, the Lincoln deal is still just getting started.
And people do need more information on this project that's going on because it looks like it could really be a can of worms for politicians in general, but especially for, you know, pointing out how far hatred will go.
Because that motivated the project was mainly, I would have to say, well, no, I was going to say nearly 100% just hatred toward Trump.
No, I don't think so.
There was sex involved and there was money involved.
So it was corrupt in three different ways.
So maybe that's why they're going to have a lot more people, you know, trying to expose that for what it really is.
And I think some kind of commission like this grabbing the headlines will, and we suggested this before the show to me, will divert attention away from these real scandals that we're talking about, like the Lincoln Project scandal.
But, you know, on this 9-11 commission type commission, Michael Tracy, who's a pretty good journalist, I think he has a real independent mind.
I think he came to visit us in Cluke to interview you a couple years ago.
But he tweeted out about this.
I think it's a good tweet.
He said about the creation of this Pelosi Commission.
Corporate media desperately needs some kind of drawn-out 9-11 type commission with Trump as the main character.
Their entire business model is in severe jeopardy with him out of the picture.
And he's responding to Wolf Blitzer talking about the commission.
So they're desperate to have this.
And, you know, someone else said on Twitter, and I think it's a very good point: in a corrupt political system, trials are never over until the accused is found guilty.
So therefore, get another file, which is what this 9-11 Pelosi Commission is going to be, just another two-year trial of Trump.
So I would wonder whether their calculation was they knew they didn't have the votes.
They still went through with it, but they believed that the propaganda would be only favorable toward them.
And I don't think anybody can decide that yet.
It might be too early to say, well, it was an absolute zero.
It was a negative.
And the fact that he wasn't found guilty is a big deal.
But you really wonder how much benefit they're going to get from this.
But they're going to, I would think the people would finally get tired of it.
I saw that one congressman that voted to impeach Trump.
His family split on him and they expelled him from the, almost from the family.
I think it was from Illinois.
So that's that.
I mean, it's getting to be strong, strong feelings on this, but it's still to me a result of a society and a political system and a moral system that is very, very confused.
They don't operate with some basic principles, political principles or moral principles.
And anything is up.
It's a whole lot.
It's to me like the difference between the authoritarianism of interventionism versus liberty.
Because when you're an interventionist, you can be a good interventionist.
I'm going to do good.
I'm going to do all these wonderful things.
But intervention is intervention and it invites all variations.
So, you can do anything you want.
You know, you can even change your mind with interventionism.
If you have a basic principle defending liberty, then you're held more in check.
You're supposed to say, Well, I'm never going to commit violence against another person, never initiate force and never lie to people, never steal from people.
When you have that basic principle down there, it's pretty easy to detect when people drift from that.
So, I think we live in a society today that economically, that's what we do, and morally, that's what we do.
And there's it's not gone, but there's not enough of those people in Washington and people of influence, especially in the media, you don't find that.
So, and we've lamented it so often: the fact that we don't have really good journalism as we've had in the past, even though you have already just mentioned that we do still have some around.
We have to encourage it.
Well, you know, Dr. Paul, that's an extremist position.
You're calling for principles and morality in politics in Washington.
That's a real extremism.
I decided, excuse me, I decided to take a risk today.
A little risky statement.
A little risky statement.
But I think you mentioned when we were talking before the show that the Democrats, something on the lines of the Democrats fear that these two acquittals are really going to energize Trump supporters and have the opposite effect of what they intended.
And I think you sent something over from Representative Johnson from Louisiana, who said he believes that the whole goal, like you say, they didn't have the votes.
The whole goal of the impeachment exercise was to paint all Trump voters as criminals rather than the few people who did break the law when they went in and smashed things up.
Basically, to tar the entire group of Trump supporters and Trump voters as a criminal class, as domestic terrorists.
And so, as a propaganda exercise, at least at this point, it's probably semi-successful.
Well, they must have learned that lesson from Hillary.
I think she painted all Republicans who voted for Trump as being nasty people.
Yeah, it is.
Well, are we about ready to close out now?
We're not in the studio, so we hope we are signaled.
Yeah, I would just echoing what you said, Dr. Paul, which is that these commissions are always designed to obfuscate rather than to get at truth.
So, keep an eye on what they're not talking about rather than what they are talking about.
And buckle up because I think it's going to be a bumpy road.
Dr. Paul, very good.
And if my theory is right, that we are in the midst of a very, very serious bankruptcy, both financial and morally, we have a lot of work cut out for ourselves.
But then, people will then say, Ron, but you still come across as an optimist.
Yeah, but some days it's barely.
But, no, I want to be optimistic because I'm optimistic because the message is so good.
You know, the message of liberty is a wonderful thing, but it was never perfect.
You know, if you wanted to find scandalous things, it was happening within the first decade or two of our country.
There was those founders fought among themselves, too.
So, it's the imperfection of man that does that.
But certainly, we have gone downhill when it comes to trying to follow the principles of non-intervention and promoting a work ethic and self-reliance because that's where we're really lost.
But it will get so to the point where we will have to do something.
I still don't quite believe that we're so bad that this whole country has to look like Venezuela.
Right now, we have Florida and South Dakota and a few other places that are doing the right thing.
I think that we have to just encourage that and get young people to take a look at that because they have the most interest in this for their future.
But that's our job, and that's why I've been so frequently praising the Mises Institute because it passes along, you know, to a lot of young people, to a lot of people, the whole principles of the market economy.
So I think people will finally vote and come our way if they believe it's in their self-interest.
And there's nothing selfish about that.
It's just common sense.
And if we're all taken care of, then everybody else is taken care of.
It's not a problem.
So that is my own personal philosophy.
And right now, this thing, hopefully, you know, things will come even with this impeachment.
And you even pointed out it might even strengthen the opposition.
We don't know exactly how that will work, but we'll continue with our programs.
And I want to make sure our viewers are recognized for the support.