![\"WOW!](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Screenshot_513-1759246523-q80.webp\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Former U.S. Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund said in an interview Friday that the FBI never informed him that hundreds of its agents had been deployed inside the crowds during the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.<\/p>\n
Sund\u2019s remarks to host John Fawcett of \u201cThe Great America Show\u201d came on the heels of a Thursday revelation that the FBI, then under Christopher Wray, had 274 plainclothes agents inside the massive Trump crowds on January 6, 2021 \u2014 hundreds more than previously reported.<\/p>\n
A senior congressional source said the number of FBI personnel at the Capitol on Jan. 6 is not necessarily surprising, noting that the bureau routinely embeds countersurveillance staff at large public events. Still, the source acknowledged that, given the FBI\u2019s longstanding refusal to detail the scope of its presence that day, the figure is likely to draw skepticism in some quarters, The Blaze\u00a0<\/p>\n
The disclosure follows earlier claims by the Justice Department\u2019s Office of Inspector General that the FBI had no undercover personnel embedded in the Jan. 6 crowds. It also\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWe found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,\u201d the DOJ OIG said in an 88-page report released in December 2024.<\/p>\n
Wray\u00a0testified before Congress\u00a0in July 2023 that he \u201cdoes not believe\u201d undercover FBI agents were present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m not sure there were undercover agents on scene,\u201d Wray responded to a question from a GOP lawmaker. \u201cAs I sit here right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on.\u201d<\/p>\n
Sund said that on January 5, one day before the Capitol protests, 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.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf they were saying that they were going to have that group in the crowd already, most likely what they\u2019d do is they\u2019d put a liaison up in my command center,\u201d Sund told Fawcett. \u201cI mean, if you\u2019re going to have that type of assets and resources deployed onto someone\u2019s jurisdiction, you\u2019re going to put somebody in their command center. That\u2019s key.<\/p>\n
The only problem with the Capitol is the bureaucracy. Even though, as the Chief of Police, there was a chief law enforcement officer for the House and a chief law enforcement officer for the Senate that sat over top of me. That created the big bureaucracy that I ran into. You\u2019d like to think the chief could call the shots, especially with my experience? Not the case on January 6th,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s like no other jurisdiction in the world. They really need to fix that,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
In February 2021 testimony before the Senate Rules and Homeland Security committees, Sund said he never received an FBI report that warned of potential violence on January 6. The report, issued on January 5, outlined specific calls for violence ahead of the protest at the Capitol.<\/p>\n
According to Sund, while the U.S. Capitol Police did receive the report, it never made its way to his office.<\/p>\n
Instead, he testified, a Capitol Police officer assigned to the FBI\u2019s Joint Terrorism Task Force received the document and passed it to an official within the department\u2019s Intelligence Division, where it never made it further up the chain of command.<\/p>\n
The aftermath of the recent election night has brought about a wave of introspection and, in some corners, outright dismay among establishment Democrats, particularly regarding the victory speech delivered by progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani. What was expected to be a moment of unifying triumph was swiftly marred by rhetoric that prompted accusations of a \u201ccharacter switch,\u201d leading prominent voices, including CNN\u2019s Van Jones, to suggest that Mamdani may have alienated potential allies and missed a critical opportunity for expansion.<\/p>\n
The controversy surrounding Mamdani\u2019s tone is intertwined with a broader political climate of intense polarization, highlighted by strategic maneuvers in Congress and the ongoing ideological battle within the Democratic coalition itself.<\/p>\n
Zohran Mamdani, who secured a significant victory, immediately thrust himself into the national spotlight not with a message of broad inclusion, but with a highly charged, confrontational address. The commentary suggests that the warm, calm, and embracing persona Mamdani projected during his campaign\u2014a figure perceived as close to working people\u2014was conspicuously absent on the victory stage.<\/p>\n
CNN analyst\u00a0Van Jones<\/strong>\u00a0articulated this feeling of betrayal and disappointment clearly.<\/p>\n \u201cI think he missed an opportunity\u2026 The Mamdani that we saw on the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech. I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling, and that\u2019s not the Mamdani that we\u2019ve seen on TikTok and the great interviews and stuff like that.\u201d<\/p>\n Jones\u2019s analysis cuts to the core of the Democratic establishment\u2019s anxiety: Mamdani\u2019s rage-filled tone was not unifying. Jones expressed concern that the sharp, divisive rhetoric would lead many potential supporters to question whether they could \u201cget on this train with him or not,\u201d fearing he would prioritize \u201cclass warrior\u201d tactics even in office. According to Jones, Mamdani\u2019s failure to \u201copen up and bring more people into the tent\u201d could prove costly down the line.<\/p>\n The content of the speech further fueled these fears, particularly Mamdani\u2019s direct, politically charged message seemingly directed at President Donald Trump. Mamdani was perceived as challenging the former President, with some analysts interpreting his words as a\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cfind out and find out\u201d moment<\/strong>, signaling a willingness to engage in aggressive political warfare.<\/p>\n Republican commentator\u00a0Scott Jennings<\/strong>\u00a0seized on this point, offering a stark \u201creality check\u201d to Democrats supporting the progressive wing. Jennings noted that Mamdani began his speech by quoting\u00a0<\/p>\n Eugene Debs<\/strong>, a five-time Socialist Party of America candidate, immediately signaling a far-left, explicitly socialist ideology that transcends traditional Democratic liberalism.<\/p>\n Jennings warned that this worldview, exemplified by Mamdani\u2019s quote, \u201cNo problem too large for government to solve or too small important,\u201d would inevitably translate into policies that Democrats\u2019 traditional base might fear. Specifically, this vision, where the government is the solution for every issue, is a thinly veiled promise of sweeping\u00a0<\/p>\n The underlying tension highlighted by these reactions is the internal conflict plaguing the Democratic Party between its pragmatic, establishment wing and the increasingly powerful, far-left progressive and democratic socialist factions.<\/p>\n The discourse surrounding ideological purity and political strategy was amplified by events related to the federal government shutdown. The transcript suggests that Senate Democrats, led by figures like\u00a0<\/p>\n Chuck Schumer<\/strong>, were deliberately delaying a resolution until polls were about to close for the elections.<\/p>\n News reports indicated that Senate Democrats were suddenly \u201cmaking moves toward reopening the government,\u201d a move interpreted by critics as evidence that the shutdown was merely a\u00a0<\/p>\n political game<\/strong>\u00a0designed to \u201cjuice their leftist base turnout for the elections.\u201d The critical timing\u2014addressing the crisis\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0as key elections were concluding\u2014led to accusations that the Democratic leadership was a \u201cdisgrace\u201d for using a serious governmental crisis for cynical electoral gain.<\/p>\n This perception of strategic manipulation only heightens the concerns raised about Mamdani\u2019s approach: while the establishment is accused of playing calculated games, the progressive wing is simultaneously accused of being overly aggressive and divisive, leaving the party fractured on both tactics and tone.<\/p>\n While the analysis focused heavily on Democratic infighting and strategy, the transcript quickly pivoted to provide a significant\u00a0reality check<\/strong>\u00a0to the Republican Party following a night of overall disappointing results in key elections in states like New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City.<\/p>\n The key message from conservative commentators was that the GOP needs to abandon its reliance on simply framing the Democrats as \u201cworse\u201d and develop a compelling, independent platform.<\/p>\n Megan Kelly<\/p>\n\n