[LatteLazy]

Ummm, the law cited by the Chief clearly states the guard can be called to assist by the senate sergeant at arms OR the house sergeant at arms OR the Capitol Police board.

Pelosi didn’t do it. But she wasn’t responsible for doing it, and the board Mr Sund chaired could have done it themselves much faster.

And all of this is just what they are allowed. It did not stop trump from doing his job. Which he didn’t…

https://policy.defense.gov/portals/11/Documents/hdasa/refere...

Provision of assistance Assistance under this section shall be provided -

(A) consistent with the authority of the Capitol Police under sections 1961 and 1966 of this title;

(B) upon the advance written request of -

(i) the Capitol Police Board; or

(ii) in an emergency -

(I) the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate in any matter relating to the Senate; or

(II) the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives in any matter relating to the House of Representatives; and

(C)(i) on a temporary and reimbursable basis;

(ii) on a permanent reimbursable basis upon advance written request of the Capitol Police Board; or

(iii) on a temporary basis without reimbursement by the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard as described under paragraph (1)

[lenkite]

Thanks, but did you read what you wrote ? You seem to be actually supporting the argument that the Chief cannot unilaterally act by himself, especially when Pelosi's Sergeant At Arms denied his request - several times.

That would mean treason on his part if he overruled the Sergeant.

https://cha.house.gov/2024/8/new-obtained-hbo-footage-shows-...