The new Jan. 6 video, and the other baseless GOP claim about Pelosi

The main claim about Pelosi has been that she denied National Guard assistance before Jan. 6. Except there remains no evidence of that. As fact-checkers at The Washington Post and elsewhere have noted, Pelosi doesn’t control the National Guard. And the House sergeant-at-arms has testified that he made no such request to Pelosi ahead of Jan. 6.

“It was not until the 6th that I alerted leadership that we might be making a request,” then-sergeant at arms Paul Irving testified.

Some top Republicans have occasionally offered a different but related version of that main claim: that Pelosi might have delayed the National Guard even after the unrest began.

This claim is also baseless. And the Jan. 6 committee on Thursday played new video showing Pelosi and other leading Democrats were indeed quite keen on getting the National Guard in. In multiple scenes, they are shown pushing hard for a response as the Capitol is besieged.

At one point, Pelosi makes such a plea while House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) looks on. But back in June, Scalise encouraged Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), after Banks had suggested Pelosi might have delayed the Guard.

So how much does the new footage undercut the claim? And where does the claim even come from?

The first thing to note is that the claim has been amorphous. Republicans generally haven’t really detailed precisely what they’re referring to. And it’s often been raised in the kind of just-asking-questions manner meant to plant seeds of doubt without any actual evidence.

A sampling:

• On July 27, 2021, No. 3 House Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) offered perhaps the most direct claim: “We also know that on January 6th, Nancy Pelosi was passed a note by the sergeant-at-arms, her political appointee, asking for her permission to bring in the National Guard. She hesitated.”
• The same day, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Tex.) said, “The House sergeant-at-arms answers to Nancy Pelosi, and it’s been suggested the day of January 6th, he was waiting for Speaker Pelosi’s approval before calling in the National Guard.”
• That same day and week, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) referred several times to the idea that Pelosi might have “hesitated,” while qualifying that it was based upon “press reports.”
• Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) picked up the claim on both June 8 and 9 of this year, but merely raised it as a question. “Was Speaker Pelosi involved in the decision to delay the National Guard assistance on January 6th?” he asked suggestively.
• Very shortly after Banks repeated the question at a June 9 news conference, Scalise said, “Jim Banks just raised some very serious questions that should be answered by the January 6th commission.”

In the video played by the Jan. 6 committee on Thursday, Scalise is seen looking on as Pelosi joins others in pushing for assistance. Pelosi asks that the situation be treated as though it were the Pentagon or the White House were under siege.

The call, according to the committee, took place at 3:46 p.m. And the video also includes earlier calls in which Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) ask for assistance, as early as 3 p.m.

On Friday, Banks indicated his party’s claims and questions actually pertained to an earlier period, between when the push for the National Guard began and when word of its final approval came — a period mostly taking place in the 1 o’clock hour (depending upon the account). That would track with Stefanik’s reference to Pelosi being handed a note, which took place at 1:43 p.m.

The timeline of the Guard requests is murky. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Pittman testified that former Capitol Police chief Steven Sund “first reached out for National Guard support to the House sergeant-at-arms” at 12:58 p.m., citing phone records. But Sund testified that his first request was at 1:09 p.m. And Irving, then the sergeant-at-arms, testified he didn’t receive such a request until after 2 p.m. — that earlier conversations didn’t include direct requests.

What we know is that Irving ultimately informed Sund that congressional leaders had approved the request at 2:10 p.m. And Banks says that gap raises questions.

For the purposes of the Republicans’ claims and suggestions, though, what matters is when Pelosi was consulted. And there is no real evidence that she was given a request and then hesitated.

During this time period, business was still being conducted, and Pelosi was in the House chamber. Video shows Pelosi’s chief of staff, Terri McCullough, approaching her at 1:43 p.m., and Pelosi’s office has said she approved the request then. The New York Times reported she also asked whether Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) needed to be consulted; McCullough said she did.

So depending on whether Pittman’s or Sund’s timelines is accurate, there were either 45 or 34 minutes between when Sund initially requested the Guard, and when Pelosi was approached and, according to her office, approved it.

Banks tweeted his own timeline Friday, but it’s misleading. For one, he says Pelosi “finally” approved the request at 2:10 p.m., but that’s actually the point when Irving told Sund that request had been approved — not necessarily when Pelosi herself approved it. Banks’s tweet also refers to Irving as “Pelosi’s staff,” but it’s a position nominated by the speaker that serves the whole House (and which the whole House votes to approve).

And there remains no evidence that she dithered when Irving actually approached her; nor is there evidence she was approached earlier. As noted, she was on the House floor during this period. While footage doesn’t always show the dais, there is no evidence of her being approached about this before 1:43 p.m.

Indeed, the Times reported that “it appears that Mr. Irving, who had told Chief Sund days earlier that he did not want National Guard troops at the Capitol on Jan. 6 because of bad ‘optics,’ waited 30 minutes after hearing from the Capitol Police chief before approaching Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s staff.”

At this point, the rioters had yet to breach the Capitol itself (that happened around 2:15 p.m.), meaning there might have been somewhat less urgency in that moment.

What this ultimately boils down to is a bunch of guesswork and surmising — along with some attempts to train the focus elsewhere. But generally speaking, when you raise such questions, there should be some affirmative reason to suspect that what’s being suggested or alleged could be true.

Scalise’s office said Friday that the whip’s comments about Bank’s questions pertained to what happened before Jan. 6, rather than any supposed delay on Jan. 6 itself. (Banks had raised both issues in his comments just before Scalise spoke.) Scalise spokesman Lauren Fine said Scalise “was referring to what he’s asked all along, which is why wasn’t the National Guard called prior to the day of.”

But plenty of others have focused on the events of Jan. 6 itself. And Banks spokesman Buckley Carlson assured Friday that, when it comes to raising that question, Banks “definitely stands by it.”

JM Rieger contributed to this report.