Ex-Capitol Police Officer Releases Never-Before-Heard Police Audio of Jan 6 - State of the Union
By: Andrew Rodriguez (State of the Union)
Should be interesting when all is released..........................
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
via Washington Post
Former Capitol Police Officer Tarik Johnson has released 12 hours of J6 police scanner audio, suggesting that Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman did not provide proper assistance to Chief Steven Sund in getting National Guard to protect the Electoral College during the Capitol riots.
Former Capitol Police Chief Sund had warned Congress multiple times about the danger prior to the riots.
"Here we go… Episode 1," Johnson posted. (Trending: Olympic Gold Medalist Sentenced For Jan 6)
Former Capitol Police Officer Tarik Johnson has released 12 hours of J6 police scanner audio, suggesting that Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman did not provide proper assistance to Chief Steven Sund in getting National Guard to protect the Electoral College during the Capitol… pic.twitter.com/WHBFltBqr6
— AnalyzingAmerica (@AnalyzAmerica) December 4, 2023
"The mainstream media is telling you that J6 was an insurrection."
"Please tell me if the actions of Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman were heroic and proper," he added.
"To give so some context Pittman's call sign is Unit 2 and she is sitting on a dias in the USCP Commander Center where she can hear the radio traffic and she has a 360 degree view of the outside of the Capitol."
"She can also see the actives inside the Capitol where there is a camera," he continued.
"Chief Steven A Sund was on the phone trying to obtain approval for the National Guard's assistance and assistance from other law enforcement agencies."
"I was on the ground trying to de-escalate the situation specially asking Pittman for help. My call sign was 405J-John."
Here we go… Episode 1:
The mainstream media is telling you that J6 was an insurrection. Please tell me if the actions of Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman were heroic and proper. To give so some context Pittman's call sign is Unit 2 and she is sitting on a dias in the USCP… pic.twitter.com/b6CG9MzkWU
— Tarik Johnson (@elleonCEOTK) December 3, 2023
Johnson plans to release more information on the J6 cover-up, assuring the public of his commitment to revealing the truth.
"I spoke to my lawyer and I told him what my plans are as it relates to releasing information on X about the J6 set-up and the cover-up that ensued after," Johnson posted.
"I wanted to see what if any legal ramifications I'd be facing when I do. He stated he didn't see any and if something arose we would deal with it together. So it's a go!!!!!!!!!!!!!" he posted.
"With that said, I ask for everyone to be patient as I'm going to do this right and I have to make another post before I load the 12-hour radio run to my page," he added.
"Additionally, I am not a tech person so I will also have to learn to load large documents and audio files from my computer to X so I'm going to need a little more time. I still have to work in the middle of all this and I'm dealing with family stuff at the same time but you have my word I will get everything done by next week. Hopefully by Wednesday."
"Some worry that something may happen to me prior to releasing the info. You can rest easy with that. Tom Fitton of Judical Watch has the info along with my attorney."
"@TPC4USA [Steve Baker] (who you all should be following) has permission to receive the info and do whatever he believes is best with that info in the unlikely event I disappear. The man only wants the truth no matter where it leads," he added.
"Please know that I am fighting for EVERYONE that was aggrieved from the events of J6 and UNITY in our country," he continued.
"I'm not doing this for any financial gain now or in the future but for the reasons I listed above by order of the God I serve. I am a LION and I will protect my cubs. In this case they are EVERYONE in the J6 community as you were set-up and that should not have happened to you even if you did wrong things that day."
"The police from all 17 agencies that responded to the Capitol to defend it as we should have been more prepared that day. All the people that died on J6 or as a result from that day."
"All whistleblowers from every agency that put their careers in jeopardy and or lost them because they wanted the truth out and saw what was happening to US citizens because of J6."
"Thank you for listening and God bless the greatest nation in the world and all the people in it," he concluded.
No Trump, Source Dissing or Fascist BS
All NT rules apply
Tags
Who is online
618 visitors
Very interesting. Waiting to hear it all to pass judgement. How about the rest of you?
Think I'll wait for the officer's voice to be blurred.
Sounds like you've already passed judgement. It was a set up.
lol
Let the false persecution of Officer Johnson begin.
No surprise, some Capitol Police were MAGAs...
Define MAGA
[DELETED]
I think it changes daily depending on who is accusing someone of being MAGA.
Yep ... like the MAGA high school students in DC .. Or Jesse Smollett being confronted and assaulted by MAGA minions.
The term MAGA has been coopted to mean the extremist of the party of (R) .. Albeit I have never used the phase 'make America great again' .. Ronald Reagan did.....
I agree. Part of the issue is the definition of extreme can go from people like Matt Gates to almost any Republican or anyone else that does not buy into a certain ideology. Talk about a moving target.
It is meant to be a moving target, how else can the fear mongering continue? I am no supporter of the former President, but did you watch the town hall meeting with Sean Hannity last night? [I saw clips of it] The former president said on day one he would be a dictator in order to secure the border and start drilling after that no dictatorship.... but that is not what the headlines read .. they read 'Trump says he will be dictator from day one' blah blah etc etc
Remind me again who is trying to subvert democracy? Does omission of facts make the headlines alternative facts?
Wouldn't it be funny if they had to say" the people that want to Make America Great".
I also saw clips. I have a hard time watching him or Biden speak. One is a narcissist and one is an incoherent fool. IMO there is no bigger threat to democracy than the media and social media. Media (especially cable "news") because they constantly cherry pick and spin facts in order to promote their narrative. Social media for pretty much the same reason, especially if you are set up to only see one side. The rampant antisemitism is an example of people protesting without having a clue what they are protesting about because of what is on social media. Now that I think of it the biggest threat to democracy is stupid people voting without having a clue.
It is pretty funny that they demonize Making America Great Again but their actions show that is exactly what they are against.
and after that no dictatorship. . .
And you believed him?
Ooo yes, I think it is painful to listen to them ..
It is the algorithms .. one can sincerely only hear what they want to hear. The cherry picking, sound bites and snippets from the media become irrelevant at some point, it goes in one ear and out the other .. people are trading their individualism for likes and group think approval.
Amen, and these students that are out in mass supporting Hamas on US campuses are able to vote - for fuck's sake they do not think 'from the river to the sea Palestine will be free' means anything, it just rhythms ...?
I shrug my shoulders and shake my head .. common sense apparently cannot be taught.
Tess that is not the point of the comment .. taking anyone out of context and making it seem as though they said or meant something that is not accurate is manipulation by the media. It is nothing more than alternate facts being presented as fact.
and you think that is ok?
Find me an example of one other president who publicly said he would be a dictator. For a minute.
That too John, that he would say that - even for a minute.
Yet people still justify it/defend the indefensible
regarding your last sentence, subverting Democracy, just what do you think he was doing on 1/6, and leading up to 1/6, and ever since?????????
Nonsense.
There is really no reason for me to do this, because I do not think you would ever accept that anything I have to say is of any value ... yet here I go:
I recognize the involvement that the former president had in the events of January 6 .. I watched that fuck'd up shit unfold from jump .. it was so unreal to watch and think that it was actually happening, I almost questioned my eyes, how could this be real .. but it was.. like 9/11 I know where I was, and what I was doing .. both days I sat down watching the horror unfold helpless to do anything.
I do not support the former president, never have .. but what is the point of 'speaking truth to power' when the information being provided is incomplete or false all together?
Peace!
It wasn't incomplete or false.
An excellent question! But believe it or not, it actually stands for "Make America Great Again"!
Of course if one wants to make America Great Again, that implies that:
1. America once was great
and
2. If we want to make it great again, that implies that it is no longer is great.
Define MAGA
An excellent question! But believe it or not, it actually stands for "Make America Great Again"!
Of course if one wants to make America Great Again, that implies that:
1. America once was great
and
2. If we want to make it great again, that implies that it is no longer is great.
Which begs the question-- when was America actually great?
(Curious minds want to know!)
So . . . let's go to the videotape *
_____________________________________________
* Apologies to Warner Wolf
It's laughable you think we would take your word for it. Link your proof.
Way too many people who just throw out whatever they pull out of their nether regions and expect people to accept that as if it's truthful yet never provide any evidence.
It's hive think. It gets funny when you disagree with them even the slightest and suddenly your a fascist, racist, antisemite or what ever the catch phrase of the day is.
It's a;ways been like that to some degree. But lately tis gotten much worse.
(Personally, I blame the Internet-- especially social media!
The kindest thing that can be said about this utter mess of an article is that it is a word salad.
I read the whole thing and still dont know what the point is supposed to be.
Is Yogananda Pittman responsible for a couple thousand Trump fanatics breaking and entering the US Capitol on Jan 6th? LOL.
Next we will hear she is guilty of murdering Ashley babbitt.
He is saying it was a set up........................
HOW were the people who broke into and entered the Capitol Building set up?
Was their free will taken from them ?
The argument , to use the word loosely, of the article seems to be that the assistant police chief failed to have adequate forces on the site.
Lets say that is true. So what? How does that clear the rioters of their own culpability ? Thats like saying a bank didnt have enough guards on duty so the bank robber had no choice but to go through with it. It is ridiculous.
Bingo.
It doesn't release them from their own culpability. The point is, no one seemingly lifted a finger to ensure security even having knowledge that there was bound to be chaos. They let it happen so to speak.
But that is a failure of competence. It is not a set up. Those who broke and entered the Capitol were not set up by any stretch of the imagination.
They were incited by Trump, but they were not set up.
If I leave my car unlocked with the key in it and you steal my car, I was irresponsible but you were not set up.
If a bank has inadequate security and it was successfully robbed, the robbers were not set up.
Let me spell it out a little clearer for you. The set up was the fact they didn't care that it was going to happen. Otherwise they would have had adequate security. They wanted it to happen.
That is not a set up.
My examples made this crystal clear.
A set up would be leaving the security low AND inciting breaking and entering AND then arresting the perps.
If you leave your front door unlocked and you are subsequently robbed, that is not a set up.
If you inform a thief of your unlocked door and then have the police there to catch him, that is a set up.
If it turns out to be true it would at least be a dereliction of duty. I wonder if the Get Trump commi.........er.....Jan 6th committee ever looked into this. After all the purpose of the Get Trump comm........er.....Jan 6th committee was to look into all the failings of the Jan 6th mostly peaceful protests.
If they knew it was going to happen and didn't do anything about it I would have to question what their motives were and how high up the chain of command the decisions were made. It would mean there were a group that wanted it to happen. I am sure the Get Trump committ........er....Jan 6th committee looked into it and have all the answers.
Let's assume that 'they' knew this would happen and that 'they' intentionally did not provide adequate security.
Those who broke and entered the Capitol did that willfully. Willfully committing a crime is not a set up even if 'they' knew it would happen and 'they' allowed it to happen.
If you break windows and doors in the Capitol and enter the building during a highly contested session of Congress in response to incitement by the PotUS and his minions, you are responsible for your own voluntary acts.
They left the security low AND knew the shit was going to hit the fan due to reports and warnings. That is enough for a perfect storm if not a set up.
Yep and they let them.................period.
It was obvious that the Jan 6th committee was going to be a partisan show when they hired James Goldsten to produce the show. And now that news has come out that the committee failed to preserve all records/recordings/etc of their work, one just has to wonder what all they were attempting to hide. As an attempt to be as thorough as the Kennedy Assassination committee, they surely failed.
Exactly............................
You can say all this until your tongue falls off and its still not going to mean anything.
The J6 defendants were tried and sentenced on the basis of what THEY did, not what someone feels they were "set up" to do.
Since you are determined to view the insurrection as a set up (painting the violent protestors as victims) then you need to at least show that they were encouraged to take advantage of the low security.
That makes Trump part of the ‘they’ who set up these ‘victims’.
If you refuse to recognize Trump’s role here (predictably) then you do not have any case to paint the violent protestors as victims no matter how lax the security. They willfully broke and entered the Capitol to disrupt a session of Congress.
A bank with lax security that is successfully robbed did not set up its thieves. The thieves acted of their own volition.
I am not painting anything let alone the perps as victims. FFS. I am saying no one gave a shit and it was another perfect vehicle to get Trump. THEY LET IT FUCKING HAPPEN. Entrapment? The perps were just collateral damage................
Letting it happen is different from engineering a set up.
You have been claiming set up and I have responded to that.
There is no question that the security was lax. There are many questions as to why. So even if you equivocate to merely ‘they let it happen’, you can only speculate that ‘they’ wanted it to happen.
The security was lax. That is a fact. The rest is speculation.
I don't recall saying it was. What I actually said was "If they knew it was going to happen and didn't do anything about it I would have to question what their motives were and how high up the chain of command the decisions were made." Don't you think that would be worth knowing?
So here is my response:
Let's assume that 'they' knew this would happen and that 'they' intentionally did not provide adequate security.
Those who broke and entered the Capitol did that willfully. Willfully committing a crime is not a set up even if 'they' knew it would happen and 'they' allowed it to happen.
If you break windows and doors in the Capitol and enter the building during a highly contested session of Congress in response to incitement by the PotUS and his minions, you are responsible for your own voluntary acts.
In short, you can question the motives of 'they' all you wish. The fact will always remain that those who broke and entered the Capitol did so of their own volition.
Do you recognize that those who broke and entered the Capitol were not set up?
That was all my post was about. I never said anything to lead anyone believe I thought it was a setup. I feel it is more important to focus on where the shortcomings were and not get hung up on semantics but it seems that is all that is important to you.
Where exactly did I say I felt they were set up? Did you even read my post? Don't you care about a possible lapse in security protocols?
Never stated that you did. In fact, I asked you specifically about that to distinguish your position from that of the seeder's.
How? When?
“How? When?”
Who, what, when and where?
The questions can be asked ad nauseam but the answers are plain to see, unless of course, the apologist blinders make it impossible to see clearly.
Jan 6th was never intended to be a peaceful protest.
"It will be wild"
Donald Trump asking his followers to descend on Washington on Jan 6th. Who announces a peaceful protest by saying it will be wild ?
But we have another measure to guage that Trump wanted a riot. He sat watching tv for 2 or 3 hours while a riot was going on at the US Capitol and did nothing to try and end it. Nothing. Why? Because he liked what he was seeing.
To this day he praises the rioters, he told them he "loves" them.
How fricking dumb to people have to be to not understand Trump wanted it ?
I know right. How fucking dumb do people have to be to not understand what he said:
Odd how the Democrats and the left have edited his statement.. But then again, it's not like they've been truthful in the first place.
If you wanted to know what I thought you could have just asked without the setup and telling me why there is only one acceptable answer. Maybe "Do you think the rioters were set up?" instead of :
"Those who broke and entered the Capitol did that willfully. Willfully committing a crime is not a set up even if 'they' knew it would happen and 'they' allowed it to happen.
If you break windows and doors in the Capitol and enter the building during a highly contested session of Congress in response to incitement by the PotUS and his minions, you are responsible for your own voluntary acts.
In short, you can question the motives of 'they' all you wish. The fact will always remain that those who broke and entered the Capitol did so of their own volition.
Do you recognize that those who broke and entered the Capitol were not set up? "
Then you should be able to answer them easily.
Donald Trump told his supporters to come to DC on Jan 6th, and he said "it will be wild".
He said it. Too bad so sad for [him,deleted]
Yes, he did say that.
He also said I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Why do you always ignore that?
He also said
Seems like also Biden and Raskin used the same or similar phrases.
Seems to me if you are going to condemn one person for using that phrase you should condemn all of them.
Lets see, I quoted and provided a link to what he said. I wonder why you haven't done that yet.
You have never gone out on a Saturday night to have a "wild" time? You have never gone to a college basketball game where the crowd went "wild"? I bet the crowds are "wild" at a Taylor Swift concert.
Wild does not necessarily mean violent.
Saying go to someplace to peacefully make your voices heard can not be interpreted as violence.
Why do you only hear what you want to hear?
Yep, and what Trump never said was something like “Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. ” Maxine Waters.
Not going to listen to anyone tell me about promoting violence when they were quiet about this.
Do you think that Trump's oft-repeated rhetoric starting early in 2020 (actually started in 2016) about the only way 'we' would lose is if the election is rigged did not influence many of his supporters to believe foul play when Trump deemed the election rigged after his loss?
What typically happens when large groups of people believe the government is corrupt and that their votes were disenfranchised? When this already predisposed and energized crowd of Trump supporters was told to march down to the Capitol to protest Congress acting wrongly (Trump dropped in the word ' peacefully ' once while stating fight or fighting 20 times ), do you really think Trump's claims did not have an effect? Do you think that telling this crowd —with all the stoked emotion per the words of Trump and his minions— to march down to the Capitol was responsible or irresponsible?
The violence that took place on Jan 6th was due to what cause? Answer: the cause was that the election was stolen from Trump.
But, according to the cult/followers/enablers/defenders of the indefensible will claim (and have been claiming all along) that this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard"
absolves him of EVERYTHING despite EVERYTHING he said and did BEFORE and AFTER those 22 words.
"That makes trump part of the 'they' who set up these 'victims'.
EXACTLY!
Some
They vote for someone else
On some
Neither
Looks like you think the election was stolen from Trump.
I am sure anyone reading this is interested in how you could come to such a ridiculous conclusion (other than utterly sloppy reading).
Your words. Answer: the cause was that the election was stolen from Trump.
By saying that I will guess that you blame Clinton for the weeks of rioting and millions of dollars of damages after her loss in 2016. The rioters were, after all, protesting her loss in that election and were demanding that she should actually been made president.
As I noted, sloppy reading (being generous).
Read both sentences:
I stated that the cause that drove the violence was their belief that the election was stolen from Trump.
That was the cause of the rioters.
Even with sloppy reading (and you had to read it at least twice), having even a slight understanding of my position, how could you possibly think that I believe the election was stolen from Trump? (rhetorical)
You completely ignore the months of incitement by Trump and the concentrated incitement by Trump and his minions following his election loss.
Sloppy writing.
You did not say "the cause that drove the violence was their belief that the election was stolen from Trump. That was the cause of the rioters."
That might very well be what you meant but it is not what you said.
What you actually said was The violence that took place on Jan 6th was due to what cause? Answer: the cause was that the election was stolen from Trump.
[Deleted]
Ah it was two months give or take between the election and Jan 6. The riots in 2016 started right after the election and lasted for weeks.
Oh and BTW where was Hillary trying to stop the riots? No where to be found.
Remember she was in the spotlight. She was pushing the now debunked "Russia Collusion" story.
Not true. Not a single word.
Not just Clinton. According to Newsweek
the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 304 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton 's 227. During the joint session on January 6, 2017, seven House Democrats tried to object to electoral votes from multiple states.
According to a C-SPAN recording of the joint session that took place four years ago, the following House Democrats made objections:
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, but lost the Electoral College to Donald Trump. Prior to the Electoral College vote, which Trump was expected to win 306-232, some progressive Democrats proposed getting Republican electors to switch their votes to Clinton or another Republican on the grounds Trump was unfit for office.
That right there is a fine example of someone (you) intentionally taking the most unlikely (in fact, ridiculous) interpretation of cherrypicked words in order to spin a falsehood.
Context counts.
Intellectual dishonesty yet again.
There is no comparing what Trump did as PotUS to Hillary.
I understand that you are trying desperately to defend Trump with a ‘but Hillary did the same thing’ ploy, but the facts are going to continually thwart you.
[Deleted]
Far-left politicians, media, and their sycophants have repeatedly howled this lie for nigh on 3 years but carefully omit Pelosi's and Bowser's gross mismanagement of January 6, 2021.
They also omit Pelosi's and Water's calls for uprisings.
Maybe if the Jan 6th committee was something other than the Get Trump committee they would have looked into it.
They also gloss over Schumer's call for violence against a Supreme Court Justice. “I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price."
Imagine if somebody use these as defense? The left wouldn't know what to do with themselves.
Wasn't their stated purpose to investigate what happened and how to avoid what happened that day?
That was it exactly....................but we all see what it turned in to. The only way, according to those assholes, is to get Trump.
That's what I thought. And you are 100% correct. It turned into a partisan driven shit show. Altered evidence and all.
If Trump said it we would have had to suffer through another made up impeachment.
Yep, and just like the inflation reduction act what was stated had nothing to do with what it actually was.
I know you won't do it because you can't but prove they were all lies.
You mean there weren't weeks of rioting across the nation while Clinton sat back and did nothing? Don't you get tired of alwaywearing those blinders?s
No she did much, much worse.
Hillary was a private citizen. What was she supposed to do?
Are you still mad Hillary wasn't in the White House on 9-11...
So? The rioters were still rioting because she lost.
Oh maybe something like make an announcement condemning the riots and telling the rioters to stop.
No but if she was in tower one or two would have been ok.
No one was rioting because Hillary lost. No one.
That's deathwishing.
Nonsense. Hillary didn't do anything much less much, much worse than the former 'president'
Nope, what you said wasn't true, not a single word.
First true thing I have ever seen from you.
Yet you can not show what is not true with it.
Tell that to the businesses and citizens of Portland who were intimidated and threatened and had millions stolen or destroyed by the Hillary supporters. There were other cities that had that happen also.
A simple google search and one could see the protests across the country after Trump's inauguration............
Oh Bull! Our jails and prisons across America are packed to overflowing with people who committed both violent and property crimes. Only in your Fox News Fantasy Land are criminals allowed to walk free after committing serious crimes, especially those crimes documented by undeniable evidence, like the evidence against Trump in his ninety one felony criminal indictments...
$500 dollar fine for burning down a Wendy's during the BLM riots.
And of course, the vast majority of rioters who were arrested during the 2020 BLM riots weren't even charged with crimes..
I totally agree-- Hillary has too much power!
(We never should've elected her president!!!
)
By definition the BLM "rioters" who were arrested, were charged with crimes. It is only a ""Rural Legend" that those who commit violent crimes were let off. You are just spreading disinformation, again...
Illogical untrue unverified unbelievable bs!
Not at all, arrested means simply taken into custody and then the vast majority were set free without any penalty or actual charge prosecuted. Prosecutors simply dropped them
We've heard dumber claims from the left.