Troy Nehls Drops a Truth Bomb on J6 Cops: ‘It Wasn’t Trump…’ [WATCH]

Tensions flared during a House hearing involving Special Counsel Jack Smith as Republican lawmakers Troy Nehls, Jim Jordan, and Jeff Van Drew sharply challenged the dominant January 6 narrative, while Rep. Jamie Raskin pushed back forcefully during a heated exchange.

Rep. Troy Nehls opened his remarks by directly addressing police officers present at the hearing, saying the responsibility for the January 6 breach did not rest with President Donald Trump but with U.S. Capitol leadership.

“And lastly, I would like to quickly address the police officers of January 6, Mr. Dunn Mr. Fanone, Mr. Gonell, Mr. Hodges,” Nehls said.

“I’m a member of the new select committee to actually examine, actually examine what happened that day. And I can tell you, gentlemen that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump. It lies with Yogananda Pittman and the US Capitol leadership team.”

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.

Nehls said Capitol leaders failed to share intelligence warning of potential violence, leaving officers unprepared.

“We know, we know they had the intelligence and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day,” Nehls said.

“Claim my time.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

As the room grew tense, Rep. Jim Jordan intervened to restore order.

“Yeah, you will be in order,” Jordan said.

“The time belongs to the gentleman from Texas, we’ve had some disruptions already. We don’t need that. Let the gentleman, the gentleman may continue.”

Nehls resumed, reiterating his claim that Capitol leadership, particularly Yogananda Pittman, possessed advance intelligence indicating extremist groups would target the Capitol.

“We know the capital leadership team, specifically Yogananda Pittman, had the intelligence, and there was going to be a high propensity for violence that day, and the capital itself was the target,” Nehls said.

He pointed to internal intelligence reports and criticized prior congressional investigations, accusing them of focusing almost exclusively on Trump rather than examining failures within Capitol leadership.

“It was their fault, folks, it was their fault,” Nehls said.

“It was not President Trump, and we are going to expose it for the first time, because the Benny Thompson, the sham committee, didn’t do it well, the gentleman committee didn’t do it.”

Nehls cited the length of the prior committee’s report as evidence of bias.

“The report is 845 pages,” he said.

“Donald Trump’s name is mentioned 4207 times. We know what the committee wanted to do is to not allow Donald Trump to come back and win again. And they failed, and they failed miserably.”

He then yielded his remaining time to Rep. Jeff Van Drew.

“I hope you now can see that,” Nehls said.

“With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield a balance to my distinguished colleague out of Jersey.”

Van Drew said the hearing reflected an effort to rewrite history and reminded the panel of Trump’s public statements on January 6.

“I just want to quickly go over something, because we keep rewriting history,” Van Drew said.

“The President said, peacefully and patriotically, what don’t we understand about peacefully and patriotically, he asked for the National Guard that was ignored.”

Van Drew said Trump had directly raised the issue with Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

“He asked Speaker Pelosi, what don’t we understand that?” Van Drew said.

That remark prompted an immediate response from Rep. Jamie Raskin.

“Are you saying Nancy Pelosi controls the National Guard?” Raskin said.

“The president could have national guard if he wanted to. And you know that.”

Van Drew pushed back, saying the interruption cut into his allotted time.

“I reclaim my time,” Van Drew said. “I lost some of my time.”

Jordan again stepped in to clarify.

“Time belongs to the gentleman from New Jersey,” Jordan said.

“You have a few more seconds.”

Van Drew closed by arguing that political rhetoric is often mischaracterized and that responsibility should be applied carefully.

“And finally, how many elected officials say we’re going to fight to win an election?” Van Drew said.

“Few terminology used all the time, seriously. And of course, if they were guilty, they should be prosecuted. The problem was there were many in the mix.”

WATCH: