True, but they would not have been so blase as to have allowed a really credible threat to go unmolested. The fact that they resisted calling in the NG indicates that it was their considered view that the protestors did not represent a real threat of danger to Congress. At most, they were considered just enough of a "threat" as to provide really good anti-Trump optics without actually creating any real threat to Congress.
As such, they had the opportunity to consider whether it was likely to be something that amounted to an insurrection, and they decided that it did not.
That's playing checkers, and Pelosi runs a different game.
Consider the possibility that the most preeminent thing on the Democrats mind was to somehow legitimize the stolen election. Consider that people were hopping mad over that fraud and theft, and Pelosi and other Dems knew it.
(Angry people do stupid things. It is the reason vengeance is a dish best served cold. )
With that large a crowd in the Capitol, virtually all concerned (at least) over the STEAL of 2020, it shouldn't be much trouble to find a few genuine hot heads who can be incited and inflamed to follow the 'guidance' of people who were experienced at leading and forming a mob, and if there are enough agents in the crowd bent on doing so, they can lead the unsuspecting (but still nonviolent) protesters into the building.
What a glorious opportunity to disrupt any complaints about irregularities in the voting and the legitimacy of the electoral ballots as cast. After the disruption, which can be used politically, in and of itself against Trump, his supporters en banc, and the GOP as well, when the session is resumed, the push will be to get done, not to examine protests over irregularities which have just been discredited by actions seen as violent and threatening, even though the only people apparently severely beaten or killed were protestors.
Why on Earth would Pelosi want the National Guard there to keep barriers and signs up (which were removed after Epps talked with some of the people at the Capitol before most of those trickling in from Trump's speech got there)? Why would she want to preempt or stop any incident? Why did the police (or someone who sure looked like them) move the barricades (second line of 'defense') and open the doors to the crowd, admitting them to the grounds and the building?
The National Guard would have stood at the original lines of demarcation, have kept the signs and fences in place, and there WOULD HAVE BEEN NO INCIDENT.
It is my opinion that that would be exactly counter to the desired results, because without an incident there would be no rush to certify the electoral votes (and Biden's election) at the end of the day, no media feed to discredit Trump's supporters, and in doing so rub some of that off on Trump.
When protesters had been led 'far enough' into the building, Ashli Babbit was shot. That signaled the end of the advance into the structure. Most of those in the crowd who were not agitators in the direct or indirect employ of the Feds (Pelosi and the Democrats and agency personnel in sympathy) were not violent people. They walked in like tourists, stayed inside the velvet ropes, and didn't go on the sort of destructive spree that ANTIFA and BLM and other 'protests' seemed to foster in major cities across the US the previous year.
That some people who acted on behalf of the forming narrative were caught inciting riots and pushing for illegal actions on video and remain uncharged is revealing, as is the apparent lack of interest in the identity of the 'pipe bomber' who set those amateurish looking gadgets around town.
This reeks of orchestration, not prevention.
So in my mind, there is 'No question the Capitol Riot was a premeditated attack.'
My issue is that I believe the attribution is misplaced.
