Finger-pointing dominates hearing on Capitol riot

Forty-eight days after the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol that forced lawmakers into hiding for hours, answers on reasons for security failures are starting to emerge — and people are pointing fingers.

In a rare joint hearing with the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Rules Committee, key law enforcement officials involved in responding to the attack painted a picture of poor intelligence, structural communication issues, and a lackluster response from Pentagon officials as driving reasons behind the botched response.

Capitol Police “issued a daily intelligence report in which it assessed the potential for civil disobedience and arrests as ‘remote’ to ‘improbable,’” said former House sergeant-at-arms Paul Irving. Irving said that in a call with then-Senate sergeant-at-arms Michael Stenger and then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, they “did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol, and our collective judgment at that time was no — the intelligence did not warrant that.”

Irving, Stenger, and Sund all resigned in the aftermath of the attack amid outrage from members of Congress about the response — a move that Sund said Tuesday that he regrets.

DC POLICE CHIEF ‘SHOCKED’ BY HOW ARMY SLOW-WALKED NATIONAL GUARD RESPONSE DURING RIOT

But in their first public responses to questions about the attack, the officials gave conflicting stories, leaving remaining questions about the timeline of when National Guard assistance was first requested.

Just a block away from the hearing room where senators grilled lawmakers, a fortified perimeter of the Capitol complex serves as a reminder of the security failures of on Jan. 6, a too-late overcorrection. The black, 7-foot-tall fences erected outside the perimeter of the Capitol complex are supposed to be “nonscalable,” but there is razor wire attached to the tops of the fence just to be sure. Uniformed National Guard members in small groups walked around the grounds, making light conversation with each other.

The two committees will summon Pentagon officials for another joint hearing next week. At the same time, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is working toward establishing a “9/11-style” commission to examine the attack.

Here are key highlights from the hearing:

Law enforcement officials “shocked” by Pentagon officials slow-walking support request

Acting D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee said he was “shocked” at the Pentagon response to support requests.

Sometime after 2 p.m. on Jan. 6, while the Capitol was under attack, Contee said that he was on the phone with Sund and some Army officials.

“Chief Sund was pleading for the deployment of the National Guard. And in response to that, there was not an immediate, ‘Yes, the National Guard is responding. Yes, the National Guard is on the way,’” Contee said. “The response was more asking about the plan for the National Guard,” and the “optics with boots on the ground on the Capitol.”

Contee said he asked specifically if the request was being denied, and the National Guard said no, but they had concerns.

Sund added that he was “certainly surprised at the delays I was hearing and seeing” from the Pentagon.

Officials were using intelligence that did not predict a Capitol breach

Although Democratic House impeachment managers argued in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial that the Jan. 6 attack was foreseeable and predictable, law enforcement officials disagreed.

All four law enforcement witnesses said that they were not preparing for a coordinated attack but a demonstration similar to the “Million MAGA March” in November, which resulted in brawls between protesters and groups.

Contee said his department planned for the “possibility of violence,” and Sund had directed officers to prepare for “a long day, large groups, and clashes that could possibly include violence.”

Lawmakers asked why the officials were not prepared for the attack despite a Jan. 5 FBI report that warned of “war” at the Capitol. Sund said that he never saw it. A person on the joint task force received the report on the evening of Jan. 5 and forwarded it to Capitol Police intelligence, but it did not go any further than that.

Contee said that the FBI threat warning came to his department “in the form of an email” at around 7 p.m. on Jan. 5, adding that he thought something that serious would “warrant a phone call or something.”

Senators also expressed frustration that officials did not prepare better in light of a Jan. 3 Capitol Police report that warned “Congress itself” could be targeted. Sund said that he expanded the perimeter of barricades around the Capitol after that report came out.

Response to Honore calling law enforcement “complicit” in attack

The officials criticized retired Lt. General Russel Honore, Pelosi’s pick to lead a review of the Capitol attack.

“I’ve just never seen so much incompetence, so they’re either that stupid, or ignorant or complicit. I think they were complicit,” Honore said about law enforcement officials tasked with guarding the Capitol in a Jan 8 interview.

Republican Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee asked the officials to respond.

“It’s disrespectful to myself and the members of the Capitol police department,” Sund said.

“I disagree with what the general said,” Stenger added. “There’s a lot of people who put themselves in very much danger on that day, and saying something like that is just not in good taste.”


Disagreement about timeline and content of Jan. 4 call

Sund said that he notified the two sergeants-at-arms at 1:09 p.m. that he needed them, as members of the Capitol Police Board, to declare a State of Emergency — a process that he said was required for him to have the authority to request the National Guard, though some senators questioned whether that process was necessary. The request, Sund said, was approved an hour later at 2:10 p.m.

Irving, the House sergeant-at-arms, said that he had no memory or record of a 1:09 p.m. call and said he was in the House chamber at that time and that his first record was at 1:28 p.m.

Senators asked the witnesses to provide phone records to clear up the confusion.

Irving also disputed reports that during a Jan. 4 call with Sund and Stenger he worried about the “optics” of the National Guard helping with a response.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar told reporters that Sund revealed a structural issue with the Capitol Police board, with Sund having to get approval in a crisis situation when two of those on the board were preoccupied with protecting members inside the building.

“When you hear the testimony, even with the disagreement, they were focused on their members, protecting their members, getting them to a secure location,” Klobuchar said. “To have that structure where, in a crisis, he’s trying to go to them, while they’re trying to protect the members, it doesn’t really make any sense at all. So the structure has to be changed.”

Law enforcement officials described a “coordinated” attack by rioters

Sund said that he suspected the two pipe bombs placed outside the Democratic National Committee and Republican National Committee headquarters, which prompted Congressional office building evacuations, were intended to draw resources outside the perimeter in order to distract from a coming attack on the Capitol building.

Contee said that rioters used hand signals and radio communications to communicate with each other.

“Capitol Police and responding law enforcement agencies showed tremendous restraint by not using their firearms, which would have likely led to a more chaotic situation and a possible mass casualty incident,” Sund said. He added that officers used batons, shields, pepper balls, and chemical agents to respond to the breach.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Sund regrets resigning

“I love this agency, I love the women and men of this agency, and I regret the day I left,” Sund said.

Related Content

Related Content