The Daily Beast
Only the first Capitol riot hearing raised more questions on January 6
Andrew Harnik / Getty Nearly seven weeks after the deadly US Capitol insurrection, the people charged with protecting the building on January 6 testified for the first time about the failures that allowed a pro-Trump crowd to storm the US government headquarters in an unprecedented break from democracy. But almost all the answers they gave about what happened that day only raised more questions. Over the course of four hours, the former US Capitol Police chief and former House and Senate security chiefs have widely fingered each other – or blamed others who were not present at the hearing – and most of all , minimized their own flaws. Senators, however, struggled to make use of a golden fact-finding opportunity, to arrive late at key issues and leave others untouched, while several – including those who extended allegations of electoral fraud that brought troublemakers to Capitol to begin with – participated in the consecrated tradition of arrogance in the committee room. One of them, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), used most of his time to read a January 6 account of a right-wing conspirator who raised the discredited theory that Trump supporters were not responsible for violence. From the audience, the Democrats who run the show proclaimed that it was a “constructive” exercise that “shed new light” on what happened on January 6. Some genuinely new information surfaced: for example, Steven Sund, the former Capitol Police Chief, said he had just learned that on January 5, the force received an FBI report warning of the violence surrounding the rally of Trump – but that the report “did not” arrive at his desk. Asked how the authorities failed to notice the other signs of ongoing violence, the authorities simply testified that the intelligence community had not warned them enough about it. Otherwise, the first hearing on the attack on the Capitol made it clear that getting a complete picture of how and why January 6 happened the way it did and will be a difficult task. But the futility of questioning this particular set of witnesses – all seeking to protect their reputations and deflect guilt – was clear at the beginning of Tuesday’s hearing, when senators sought to establish a timetable for those who asked for help and when on January 6. breaking through the perimeter of the Capitol, Sund said he called Paul Irving, then Sergeant of Arms at the Chamber, at 1:09 pm to request that they call the National Guard. He claimed that Irving told him that he was concerned about the “optics” of having Guard troops present and rejected him. Irving countered by saying that he did not remember Sund calling him at that time, saying that he was in plenary overseeing the Electoral College certification process. He added that it was “categorically untrue” that he mentioned concerns about optics in determining the security protocol at Capitol. Under oath, the two men followed their stories. Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) tried to solve the problem, but concluded: “Whatever happened here, I do not seem to agree with several deadlines”. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) then asked the two to hand over their call records for investigation. Johnson pushes the warped ‘Fake Trump Supporters’ theory during the Capitol riot hearing. to succeed on January 6 by intelligence agencies – which they claimed to have underestimated the threat, despite open source evidence and news that strongly indicated that right-wing extremists were planning violent and ambitious acts in Washington on January 6. “Although it appears that there were several participants from various states planning this attack, the entire intelligence community appears to have missed it,” said Sund. “Without the intelligence to prepare properly, the USCP was at a significant numerical disadvantage and left to defend Capitol against an extremely violent crowd.” Robert Contee, acting head of the DC Metropolitan Police Department and fourth witness, also said that the FBI memo was sent on January 5 “in the form of an e-mail”. Witnesses also expressed frustration that the National Guard was so slow to mobilize. Contee, whose officers arrived at an invaded Capitol to support the separate Capitol police force, repeatedly said he was shocked by the Pentagon’s reluctance to mobilize the National Guard. When he asked, Contee recalled, “in response there was no immediate yes,” and said that Army officials responded by asking about the “optics” of the situation. “I was able to quickly deploy MPD and issue guidelines to them while they were in the field, and I was honestly shocked that the National Guard could not – or would not – do the same,” added Contee. The comings and goings between Sund and Irving revealed, at the very least, the complicated on-site process for requesting military assistance on Capitol Hill. No person is responsible for the security of the complex; instead, a secret four-person council is, and its existence delayed the response on January 6. Blunt called the structure “totally impractical” for crises like the Capitol insurrection. The agencies guilty of the witnesses will have a chance to offer their version of events next week, when the FBI and the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security were asked to testify in front of the same joint panel of the Senate Rules and Homeland Security Committees. But on Tuesday, senators largely avoided the questions that then-capitol police and DC police chiefs would be well placed to answer. Only Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) noted, at the end of the process, that only 52 protesters were immediately arrested among the hundreds who invaded the Capitol, attacked police and the media and vandalized the complex. He compared the complex’s militarized stance during the Black Lives Matter protests in June 2020. “Can you tell us how the Capitol’s preparations on January 6 differ from the protests over the summer?” Padilla asked Sund. “It doesn’t matter what the person’s message is,” replied Sund. “We develop our information, develop our intelligence and base a response plan on that.” He added that USCP officers arrested only six Black Lives Matter protesters, but many more were arrested throughout the city. Capitol riot police throw themselves under the bus due to a critical failure on January 6. No senator asked the witnesses on another critical issue: how far Law enforcement, if any, helped any of the rebels. A USCP spokesman said last week that six force officers were suspended on payment for their actions on January 6, and another 29 are under investigation. Lawmakers, like Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH), said they witnessed police officers taking selfies with protesters and giving them instructions. These questions are likely to become food for an investigative body outlined by spokeswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), inspired by the 9/11 Commission, to investigate the insurrection. This effort may also be more appropriate to, ultimately, confirm the disputed schedule of January 6 and fully reveal the flaws. For now, however, the three Capitol officials – all of whom resigned after January 6 – seemed to warn lawmakers not to overdo it by proposing reforms to the Capitol’s security protocol after the deadly turmoil. The very brief opening statement by Michael Stenger, the former Senate weapons sergeant, said “we have to be careful not to go back to a time when possibility, not probability, drives security planning.” In his opening statement in writing, Sund said “the USCP did not fail” and that the force “fulfilled its mission” on January 6, placing responsibility for the carnage on alleged intelligence failures. Under questioning by Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sund’s challenge has eased somewhat. Klobuchar noted that the authorities were smart enough to know that they needed to make additional preparations for January 6. “If the information was sufficient for you to do this, why don’t we take some additional steps?” she asked. “Why haven’t you and other people involved been better prepared to face violence?” Sund responded with a repeated statement that they “expanded the perimeter” of the building – the one that was quickly breached by the crowd. When Klobuchar pointed out that clearly it was not enough, Sund said, “this is now retrospective being what it is.” Read more at The Daily Beast. Get our top news in your inbox every day. Subscribe now! Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside Go for more information on the stories that matter to you. Know more.