The intelligence services underestimated the risks to the Capitol on January 6. This is, in essence, what senior Capitol security officials admitted during a Senate hearing on Tuesday February 23. So much so that the safety device was not adapted to counter those whom they qualified as “Criminals ready for war”.
After the acquittal of Donald Trump, accused of having incited his supporters to attack the seat of American democracy, Congress opened a new phase of investigation to understand how the unthinkable could have happened, in order to avoid that this “Dark day” does not happen again. Five people died that day, including a police officer beaten with a fire extinguisher.
Page Contents
“We now know that we had a bad plan”
For the first day of their work, the elected officials of two senatorial committees heard from senior security officials on the Capitol, some of whom had resigned and had never spoken publicly since the assault. Beyond disagreements on their respective roles, they all blamed the failings of the intelligence services and the slowness of the Pentagon to deploy reinforcements.
“Without the information to adequately prepare, the Capitol police were insufficiently staffed to cope with an extremely violent crowd”, said its former boss, Steven Sund. “Based on the information we had, I mistakenly thought we were ready”, said the ex-sergeant-at-arms of the House of Representatives, Paul Irving. “We now know that we had a bad plan”, he added, saying to himself “Deeply shaken” by this murderous coup.
Rioters “ready for war”
MM. Sund and Irving recalled that a Jan. 3 report found “Weak or unlikely” the risk “Acts of civil disobedience” on the sidelines of the demonstration by supporters of Donald Trump, as Congress certified the victory of Democrat Joe Biden in the presidential election.
The federal intelligence services had pointed “A risk of violence [dont] Congress would be the target ”, but had “Never mentioned a coordinated assault”, emphasized Mr. Irving. Now the rioters “Arrived equipped for a violent insurrection”, according to Mr. Sund: “They had weapons, chemical munitions, explosives. These criminals were ready for war. “
The day before the attack, a report from a local FBI office had indeed alerted to more specific calls to ” to fight “, but the document, transmitted to the Capitol Police in the evening, had not circulated internally, revealed Mr. Sund. “Just press “to send” is not sufficient for a report of this nature ”, commented Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, judging this lack of communication “Very disturbing”.
“I don’t like the image of the National Guard lined up in front of the Capitol”
Witnesses also implicated the Pentagon, which waited several hours to deploy the National Guard. To be able to cope with the violence of the intruders, Steven Sund explained that he had called for reinforcements very early on. According to him, a high-ranking officer, Walter Piatt, answered him: “I don’t like the image of the National Guard lined up in front of the Capitol. “ Witness to the exchange, Washington City Police Chief Robert Contee said he was “Stunned” by this answer. “It looked like we had to tick boxes when agents were fighting for their lives”, he said. “It is clear that the National Guard was not quick to respond”, also said Mr. Irving.
A dissonant note, Mr. Sund accused the House Sergeant-at-Arms of having himself expressed, before the attack, his skepticism about the mobilization of soldiers. Mr. Sund also assured that he contacted Mr. Irving at 1:09 p.m. on the day of the assault to obtain the green light for a request for reinforcement. The latter said he did not remember it and had no record of this call on his phone. Senators have asked them to hand in the reports of their calls and messages.
The elected representatives of the two parties, who will resume their work next week, have shown their willingness to work in a “Constructive”, and putting aside the differences displayed during the trial of Donald Trump. On February 13, 57 of 100 senators ruled that the former Republican president was guilty of“Incitement to insurgency”, but it would have taken a majority of 67 elected for him to be condemned. Most of his party’s elected officials voted for acquittal.
