The Senate Administration committee hearing on the Jan. 6 riots kicks off with a first-person account from Capitol Police Capt. Carneysha Mendoza, who described rioters firing CS gas in the Capitol. “I received chemical burns to my face that still have not healed to this day.”
Of all the days she worked, Mendoza calls the 6th “by far the worst of the worst. We could have had ten times the amount of people working with us and I believe the battle would have been just as devastating."
Acting DC Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee III says DC police had intel that violence could be expected throughout the city after the Jan 6 gathering and the force was fully staffed, along with 300 members of the DC national guard deployed. But it wasn’t enough.
Contee says his forces cannot go onto Capitol grounds unless they are asked to by Capitol police. After saying the president directs the national guard, he says “I was surprised at the reluctance to immediately send the national guard to the Capitol grounds."
Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund says that they received no intel, either from FBI or Homeland Security, about what was coming. “We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style coordinated assault on my officers."
Sund says security heads properly prepared for a large demonstration with the risk of some violence, but were not warned about the possibility of a full-fledged assault. He does acknowledge that after forces were overwhelme, centralized coordination broke down.
Former House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving pushes back against reports that he turned down having soldiers at the Capitol because of “optics.”
He acknowledges using the word "optics" but says the collective judgement was the intel did not warrant having soldiers at the Capitol.
He acknowledges using the word "optics" but says the collective judgement was the intel did not warrant having soldiers at the Capitol.
Fair amount of finger-pointing. The police forces are heavily blaming a lack of intel. Former Capitol Police Chief Sund highlights he asked on Monday for the national guard to be called in but sergeants at arms said no.
Seargants at arms say that was based on the intel, etc.
Seargants at arms say that was based on the intel, etc.
One thing they agree on is expressing shock that the national guard wasn’t deployed earlier. Contee describes a call where Sund was “literally pleading” for the national guard to be called in.
They didn’t say no per se, but they also didn’t say yes and actually send troops in.
They didn’t say no per se, but they also didn’t say yes and actually send troops in.
“There was not an immediate response,” says Contee.
“I was just stunned. I have officers who are out there literally fighting for their lives.”
“I was just stunned. I have officers who are out there literally fighting for their lives.”
Ok we have full-on conflicting stories about why national guard troops were not present on the 6th.
SUND (Capitol police) says he requested assistance troops two days earlier and the sergeants at arms said no, including House Sergeant IRVING citing “optics."
SUND (Capitol police) says he requested assistance troops two days earlier and the sergeants at arms said no, including House Sergeant IRVING citing “optics."
Irving says Sund never asked for extra troops but passed on an offer from the national guard for them to run traffic control. Irving says the three of them discussed it and as a group decided to not call in the troops because the intel didn’t indicate it was needed.
They also disagree about what happened on the 6th. They’re both doubling down on their statements @byrdinator tweeted here.
Sund says he has no memory of a 1:09pm phone call. Looks like the committee will request phone records.
https://twitter.com/byrdinator/status/1364223283189710848
Sund says he has no memory of a 1:09pm phone call. Looks like the committee will request phone records.
@byrdinator Oh boy, Sen. Ron Johnson is reading a first-person narrative, published in the Federalist, called “I saw Provocateurs at the Capitol Riot on Jan 6” that blames “fake Trump protestors” for the violence.
Johnson echoes the piece’s the conclusion that provocateurs turned “unsuspecting marchers” into an incading mob.
I don’t agree with that piece’s take. There were definitely many people there who just thought they were there for a march.
There were also many who either intended to storm the capitol or enthusiastically got involved once they saw it was happening.
There were also many who either intended to storm the capitol or enthusiastically got involved once they saw it was happening.
I later talked to @Nigrotime who I thought summed it up well. He said some of these people seemed like they'd never stepped foot in DC before let alone the Capitol. They were basically tourists. Others were obviously geared up, dangerous, and knew what they were doing.
Ron Johnson also opened by warning senators against second-guessing how security handled the 6th… which is ostensibly the point of this committee hearing.
“2020 is hindsight, it’s pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback and I want to make sure we guard against doing so.”
“2020 is hindsight, it’s pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback and I want to make sure we guard against doing so.”
It is just disorienting to hear someone like former Capitol police chief Steven Sund say the Capitol siege was not foreseeable or predictable when we, BuzzFeed News, a media organization with no access to classified intel, both foresaw it and prepared for it.
Presented without comment: Sen. Josh Hawley closes his question period by saying that anyone implying any Capitol police were in any way complicit in the Jan 6 attack is “extremely disrespectful” and “really quite shocking.”
It was out in the open for anyone who cared to look. But I think the far more likely explanation than anything nefarious is just simple incompetence. Many people clearly dropped the ball.
https://twitter.com/Murphysically/status/1364264898390286338
Irving asked by Sen. Ted Cruz whether he used the word “optics” in discussing calling in the national guard.
Irving: “I cannot remember my exact verbage. Had I used any language to the effect, it was all in reference to whether the intelligence was matched to the security plan.”
Irving: “I cannot remember my exact verbage. Had I used any language to the effect, it was all in reference to whether the intelligence was matched to the security plan.”
Sund is directly saying that the sergeants at arms, especially Irving, shut down his attempt to get national guard troops in place in advance.
Irving rejects that and say 1) Sund never requested anything just passed on an offer, and 2) they jointly decided it wasn’t necessary
Irving rejects that and say 1) Sund never requested anything just passed on an offer, and 2) they jointly decided it wasn’t necessary
Unclear if we’ll ever get to the bottom of this. But their other big disagreement, about who did what during the siege, involves phone calls and witnesses and should be able to be definitively worked out.
Our story on today’s hearing: Capitol Security Chiefs Said The Jan. 6 Insurrection Was “Unforeseeable” Despite It Being Planned Online In Plain Sight.
buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmc…
buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmc…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
