[ad_1]
CNN –
A new Senate report reveals previously unknown details about the stunning security breakdowns prior to the January 6 US Capitol attack, adding credible confirmation to previous evidence of massive intelligence failures, critical miscommunication, and unheeded warnings that ultimately led to Messy day response.
But at the same time, there are several glaring omissions in the report, including any examination of Donald Trump’s role in the riots, raising questions about whether lawmakers, in their quest for bipartisanship, have exposed the limits of a divided and incapable Congress. agree upon. Certain facts, especially those related to the actions of the former president.
RELATED: Cheney: Trump’s incitement to January 6 riots is the ‘most dangerous thing’ the president has done
Sources tell CNN that in order for this report, compiled by the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees, to have support from both parties, the language had to be carefully worded, including excluding the word “rebellion,” which does not appear outside witness quotes and footnotes. .
Have we looked at Trump’s role in the attack? “The answer is no,” a Senate committee aide told reporters.
“The report did not attempt to look at the origins and evolution of the groups or individuals who participated in the attack on the Capitol,” the aide said.
Nevertheless, it represents the government’s most comprehensive report on the security failures that led to the Capitol Rebellion. Congressional investigators examined “thousands of documents,” received written statements from 50 police officers who defended the Capitol, and obtained testimony from a wide range of current and former officials who played a role in and response to security preparations.
Like previous witness testimonies and independent reports about failures related to the attack, the Senate report painted a compelling picture of security lapses on several levels before and on January 6.
Senate aides said the information in the report was pulled from a variety of sources — public hearings, private communications, and five written interviews, including with former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and acting U.S. Capitol Police Chief Yogananda Bateman.
But there was clear frustration among the committees that not everyone cooperated fully with their requests for information. The report was drawn largely from information drawn from the Capitol Police.
“We have developed some information regarding the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI. It is not that the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI withheld the information. Their response so far has been very biased and frankly unsatisfactory,” a Senate aide said.
Furthermore, Senate investigators ran into institutional hurdles—including from the House censor, who did not provide information to the committees because “the House is somewhat responsible for its own affairs, and the Senate is responsible for its own affairs,” an aide said.
Trump supporters posted a lot of violent threats and dangerous assertions online in the lead up to January 6. The report stated that these threats were found in “message boards, social media, memes, or hashtags”. But intelligence officials have struggled with how to interpret the warnings about those posts and how to differentiate between protected political speech and actual threats.
Aides said the Senate investigation has uncovered new information about the extent of prior contact between the rioters, including an increase in traffic to a website about the Washington tunnels.
Aides were pressed to find out why, despite mounting evidence of plans to attack the Capitol, law enforcement appeared to rely on previous MAGA rallies that had remained largely nonviolent. The aides said law enforcement intelligence focused on clashes between groups rather than violence toward the building.
The report also concluded that the Capitol Police’s Main Intelligence Unit “was aware of the potential for violence in the days and weeks leading up to January 6”. But not everyone was aware of this. The investigation concluded that the “decentralized” intelligence operation carried out by the USA office meant that some people saw these warnings while other officials remained in the dark.
Pittman provided important testimony, both in interviews and in open hearings. However, the report notes clear differences in her answers, something that aides acknowledged but declined to provide further explanation.
“Throughout the report you will see important quotes from Acting President Bateman and point out places where there have been some perceived inconsistencies including with respect to intelligence products,” the aide said.
03:08 – Source: CNN
The toll of the riots in the Capitol continued on the officers
The Capitol Police said in a statement that the intelligence reflected “a large demonstration that attracted various groups, including some encouraging violence.” However, the agency added, “What she did not know, as Acting President Bateman noted, was that the large-scale demonstration would become a full-scale attack on the Capitol — as there was no specific and reliable intelligence about such an attack.”
“Neither the US bureau, nor the FBI, the US Secret Service, the Metropolitan Police, or our other law enforcement partners knew that thousands of rioters were planning to attack the US Capitol,” the agency added. Known intelligence simply did not support this conclusion.
The report’s narrow scope highlights the limitations of a bipartisan Congressional investigation. While evidence and interviews were collected over months from staff and bipartisan members of two committees, the information was almost entirely related to the security and intelligence shortcomings that led up to that day, without focusing on why the individuals came to the Capitol in the first place and Trump’s role.
Democratic Senate investigators have taken cautious steps not to impeach their Republican counterparts in the investigation process, which means not taking a hard look at Trump’s role in promoting the January 6 rally and the months-long attempt to pressure local officials and congressional lawmakers. Then Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the will of the voters.
Aides also shied away from language that could alienate some Republicans, including not referring to the attack as a “rebellion.”
“The language chosen was purposeful—and represented the consensus of the four members and their staff,” said a Senate committee aide. “We have done our best to stick to the facts as we understand them and leave descriptions in quotes where there are descriptions.”
In one telling example, the report’s appendix includes Trump’s full speech to the January 6 crowd — but it doesn’t go further in explaining how it affected the Capitol rioters. A Senate aide said the decision was made to avoid including our “editorial ruling” on the speech.
RELATED: Republicans have downplayed the riots in the US Capitol. The guide paints a different picture.
While the report cited some of Trump’s statements and tweets that led to the events at the Capitol, the report did not fully explore the root causes of what led to the rebellion on the Capitol, nor did it directly blame the former president. To propagate the lie that the election was stolen, he rallied supporters to rally at the Capitol on January 6.
The conclusion of the congressional inquiry comes weeks after the Senate rejected a House bill that would have created a bipartisan commission to study the insurgency. This apparatus would have consisted of individuals outside of Congress and the administration. This investigation would have been far-reaching and would have been tasked with exploring some of the events that might have been responsible for triggering the rebellion. However, the bill failed to gain support in the Senate as a few Republicans joined with Democrats to support it.
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and prominent member of the Homeland Security Committee who wrote the congressional report on Tuesday, voted in favor of the legislation that would have created the committee. But Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who was the top GOP member on the bases, did not.
Blunt argued that the congressional report went far enough and provided a framework for how to conduct reforms to Capitol Hill’s security, which could be delayed if a commission is created.
“I think the commission is going to slow down the things that we need to do,” Blunt said last month. “Frankly, I don’t think there are a lot of gaps to fill in what happened on January 6th in terms of building security.”
RELATED: How a Capitol Hooligan broke off the plea bargain and what it means for others
It’s unclear what the bipartisan Senate report will mean for House Democratic leaders, who in the coming days and weeks may decide to start their own investigation either through a new selection committee or through already established committees, which have been working to investigate incidents surrounding the sixth. from january. for months.
Now that the report has been released, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer could argue it didn’t go far enough and could force another vote to establish a committee. However, there are still Republican votes to pass. Without 60 votes or a united Democratic bloc ready to blow up the stall, no commission can be established.
CNN’s Marshall Cohen contributed to this report.
.
[ad_2]
Picture Credit!