Army falsely denied Flynn’s brother was involved in key part of military response to Capitol riot
Category: News & Politics
Via: sister-mary-agnes-ample-bottom • 3 years ago • 21 commentsBy: By Dan Lamothe, Paul Sonne, Paul Sonne National security reporter focusing on the U.S. military Email Bio Follow Carol D. Leonnig and Aaron C. Davis
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Army falsely denied for days that Lt. Gen. Charles A. Flynn, the brother of disgraced former national security adviser Michael Flynn, was involved in a key meeting during its heavily scrutinized response to the deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol.
Flynn left the room before the meeting was over, anticipating that then-Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy, who was in another meeting, would soon take action to deploy more guard members, he said.
“I entered the room after the call began and departed prior to the call ending as I believed a decision was imminent from the Secretary and I needed to be in my office to assist in executing the decision,” Flynn said.
The general’s presence during the call — which has not previously been reported — came weeks after his brother publicly suggested that President Donald Trump declare martial law and have the U.S. military oversee a redo of the election. There is no indication that Charles Flynn shares his brother’s extreme views or discharged his duties at the Pentagon on Jan. 6 in any manner that was influenced by his brother.
It makes sense that Flynn, as the Army’s deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and training, would have been involved in the Pentagon response. The D.C. Guard answers to the president, but the president delegates control over the force to the defense secretary and the Army secretary, essentially leaving it to top Army officials to make critical decisions regarding the District’s military force. Flynn, however, is not in the chain of command.
The Army’s initial denial of Flynn’s participation in the critical Jan. 6 meeting, despite multiple inquiries on the matter, comes as lawmakers demand transparency from the Defense Department in the aftermath of one of Washington’s gravest national security failures, which left one police officer and four rioters dead, the Capitol desecrated and the lives of Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress endangered.
The episode highlights the challenge for the Army in having an influential senior officer whose brother has become a central figure in QAnon , the extreme ideology that alleges Trump was waging a battle with Satan-worshiping Democrats who traffic children. Michael Flynn, who previously ran the Defense Intelligence Agency and left the Army as a three-star general, has espoused QAnon messages, and QAnon adherents are among those who have been charged in connection with the attempted insurrection. In November, Trump announced he had pardoned Flynn, who had pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI.
The night before the Capitol siege, Michael Flynn addressed a crowd of Trump supporters at Freedom Plaza near the White House, saying: “This country is awake tomorrow. . . . The members, the members of Congress, the members of the House of Representatives, the members of the United States Senate, those of you who are feeling weak tonight . . . we the people are going to be here, and we want you to know that we will not stand for a lie.”
McCarthy, who left office as the Trump administration concluded Wednesday, said in a Jan. 12 interview with The Post that he was not on the call, implying he could not address whether Flynn was. But he defended Flynn’s character, saying he has known him for years.
“Charlie Flynn is an officer of an incredibly high integrity,” McCarthy said. “Multiple combat tours. He has buried a lot of people. This guy has given a lot to this country. It is incredibly awkward for this officer every day for what is going on with him and his brother, but he puts his head down in, and he is locked in to serve the Constitution.”
Army officials, before and after that interview, denied that Flynn appeared during the call.
Like several others interviewed, the official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
After being approached with the accounts of multiple officials on the call, the Army sent a statement confirming Flynn participated.
The teleconference, organized by D.C. officials after authorities already had declared a riot at the Capitol, focused on what actions the military could take in response to the violence, with the Capitol Police chief pleading for help and the acting D.C. police chief growing incredulous at the Army’s reluctance to engage. The call included senior Army officials at the urging of Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, according to one person with direct knowledge of the situation.
Five officials who were on the call shared similar stories in which Army officials on the line said they were concerned about the visuals of sending National Guard members to the Capitol.
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, who has since resigned in the wake of the security failure, and acting D.C. police chief Robert J. Contee III were flabbergasted by the Army’s reaction, according to four people on the call. Sund had stressed that the Capitol had been breached by protesters and told those on the call that he had reports of shots being fired on the scene.
Sund, in an interview with The Post , previously said that another general on the call — Lt. Gen. Walter E. Piatt, the director of the Army Staff — raised concerns about guard members appearing at the Capitol.
Piatt denied those remarks in a statement last week.
“I did not make the statement or any comments similar to what was attributed to me by Chief Sund in The Washington Post article — but would note that even in his telling he makes it clear that neither I, nor anyone else from [the Department of Defense], denied the deployment of requested personnel,” Piatt said.
It was at times difficult for the participants of the call to discern which top Army official was speaking. Officials on the call recalled hearing two Army leaders discussing the “optics” and “visual” of having National Guard members respond at the Capitol. One of the Army leaders described the protesters as “peaceful,” and Contee responded that “they’re not peaceful anymore,” two of the officials said.
U.S. defense officials have emphasized that federal law enforcement was better placed to clear the Capitol of rioters than members of the D.C. Guard, the entirety of which was ultimately activated by the Pentagon. Guard members arrived within hours of the call to help establish a perimeter around the Capitol grounds.
“If you ever cleared buildings with people that don’t do it for a living, you could have some very challenging types of things happen,” a senior U.S. defense official said in an interview.
Army officials declined to answer several questions about Flynn’s statement, including how long he was in the room during the call, whether he said anything, and if he was the one who described the crowd at the Capitol as mostly peaceful.
“Thank you for the opportunity to comment, however we have nothing further to add,” the Army said in response to questions posed by The Post through email.
One official directly familiar with the situation said there was concern in both the Army and National Guard about possible political fallout if it was discovered that Flynn was involved in the Army’s deliberations. That is despite it being commonplace that the person in Flynn’s role would have been involved.
Defense officials have repeatedly defended their response to the assault on the Capitol, noting that D.C. officials sought a limited mission for the National Guard that day after thousands of guard members were deployed in the District in June during protests for racial justice. The D.C. National Guard activated 340 guard members in consultation with D.C. officials, with a limited, unarmed mission to staff traffic barriers and Metro stations so additional police officers would be available to deal with crowds.
Sund also did not seek National Guard assistance ahead of time — a reflection, he later said, of senior House and Senate security officials turning down his request to do so.
McCarthy said in his interview with The Post that without a plan to assist Capitol Police, it was “very challenging to understand” what was happening at the Capitol. Military officials said they didn’t want to send the Guard into a combustible situation without any planning that could have made matters worse.
“We were trying to get a handle on this,” McCarthy said. “And when we got moving, we moved as fast as we could from a cold start, not configured to take a reaction.”
Tags
Who is online
428 visitors
Sorry about the length and crappy spacing. I had to seed it old school. WAPO has a paywall and I have a subscription. The entire thing is worth reading.
Not really.
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
If you didn't think it was worth reading--they why did you read it?
????
Ok, I read it. Still trying to figure out what you are trying to say with this seed. Is the issue that Flynn's brother was on the call or is it that the Army initially stated he wasn't? What point are you trying to make?
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Lets wait and see where this thing goes.... IOTW....lets get some more data.
I'm not in the mood for ending a military career through name/brother association.
I agree, for sure. It was this part that bothered me:
“I entered the room after the call began and departed prior to the call ending as I believed a decision was imminent from the Secretary and I needed to be in my office to assist in executing the decision,” Flynn said.
It seems like an excuse often used by those hoping to avoid capability. But when I combined General Flynn's statement with the fact that the Army admitted to lying about his presence during the call, it almost erases any doubt, or, at the very least, gives pause for concern.
I'm sure the Army... Like the Navy tends to close ranks when mistakes are made. Especially when people get killed. Take the Iowa explosion from the 1980s.....
There will be more to come out..... Let's let them get their story straight first.
The military public affairs officials almost never get the story straight until they are told what to say. It's pretty much their job description. I'm not condoning nor excusing the blatant omission. It just is.I see nothing nefarious with that quote and no links to the public affairs statement. Until, or unless, something more comes out it really looks like a non-story.
Then why be in the room?
Ahhhh - the ol' guilt by relationship tactic. Ya gotta luv all the FACTS, with sources of course, being presented.
There is no indication that Charles Flynn shares his brother’s extreme views or discharged his duties at the Pentagon on Jan. 6 in any manner that was influenced by his brother.
one Army official said
the official spoke on the condition of anonymity
according to one person
according to four people
recalled hearing two Army leaders discussing
a senior U.S. defense official said
One official directly familiar with the situation
Just a few points -
Gen. Flynn himself issued the statement to the Post.
Don't you agree that an investigation is warranted? People died, 1st. Why did it take 2 hours to get help to the Capitol officers? Trump didn't send help until the whole damn thing was over. If there was miscommunication, why?
Look, Trump called out the National Guard to gas peaceful protesters so he could stand in front of a church and hold a Bible. The Capitol was under siege on the 6th, and it took 2 hours of murder and mayhem before help was sent.
Just to repeat, don't you agree that an investigation is warranted? Everyone in the room during that phone call needs to be questioned. The military dodge and weave is a little disappointing.
I respect all areas of our military, and have no problem taking their side of a situation when deserved (and even when slightly questionable). I would like to know whether or not my respect is deserved in this case.
Because of what The Pentagon did:
Maryland's governor (a Republican, BTW) wanted to send in Maryland National Guard early on . In fact he had troops who had special prep as well as equipment for handling riots and the like. And they were ready to roll.
But the Pentagon wouldn't let him.
Here are all the actual facts:
Governor Hogan (R-Md) Explains What Really Happened When The Rioters Attacked The Capitol
SMAAB - there are no facts - just "somebody, but we don't know who, said . . . . ."
The Commanding General of the D.C. National Guard is subordinate solely to the President of the United States. This authority to activate the D.C. National Guard has been delegated, by the President, to the Secretary of Defense and further delegated to the Secretary of the Army.
Based on your source, Flynn was not in charge and he was waiting for his boss, the Secretary of the Army, to issue orders/a statement to follow up on the request from the Capitol Police. It was NOT Flynn's responsibility to say yay or nay - it was his bosses position. Remember, top Army officials expressed concern about having the Guard at the Capitol. Was Flynn one of those "officials"? Don't know. If anything, SoA and the other "top Army officials", should be investigated as to why they didn't respond accordingly and responsively - not Flynn.
But there was no mention of the involvement of Charles Flynn, a three-star general who has already been approved by Congress for a fourth star. Flynn is responsible for operations, plans and training, but he is not part of the chain of command of the DC National Guard, and he does not have the authority to deploy troops.
There is no indication that Charles Flynn shares his brother’s radical right-wing views and top brass have defended him as a capable and loyal soldier.
Why investigate Flynn? Just because he's Michael Flynn's brother?????
If I was still on active duty, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.
I think "heads will roll" eventually, disciplinary letters might cut short a career or two, but basically
Fynn's brother was not in charge or in the chain of command, just willing to help if needed.
Those in charge have been stymied by having the civilian leadership gutted by the trump Administration.
We can be sure they hesitated to avoid the ire of Trump and his temporary lackeys at the pentagon,
the question remains, did they lie for the same reason or some other reason.
Or, as Fly alluded to, in most cases with the military (and many civilian organizations), if a person is not in attendance from beginning to end, they weren't there.
I've seen that happen too many times during my 33 years with DoD - someone will pop in and out and not get counted. Plays hell trying to track things down sometimes.
I'm willing to sit on this one for a bit SP...... Let's let the Army get their story straight on the timing, and who is on record of saying what to whom and when.
Right now I'm more concerned with what members of congress may have aided the rioters on 6JAN21.