IG Report: Congress Restricted The Capitol Police's Use of Material And Tactics Before Capitol Riot
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new report from Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton has sent congressional leaders scrambling after finding that Capitol police were told that they could not use critical riot materials and tactics in preparation for the Jan. 6th protests. The finding challenges the narrative put forward in the second impeachment of former President Donald Trump. It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.
The report, "Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol," raises additional questions over the responsibility of figures in Congress for the lack of sufficient forces and materials to deal with the protest. Previously, it was disclosed that offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests. The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.
The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.
Ultimately, over 140 law enforcement officers were injured during the riot, and Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick later died. Two other officers later died by suicide.
Bolton and his staff reportedly found in its 104-page report that, three days before the riot, officials were warned in an intelligence assessment that "Congress itself is the target" in the planned protests. Congress was further warned that "Stop the Steal's propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike."
That would seem more than sufficient reason to call for National Guard support and assemble the full force and resources available to the Capitol Police. According to the Inspector General, that is not what happened. Instead, the plan stated that there were "no specific known threats related to the joint session of Congress." More importantly, the Capitol Police's Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to deploy the department's highest level resources and tactics in addressing any problems. This including the use of "heavier, less-lethal weapons," including stun grenades. The report states categorically that they "were not used that day because of orders from leadership." Instead, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol police officer inside the Capitol despite being unarmed and standing in a hallway.
That explains a lot. On the day of the riot, many of us familiar with the Capitol expressed disbelief over the lack of serious perimeter protections and the relative ease of protesters in breaching the Capitol.
This is precisely the type of information that should have been revealed in the weeks after the riot. Indeed, as previously discussed in repeated columns, the House Democratic leadership refused to hold a single hearing with key witnesses on what occurred before the riot. After using a "snap impeachment," weeks went by without calling such witnesses before the Trump impeachment trial. Such evidence could challenge the narrative and raised questions over decisions made by Congress that left the Capitol vulnerable to such an attack.
The report also raises over the Lafayette Park effect. In the prior summer, White House officials feared that the compound could be breached by violent protesters who had injured dozens of officers and engaged in arson and attacks around the White House during that weekend. They decided to clear the area to install fencing (which Congress only ordered after the Jan. 6th riot). They also deployed the National Guard and the "heavier, less lethal weapons" that the Inspector General found were denied to the Capitol Police.
To this day, the media and many members continue to repeat false accounts of the Lafayette Park. Many still have stories posted that claim that Lafayette Park was cleared for Trump to hold a photo op in front of a church. I discussed those accounts in testimony before Congress and in columns on the clearing of the Lafayette Park area. NPR still has a story on its website entitled "Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op."
A wide array of witnesses and documents detailed how the plan to clear the area was put into motion over 24 hours before the actual operation — and long before any discussion of a photo op. The plan was approved by then Attorney General Bill Barr but was delayed because the officers were waiting for both fencing material and back-up personnel.
Yet, the narrative remained that this was a peaceful protest that was met with tear gas and stun grenades. While I criticized the use of force in the operation, calling the protest entirely peaceful is only possible by focusing on the time just before the clearing. As discussed in my testimony, some 150 officers were injured during the protests and half of those were injured around the White House. The Justice Department claimed 750 injured officers during the various protests. The attacks around the complex were so great that the President was moved into the bunker.
Nevertheless, Lafayette Park became the rallying cry against the use of National Guard personnel and resources like tear gas and pepper balls. After Lafayette Park, Mayor Bowser declared "if you are like me, you saw something that you hoped you would never see in the United States of America." Democratic leaders and the media denounced the use of the guard and tear gas as akin to military rule. The New York Times even apologized for publishing a column of Sen. Tom Cotton encouraging the use of National Guard (and effectively fired the editor who approved the column).
Both the media and members are heavily invested in the Lafayette Park narrative. It would be embarrassing to report that the Congress should have ordered the same expansion of a fenced perimeter and guard deployment before the protests — let alone the use of non-lethal devices like pepper balls.
The question is whether that narrative influenced the restrictions placed on the Capitol Police. It was only after losing control of Congress that a full deployment of fencing, riot resources, and the National Guard was allowed. It then remained up for months at a huge daily cost. It was the ultimate example of locking the barn door after the horse had bolted. But in Washington, it is not really about horse or the barn. It is about who gets the blame.
Tags
Who is online
463 visitors
The IG report is out. The truth is out.
I'm watching to see if the msm carries it.
It also raises questions of whether congressional leaders (who repeatedly condemned Trump for the death and injuries of officers) share responsibility for the loss of control of Congress to the rioters.
The report magnifies suspicions over why House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment. It also raises whether, after the controversial clearing of Lafayette Park in the prior summer, leaders in Congress hamstrung their own security force.
It looks like the Pelosi led House screwed up royally yet again. And one has to wonder why the murder of an unarmed Ashli Babbitt has not been prosecuted
NBC news talked about it at 06:30 this morning Vic
Truth has a way of eventually coming out...in spite of the best suppression efforts.
What suppression efforts?
Yet the seed doesn't even include one whole sentence from that report.
That's why I waited for the old wordsmith!
If you mean Turley, that's laughable.
Turley is either misinformed or intentionally lying.
Based on Turley's equivocations, it's doubtful that Turley has even read the report for himself.
As I said, he couldn't manage to quote even one sentence from the IG report AND he overtly lied about Ashli Babbitt.
It seems that he's go a bee in his bonnet about Trump's 2nd Impeachment trial and used your seeded article as an avenue to whine about that.
He's only a law professor, you're the old wordsmith.
Turley is either misinformed or intentionally lying.
Oh no!
Based on Turley's equivocations, it's doubtful that Turley has even read the report for himself.
Why do you think that?
As I said, he couldn't manage to quote even one sentence from the IG report AND he overtly lied about Ashli Babbitt.
What was the overt lie? Wasn't she unarmed? There were even Capitol Police standing behind her. Why was it necessary for her to be murdered?
Then WTF is your point Vic? You obviously did NOT wait for ME to post your seed.
Since I doubt you'll answer, I'll presume that your comment was just another deflection.
Oh YES.
I have already stated some of the reasons Vic. Nowhere in your seed does Turley opine on HIS personal knowledge of the content of the report. Turley states that Bolton and his staff 'reportedly' blah, blah, blah. THAT isn't a phrase that you use when you have PERSONAL knowledge of the facts.
First of all Vic, she was NOT murdered. PERIOD, full stop.
Your questions imply to me that you already KNOW damn well what overt lie Turley stated. Ashli Babbitt wasn't just 'standing in the hallway', she was trying to crawl THROUGH the window that was broken out of the door. She did so even AFTER being informed more than once that an officer was brandishing his weapon on the other side. She couldn't miss that fact. It's CLEAR in the video.
Since you such a high opinion of Turley, I presume that you would hold him to a high standard. It would follow then that before he flapped his gums about Ashli Babbitt's shooting, he would review the FACTS for himself rather than rely on others narrative about the event. By YOUR high standard, it isn't possible that Turley was misinformed, therefore, he intentionally LIED.
That is your opinion. Violent armed protestors haven't been shot, (every effort is taken not to hurt them) yet she was. We have a right to know who shot Ashli Babbitt and why? What's the big secret?
AFTER being informed more than once that an officer was brandishing his weapon on the other side.
Who informed her?
Here is what we do know: She was female and she was unarmed and there was no evidence the officer who killed her gave her any kind of verbal warning before he pulled the trigger. What happened to the idea of federal officers only shooting if their lives were in danger? Babbitt was less of a danger than you are.
And there is that other question I want answered: Who killed Ashli Babbitt?
The other day a female officer accidently shot a suspect who was resisting arrest. We know that officer’s name because every news organization in the country printed it immediately. None of the msm media worried about her home being surrounded by the mob, so where is the media on this officer? The only reason we know anything about Babbitt's murder is because it was caught on film by an instigator who happened to be there at the time.
I'll wait for some answers.
No Vic, it is the opinion of the Investigators.
That's whataboutism Vic. The violent and armed protestors at the Michigan Capitol weren't shot either.
I have already stated WHY the officer's name has not been disclosed. We know WHY Babbit was shot, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
At least TWO of her insurrection buddies YELLED that there was a gun MULTIPLE times. She looked through the window and couldn't miss the officer with his weapon drawn.
WTF does her gender have to do with it?
The officer had NO WAY to know she was unarmed.
She tried to go through the window of a BARRICADED door. That same door was guarded only moments before she was shot. She cheered on those that broke the windows so she could try to enter.
So PLEASE don't try to claim that she was somehow ignorant about the circumstances.
Actually it's their lives or the lives of others. They were chanting about killing and hanging lawmakers Vic. I know you'd rather ignore that fact yet it IS a fact.
She was an extremist insurrectionist and MUCH more a physical threat than I.
That's not what you told us.
She looked through the window and couldn't miss the officer with his weapon drawn.
Still, not what you told us.
The officer had NO WAY to know she was unarmed.
Don't look now, but that statement should exonerate a lot of cops who had to deal with violent suspects resisting arrest. Thank You.
She tried to go through the window of a BARRICADED door. That same door was guarded only moments before she was shot. She cheered on those that broke the windows so she could try to enter.
Oh wow, that calls for her to be shot and killed/s.
So PLEASE don't try to claim that she was somehow ignorant about the circumstances.
Her knowledge of the circumstances would lead her to believe that protestors don't get shot. We've had a year of it, remember?
Actually it's their lives or the lives of others. They were chanting about killing and hanging lawmakers Vic. I know you'd rather ignore that fact yet it IS a fact.
You mean like; "pigsin a blanket, fry 'em likebacon" ?
She was an extremist insurrectionist and MUCH more a physical threat than I.
No different than any of those who have rioted since George Floyd's death. And yes, she much less dangerous.
The American public deserves an explanation. Where was the press conference that even criminals resisting arrest get?
I said she was warned multiple times Vic. She WAS, by her own fellow insurrectionists.
Why would you be averse to additional comment Vic? TMI?
Except my comment wasn't in way of exonerating the officer. It was in reply to the incessant statements about her being unarmed.
Another non responsive reply.
She wasn't 'protesting' Vic. She was participating in an insurrection against the United States. STOP with the false equivalencies.
No.
Big difference Vic and the sooner you and yours accept that attacking OUR Capitol cannot be equated, the better.
That's interesting because SHE viewed herself as a BADASS.
Ok, Prove it.
Except my comment wasn't in way of exonerating the officer.
Oh yes it was. You just said that it's ok with a cop to fire his weapon if he was unsure if the suspect was armed. (I'm sure you don't mean that if the suspect is a minority)
Another non responsive reply.
It highlights the low threshold you have for the lives for those you don't like AND ONLY THOSE YOU DON'T LIKE!
She wasn't 'protesting' Vic. She was participating in an insurrection against the United States.
That's the script being touted by the msm. She was protesting. Left wing protestors are allowed into the capitol building without a peep.
Former Senator Flake would be glad to share it with you:
Big difference Vic and the sooner you and yours accept that attacking OUR Capitol cannot be equated, the better.
No different than trying to burn down a federal courthouse with people in it.
Watch the video Vic.
That is a lie.
Your comment highlights nothing but mere blather and utter bullshit Vic.
Wow that comment is some REALLY weak shit Vic. You're just full of false equivalencies today.
More false equivalencies Vic. Your credibility it taking a ass kicking.
That is exactly what they did to her.
I have.
That is a lie.
The reader can make up his/her own mind
Your comment highlights nothing but mere blather and utter bullshit Vic.
I expected more from the old wordsmith
Your credibility it taking a ass kicking.
Says the one who told us that Michael Cohen was definitely in Prague and that the Steele Dossier was true!
Learn to live with disappointment Vic.
So you devolve to that old BS lie. Well done Vic.
Tell you what Vic, quote the comment you claim I made about Cohen.
Make sure that it supports what you claim I said because if it doesn't, all you'll be doing is further chipping away at your credibility.
Since I KNOW you cannot support your bullshit, I will flag any further repetition of that bullshit as trolling.
You can do what you wish, but I can tell you that flagging for trolling can be a fool's errand.
Why? Most of the comments I flag for trolling get deleted. Perhaps you're less 'discriminating'.
Oh BTFW Vic, I see that you failed to post a link to the comment you claimed I made about Cohen.
Impossible to prove you fantasies, isn't it?
The officer's name is being withheld so that he and his family do not receive intimidation and death threats from magats.
No one here even tried to deny that fact. They all know what will happen if the officer's name is released and I wouldn't put it past some here to participate.
But yet you are OK with not only releasing the name of a cop that shot a black kid, but his or her picture too, and violent crowds descend on their homes.
And clarify what you think some conservatives would "participate" in if the Capital officer's name is released, or is it just simply more blowhard bullshit we see from the left on here.
Where did I say that? Post a link to that comment.
I'll ask again, considering the results of the investigation, WHY release the name of the officer?
Perhaps it would help if you followed the thread bugsy. Hint: READ the comment I replied to.
Or not,
I care not.
That doesn't work for everyone. "Trolling" is very subjective and I can't recall the last time I saw someone ticketed for it.
I see that you failed to post a link to the comment you claimed I made about Cohen.
I didn't keep a copy of it. If you recall you said that as long as McClatchy stood by the story, you would too.
Didn't say you did, but if you want legitimacy here, then maybe you could have put that disclosure on your post. Because you didn't, the correct logic is that you are OK with doxxing cops that killed any black, armed or not.
BTFW, Dulay, I responded to your post that directly referenced 3.1.16. Maybe you should keep up with what you post.
[removed]
No, I don't recall that any more than I recall saying what you claim I said.
Again, either post a link to the comment or STOP insisting that you are accurately representing what I said.
How would you characterize it when the RW nutjobs flag for trolling?
It shouldn't surprise you that I couldn't care less about your opinion of my legitimacy.
What disclosure bugsy? Are you positing that every member should include small print disclaimers to their comments?
Ridiculous.
No bugsy. The 'correct logic' is to allow each member to speak for themselves and NOT to interject your own bias.
Again, correlation is NOT causation.
You mean the comment that includes:
That what I said 'some conservatives would "participate" in'.
Hope that clarifies it for you.
Why didn't the former occupant of the White House make sure that the National Guard was available for his 'rally'? He stirred up his mob for two months and then sent them on to the Capitol and he knew what would happen. Why didn't he make sure the National Guard was there?
Insurgents tried to "stop the steal" at Trump's behest!
That is why STOP THE STEAL only required a mirror to see the real ones doing the stealing.
The Lafayette Park information shouldn't be ignored. That was another fake narrative created by the left and it's allies in the media.
That is false. Turley should watch the video and amend his statement.
Turley was 100% correct!
I've already proven that he isn't Xx.
Sycophantic cheerleading is juvenile.
"Stop the Steal's propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike."
At least they're finally admitting that conservative Republican movements like "Stop the Steal" do attract white supremacists. The fact that they have welcomed them with open arms has been continually denied while the evidence is clear for anyone not determined to close their eyes to the evidence.
Turley then claims that the reason for Congress telling capital police not to use tear gas was because of the photo op incident, saying "that narrative influenced the restrictions placed on the Capitol Police". He claims the clearing of the park had nothing to do with the photo op and that the protest wasn't peaceful.
He then admits that "calling the protest entirely peaceful is only possible by focusing on the time just before the clearing."
So that day, before the photo op, the protest was peaceful, and was concurrent with Trumps photo op where he held a bible upside-down in front of a church, but Turley doesn't want anyone to repeat those facts that he calls "false accounts of the Lafayette Park" because on prior days some protests in the area weren't all peaceful and he claims that the clearing of the park had nothing to do with the photo op even though they happened at the exact same time. He doesn't actually have any proof that the photo op wasn't being planned at the same time, he just claims that the clearing of the park was premeditated by at least 24 hours.
Turley sure can't get enough of the conservative bread he got buttered during the first impeachment trial where he defended the indefensible all to protect the conservative Republicans naked Emperor, now he just waits at their table edge like a stray dog wagging his tail for scraps.
the Capitol Police's Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to deploy the department's highest level resources
What supervisors and who did those supervisors answer to ?
IMO: trump engineered the capitol insurrection, I would be very surprised if trump also didn't do what he could to lessen the protection at the capitol at the time as well to make it easier for his followers to disrupt the certification of the election by any means possible.
I don't put doing anything possible past trump considering the last year was all done to try to allow trump to hold power. At any Cost !
Including trump denying the virus as long as he could as well as his year long alleged stolen election mantra.
trump put his lust for power over Americans lifes. Both lost.
Also IMO: trump should never be allowed to hold public office again. EVER !
That they are going to deny that donald cleared out the park and used it for a photo op makes me look at the entire article as suspect.
The schmuck could not even hold the bible right side up for his photo op. If there was a cross embossed on it, it would have been upside down also which is the sign of the anti christ if I remember correctly.
So since Turley puts so much weight on HIS 'testifying before Congress', I can't help but wonder if he's going to retract his above statement.
NOWHERE in his testimony did the Capitol Police Inspector General Michael Bolton raise ANY questions about 'figures in Congress' having ANY responsibility for 'the lack of sufficient forces and materials to deal with the protest.'
In short, MORE uninformed bullshit from Turley that is all a figment of Turley's imagination and obviously an attempt to gaslight his 'readers'.
It seems to work on some.
So you are going to deny that:
The D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser used only a small number of guardsmen in traffic positions.
That offers of National Guard support were not accepted prior to the protests.
For some reason, House leadership refused to hold hearings with key witnesses before the second Trump impeachment.
The Capitol Police's Civil Disturbance Unit was ordered by supervisors not to deploy the department's highest level resources and tactics in addressing any problems. This including the use of "heavier, less-lethal weapons," including stun grenades. The report states categorically that they "were not used that day because of orders from leadership." Instead, 35-year-old Ashli Babbitt was fatally shot by a Capitol police officer inside the Capitol despite being unarmed and standing in a hallway.
I question who is doing the gaslighting.
I have stated as much in another seed that you participated in Vic.
Now, are YOU going to deny that D.C. government under Mayor Muriel Bowser has NO authority OR responsibility for the security of FEDERAL land and property in DC INCLUDING the Capitol?
I am NOT the one who denies FACTS Vic.
Oh now you're coming to the bee in Turley's bonnet. It's irrelevant to the topic of the OIG's report but that didn't stop you or Turley from whining about it.
But WHERE is the question 'over the responsibility of figures in Congress for the lack of sufficient forces and materials to deal with the protest' Vic? YOU talk about the CP's leadership but Turley wants to blame 'figures in Congress'. WHY?
Unlike you or Turley, I prefer to READ the report for myself before I hang my hat on what others report about it. Yet AGAIN, that has NOTHING to do with Turley's claim that it raises questions about figures in Congress.
Correlation does not imply causation Vic.
Oh and AGAIN, she was NOT 'standing in the hallway'. Why lie?
I've posted plenty of evidence to prove that it's Turley.
Evidence can sometimes be like Kryptonite was to Superman to some people.