More than two months after a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn the election, Sen. Gary Peters, one of the leaders of an investigation into that attack, says it’s still baffling why law enforcement and the military weren’t better prepared.
But he expects that the threat, which was downplayed on Jan. 6, remains.
“It’s reasonable to assume these activities are continuing to move forward,” said Peters, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. “And it’s reasonable to assume they’re becoming more sophisticated.”
Over the course of a couple of joint hearings, Peters’ committee and the Senate Rules Committee have heard testimony from several witnesses, attempting to determine why Capitol Police weren’t ready for the attack, why warnings that such an attack might be mounted weren’t better shared among law enforcement, and why it took Trump’s leaders in the Pentagon hours to formally approve a National Guard response.
Especially striking was testimony given by Maj. Gen. William Walker, commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard, who said this month that it took some three hours between the time the head of overwhelmed Capitol Police force begged him for assistance and military leaders giving him the necessary go-ahead, even though Walker had more than 150 troops on buses ready to go in.
Meanwhile, a violent mob was ransacking the Capitol and fighting hand-to-hand with Capitol Police and Metropolitan Police officers. Five people died in the incident, which delayed by some hours Congress’ final certification of the Nov. 3 election after the Guard and other forces beat back the intruders.
But the question of why, especially given the fact that there had been warnings, including a Jan. 5 FBI warning that violent extremists were “ready for war,” has gone unanswered. While FBI officials have said the warning was shared widely, the former head of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, and other law enforcement and intelligence officials said they were unaware of it.
“The answers have been inadequate,” Peters said. “The answers they have given are not robust, and the fact that they are not robust is deeply disturbing and requires more investigation.”
Getting to the bottom of some of those questions may have to be behind closed doors. So far, the Pentagon hasn’t given much in terms of an explanation for its actions, especially since the officials who were in charge at the time — Acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller and Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy — are no longer there.
Peters said he and other leaders, Rules Committee Chairman Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Sens. Rob Portman of Ohio and Roy Blunt of Missouri, the ranking Republicans of the Homeland Security and Rules committees, respectively, are discussing how best to take testimony from them, realizing it may have to be done through legal depositions. “We’re trying to assess the way to do that.”
“The secretary of the Army and secretary of Defense were directly involved in decisions made on Jan. 6 and we would like to hear directly from them on that. … The question is what is the best avenue to do that,” Peters said. “Gen. Walker had 150 soldiers in riot gear ready to go and it took three hours to get authorization while an attack was being broadcast on national television. … You had a violent mob attacking the citadel of our democracy.”
Months after the attack, it remains very much a topic on Capitol Hill. Last week, a security report recommended hundreds of Capitol Police be added to the force, along with the integration of stronger fencing that can be deployed quickly around the Capitol and the development of a more streamlined process to allow additional help to be called in. A decision was also approved to keep some 2,300 National Guard troops patrolling the area through much of May.
Congressional investigators, such as Peters, are likely to issue findings at some point that could lead to other changes.
In the meantime, he and Portman are still trying to get an assessment on the threat posed by domestic terrorism that was due from the FBI, Homeland Security Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence last summer. Considering the ill preparation ahead of Jan. 6 at the Capitol as well as the plot uncovered by law enforcement last fall to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, he said it is long overdue.
In February, Peters and Portman wrote FBI Director Chris Wray and new Homeland Security Director Alejandro Mayorkas and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines asking for the report by March 1. They still haven’t received it.
Peters said his attempts to get information about domestic terrorism out of Trump officials were “a source of frustration.” Even though those officials at times acknowledged the level of the threat, he said his requests for specifics about response and planning often went unanswered. Last year, a whistleblower in the Department of Homeland Security alleged he was pressured into downplaying the threat posed by white supremacists.
“I never thought I got the whole story from the last administration,” Peters said, adding that while officials claimed they realized it was an overarching threat, “I was unable to get sufficient (assurances) about prioritization in terms of resources.”
Now that he’s chairman of the committee, Peters said it’s time to take a closer look at the Department of Homeland Security, its staffing and its priorities.
“Those are certainly questions that need to be asked,” he said. “The way we get some of those answers is to do a deep dive into where the department sits today.”
©2021 www.freep.com. Visit at freep.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.