WaPo: Outgoing Capitol Police chief: House, Senate security officials hamstrung efforts...

[tenderfoot]

to call in National Guard.



Two days before Congress was set to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was growing increasingly worried about the size of the pro-Trump crowds expected to stream into Washington in protest.

To be on the safe side, Sund asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup.

But, Sund said Sunday, they turned him down.

In his first interview since pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, Sund, who has since resigned his post, said his supervisors were reluctant to take formal steps to put the Guard on call even as police intelligence suggested that the crowd President Trump had invited to Washington to protest his defeat probably would be much larger than earlier demonstrations.

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

Irving could not be reached for comment. A cellphone number listed in his name has not accepted messages since Wednesday. Messages left at a residence he owns in Nevada were not immediately returned, and there was no answer Sunday evening at a Watergate apartment listed in his name. A neighbor said he had recently moved out.

Stenger declined Sunday to comment when a reporter visited his Virginia home. “I really don’t want to talk about it,” he said.

-snip-

According to a timeline the Defense Department published Friday, Miller verbally authorized the activation of the entire D.C. Guard at 3:04 p.m. It would take two more hours for most of the citizen soldiers to leave their jobs and homes, and pick up gear from the D.C. Armory.

Sund, who was officially replaced as chief Sunday, said he is left feeling that America’s bastions of democracy need far more security. He said the violent crowd that mobbed the Capitol was unlike anything he has ever seen.

“They were extremely dangerous and they were extremely prepared. I have a hard time calling this a demonstration,” he said.

“I’m a firm supporter of First Amendment. This was none of that,” he added. “This was criminal riotous activity.”

Sund blamed Trump for putting his officers at risk, saying “the crowd left that rally and had been incited by some of the words the president said.” Sund said he fears what may come next.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sund-riot-national-guard/2021/01/10/fc2ce7d4-5384-11eb-a817-e5e7f8a406d6_story.html

LIHOP

[dem4decades]

1. I can't wait to read the after action report on this fiasco.

[Quixote1818]

2. I don't know how he can explain this away? At the very least hasn't he opened himself up to civil

lawsuits from the dead families?

[elleng]

3. So both Sergeants @ Arms somehow responsible for delays?

SOMEHOW related?

Capitol Police Officer–Son of Former Senate Sergeant-at-Arms–Died by Suicide After D.C. Insurrection.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/capitol-police-officer-died-by-suicide-after-d-c-insurrection/

[uponit7771]

7. +1

[BlueIdaho]

4. Own your shit man.

We’ll take care of the rest.

[DFW]

5. Direct contrast to the Michael Moore videocast

Moore said that 500+ members (out of 2300) of the Capitol Police force were on duty. This article says 1400.

I wonder where each got their number from?

[ancianita]

15. Now that we run both chambers, each can nail down the numbers and security protocols.

After the accurate numbers, the problem, top to bottom, is executing their changes and monitoring their enforcers.
It's come to that.

[Blue Owl]

6. Suspicious as hell...

[uponit7771]

8. "...I have a hard time calling this a demonstration..." 😲😲😲

[Crunchy Frog]

9. I'm sure it will all come out in Congressional hearings. nt

[Hoyt]

10. Sounds like the House sergeant at arms was the biggest problem, if true.

There should have been National Guards troops on standby despite the optics.

If this is confirmed there needs to be some reevaluation of how we respond and prepare for marches/protests/riots that could impact government property, iconic institutions, government officials, innocent individuals, etc.

But I guess the Captain is a good scapegoat for the time being.

[Caliman73]

14. You have to factor in race and politics in the "reevaluation".

When BLM was protesting, which was mainly peaceful, there were Guard, and the Capitol Police looked like a military force. There were helicopters buzzing the protestors.

These guys went in with the purpose of creating problems and were met with relatively open arms.

[Hoyt]

16. There was a lot of criticism for that too, probably contributing to the concern about optics here.

[Caliman73]

18. Not from our side. The optics were horrible.

Black people or leftists show up = Bring out the infantry and tanks. White people with weapons show up = Cool, break out the beer and hotdogs.

The Sargent at Arms was appointed by John Boener in 2012, and while he served in multiple Congresses, if Boener appointed him, there must be something wrong with him.

The concern about optics was likely, in large part, because the rioters were primarily White and Conservative. We have seen throughout the year, and throughout the country, how differently Black or Brown people or those associated with left wing groups, have been gassed, beaten, and kidnapped by authorities, while White Supremacists like Kyle Rittenhouse, are coddled, even after killing people. The only concern about optics from the Sargent at Arms, who declined more police and NG presence, was that White people, whose views he likely supported, would be hurt.

[Hoyt]

19. First off, why didn't we remove him? (2) Should we never have National Guard on the Capitol steps

when large groups march on the Capitol. Large groups that may include people not bent on a peaceful protest, large groups that might get out of control, etc.

Personally, I think we should have some serious security that keeps anyone from broaching the Capitol steps in a large group, period. I'd prefer to use today's technology for crowd control, rather than bullets. But something needs to be done.

[Caliman73]

20. Remove who, Irving? Good question.

1.) So, the reason I think Irving was never removed was the idea of bipartisanship and continuity. I struggle with whether it is a weakness or strength of liberals and the Democratic Party. We believe in governing by rules and principles in a multilateral way. This means that we work WITH Republicans when we can and we don't "cheat" to win. Republicans, in my opinion, have NO such notions. Which in my perspective, puts us at a perpetual disadvantage in the short term. I, however, think that we can NEVER go down the road of the Republicans, because once we start cheating to win, then what is the point of having any rules or systems in place. Irving was not removed for similar reasons as what allowed Bill Barr to get through confirmation hearings. Barr was involved in the coverup of Iran-Contra AND he pushed for mass incarceration and the Unitary Executive theory bullshit. He should never have been allowed to step foot in Washington D.C. again, but both Democrats and Republicans thought he might be an, "adult in the room".

2.) There is always appropriate times to have a beefed up police, and/or Guard presence in the Capitol. I agree with you that this was one of those times. People absolutely knew the potential of this situation to get violent. Anyone looking at a couple things: Discussions on internet and history with these types should have absolutely known that this was not going to be a peaceful protest.

Like I said earlier, aside from the basic fact that people thought trying to take the Capitol by force was a viable plan, the most aggravating part of this situation is that Law Enforcement and Security forces made the assumption that it would not happen, or worse, agreed with the idea that White people storming the capital was not worthy of increased security. It isn't new. White people have been able to get in police's face, walk around with guns, and do all manner of bullshit without any real fear of consequences, unless of course those White people are marching with BLM or are leftists counter protesting the Proud Boys or other White Supremacist groups.

[IsItJustMe]

11. I, personally, don't believe a word he is saying. He is covering his ass and his pension and his

continuing health benefits and perhaps even his freedom.

Edit to add: Call me cynical, but I am getting to the point that I really don't believe anything that Republicans say, unless it is in their own interests to do so. I call it critical thinking.

[BusyBeingBest]

12. I understand he may have been screwed by his superiors--

but in the end he is very much responsible for his officers being put in terrible situations where they couldn't defend the building, the occupants, or themselves.

[Cozmo]

13. This insurrection was never billed as a demonstration. Their lack of morality is an insult!

Attendees were called on to "Go Wild" by tRump and Gohmert just to name a few.
Good ole Rudy promoted a 'Trial by Combat".
Did you all get together to come up with lame defense? Sorry it ain't gonna fly

[Hav]

17. I've seen conflicting accounts regarding this topic

and at first I thought this was a cya. His account makes some sense though. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle with not one person being solely responsible but with failures in multiple positions. One person depending on the authorization of others to implement what was needed and not getting it can screw everything up.
The lessons need to be learnt fast. Thousands were ready to overthrow and kill the Government and countless signs point to them coming back. Screw the optics at the inauguration, make it a statement so that the domestic terrorists don't even try.