FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests | Hacker News Reader

FBI, Homeland Security Int. Didn’t Issue Risk Assessment for ProTrump Protests

wsj.com

106 pointswglb121 comments

So you're telling me there was more thoughtfulness in the risk assessment for the Area 51 Alien Raid meme from 2019 [0], than real threats on the U.S. Capitol? Fascinating.

The FBI was knocking on people's door for that joke. [1]

[0] https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/15/air-force-war...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49667295

There's no way that they didn't purposely allow the capitol be breached. I don't think it's clear at this point to decide who made the call and why, but when the capitol has worse security than Mark McCloskey's house ... you know it wasn't an accident.

Let’s be blunt... because white people.

This is the same thing that happened in Charlottesville and the after action review of Charlottesville made that clear. No one listened.

The need here isn’t more police or more training or more gear. Any of those things would just be used to harm people of color and low income communities.

What needs to happen is people stop being taken in by bad faith arguments about “free speech” and “both sides” and take the threat of white supremacist violence seriously. It is the most frequent type of terrorism in this country.

Worse than that, the FBI has known for a decade and a half that white supremacist infiltration of law enforcement was and would continue to be a huge problem. [1]

1. https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house....

The fbi didn’t screw this up the capital police is. It’s not like they were hamstrung by dhs...they were ready for BLM marches

I get the irony of paraphrasing Mark Twain here but “Truth is definitely stranger than fiction” minus the large, omnipotent blue man and raining squid.

https://www.hbo.com/watchmen

Because Trump people.

Trump has fired quite a few people, from Comey onward, who were looking into suspicious Trump-related activity. This tends to inhibit scrutiny of more Trump-related activity.

"White" US activists have been labeled terrorists and dealt with swiftly for decades[1]. Shifting the focus to pure racism is a trendy oversimplification, but misses the more complex political aspects to this story.

If a random group of white Americans decided to invade the Capitol, do you have any doubt that they'd have been stopped dead in their tracks before being able to put a foot inside?

As comforting a viewpoint as that may be, allies and enemies of the US state aren't decided based on their skin color.

[1] e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement

Odd, because the Mayor of DC (Black Female) very clearly refused help from the feds.

"Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser told federal law enforcement to stand down just one day before a mob of Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, smashing windows, entering the chambers, and forcing lawmakers and congressional staff inside into lockdown.

“To be clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other federal law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional deployment without immediate notification to, and consultation with, MPD if such plans are underway,” Bowser wrote in a letter to acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller, and Secretary of the Army Ryan D. McCarthy.

According to Bowser, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department in coordination with the U.S. Park Police, Capitol Police, and Secret Sevice were well-equipped to handle whatever problems could come up during the Trump rallies planned for Wednesday.

“The District of Columbia Government has not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies,” she continued. “To avoid confusion, we ask that any request for additional assistance be coordinated using the same process and procedures.”

Bowser also explained that the presence of “unidentifiable” federal law enforcement agents in D.C. could “cause confusion” and “become a national security threat” because of the lack of distinction between them and “armed groups.” [1]

And weirdly tried to push the blame on others [2].

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but that looks really wild.

It's almost as though she wanted it to 'get out of hand'? Or why would she openly deny help?

[1] https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/06/dc-mayor-told-federal-l...

[2] https://www.nationalreview.com/news/d-c-mayor-says-capitol-n...

Does the federal government really rely that much on the DC mayor's opinion when it comes to protecting federal buildings, especially the seat of government? That's fascinating. I realize the relationship between the federal government and DC is nontraditional, so I probably just don't understand the dynamics.

The streets where the rally took place, and the streets in front of WH, Capitol building are her turf.

There were huge protests there this summer, so she knows the story.

It just seems odd and that there's not more discussion specifically about this what with a lot of blame and finger pointing going on.

Because if this rally had been met with the force that BLM had it would be a never ending news cycle of playing the victim

In reality: no

When it’s politically convenient to push a blame democrats narrative on the national review: absolutely

I’m kind of amazed reading these comments at the continued inability of many HNers to recognize bad faith arguments...

I'm sorry but it's not 'bad faith arguments' to take the word of the mayor of DC at face value.

Nobody seems to have provided here any evidence against the fact that she has very publicly stated that she was prepared, two days before the event.

Just the opposite - the 'convenient' 'bad faith' argument is to blame racism without a single iota of evidence, and cover up possibly the negligent actions of a mayor who happens to be Black and Female. In the eyes of CNN, no female of colour will ever be blamed for anything - that is a problem.

I have no stake in the game - I don't care one way or the other.

I don't doubt for a second that a kind of assumptive racial issue could have led to less people on the hill, that it could have been a more general misunderstanding, but it's entirely possible that the major really screwed up (among more complex conspiracy theories which I highly doubt).

But the National Review using the Mayors own signed and publicly projected document is not even bias frankly.

It looks really bad for her at first glance, and it seems blatantly biased of CNN not to highlight her public statements and have her on to talk to her about what happened instead of 'blaming racism' which is really lazy.

I'd love to know more actual details about the situation instead of lazy propagation of bias.

Depends on which news agencies you believe!

The below articles report that the mayor was concerned and requested federal assistance. The Capitol Police however, refused help that was offered[0][1][2].

In the end two members of Capitol Police leadership resigned[3]. Their reasons for turning down assistance should be investigated.

EDIT: Found an NPR article exploring this[4].

> Bowser's approach to security was clearly influenced by events last summer when demonstrators took to the streets near the White House to protest the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and other police abuses.

[0]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9111913/DC-Mayor-Mu...

[1]https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/la...

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/07/capitol-poli...

[3]https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...

[4]https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...

Her statement is right here [1] from Jan 5. on her own twitter account which, which is in the quote I posted.

Paraphrasing:

"We are prepared for this weeks activities and we are not asking for further assistance"

In the links you sent, only the first link seems to contradict this statement, links 1, 2 and 3 have nothing to say about it really, and link 4 backs up the above quotes and doesn't contradict them - that said, these are literally her own words verbatim on the Tweet.

Maybe her own words may be ironically out of context or misinterpreted?

I don't know what the answer, but her letter seems fairly straight forward.

Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel?

What seems really odd, is why she wouldn't indicate that 'she had made a request that the Police subsequently denied' or at least hinted at that in the letter, at least to cover her rear as having not made the final decision?

In any event, her words to seem fairly clear.

With respect to the OP, and frankly a lot of the CNN-ish coverage with claims of 'racism!' - this really seems to discount that.

The Black Female mayor indicating 'we are prepared and not asking for further assistance' - literally in a public document seems pretty clear.

If anyone has any more information that would be helpful.

[1] https://twitter.com/MayorBowser/status/1346530358674792466?r...

The key takeaways:

* MPD coordinating with US Park Police, US Capitol Police, US Secret Service (all uniformed)

* Additional logistical support from unarmed DC National Guard (presumably these are not boots on the ground but just planning, equipment, etc?)

* In the past, unidentified (e.g. not uniformed) armed personnel caused confusion (and is not desirable)

Anyway, I agree this wasn't the right call. But I don't have enough inside information to know if Capitol Police assured her that with the various (above) coordination and help from surrounding areas (from your earlier link)[0], that everything would be "under control." Was she being naive, misinformed or have ill-intent? A good explanation would go a long way here.

> [0] a mutual-aid agreement with several local police departments from nearby jurisdictions, and had requested backup from the Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia state police.

Indeed confusing.

But this: " “we must get statehood on the president’s desk within the first 100 days of there 117th Congress,”

... is obviously a hugely politicaly partisan point (it throws the supposed balance of power off in favour of 'one side') and , not exactly related to the specific issue of 'Metro Security'.

The statement is really odd because 'DC Statehood' is a big political landmine (she knows this), and the statement just adds the possibility of partisan furor right a time when it's the last thing needed.

My hunch is that all of this was mostly a result of DC not expecting huge crowds (I don't think the raw numbers were massive) - and - the expectation that because it was a political rally, that it would be much like Trump's other political rallies, which is to say, relatively uneventful, and not riotous. Certainly not 'assaulting the Capitol building'. I wonder if that is even within their imagination for what could go wrong, although I suppose it should be.

I don't buy the conspiracy theories that the guards 'let them in', that's clearly not the case for the most part, although there are some guards who very oddly seemed to 'move away'. These kinds of conspiratorial actions would be impossible to keep under wraps, there's no chance that at least a few guards wouldn't 'leak' the 'secret plans' or whistle-blow after the fact.

It'd be great if there was a really objective piece by piece breakdown of all of this, but I'm not holding my breath.

> Perhaps by the 5th she was more concerned with coordination, and not having tons of 'undercover' personnel?

I've lost the link (which is sad because I just had it like 20 minutes ago when searching for something else), but apparently the mayor requested more help on the 6th, after having lost control, and at that point then was denied.

We're talking about 'preparations' however.

It's a valid point you bring up overall, but it doesn't absolve her from the fact she signed off on the current situation.

I've had a number of downvotes apparently but none of you have stepped up to providence evidence against her very own very public and documented signed off on the situation.

People are literally blaming 'racism' on this board without evidence, when the Black Female mayor seems to have been an integral part of the lack of preparations.

Oh no, that much I agree with. I meant to just add it as, help was both requested and not requested on different days, but no one was really saying which day they're referring to, so they could both be right and either have the days mixed up or be unaware of the other instance.

See what you want to see.

> Let’s be blunt... because white people.

No need to make such generalizations.

The overwhelming majority of economic damages done in 2020 were by BLM/ANTIFA/ACAB crowd. Many of us supported them initially but when they started attacking minorities in particular Asian Americans and their businesses thats when I stopped.

You are destroying your own country by being tricked into hating it by interest groups that isn't aligned with yours.

It's true that there was ultimately much more violence during the summer protests but a) they were quite widespread and ongoing, and poignantly b) they were not attacking the Capitol Building whilst votes were being counted, possibly trying to overthrow the Republic in an 'indirect coup'.

CNN reported today that as the Capitol Building was under attack - Trump was literally on the phone with Senators in lockdown (!!!) trying to convince them to press to 'stop the vote'.

Every time I think that Trump is 'Just playing games for TV and he's not actually that crazy' he really does something kind of shocking like a full-on E. Europe / African Dictator.

This 'riot' was incited by as sitting President and attacked part of the electoral process, for that reason it's much scarier than any of the possible excessive damage during the summer. Although in fairness, burning down Police Stations is also much more than just 'burning a building' as well.

Buildings can be replaced, Democracies cannot.

We have different definition of coup then. Coup for me utilizes the military to seize key assets. This was a crowd destroying things like the BLM/ANTIFA crowd.

We are in for some dark times ahead.

> Coup for me utilizes the military to seize key assets.

The reasons the phrase “military coup” exists is that “military” is a significant modifier when applied to “coup”.

> This was a crowd destroying things like the BLM/ANTIFA crowd

It was only a crowd limited to property damage and injuring/killing security because the primary targets they were targeting escaped.

Coup: "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government."

Need not involve the military.

A group of people seizing control of a government, outside the bounds of regular authority is a 'coup'.

What happened on Capitol Hill was nearly a 'coup' it's clear that was the intent of at least a small group of those individuals.

The ongoing attempt by Trump to declare the election illegitimate on the basis of lies and fabrication, is effectively a coup.

As Capitol building was overrun and Senators were in hiding in the chamber, Trump was on the phone with several senators, urging them to stop Pence's count of the tallies.

This is pretty much how coups happen in places like S. America, Africa, E. Europe etc. it's pretty shocking.

Here is an alternative theory that does not depending on the color of people skins.

The reason they did not do a risk assessment for every trump gathering is because there has been a lot of trump gatherings and it was the Jan. 6 pro-Trump protests that devolved into violence.

Don't attribute racism what could just as easily be attributed to complacency.

I think race is a big part of it but it's not just that. Climate protests have a lot of white people and they get roughed up too.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/climate/capitol-riots-arr...

This is the red scare all over again. “White” people are being targeted and now it’s even okay to remove their freedom of speech because someone has the moral high ground? Would anyone be surprised by a neo-HUAC comprised of Dorsey, Zuck, and Pichai? I’m beginning to think you all want that. I fear for the man who can’t see this as the slippery slope it is.

From my point of view, BLM has bad faith arguments and should be targeted. Perhaps a more neutral strategy should be used?

You think there were white supremacists?

You think there weren't? Many white supremacists support Trump. That doesn't mean all Trump supporters are white supremacists. But that isn't what you asked.

At least 1 streamed it.[1] The guy with the Camp Auschwitz shirt probably is. And did you miss the Confederate flags?

[1] https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/white-supremacists-among-tho...

A police officer friend with 20 years of crowd control experience told me that the preparations looked criminally negligent. I believe that this was done on purpose with full knowledge that these events were likely to occur. If crowd control and security are your job, there are only two explanations: you are horrible at your job, or, you did this on purpose with bad intentions.

Yes! The police are overrun with right wingers. With competent policing, this would have been just an ordinary protest.

Everyone needs to ignore the mob and look at the cops. That's where the story is.

The right wing racist meme is one possible explanation, but not the only one.

I say let's see if any journalists have any curiosity and do some investigation, or if we instead just get a coordinated full court press of the right wing racist narrative.

Right now the full court press, if any, is the centrists agape at trumpists and bemoaning the collapse of norms. I see a lot of "gross hoi polloi" vs "those decent bipartisans who will restore the good old times".

That's not investigating the cops either. That's self-serving uncritical thinking looking at the outcome and ignoring what we know about the inputs.

I think that's basically true of the all the triple letters too - partly why the idea that the FBI investigating the trump's being a liberal stitch-up is so vacuous.

Let's go with that theory. Did these right wing cops help the right wing cause by allowing this incident to get out of hand?

I also understood this as an instance of the security state threatening Congress. The police were saying, "Don't even think about de-funding or reforming us." DC police spend $210k/employee. 80% of its 2500 employees are "sworn officers," whatever the heck that means.

As someone that has experienced a civilian coup in argentina, this is my first question. Trump has all to lose and nothing to gain from this event. But the opposition, and the anti-T republican party gains everything. The concerted Goog, facebook and Twitter censorship, something that would have been impossible to do 6 months ago now clamored if not sanctioned politically.

Civilian coups are very different from military coups. Military ones are easy to understand: the guy with the gun did it. Civilian coups happen when a majority or at least a great amount of people agree with what is happening so are willing to go along with the situation.

Trump is an idiot and gave a massive opening here. But the fact that there is so much consensus on what's happening next is not a defense of institutions, specially if this was sparked.

You could see that the Capitol police were left hanging — they didn’t have the force necessary to protect the Congress and the building.

Obviously POTUS was doing whatever was necessary to maximize the drama. But there should be a through investigation to identify collaborators in government. We’re fortunate that many of the more ambitious people (the guy with the goat horns, etc) were obviously pretty crazy and disorganized.

I hope puts together an independent commission and prosecutor to make defense of the district more robust against this sort of threat. Maybe investing governor-like powers or elevating DC to statehood or some other form of government would be a start, so that the city administration could override a madman like POTUS.

The most interesting thing about this incident is that it's a repeat of what happened earlier, late last year, in Germany.

> Over the past 12 months, the Anti-Defamation League sent 1,000 tips to law enforcement based on tracking of social-media comments made by U.S. extremists groups leading up to Wednesday’s riot, and noted the increasing ratcheting up of violent rhetoric.

The FBI didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/biden-trump-electoral-colle...

Tangential question: what does “immediately respond” mean? “We asked and didn’t get an answer in 5 minutes”? I’ve seen this on many news sites and it’s never clear what timeframe “immediately” refers to.

The question was asked and they didn't respond before the article was published, a timespan which in this case is likely a few hours.

I guess it's like any timing side-channel.

Saying no takes a few minutes, thinking about and saying no takes longer, putting it through a lawyer takes a lot longer than that

Theres a video of the police letting the protesters into the capitol. They opened the door and are standing to the side

EDIT:

I urge people to go watch the video.

My opinion is that many walking in thought it was a protest and was just something the group was doing.

If true, looks like they thought “stand back and stand by” was meant for them.

Which at that point was probably the correct decision. What’s the other option? Get overwhelmed by the crowd or attacked from behind?

Gas, less-lethal bullets, flashbangs. The stuff I've been seeing a few blocks away for most of the summer. All of those things are really good at dispersing crowds.

1:100 doesn’t make escalation a wise decision

Gas, flashbangs, and guns were used at the Capital on the 6th.

That's the most upsetting thing about this situation, in my opinion. Police in DC haven't had issues deploying such tactics in the past. Why was this different?

The instances you are referring to from the past were from police units that were fully prepared for riot combat. From what they were wearing and what weapons they were carrrying. They were also fully briefed on being placed into a riot situation. For the Capitol Police, it was just another Wednesday. There was no advanced prep for them to outfitted with riot gear/weapons. This is why it is so important to investigate the decision making process by leadership on why it was not something more than just another Wednesday.

Plenty of gas was used, and so were other less lethal weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

I don't know, but the way they casually let them in doesn't look like they're retreating from the position. If they were, why open the barriers? Why wouldn't they just back up from the position to their fallback position as one group?

I thought it was odd how it seemed like the majority of the people were walking as if they were going on a tour of the capitol and not like they were a violent mob.

It'll be interesting to see what more comes out of the wtf bad capitol security.

This is speculation, but apparently there were protesters on both the civilian entrance side as well as the promenade (where you saw the protesters scaling walls). When the protesters breached the promenade entrance, I assume there was some sort of stand down orders for the police at the civilian entrance, presumably so that the officers wouldn't get pinched.

Hence the weird dual screen of protesters breaking through windows/protesters staying within the cordons. They weren't part of the same cohort.

This was also my reaction. I think many viewed it that way, like it was an expected part of them being there

There is also video of them shooting and killing people trying to enter the capital and video of them actively pushing back and being overwhelmed. Much more than one out of context clip.

True, but I think that one was protecting the inner rooms, close to where pence was

There's plenty of fighting over barricades outside.

I can't find the video of the first, outer cordon falling anymore, but this is the second, inner cordon falling at the beginning of this clip, followed by attempts to stop the protesters on the steps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

Then there was desperate fighting over doorways inside the capitol building.

The capitol police definitely don’t seem to have been acting as one unit in this. At least some were trying to protect the capitol.

All the comments talking about how the Capitol Police didn’t have any choice but to let the protestors in, the bigger question is why weren’t they reinforced with National Guardsmen, who were apparently ready and prepared for exactly this situation ahead of time. Linked article from four days ago. [1]

1. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/dc-national-guard-activa...

The Mayor didn't foresee that it would be this bad, and didn't want an escalation. She declined help from the National Guard.

So the cops were stretched thin, and some "fought" bravely to defend the Capitol, while others were sympathetic to the rioters and let them in, as can be seen clearly in multiple videos.

The mayor doesn't control the Capitol Police.

Did someone here say she did?

They asked why the Capitol Police weren't reinforced by the National Guard. You replied the mayor declined help from the National Guard.

But what about that day? Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R):

"I was actually on the phone with Leader Hoyer who was pleading with us to send the guard," Hogan said, The Post reported. "He was yelling across the room to Schumer and they were back and forth saying we do have the authorization and I'm saying, 'I'm telling you we do not have the authorization.'"

As rioters smashed windows and forced lawmakers into hiding, the head of the Maryland National Guard was told he could not come to the aid of US Capitol police, per Hogan.

Ninety minutes later, according to Hogan, the secretary of the Army, Ryan McCarthy, called him to request the deployment.

Typically such calls come from the US Secretary of Defense. It was not the only apparent breach in the chain of command on Wednesday. The order to deploy the National Guard came not from the commander in chief, President Donald Trump, but rather Vice President Mike Pence, according to The New York Times.

https://www.businessinsider.com/maryland-governor-repeatedly...

It's dubious. That wasn't the position that was overrun, and there were protesters both behind and in front of the police. That position likely needed to be abandoned, because being pressed upon on two sides is no bueno.

The bigger question is whether there was any deliberate decision to withhold necessary force --- in particular, whether the executive had any influence on the lack of Guard support or other measures not being taken.

A subsidiary question is whether there were any cops that were deliberately facilitating this. When so far outnumbered, 5-10 rogue police officers could make a huge difference in outcomes.

I agree, and I also urge people to watch this footage. It can be found here[1] (it is also featured for a few seconds in the other videos [2-4]).

There are two takes on this by comedian's here[2] and here[3], which I personally thought were intriguing (and funny).

There is also a comprehensive (serious) take here[4] showing a bunch of extra footage I hadn't seen yet.

If anyone watches these takes and disagrees with them, I would love to hear how specifically you don't agree?

Especially: how can it be explained the omissions shown in [4] that the media are making, e.g. not showing the several incidences where the masses of Trump supporters were actively stopping the violent provocateurs (protecting police, stopping them from smashing a window, etc)? I am genuinely curious.

[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/sugaspov/status/13469199432380006... [2] https://www.bitchute.com/video/bZCHyUgTc0o/ [3] https://youtu.be/xH9XWNz0GW4?t=219 [4] https://youtu.be/BwSxVvRFMJA

This video is likely being misinterpreted. It doesn't really make any sense because there are masses of plain clothes citizens on this side of the barricade before it is opened, including the guy who steps forward and gestures for everyone to "come on over." The police and barricade where they were had already lost the line by this time. The zooming at the beginning makes it hard to see exactly who is lifting and moving the barricades, though. Perhaps frame by frame it could be better analyzed.

Considering [4] Rudy "trial by combat" Giuliani, I'm going to take a pass at using that as a news source. Allowing him to shape your message is probably not ideal!

Here's an analysis of the footage: https://www.politifact.com/article/2021/jan/07/ask-politifac...

So all the people who were framegrabbed and getting arrested were not Trump supporters, but antifa?

All the people physically confronting the police here a small minority of agent provocateurs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PCHra6JuuQ&t=3s

Pretty ridiculous take, bro.

The article is a little light on details, but I can’t help wondering why, especially given the massive amounts of resources and funding going into surveillance and intelligence gathering post 9/11.

that's why it's called security theater

Yup! We've wasted trillions and eroded civil libertries for basically no upside.

Please, let it sink in.

Exactly. Meanwhile, the militias in Michigan who view Terry Nichols as a martyr, continue weekend training in the national forests of Michigan.

Because after 9/11 we spent twenty years pretending that brown men are the perpetrators of mass violence in this country

After OKC bombing, the Eye of Sauron turned to the militias as the world witnessed what happens when they are left unchecked. Then, 9/11 happened, and the Eye of Sauron turned away from domestic terrorism. Unfortunately, Sauron can only look in one place at a time, and is apparently unable to scan and must stare at one thing at a time.

Funny, because I saw a lot of white people among Antifa and BLM violently protesting this summer. But that pretty much went unchecked for months. A few blocks of Seattle were even left to these protesters.

"At the DHS unit, called Intelligence and Analysis, management didn’t view the demonstrations as posing a significant threat"

DHS, under the executive, led by an unlawful director.

> The FBI was prepared

Bloody hell, I'd hate to see what happens when they're _not_ prepared, then.

The Pentagon, through a political appointee appointed after Nov 3, blocking neighboring states over sending the national guard towards the capitol during the riots [1].

(edited for better wording)

What's also disturbing is that the Pentagon severely limited the DC National Guard days before the protests. Allowing things like surveillance and air assets wouldn't have caused any issues if the protests really were peaceful. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-prote...

But the police also rejected offers of federal help:

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-reject-federal-hel...

Propaganda war to escape the blame, DC municipality against feds? Something else?

The US Capitol Police is a federal agency. The Park Police is another federal police force that has concurrent jurisdiction over the area. DC's police is the Metropolitan Police of DC, which has oversight by the DC municipal authority instead of direct federal authority.

Ah, feds against feds. Totally plausible!

No, the Capitol Police work for Congress, not the Executive Branch. They are not under Trump at all. The Park Police, the FBI, Homeland Security cops, and the military all ultimately report to the President. The District of Columbia has a strange arrangement with its own elected officials and police, but not as much independence as a US state.

This matters during a coup attempt. Note that when the Capitol Police did get backup, it was from the DC police and the Virginia State Troopers. Neither was under Trump's control.

Capitol police != DC Metro police.

Tough call. Which side would Federal help, which reports to Trump, been on? The Capitol Police work for Congress, not the Executive Branch, by the way.

There were a number of other possible bad outcomes. One was a huge Federal presence of armed troops in the House chamber during the vote. Trump was trying desperately to influence or delay the vote.[1] Having armed soldiers in body armor standing over Congress would have emboldened his people to stall or interfere.

Anyway, that's just speculation now.

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/08/politics/mike-lee-tommy-tuber...

No taking responsibility for it, no promise to investigate the failure and prevent the like in the future, and an obvious lie: “The FBI was prepared,” the official said. Nice.

İts not about protecting them. İts about make them seem dangerous. Result trump will go away. So basic.

That was the strangest aspect of Wednesday to me. They knew there was going to be a huge rally that day. Surely that alone would warrant beefed up security. And the idea that it was just because "they're white people" doesn't add up - even if that were their logic, it was a pro-Trump rally, wouldn't they expect counter-protesters? Weren't there weeks of Proud Boy/Antifa scuffles and violence directly preceding this? The same FBI who caught the Whitmer plotters didn't sniff out any of the multiple reports of premeditation regarding the capitol?

Is it incompetence?

They are white people and the cops support their cause.

The cops are racist, but they also wouldn't be this friendly had a white leftist protest escalated.

oh please. plenty of cops bent the knee for the BLM protests and stood by as stuff happened. some cops want to crack heads, some cops think attacking the mob will make things worse.

You know the bolling pin machine? the one that picks up the down pins and sweeps the the rest? Go pick up your good apples and then sweep out the rest.

To continue with the analogies, when the task is cleaning a mess like the Augean stables, the usual methods won't do.

The DC mayor didn't want any federal assistance https://thefederalist.com/2021/01/06/dc-mayor-told-federal-l...

AP source will get fewer downvotes: https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-reject-federal-hel...

Capitol Police are federal, not DC police

Wonder if this will effect re-electability

I’m confused about this and hope others can explain. My understanding is that the capital is not the jurisdiction of DC police but rather the Capitol police which is under the control of Congress. Am I misinformed about that?

No, you are correct. But the Capitol is in DC, and crowds outside the Capitol are in DC. I'd have to see a map to be certain, but I would imagine for any large gathering, sufficient forces may be needed the Capitol and in surrounding areas.

To your point, though:

> D.C. Metropolitan Police Department would be the lead agency and would coordinate with the Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police and the U.S. Secret Service.

It appears the Mayor had been requesting assistance from federal agencies in the week leading up to ceremony, but declined additional assistance greater than a force of 340[0], likely to avoid having images like this one[1] giving the impression of military being involved in the election process.

[0]https://www.npr.org/sections/congress-electoral-college-tall...

[1]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErEvfgnXAAA2kEc.jpg

How convenient. They didn't do their jobs. The DC police didn't do their job. A possible pivotal moment and...nothing? But this is simply coincidence? Some of the "best & brightest" all simultaneously go brain dead?

I'm no fan of Trump. But as such facts continue to align my distate for him is overshadowed by my fear of nefarious actors and other suspect agendas.

The nefarious actor is Trump and his cronies who most likely directed Federal agencies not to act. He already paused the National Guard deployment

There's more going on than appears to be the case from either of these (PR submarine) stories:

https://apnews.com/article/capitol-police-reject-federal-hel...

That really worked out well for him.

Nah. He likely did not. Instead others played to that expectation, knew they could craft a "riot" and then drive a stake into the Trump legacy.

It will be a long long long time before the public votes for a candidate who is not a life long 100% legitimate Red or Blue. This is the final lesson to the masses: Don't you ever deviate again.

I don’t understand your point. Trump and right wing media had organized the Jan 6th event. Nobody needed to do anything. Trump and his cronies are solely responsible for what happened

I don’t think it was the DC police. That area is the responsibility of the Capitol police which is a different organization.

Ok. Fair enough. But the gist stands. This event was allowed to happen.

I can't help but wonder. Anyone watching the political scene over the past years knew a tipping point is very much at hand. It just was not clear whether it will be BLM, Antifa, Bogaloos, or Trump disciples.

The fact that something this big was ignored suggests that it was from beginning seen as not a threat ( Trump being known for 'big talk, no action' ). Alternatively, if one is inclined to think along darker lines, this was allowed to happen for whatever reason.

Your both sides equivocation ignore the fact that only causes cops support are given this treatment.

You may have put words in my mouth. Since you did, allow me to respond:

It is possible. Cops are human too after all. They have their sympathies and whatnot. Note, that the same appears to be true with regards to media and tech. Some groups get special treatment. Some don't.

I am not ignoring it, but I would love if the standard was applied across the board and not just when it fits an argument.

> The fact that something this big was ignored suggests that it was from beginning seen as not a threat ( Trump being known for 'big talk, no action' ). Alternatively, if one is inclined to think along darker lines, this was allowed to happen for whatever reason.

However, It's easy to say this in hindsight now as before he was seen as a 'joke' for running for the presidency in 2016.

But as time went on Trump was becoming known for translating most of his words into action, from protests to policy. That's when 'they' knew he had to be 'removed' by all means necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com