The Hole in the Senate January 6 Report Created by DOJ’s Non-Cooperation

The Senate Rules/Homeland Security Report on January 6 is as helpful for the holes it identifies as it is for the questions it answers.

The most amazing hole pertains to the actions of the Secret Service. The report notes that the Secret Service attended a preparatory meeting on January 5, and like the FBI, Secret Service raised no warnings about the violent mob that their primary protectee was convening in DC.

He has stated that in a January 5 meeting with USCP leadership, members of the Capitol Police Board, and officials from the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, and DCNG, no entity “provided any intelligence indicating that there would be a coordinated violent attack on the United States Capitol by thousands of well-equipped armed insurrectionists.”153

The Report notes that then-Capitol Police Chief Steve Sund called Secret Service and asked for help on the day of the riot.

At 1:01 p.m., Mr. Sund also requested assistance from the United States Secret Service.79


Mr. Sund testified that he first contacted MPD, followed closely by the U.S. Secret Service Uniformed Division.457

But the language about the agencies that did come to help does not mention Secret Service.

After 3:00 p.m., additional reinforcements from federal agencies began to arrive, and USCP turned to extracting and securing congressional staff.111 A number of agencies and entities provided assistance, including DHS; the FBI; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Montgomery County Police Department; the Arlington County Police Department; the Fairfax Police Department; and Virginia State Troopers.112 With this help, USCP secured the Senate and House chambers, along with the basement, subways, first floor, and crypts by 4:28 p.m. 113 DCNG personnel began arriving at the Capitol at approximately 5:20 p.m.114 By 6:14 p.m., USCP, DCNG, and MPD successfully established a security perimeter on the west side of the Capitol building.115

We’ve been focusing for months on the delayed response from DOD, but all this time Secret Service’s role has gone little noticed (and I’m still interested in Park Police’s absence). The silence here suggests that Secret Service blew off an explicit call for help as a mob threatened both Mike Pence and Kamala Harris.

As the report notes, Secret Service’s lead agency, DHS, has not yet fully complied with the Senate’s information requests.

Most entities cooperated with the Committees’ requests. There were notable exceptions, however: the Department of Justice and DHS have yet to fully comply with the Committees’ requests for information, the Office of the House of Representatives Sergeant at Arms did not comply with the Committees’ information requests, and a USCP Deputy Chief of Police declined to be interviewed by the Committees.

As to DOD’s slow response in deploying the Guard on the day of the attack, the report suggests that Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy had a key role in it.

There are multiple conflicting stories about what happened at DOD. It was clear from his testimony that former Acting Secretary Christopher Miller genuinely didn’t understand how much of a delay there was with the deployment of the National Guard. An important detail included in the report is that Miller believed the Guard had his okay to deploy by 3:04, but McCarthy dawdled until after 4:32, after other law enforcement had secured much of the Capitol.

By 4:32 p.m., Mr. McCarthy and his D.C. counterparts had agreed upon a “task and purpose” for DCNG, “identif[ied] link-up locations, and confirm[ed] key leaders at each site.”656 Accounts differ as to who within DOD needed to approve the final plan in order to deploy DCNG troops to the Capitol. Mr. McCarthy briefed Mr. Miller on the plan, who raised no objections.657 But Mr. Miller informed the Committees that he did not need to approve the plan—in his view, his 3:04 p.m. authorization was all encompassing and as soon as Mr. McCarthy and General Walker finished their mission analysis, DCNG had all necessary authorizations to deploy.658 General McConville informed the Committees that, although he did not know for sure, he believed Mr. Miller did need to approve the deployment plan.659

The reason why McCarthy dawdled is important, though.

After a bunch of conflicting excuses about the delay itself, there’s a section addressing why the Quick Reaction Force wasn’t deployed (ironically, given that the Oath Keepers seemed more prepared to release theirs than the entire DOD). After yet more conflicting excuses, McCarthy said that one reason the QRF couldn’t be deployed was because DOD needed to “link up with an organization and contact.”

General Walker also testified that the QRF was outfitted with all the equipment needed to go to the Capitol and was “ready to go” before 5:00 p.m.694 General McConville stated that “there was never an intent to have a quick reaction force going in to clear the Capitol.”695 Neither Mr. McCarthy nor Mr. Miller recalled whether the QRF had its civil disturbance gear available at Joint Base Andrews. Mr. McCarthy also noted that he was never informed that the QRF was at the Armory, equipped, and prepared to depart for the Capitol.696 When asked whether the QRF was properly equipped to respond to the Capitol, even if that was not the original intent, General McConville reiterated the importance of the assigned mission: “it depends on what the mission was.”697

Mr. McCarthy also acknowledged that, even if properly equipped, the QRF still needed to be briefed on the new mission.698 “I wanted to be clear of the concept for operations and how we were going to bring these [available DCNG personnel, including the QRF] together, make sure they ha[d] the right equipment, a clear understanding of their mission, and then link up with an organization and contact.

In other words, the reason the Pentagon couldn’t send a QRF to fight mobs prepared with their own QRF was because there was no lead agency to oversee them.

One of the most important sections of this report describes how Trump made DOJ — the same agency that had deployed even BOP officials during the summer — the lead agency on January 6. But DOJ did nothing. Miller explained that’s why he got so involved — because DOJ did nothing. “Somebody needed to do it,” he explained. And then McCarthy repeatedly used the lack of a lead federal agency as his excuse not to deploy the Guard. This discussion of DOJ’s disavowals of being the lead federal agency is one of the few areas where the report reiterates that an agency refused to cooperate with the Senate.

All DOD officials interviewed stressed the importance of the designation of a lead federal agency to support operations on January 6. The lead federal agency is “the nexus and locus for all information flow” and ensures that everything is coordinated and synchronized across federal agencies and departments.556 Mr. Miller noted that DOD “should never, ever be the lead federal agency for domestic law enforcement,” except for the establishment of martial law.557 Indeed, Mr. McCarthy required an agency to be designated before supporting the Mayor’s request for National Guard assistance. 558 According to Mr. McCarthy, on January 4, the White House designated DOJ as the lead federal agency for January 6: “Sunday evening, after Acting Secretary Miller and General Milley met with the President, they got the lead [f]ederal agency established, all of the pieces started coming together.”559 Mr. Miller also recalled that DOJ was designated as the lead federal agency at some point prior to January 6, but he did not know what role the White House played in the decision.560

Although DOD understood that DOJ was designated as the lead federal agency, there appears to have been no clearly established point of contact within the department, according to Mr. McCarthy, which he found “concerning.”561 Prior to January 6, Mr. McCarthy sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen outlining the Army’s operational plan in support of the Mayor’s request and reached out informally to David Bowdich, FBI Deputy Director, because the two had worked together previously.562 But Mr. McCarthy claimed, even during the attack, he was never provided an official point of contact at DOJ and had no contact with DOJ or FBI officials until approximately 4:00 p.m. 563 General McConville also stated that DOJ was designated as the lead federal agency; however, he noted that DOJ did not conduct any interagency rehearsals or have an integrated security plan, as DOJ did during the summer 2020 protests when it had also been designated as the lead federal agency.564 General McConville stressed the importance of integrated security plans and acknowledged that had there been one on January 6, DOD’s response time would have been quicker.565

In contrast, Mr. Miller stated Richard Donoghue, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General, served as DOJ’s operational lead on January 6.566 Notably, however, Mr. Miller acknowledged that, during the attack, he convened calls with Cabinet members to share information and ensure everyone was on the same page.567 When asked why he convened the calls, as opposed to the lead federal agency, Mr. Miller responded, “somebody needed to do it.”568 Mr. Miller was not familiar with any actions DOJ took to coordinate the federal response on January 6.569

On May 12, 2021, Jeffrey Rosen, the Acting Attorney General on January 6, testified at a House Oversight hearing that it was “not accurate” that DOJ was the lead federal agency for security preparations on January 6. 570 He stated that DOJ’s responsibilities were specific to intelligence coordinating and information sharing.571 DOJ has not acknowledged that it was designated the lead federal agency for January 6 and has yet to fully comply with the Committees’ requests for information. 572

In this post, I suggested the January 6 investigation hypothetically could (which is no guarantee it will) reach far more of the potentially criminal behavior than virtually everyone not following closely believes.

But in addition to the two areas where I expressed doubt that could happen — members of Congress, and DOD itself — this report makes it clear that DOJ remains a key subject that should be investigated.

It’s not at all clear that the FBI can or would investigate DOJ’s former top leaders.

Admittedly, DOJ — along with DOD, DHS, and Interior — is conducting a review of DOJ’s role that day and in weeks leading up to it (it’s not clear DHS’ review will include Secret Service, which has its own IG).

Review Examining the Role and Activity of DOJ and its Components in Preparing for and Responding to the Events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021

The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is initiating a review to examine the role and activity of DOJ and its components in preparing for and responding to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. The DOJ OIG will coordinate its review with reviews also being conducted by the Offices of Inspector General of the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of the Interior. The DOJ OIG review will include examining information relevant to the January 6 events that was available to DOJ and its components in advance of January 6; the extent to which such information was shared by DOJ and its components with the U.S. Capitol Police and other federal, state, and local agencies; and the role of DOJ personnel in responding to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. The DOJ OIG also will assess whether there are any weaknesses in DOJ protocols, policies, or procedures that adversely affected the ability of DOJ or its components to prepare effectively for and respond to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6. If circumstances warrant, the DOJ OIG will consider examining other issues that may arise during the review.

The DOJ OIG is mindful of the sensitive nature of the ongoing criminal investigations and prosecutions related to the events of January 6. Consistent with long-standing OIG practice, in conducting this review, the DOJ OIG will take care to ensure that the review does not interfere with these investigations or prosecutions.

DOJ IG has suggested that it is looking into the late Trump term shenanigans. But it’s not clear that it would look at why DOJ let a violent mob assault the Capitol.

Which, given the Senate report, is an issue that needs far more scrutiny.

52 replies
  1. OmAli says:

    “Accidentally on purpose” seems to tick a lot of boxes on that day.

    Glad Biden is choosing to remain so presidential and above the fray.

  2. OldTulsaDude says:

    I can’t help but wonder if knowledge of this was behind Barr’s December resignation – not that he would oppose it but to create deniability.

  3. harpie says:

    Quoted above, from the report:

    Indeed, Mr. McCarthy required an agency to be designated before supporting the Mayor’s request for National Guard assistance. 558 According to Mr. McCarthy, on January 4, the White House designated DOJ as the lead federal agency for January 6: “Sunday evening, after Acting Secretary Miller and General Milley met with the President, they got the lead [f]ederal agency established, all of the pieces started coming together.”559 Mr. Miller also recalled that DOJ was designated as the lead federal agency at some point prior to January 6, but he did not know what role the White House played in the decision.560

    I may be misreading this, but January 4 was a MONDAY.

    This is what was happening at DOJ on SUNDAY, January 3:

    Midday 1/3/21 Jeffrey Clark informs Rosen that he had met with Trump and that the president intended to replace him with Mr. Clark, who could then try to stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College results. He says that Mr. Rosen could stay on as his deputy attorney general.
    Midday 1/3/21 News breaks that state officials in Georgia had recorded an hourlong call during which Mr. Trump pressured them to manufacture votes.
    Afternoon 1/3/21 Rosen works with Cipollone, to convene a meeting with Trump for early that evening.
    Late afternoon 1/3/21 Donoghue convenes a call with the department’s remaining senior leaders, laying out Mr. Clark’s efforts to replace Mr. Rosen. Should Mr. Rosen be fired, they all agreed to resign en masse.
    6PM – 9PM 1/3/21 WH Meeting: Trump, Rosen, Donoghue, Clark, Cipollone, Philbin, Engel “and other lawyers”.

    From NYT:
    Also here:

    • harpie says:

      The Miller/Milley/Trump meeting happened on SUNDAY, January 3.

      [p77] 3. Coordination with Cabinet and White House Officials
      Around 1:00 p.m. on January 3, Mr. Miller hosted a “Cabinet-level synchronization and coordination call.”538 […] [added on edit]: Mr. Miller stated that during this meeting, DOJ was reminded that it typically serves as the lead federal agency for domestic law enforcement activities.541

      Later that afternoon, Mr. Miller and General Milley met with President Trump, who concurred in the activation of DCNG to support law enforcement.542 According to Mr. Miller, the meeting with the President was scheduled to discuss a separate issue, unrelated to the January 6 Joint Session of Congress.543 At the end of the meeting, President Trump brought up the Joint Session, asking Mr. Miller whether they were prepared.544 Mr. Miller told the Committees that the conversation with President Trump about January 6 was “a 15-second, 30-second conversation. It was an in passing, kind of what else is going on type thing.”545

      • WilliamOckham says:

        Footnote 538 says …

        According to DOD records, the meeting included the Acting Attorney General, Secretary of the Interior, Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and National Security Advisor

        Which means “DOJ [i.e. Rosen] was reminded that it typically serves as the lead federal agency for domestic law enforcement activities” likely just after Rosen found out that Clark was trying to take over the DOJ.

    • timbo says:

      Smh. If there can’t be a “bipartisan commission” then there needs to be a partisan one that supports the Constitution and the Congress against the ever weakening fabric of legal behavior in the Executive Branch… as demonstrated by a full lack of candor from DOJ, the Secret Service, DHS, etc, on who and why things went so badly on Jan 6.

  4. jeco says:

    Critical elements of the US governement (ncl Sec Sec) are acting like their fidelity to the constitution is compromised. They would pass the personal loyalty test to trump that Comey failed. Anyone of questionable loyalty needs to be released, let them go work security at trump rallies.

  5. klynn says:

    The holes are mind-boggling. I have a really difficult time with the non-action; especially, after 9-11. There has to be an existing plan in place to address an attack on the Capitol that was developed by DHS post 9-11. Cities were required after 9-11, with the help of DHS, to develop and carry out security drills annually. It was my understanding Secret Service had plans and did practice drills as well?

    • Rugger9 says:

      I have no doubt that was indeed done, but let’s remember who was still POTUS. He did not see this as an insurrection (a la Ingraham yesterday) but more as a restoration of order and doubtless pitched it in those terms.

      This timeline makes it more clear to me why several of the key players are not too keen to have the truth come out. Harpie’s catch can explain some of the confusion at DOJ: was it Rosen or Clark in charge? The chaos over that point essentially neutered / prevented DOJ from acting as the lead agency for the DOD which in turn hamstrung the response.

      The Secret Service question had also been bugging me for a while, and one would speculate that DJT’s treatment of the Secret Service agents (who I thought belonged to Treasury, not DOJ because of their currency obligations) would not lead to a willingness to follow DJT’s orders blindly.

      BOP and CPB also need to be looked at. BOP in particular had incognito agents at many of the unrest last summer, and IIRC these may have been the ones who would kidnap protestors into unmarked vans. Digby noted this use of agent provocateurs as well:

      • klynn says:

        Part of my thinking wrt DHS being created post 9-11 and serving as a multi-agency response coordinator and lead, makes DOJ’s lead look down right odd as leading a response on an attack on the Capitol.

        • timbo says:

          Not if you follow the ever more present pattern in the US of “my lawyer said it was okay!” as a get-out-jail-free card when corruption (and now sedition) are in play.

      • Peterr says:

        The US Secret Service began in the Treasury Department, but the reorganization of the executive branch post-9/11 moved them into the newly-created DHS. They coordinate with DOJ, DOD, and other departments and agencies, but they belong to DHS.

  6. Silly but True says:

    It’s probably for the better or best that no US Army (National Guard) forces are deployed to quell domestic unrest unless that force is properly equipped for quelling domestic unrest and operating under clear orders for quelling domestic unrest.

    We are reminded of victims of Rodney King riots. Mark Garcia was an unarmed innocent but curious bystander killed by police returning fire at other looters not associated with Garcia by Hawthorne mini-mall, shot in back below his right shoulder blade as he was trying to escape the area.

    Cesar Aguilar a Honduran national without visa papers and who didn’t speak English was shot by LA Metro Division officers with a shotgun, deployed because of unrest, for possessing a toy gun when he did not lie prone when ordered.

    Howard Martin was killed, struck by a ricocheted police bullet after 10 officers of 25 fired some 70 rounds at about 150 people while trying to disperse a party at an Pasadena apt. complex.

    And the best case study for armed military during domestic unrest is likely that of Martin Rivas, an El Salvadoran immigrant, who was a victim of the National Guard when they opened up full auto on his car with their deployed selective-fire M16s combat weapons — hitting him at least 3 times and killing him. National Guard’s position was Rivas drove erratically and did not stop when ordered — and so they reacted as if they were at a Khandahar checkpoint and a mercenary car approached rather than standing with LA’s Koreatown district.

    • Leoghann says:

      Your trip down Memory Lane of 29 years ago is indeed nostalgic. It’s interesting that you cite three-decade-old events in Los Angeles to back up something that has been established law since the dawn of the Republic. What direct relationship do any of the events you recount have to policies and procedures NOW? Especially, what do the actions of officers of the long-infamous LAPD have to do with the National Guard or the Army? The only example you give of soldiers of the National Guard suggests that the personnel involved took guidance from events that happened 11 to 28 years in the future.

  7. BobCon says:

    One of the things left unspoken is how much of the lack of response for the defense of Capitol Hill was driven by a lack of fear of the Hill.

    There was a time when the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee or the House Appropriations Committee got as much respect at the highest levels of DOD and DOJ as a four star general or Attorney General. Their ability to make life living hell — even when people returned to private life — got responses from agencies and departments no matter what the White House wanted, especially a lame duck White House.

    The congressional leadership has to figure this out. A stronger Congress would make it sure that no contractor would be even returning Miller and McCarthy’s phonecalls, let alone hiring them, as a signal to future officeholders what happens to people who let this happen.

    It’s the way things used to work, and needs to work again.

    • timbo says:

      This. The Executive Branch officials are no longer being checked by an ever vigilant Congress. If Pelosi won’t start a partisan commission to get to the bottom of this then they will continue to get away with this sort of nonsense. If the acting head of DOD had been even a smidge more corrupt, the Congress might now have been able to reconvene in the Capitol building the evening of Jan 6. This is not a matter that needs to be left unexplored. In fact, it needs to be bored down into as deeply as possible. And if there were folks who did not take their oath to the Constitution seriously (the actual rule of law and support for all three Branches, not just the “Unitary Executive”) then they need to be rooted out with prejudice.

      • Leoghann says:

        I think you meant to write, “. . . Congress might not have been able to reconvene. . . .”

        Pelosi’s seeming reluctance or failure to act aggressively is just one more example, in my eyes, of the questionable wisdom of having an 81-year-old speaker of the house. Her 34 years of seniority also mean she learned how to operate at a time when the party dynamics were very different than they are now.

  8. Mike Stone says:

    Thanks for the great analysis. Frankly, everything points to Trump’s appointees following a plan
    wherein sufficient forces would not be able to respond to an insurrection, while still providing some small amount of cover. These agencies constantly train for potential terrorist attached around DC and against Government officials. Consequently, the troops should be ready to respond as soon as signal to “go” was given.

    People in bureaucracies can always come up with justifications to stall while sounding like they are being thoughtful, deliberate and prudent. For example:

    “Mr. McCarthy also acknowledged that, even if properly equipped, the QRF still needed to be briefed on the new mission.698 “I wanted to be clear of the concept for operations and how we were going to bring these [available DCNG personnel, including the QRF] together, make sure they ha[d] the right equipment, a clear understanding of their mission, and then link up with an organization and contact.”

    • OmAli says:

      I wonder how whistleblowers are perceived, and how they will be treated, by this administration. This would be a great time for someone or someones to step forward and blow this thing open.

  9. CD54 says:

    Yeah, what BobCon said.

    IG . . . SMI GEE. Subpoena . . . Suppository. Whose gonna make me?

    Alert me when Ginnie Thomas is naming names under oath.

  10. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Like most institutions and trade organizations, the DoJ hasn’t much of a track record policing itself. The Founders noted the tendency of power to absolve itself of liability and restraint. Their suggestion involved checking abuses by one institution through the intervention or oversight of competing institutions. Wonder what happened to that.

    • Silly but True says:

      One of the truly astonishing legacies of the Trump era is the spine which the Judicial Branch has been trying to grow in response to the multitude of unprecedented Trump administration legal issues.

      Vice did a lot to bring (“strong”) Unitary Executive theory into lexicon. But if that’s a thing — and it was as Cheney wielded his power, and Trump sought to as well — then so are sibling Unitary Judiciary and Unitary Legislative theories as well as exist on periphery of separation-of-powers overlaps.

      The problem of Legislative power grabs is that the Courts have generally reserved the most novel uses for Congress as a whole, forcing some requests to have to be blessed by both House and Senate, mostly neutering individual branches of Congress who want to go it alone without the other, really reducing effectiveness of a divided Congress inclined on Congress taking more power.

      But it’s been nice seeing federal judges push back as the balance check which they’re supposed to be.

  11. Molly Pitcher says:

    I have been extremely concerned about the Secret Service and how safe Biden and Harris are for some time. Carol Leonning, Washington Post reporter had a book come out May 17th about the very troubled history of the Secret Service. This is an interview which Rachel Maddow did with Leonning about her book and about the compromised integrity of the Secret Service.

    In particular she discusses Tony Renato, whom Trump moved from the Secret Service into a position in the White House as Depty. White House Chief of Staff. In that role, he cleared Lafayette Park for Trump’s bible photo op muscle flex and he organized Trump’s rallies during the height of the pandemic. He has returned to the Secret Service serving now as Asst. Director for Training, which hardly speaks to the purported political agnosticism of the Secret Service.

    Wisely, Biden requested a complete change of the Presidential protective detail for the Bidens and the Harrises. But the hole in the information regarding the Secret Service is hardly a surprise when you read “Zero Fail” Leonning’s book. She talks about them wearing MAGA hats.

    • Silly but True says:

      Its compromised integrity goes back further and has existed longer. The (underage) sex scandal goes back to 2012. Early in 2015, it was SS who after a night of drinking smacked their SS vehicle into White House barricade. Later in 2015, a uniformed agent serving on Obama’s detail was sentenced to 20 years for pornographically sexting a girl who he believed was 14 to entice her into sex.

      Then there’s the lapses in that time too: it was 2014 when the knife wielding dude jumped the fence and ran into the White House.

    • jeco30 says:

      I have a few friends who are retired US Special Agents, Treasury and Secret Service and they are all over-the-top trump supporters. One of them got furious at me because I put up a yard sign “veterans for Biden” and had a front page news story about how a bullet riddled human profile target was placed on my car because I had a Veterans for Biden sign on it. His comment “I deserved it”. 40 years of friendship ended after Biden WON.

      These people are just bubbling over with hate and trump’s political posture gives them cover and focus.

      trump’s GOP is modern day dixiecrats and sodbusters, a Confederacy with two wings, like pre Bangladesh Pakistan.

      • Bobby Gladd says:

        That is just terrible. I have a brother-in-law who is retired military intelligence and a Trump supporter. He lives in Florida in “the villages.” We just stay way far away any kind of Trump discussion.

    • Jonathan says:

      Not ‘Tony Renato’. Anthony (Tony) Ornato. He serves, as you said, as the Assistant Director for the United States Secret Service Office of Training. He got his start working as part of the security detail for George W. Bush. Do you have a reference for his responsibility for clearing Lafayette Park for the bible waving photo-op?

      • John Paul Jones says:

        I am pretty sure that that is referenced in some detail in the Maddow interview, which I watched on the night, but haven’t been back to. So I would guess that the proximate source is the book, “Zero Fail.” and/or a report which Leonnig did for the Post.

      • Molly Pitcher says:

        Jonathan, Thank you for the clarification. and in my original comment is a link to the Rachel Maddow interview.

        • Silly but True says:

          Well, how well Lafayette Square protestors were sufficiently socially-distancing themselves from each other and law enforcement is at least one aspect beyond SS’ ability to fully control.

          • timbo says:

            It’s very easy for them to control if they don’t participate in violent protesters for Presidential yahoo foto-ops that are for campaign purposes while trespassing.

            • Silly but True says:

              It’s probably easier to say than do and certainly agents could resign or decline the assignment and seek to administratively and/or judicially fight appropriateness of their orders but that hammer would drop hard on any resist-minded agents; their career would largely be done in face of what would be alleged to be insubordination against them. Even if they were successful, they’d likely still be in ordeal that still might be going on; if they weren’t, their careers would be in tatters.

              • timbo says:

                Yeah, it’s true that not everyone has the stomach for it… harder still if one has family and/or spousal situations that make it almost impossible to contemplate losing a job, etc.

          • Molly Pitcher says:

            Oh geez, that was poor writing on my part. I meant to say the Secret Service action in Lafayette Park and the exposure of over 300 Secret Service members to Covid, requiring quarantine, due to Trump’s rallies at the height of the pandemic.

            Gotta stop trying to multi task.

  12. Marinela says:

    Why was McCarthy involved in coordinating the response on January 6?
    He is the minority leader in the house.
    If anybody had to coordinate anything, would be Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McC. as majority leaders.

    Unless this is a different McCarthy, not Kevin McCarthy.

          • timbo says:

            Heh. Thanks for checking in anyways? ;/ (Ah, Rhetoric… I only got through 101 or 102, whatever was required to get on with my BS degree…)

            Soon after I put my foot in it I started thinking “hmm, that’s maybe not right…wasn’t Miller the ASD?” so went back and checked for sure. Basically, I had initially skimmed a partial search where McCarthy came up as “Secretary of…” and didn’t click on the link! Shoddy on my part (and thankfully not a work product!) Of course, by then, your webserver here had (finally) posted Savage Librarian’s correct information (thankfully). It’s annoying that Savage Librarian’s post was not evident after I posted my initial comment… as I could have simply noted her correct info and deleted my wrong information post immediately had it been available on my screen after my post had posted. SL’s post was not—most irksome! But, hey, this isn’t the newest tech here obviously…and, if I had spare cash, would send you some to help make this whole thing work a bit more efficiently/faster eventually. In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy the retro feel of this website. True story!

  13. greenbird says:

    thank you, marcy.
    “DOJ IG has suggested that it is looking into the late Trump term shenanigans. But it’s not clear that it would look at why DOJ let a violent mob assault the Capitol.
    Which, given the Senate report, is an issue that needs far more scrutiny.”
    holes: turn on the lights to see ’em better.

    • Silly but True says:

      Also remember, OIG only has access to interview current DoJ employees; anyone not currently employed in DoJ is beyond OIG’s reach.

  14. subtropolis says:

    There was a DHS QRF, kitted out in full tactical gear, seconded to the Secret Service that day and on standby inside one of the buildings overlooking, or very nearby, the Ellipse. A journalist was with them tweeting photos while the melée was underway at the Capitol. The tweets made clear that the QRF leader was well aware of what was happening but had nevertheless not been able to get permission to move. As I recall, the journalist noted some frustration among all of them.

    I wish that I could provide more details. I’ve always wondered whether that group (~30) had ever made it down to the Capitol before it had been secured.

Comments are closed.