[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE CAPITOL INSURRECTION: UNEXPLAINED
DELAYS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 12, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-570 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Katie Porter, California Pete Sessions, Texas
Cori Bush, Missouri Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Andy Biggs, Arizona
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Peter Welch, Vermont Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Scott Franklin, Florida
Georgia Jake LaTurner, Kansas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Pat Fallon, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Byron Donalds, Florida
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Mike Quigley, Illinois
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Amish Shah, Deputy Chief Investigative Counsel
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 12, 2021..................................... 1
Witnesses
The Honorable Christopher C. Miller, Former Acting Secretary,
Department of Defense
Oral Statement............................................... 5
The Honorable Jeffrey A. Rosen, Former Acting Attorney General,
Department of Justice
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Mr. Robert J. Contee III, Chief, Metropolitan Police Department
Oral Statement............................................... 10
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
Documents entered during the hearing by Unanimous Consent (UC)
are listed below.
* Statement; submitted by Rep. Connolly.
* Article regarding detainment of Jan. 6 defendants; submitted
by Rep. Biggs.
* Article regarding detainment of Jan. 6 defendants; submitted
by Rep. Biggs.
* Letter regarding the establishment of an investigative
commission; submitted by Rep. Sarbanes.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
THE CAPITOL INSURRECTION: UNEXPLAINED
DELAYS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
----------
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn B.
Maloney [chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib,
Porter, Bush, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Speier, Kelly, Lawrence, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Quigley,
Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs,
Higgins, Norman, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde, Franklin,
LaTurner, Fallon,Herrell, and Donalds.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, the committee will examine one of the darkest days
in our Nation's history, the January 6 insurrection at the
United States Capitol. On that day, a violent mob, incited by
shameless lies told by a defeated President, launched the worst
attack on our Republic since the Civil War. It was harrowing
and heartbreaking.
We watched as the temple of our democracy, a building we
are as familiar with as our own homes, was overrun by a mob
bent on murdering the Vice President and Members of Congress.
The mob's goal was clear. They were trying to prevent the
peaceful transfer of power to the newly elected President by
halting the counting of electoral votes.
This insurrection failed, but not before police officers
were attacked and had to use deadly force to protect Members of
Congress. Shots were fired mere feet from the House floor.
Because of this horrific attack, four private citizens
died. Three police officers lost their lives. Had it not been
for the heroic men and women of law enforcement who faced down
the mob, there would have been even more bloodshed that day.
We know who provoked this attack. That is why 17 House and
Senate Republicans joined all congressional Democrats in the
bipartisan effort to impeach and convict for, and I quote,
``inciting violence against the Government of the United
States.''
To quote Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, ``There
is no question, none, that President Trump is practically and
morally responsible for provoking the events that day.''
But the failures of January 6 go beyond the craven lies and
provocations of one man. The Federal Government was unprepared
for this insurrection, even though it was planned in plain
sight on social media for the world to see. And despite all the
military and law enforcement resources our Government can call
upon in a crisis, security collapsed in the face of the mob,
and reinforcements were delayed for hours as the Capitol was
overrun. It is our duty to understand what went wrong that day,
to seek accountability, and to take action to prevent this from
ever happening again.
We are joined today by the chief of D.C. Metropolitan
Police Department, Robert Contee. On January 6, Chief Contee
and his officers did not hesitate to answer the call, and over
800 D.C. Police officers voluntarily rushed to the aid of the
Capitol. D.C. Police stood side by side with the Capitol Police
and displayed tremendous heroic actions.
Chief Contee, we are in your debt.
We also have with us two Cabinet heads from the Trump
administration who led key Federal agencies on January 6.
Neither has publicly testified about their role in these
events, and I appreciate their willingness to testify today.
Former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen led the Department
of Justice, which was reportedly designated as the lead Federal
agency for coordinating security in Washington on January 6.
The potential for violence that day was clear. In December,
the New York Police Department warned the FBI that certain
protesters viewed January 6 as an opportunity for violent
revolt. Then again, on January 5, the FBI office in Norfolk,
Virginia, warned that extremists were discussing ``specific
calls for violence against Congress on January 6,'' including a
message to ``go there ready for war.''
The Justice Department and the FBI have a special duty to
warn of domestic terrorist threats. Yet it is clear that
despite all of this intelligence, the Federal Government was
not prepared. Today, more than four months later, we are still
in the dark about exactly what went wrong.
Did the Trump administration fail to adequately prepare for
violence because it had a blind spot for rightwing domestic
terrorism? As the lead agency on January 6, why did the
Department--the Justice Department--fail to coordinate an
effective and timely response to the attack on the Capitol?
We simply do not know. In part, that is because neither DOJ
nor the FBI have produced a single piece of paper in response
to the requests sent by six House committees, including this
one, in March. Not a single piece of paper, not a single
document. This is completely unacceptable.
I was hoping to have FBI Director Christopher Wray here
today to address the unanswered questions about the FBI's
actions. I sent him multiple invitations and even rescheduled
this hearing twice, but he declined to appear. However, I am
pleased to announce that Director Wray has agreed to appear
before this committee in June, and I look forward to his
testimony then.
Our final witness today is former Acting Secretary of
Defense Christopher Miller, who led the Department of Defense
on January 6. When the Capitol came under siege, the Capitol
Police were badly outnumbered. The world looked to the
Department of Defense to protect our Government from attack.
Yet DOD did not authorize the deployment of D.C. National Guard
troops to the Capitol until nearly four hours--four hours--
after local officials first pled for help. Even though we were
under full-scale assault, DOD hesitated until Vice President
Pence--not President Trump--gave the order to ``clear the
Capitol.''
DOD's explanations of its own actions have failed to
address critical questions. Why did military leaders place
unusual restrictions on commanders on the ground? Mr. Miller
says that he first learned that the mob had entered the Capitol
between 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. So why did the Defense Department
wait until after 5 p.m.--5 p.m.--before sending the National
Guard to the Capitol?
Today's hearing will not be the end of our investigation.
This committee, along with other committees in the House, will
continue to seek a full accounting of this attack. Even today,
our colleagues in the House Administration Committee are asking
tough questions of the Inspector General for the Architect of
the Capitol.
This oversight is essential, but we also need an
independent bipartisan commission focused on investigating the
root causes of this insurrection. The 9/11 Commission has
taught us that even in our most difficult moments, we can come
together as one and answer hard questions, as we did as a
Congress after 9/11.
The 9/11 Commission made dozens of recommendations to
overhaul our Nation's security and intelligence operations, and
Congress followed through in a bipartisan way, passing
legislation to implement most of the Commission's bipartisan
proposals. We need that same determination, that same resolve
and action today.
This Nation stands at a crossroads, and the path we choose
will define American democracy for generations to come. We must
reject President Trump's big lie and the violent insurrection
it inspired. No Member of Congress, whether a freshman
representative or House conference chair, should face
punishment for speaking the truth about what happened that day.
As Congresswoman Cheney said last night, and I quote,
``Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. We
must speak the truth. Our election was not stolen, and America
has not failed.''
It is time for the American people and this Congress to
look at the events of January 6 and say ``never again.''
I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr.
Comer, for an opening statement. And I yield back.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
What happened on January 6 at the U.S. Capitol is
unacceptable. Those who committed crimes and violence on
January 6 must be held accountable, and the Justice Department
is actively working to do just that.
As of April 16, 410 defendants have been arrested. Their
names, the charges, and place of arrest are all listed on DOJ's
website. The charges include assaulting, resisting, or impeding
officers or employees, some of which include using a deadly or
dangerous weapon. Some have been charged with conspiracy.
Others have been charged with trespassing on Federal property.
The FBI continues to seek perpetrators of crimes committed
on January 6. The FBI's website is filled with pictures, 866
photos and videos of individuals being sought in connection
with the events on January 6.
Less than a week after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, I
joined Ranking Members Rodney Davis and John Katko in
introducing a bill to create a bipartisan commission to
investigate the facts and circumstances related to the attack.
The commission would also identify, review, and evaluate
lessons learned in order to detect, prevent, and respond to
such kinds of attacks in the future.
But instead of seeking to examine the facts in a bipartisan
fashion, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats have politicized the
January 6 attack. Until last week, Speaker Pelosi refused to
entertain an even split on the panel. For three months, she
dragged her feet and failed to build consensus. Meanwhile, the
Senate engaged in bipartisan, constructive problem-solving.
Instead of looking at what we can control, the security at
the Capitol, Speaker Pelosi, Chairwoman Maloney, and other
Democrats have wrongly targeted perceived conservative
technology companies for the role they may have played in this
violence. Well, Chairwoman Maloney looked into this issue, and
guess what? There was nothing there. That is why you haven't
heard anything about it. Because there was nothing there.
If looking at the facts, it is clear that Facebook,
Twitter, and other big tech companies' platforms were used to
organize this violence. The FBI and Department of Justice have
laid out their roles very clearly in their criminal complaints
and indictments. But the Democrats refuse to investigate those
companies or even ask tough questions of them. I guess the
Democrats just don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Additionally, Democrats continue to demonize tens of
millions of Americans who support President Trump and have
legitimate questions about the integrity of the elections.
Expressing concern over election integrity is not a seditious
act. Plenty of my Democrat colleagues expressed concern in past
elections. What is wrong is when individuals take to crime,
violence, and mob tactics. This was wrong on January 6, and
this was wrong last summer when several cities across the
country were attacked by rioters.
The political violence that resulted in the burning of our
post offices; the destruction of other Federal buildings; mob
attacks on live television; violence in the streets of
Portland, Minneapolis, and other cities; businesses boarded up
with graffiti sprayed everywhere; commerce, even here in D.C.,
ground to a halt. It is hypocritical that Speaker Pelosi and
Democrats refused to examine the political violence Americans
witnessed on television every night last summer.
According to one report, 25 Americans died during these
violent political protests in the summer and fall of 2020. Many
Americans' property and livelihood were destroyed. Instead of
condemning this violence, many Democrats supported and
encouraged it. Kamala Harris even contributed to bail out some
of the rioters.
Many Democrats continue to engage in such dangerous
rhetoric. Democrat Chairwoman Maxine Waters recently called on
the public to ``get more confrontational'' if there was a
verdict of ``not guilty'' in the case in Minneapolis. No wonder
America thinks Congress is broken. We can't ignore some acts of
violence and then use others for political gain, which is what
we are doing here today. This is unbecoming of Americans'
elected representatives in Congress.
The justice system must work its course to hold violent
offenders accountable. Congress must examine both the January 6
attack and the violence we witnessed last summer to prevent it
from happening. We owe it to the American people to address
these acts of violence. The American people deserve better from
their elected representatives.
I look forward to a constructive examination of missteps
that occurred on January 6 and strategies for guarding against
these errors in the future.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman, I want to tell the families of
those who died in the wake of these events that my prayers have
been with them over the course of the past several months. Our
law enforcement, who put their lives on the line for us each
and every day, deserve better from their leaders. They deserve
strong and decisive leadership.
I will close now by thanking them and remembering the
fallen. May God bless them and their families.
And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
I would now like to introduce the witnesses that will be
testifying today.
Our first witness today is Christopher Miller, who is the
former Acting Secretary of Defense and who served in that role
on January 6. Then we will hear from Jeffrey Rosen, who is the
former Acting Attorney General. He also served in that role on
January 6. Finally, we will hear from Robert Contee, who is the
chief of the Metropolitan Police Department in the District of
Columbia.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[Response.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you. And without objection, your written statements
will be made part of the record.
With that, Mr. Miller, you are now recognized for your
testimony. Mr. Miller?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER C. MILLER, FORMER ACTING SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Miller. Chairwoman Maloney and members of this
committee, the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol was
unconscionable. I'm grateful for the opportunity to provide
needed context and insight to this committee about the events
of that day and what I believe was your military's appropriate
response. This is long overdue.
I'd first like to express my thanks to the first responders
who tried to contain the mob and defend the Capitol complex and
the individuals there. They are true heroes. And that word is
overused oftentimes, but definitely not in this case. And as we
assess the response, we should not lose sight of their brave
actions that day.
I served as the Acting Secretary of Defense that day, and
as such, I was ultimately responsible for Department of Defense
support to local and Federal law enforcement agencies who held
primary responsibility for safeguarding the Vice President, the
Members of Congress, and the Capitol complex.
My background is summarized in my written statement, but I
served in the Army for over 30 years, including service in the
District of Columbia Army National Guard and in units with
responsibility for protecting Washington, DC. I have personally
led our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in combat in
urban environments.
Following my retirement from the Army as a full colonel, I
resumed Government service in a variety of positions in the
prior administration, including at the National Security
Council, where I focused on defeating al-Qaeda and retooling
the Government to address the challenge of domestic terrorism.
I was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to serve as the
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
On November 9, 2020, I was designated as the Acting
Secretary of Defense and served in that position until the new
administration took office. I'm now a private citizen, but I
remain focused on supporting the members of the Armed Forces,
veterans, and their families.
As to the events leading up to January 6. On December 31,
2020, Washington, DC, Mayor Muriel Bowser sent a written
request to Major General William J. Walker, Commanding General
of the District of Columbia National Guard, seeking unarmed
National Guard support to the District of Columbia Metropolitan
Police Department for planned demonstrations scheduled for 5
and 6 January.
I formally approved the request on January 4, 2021. We
received no further request for different or additional support
until the Capitol was breached.
I want to highlight. You said in my opening statement, I
want to clarify, at 1 p.m.--between 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m., I
noticed that the outer perimeter had been breached, not the
Capitol itself. I know that's sometimes difficult to
understand, but that's one of the purposes of this hearing
today is to make sure we get our lexicon straight.
I want to remind you and the American public that during
that time, there was irresponsible commentary by the media
about a possible military coup or that advisers to the
President were advocating the declaration of martial law. I was
also very cognizant of the fears and concerns about the prior
use of the military June 2020 response to protests near the
White House.
And just before the Electoral College certification, 10
former Secretaries of Defense signed an op-ed published in the
Washington Post warning of the dangers of politicizing and
inappropriately using the military. No such thing was going to
occur on my watch, but these concerns and hysteria about them
nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the
appropriate and limited use of our Armed Forces to support
civilian law enforcement during Electoral College
certification.
My obligation to the Nation was to prevent a constitutional
crisis. Historically, military responses to domestic protests
have resulted in violations of Americans' civil rights and
even, in the case of the Kent State protests of the Vietnam
War, tragic deaths. In short, I fervently believe the military
should not be utilized in such scenarios other than as a last
resort and only when all other assets have been expended.
On January 6, 2021, 8,000 local and Federal law enforcement
officers were on duty in the District of Columbia. I was told
during planning sessions that such a force routinely manages
demonstrations well north of 100,000 demonstrators. That is
what they are trained, equipped, chartered, and expected to do.
Many commentators have mischaracterized my instructions and
Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy's accompanying guidance as somehow
contributing to the inability of the Guard to respond or, even
worse, that those instructions somehow enabled the mob to enjoy
an easy path to the Capitol. That is completely false. We did
not disarm the National Guard. The request from the Mayor was
for unarmed support of local law enforcement, and we authorized
the support she and General Walker requested.
At about 2:30 p.m., it became clear to me that local and
Federal law enforcement personnel were insufficient to address
the situation, and the Department of Defense would be required
to play a much larger role in reestablishing order and
maintaining security in Washington, DC. At 3 p.m., I approved
the activation and mobilization of the full District of
Columbia National Guard to assist Capitol Police and the
Metropolitan Police Department.
At 5:20 p.m., National Guard personnel arrived at the
Capitol and began operations in support of domestic law
enforcement entities there. Order was restored by 8 p.m. that
evening, and the Electoral College results were certified.
Those of you with military experience or who understand the
nature of military deployments will recognize how rapid our
response was. Criticism of the military response is unfounded
and reflects inexperience with or a lack of understanding of
the nature of military operations or, worse, is simply the
result of politics. I suspect a combination of both of these
factors.
There are complexities to redeploying forces in an urban
environment, and again, the critics disregard the subordinate
role the military must play in the rare instances it is
necessary to use such force to support domestic law enforcement
agencies. This isn't a video game where you can move forces
with the flick of a thumb or a movie that glosses over
logistical challenges and the time required to coordinate and
synchronize with a multitude of other entities involved, or
with complying with the important legal requirements involved
in the use of such forces.
I have been in more crisis situations than I can
meaningfully recall. I have personally been in riots, fist
fights and brawls, gunfights, aircraft mishaps, mortared,
rocketed, attacked with improvised explosive devices. And as a
leader, I have commanded forces engaged in the most complex and
hazardous military activities and operations known to
humankind. Good leaders slow things down to plan and then brief
their soldiers, ultimately saving time and lives.
Assembling soldiers, equipping them correctly, conducting
an abbreviated planning session, and briefing all those
involved of their task, mission, purpose, limits, and rules of
engagement. Coordinating and synchronizing with the police and
other domestic agencies on the ground to guarantee the National
Guard's movements supported their efforts. Moving them from the
assembly point to the appropriate location and deputizing them
by a civilian law enforcement official prior to employing them.
This is not a mere symbolic exercise. It all takes time. It
all takes time. I also had the responsibility to the members of
our Armed Forces and their families to make sure that when I
sent them into difficult situations, I sent them in with a plan
to not only succeed, but that would spare them unnecessary
exposure and spare everyone the consequences of poor planning
or execution.
Our arrival needed to impress upon the mob that the
situation had fundamentally changed with the arrival of
disciplined, organized, and overwhelming strength so that the
balance of power had decisively shifted back in favor of the
forces of order, and it was in their best interest to give up
and give up quickly. And I believe it did.
Again, anyone familiar with the culture, nature, practices
of the military, and the character of military operations in
urban environments would understand the enormous accomplishment
of the District of Columbia National Guard and Army leadership
in responding so effectively and quickly that afternoon. As
General Milley correctly assessed, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the military's response that day, the
Department of Defense responded at ``sprint speed.''
I stand by every decision I made on January 6 and the
following days. I want to emphasize that our Nation's Armed
Forces are to be deployed for domestic law enforcement only
when all civilian assets are expended and only as the absolute
last resort.
To use them for domestic law enforcement by any other
manner is contrary to the Constitution and a threat to the
Republic. I ask you to consider what the response in Congress
and the media had been if I had unilaterally deployed thousands
of troops into Washington, DC, that morning against the
expressed wishes of the Mayor and the Capitol Police, who
indicated they were prepared.
I know that the brave law enforcement officers serving on
the frontlines on January 6, 2021, did their best to protect
the Capitol and the individuals, many of who are on this
hearing today, who were in harm's way from a lawless and
ignorant mob, acting contrary to nearly two and a half
centuries of peaceful and respectful transfers of power under
our Constitution. I'm enormously proud of those National Guard
soldiers and airmen who selflessly answered the call on January
6, 2021, and in the subsequent weeks to support domestic law
enforcement and our Constitution.
Watching them, talking to them, listening to them, and
trying to support them as best I could remain the high points
of my term as the Acting Secretary of Defense. They are
America's treasure and our true patriots, our true patriots. We
must be worthy of their selfless service and sacrifice.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
Mr. Rosen, you are now recognized for your testimony. Mr.
Rosen?
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY A. ROSEN, FORMER ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Rosen. Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Comer, and
members of the committee, good morning. My name is Jeff Rosen,
and from December 24, 2020, to January 20 of this year, I had
the honor of serving as the Acting Attorney General of the
United States.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the actions taken
by the Department of Justice on January 6 to help restore order
in the Capitol, to enable the completion of Congress'
certification of the Electoral College vote, and to begin the
process of bringing to justice those who attacked the Capitol.
The events of January 6 were a national travesty and an
intolerable attack on our democratic values. To those who
risked their safety to protect everyone at the Capitol, I honor
your bravery. To the families of the Capitol Police officers or
others who were injured that day or died in the wake of the
attack, I extend my deepest sympathy. And to all of you and
your staff who lived through that day, I share the justified
anger at what you endured.
But I also take solace in the fact that our Republic never
faltered. Buildings were breached, but the Constitution and our
shared values were a bulwark against the violent mob. As set
out in my written testimony, the Department of Justice prepared
appropriately in the period before January 6, and I'm proud of
the Department's response on January 6, when we urgently
deployed more than 500 agents and officers from the FBI, ATF,
and U.S. Marshals to assist in restoring order at the Capitol.
That included the number-two officials from both DOJ and
FBI personally going to the Rotunda while the intrusion was
still underway. All of these outstanding men and women from DOJ
moved with urgency to assist the Capitol Police in the midst of
an unprecedented security breach, and they helped to clear and
secure the hallowed epicenter of our representative government.
As to holding the wrongdoers accountable, I'm also
extremely proud of the swift action taken thereafter by DOJ
personnel and the FBI and the D.C. U.S. attorney's office to
investigate and, where appropriate, begin to prosecute those
responsible for the disgraceful attack on the Capitol.
I appreciate the importance of today's oversight hearing,
and I welcome the opportunity to share with you what I know
about the January 6 events in light of my prior role at the
Department of Justice. The Justice Department, of course, must
always be guided by our Constitution and the rule of law. That
is what guided me.
The Department of Justice acted with the utmost integrity
and urgency to support our institutions of government to the
very best of our abilities when the legislative branch came
under attack on January 6. The violence that occurred at the
Capitol on the afternoon of January 6 should never be repeated.
As a society, we need to restore greater respect for our
Constitution, for our representative form of government, and
for the rule of law.
I'll look forward to your questions about January 6 but
should note as a threshold matter that there are some
unavoidable limitations on the testimony I can provide at this
time. For one, my access to information is limited because I am
no longer with the Department of Justice. Further, while the
events of that day will be with me forever, my memory is
unlikely to be perfect, as I'm sure for all of us, there are
some aspects that are seared in memory and others that have
become a blur.
Moreover, I have been authorized by the Department of
Justice to testify here today only on certain topics within the
scope of today's hearing as I'm bound as a lawyer and the
former--and as a former Cabinet officer of the executive branch
to maintain some kinds of information in confidence and also
must avoid making any statements that could interfere with the
numerous ongoing investigations and prosecutions of individuals
involved in the events of January 6.
I appreciate your patience and understanding as to those,
as I will otherwise do my best to address the events of January
6 as I saw them.
With that, thank you for inviting me today, and I'll look
forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
And our next appointed speaker is Mr. Contee.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. CONTEE III, CHIEF, METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT
Chief Contee. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking
Member Comer, and members of the committee. I am Robert J.
Contee III, chief of police of the Metropolitan Police
Department, the primary police force in the District of
Columbia.
I appreciate this opportunity to brief you on the events of
January 6, 2021, a dark day for our country. It is critically
important that we, Members of Congress, District leaders and
residents, and all Americans find answers to questions about
the 6th. I'll relate to you the facts as we know them at this
time, based on the point of view of the Metropolitan Police
Department and the government of the District of Columbia.
As with any event with multiple agencies, thousands of
people, and almost as many cameras as people, there will
inevitably be several perspectives and possibly inconsistencies
that would need to be aligned as more information is gathered.
I would like to begin by highlighting a few key facts to ensure
the committee and the audience understand the very different
roles of Mayor Muriel Bowser and the District of Columbia,
including MPD, and those of congressional and Federal
authorities.
First, the MPD is prohibited from entering the Capitol or
its grounds to patrol, make arrests, or serve warrants without
the consent or request of the Capitol Police Board.
Second, unlike any other jurisdiction in the country, the
President of the United States--not the Mayor of the District
of Columbia--controls the D.C. National Guard. Any request
submitted by the Mayor to mobilize the D.C. National Guard must
be approved by the President, and the scope of the request must
be limited to supporting the District's local jurisdiction and
authority, which excludes Federal entities and property. A
request for the Guard's assistance at the Capitol or its
grounds would have to be made by Capitol Police, with the
consent of the Department of Defense.
Third, since Mayor Bowser declared a public health
emergency in March 2020, the District of Columbia has not
issued permits for any large gatherings. On the morning of
January 6, MPD was prepared to support our Federal partners
with a First Amendment assembly that was held primarily on
Federal land, while continuing to patrol and respond to calls
for service throughout city neighborhoods.
In preparation for the anticipated demonstrations and the
possibility of violence on city streets, the department was
fully deployed on 12-hour shifts the week of January 4, with
days off and leave canceled. Our Federal partners each had
their primary areas of responsibility. The Secret Service was
focused on the security of the former President and the White
House area. Park Police was focused on the Ellipse and the
National Mall. And Capitol Police had responsibility for the
Capitol, including both the building and grounds.
At Mayor Bowser's request and in advance of the scheduled
demonstrations, mutual aid was requested from several area
police departments to be on standby in the District, and more
than 300 members of the D.C. National Guard were deployed on
District streets, providing traffic control and other services,
to allow MPD to support the First Amendment assembly and
continue to provide services to D.C. neighborhoods. What
follows is a brief outline of MPD's role in these events.
At about 12:45 p.m., the first of two pipe bombs were
found. The first one at the Republican National Committee
headquarters. The second was found about 30 minutes later at
the Democratic National Committee headquarters. MPD responded
to the scenes for the pipe bombs to assist the Capitol Police.
At 12:58 p.m., Chief Sund asked for MPD's assistance to
address the growing violent mob at the Capitol. Officers were
immediately authorized to deploy to the West Front of the
Capitol and arrived within minutes. Our members arrived at a
chaotic scene. The violent mob quickly overran protective
measures at the Capitol prior to the arrival of MPD officers at
the West Front.
MPD platoons immediately began working to achieve our
objectives. One, stop rioters from entering the Capitol
building and remove those that were already inside. Two, secure
a perimeter so that the Capitol could be cleared for lawmakers.
Three, enable Congress to resume their sessions to demonstrate
to our country and the world that our democracy was still
intact. And four, last, only once the third objective had been
accomplished, begin making arrests of anyone violating the law.
At 2:22 p.m., a call was convened with, among others,
myself, leadership of the Capitol Police, the D.C. National
Guard, and the Department of the Army. On this call, the
Capitol Police chief made an urgent request for support from
the National Guard due to the dire situation we were facing. In
the meantime, by 2:30 p.m., the District had requested
additional officers from as far away as New Jersey and issued
notice of an emergency citywide curfew beginning at 6 p.m.
The seven hours between the urgent call for help from the
Capitol Police to MPD and the resumption of work at 8 p.m. by
both houses of Congress will be forever etched in the memories
of every law enforcement officer who was on the scene, and it
is undoubtedly in the minds of the elected officials,
congressional staff, and other Capitol employees who were
forced to seek safety behind locked doors.
Other harm from this traumatic day will be widely felt, but
possibly unacknowledged. Law enforcement training neither
anticipates nor prepares for hours of hand-to-hand combat. Even
brief physical fights are physically and emotionally draining.
In closing, I appreciate the opportunity to highlight the
heroism of MPD officers and all of the law enforcement officers
who responded to the Capitol and put their lives on the line to
protect the Capitol, Congress, and our democracy. But to ensure
the continued safety of the District and its residents, the
Federal enclave, MPD officers, and others, we must be frank in
looking at several critical issues.
The Federal police forces in D.C. are reexamining their
security protocols, given the risks of both foreign and
domestic terrorism. As the chief of the District's municipal
police force, I must think about our preparations not only for
possible attacks, but the daily impact of the changing
operations of our Federal partners. As they harden targets in
the Federal enclave, other buildings in the city under MPD
jurisdiction may become more likely targets.
Thank you again for the opportunity to brief you today.
I'll be happy to answer questions as we try to come to terms
with January 6.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. And I now recognize myself
for questions.
On January 6, Congress was fulfilling its constitutional
duty to certify the results of the Presidential election when
Vice President Pence, Speaker Pelosi, and other Members of
Congress had to be quickly evacuated because a violent mob had
breached the Capitol.
Mr. Miller, you were the Acting Secretary of Defense on
January 6. Did President Trump, as the commander-in-chief of
the U.S. Armed Forces, call you during the January 6 attack to
ensure the Capitol was being secured? Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. No, I had all the authority I needed from the
President to fulfill my constitutional duties.
Chairwoman Maloney. Did you speak with President Trump at
all as the attack was unfolding?
Mr. Miller. On January 6?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes.
Mr. Miller. No, I did not. I didn't need to. I had all the
authority I needed and knew what had to--I knew what had to
happen.
Chairwoman Maloney. Did you speak with Vice President Pence
during the attack, yes or no?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. According to a Defense Department
timeline, it was Vice President Pence, and not President Trump,
who called during the siege to say the Capitol was not secure
and to give you the direction to ``clear the Capitol.'' What
specifically did Vice President Pence say to you that day?
Mr. Miller. The Vice President is not in the chain of
command. He did not direct me to clear the Capitol. I discussed
very briefly with him the situation. He provided insights based
on his presence there, and I notified him or I informed him
that by that point, the District of Columbia National Guard was
being fully mobilized, and it was in coordination with local
and Federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the Capitol.
Chairwoman Maloney. According to the DOD timeline, the Vice
President's call to you occurred at 4:08 p.m., more than two
hours after the Capitol had been breached. Yet according to
this timeline, it was not until after your call with the Vice
President at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized D.C. National Guard
troops to deploy to the Capitol.
Did you issue your order in response to the Vice
President's call?
Mr. Miller. No. I issued the order to mobilize the District
of Columbia National Guard and provide all necessary support to
civilian and local and Federal law enforcement at 3--I gave
approval at 3 p.m., and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, Mr. Miller, your order to deploy
came only 24 minutes after the Vice President called you, and
your testimony is that they are unrelated. Do I have that
right?
Mr. Miller. I'm sorry. You're going to have to say that
again.
Chairwoman Maloney. That is hard for me to believe, but I
am going to move on.
Mr. Miller. No, I--what's the question, ma'am?
Chairwoman Maloney. Mr. Rosen, let me--excuse me. Mr.
Rosen, let me now turn to you. You were the Acting Attorney
General on January 6, and you reported directly to the
President. Did you speak to President Trump at all on January
6?
Mr. Rosen. No, I did not. I did not require any authorities
that the Department didn't already have.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I think that the lack of direct
communication from President Trump speaks volumes. President
Trump swore an oath to protect the Constitution and to
faithfully execute his duties as commander-in-chief. But when
his supporters attacked our Nation's Capitol, the President was
nowhere to be found, leaving it to others to scramble to
respond.
I would like to close with a few simple questions. Mr.
Rosen, you were the head of the Justice Department on January
6. Do you believe the 2020 Presidential election was stolen
from President Trump?
Mr. Rosen. Chairwoman Maloney, I addressed that issue in my
written statement, and I don't really have anything beyond that
other than to say that there was no evidence presented of
widespread fraud of a sufficient scale to overturn the
election.
Chairwoman Maloney. And Mr. Miller, based on his actions
leading up to January 6 and on the day of the attack, do you
believe President Trump fulfilled his oath to faithfully
execute his duties as President and to preserve, protect, and
defend the Constitution?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Chairwoman Maloney. Well, I think the evidence is clear.
The President refused to lift a finger to send aid after he
incited a violent rebellion against our Republic. The
President, therefore, betrayed his oath of office and betrayed
his constitutional duty.
My time has expired, and I now recognize the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Outright propaganda and lies are being used to unleash the
national security state against law-abiding U.S. citizens,
especially Trump voters. The FBI is fishing through homes of
veterans and citizens with no criminal records and restricting
the liberties of individuals that have never been accused of a
crime.
Mr. Biden calls January 6 the worst attack since the Civil
War. A President was impeached for his alleged role in that
riot. It was reported early, totally unconfirmed, that an armed
insurrection ``beat a police officer to death with a fire
extinguisher.''
The Government has even enlisted Americans to turn in their
own neighbors. Federal prosecutor Michael Sherwin on CBS News'
``60 Minutes'' continued the ``shock and awe'' strategy. Many
of my Democrat colleagues opposed the ``shock and awe''
strategy in Iraq. We should similarly oppose its application
against American citizens.
Mr. Rosen, you claimed that the DOJ would ``spare no
resources.'' Mr. Rosen, did the DOJ confiscate any firearms
from suspects charged with breaching the Capitol on January 6?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, as I alluded to in my opening
remarks, there are certain limitations about pending
investigations and prosecutions----
Mr. Gosar. I would--Mr. Rosen, I will be looking forward to
asking that question of people that can answer it from Capitol
Police and the FBI. But the answer is no. Zero firearms from
suspects charged with breaching the Capitol.
Mr. Rosen, was Officer Sicknick killed by rioters with a
fire extinguisher?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, Officer Sicknick was there acting
in the line of duty and went into harm's way, and I think, as
others have said, he acted as one of many heroes on that day.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Rosen? I don't take a hero lightly. He did
heroically, but he died of natural causes.
Mr. Rosen, was a single individual at or outside the
Capitol on January 6, have they been charged with the crime of
insurrection?
Mr. Rosen. Again, if you're asking me about charges that
were either made, pending, or being investigated, I'm sorry.
I'm just not in the position to address those.
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Rosen, once again--once again, Mr. Rosen, to
my knowledge, not a single person has been charged with a crime
of insurrection.
Mr. Rosen, do you recall the name of the young lady, a
veteran wrapped in an American flag, that was killed in the
U.S. Capitol?
Mr. Rosen. I do. Her name was Ashli Babbitt.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, Ashli Babbitt. Was Ashli Babbitt armed?
Mr. Rosen. Again, Congressman, I mean to be respectful of
your observations, but I just----
Mr. Gosar. No, Mr. Rosen----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. Don't want to talk about individual
situations or----
Mr. Gosar. Mr. Rosen, reclaiming my time. Mr. Rosen, no,
she wasn't. She was wrapped in a U.S. flag.
Was the death of Ashli Babbitt a homicide?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I'm not trying to be unhelpful
here, but I just cannot comment.
Mr. Gosar. I understand. I understand. But I mean,
reclaiming my time, as the death certificate says, it was a
homicide.
Who executed Ashli Babbitt?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I'm just going to have to say the
same thing here that I don't want to get into the specific
facts of investigations----
Mr. Gosar. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Now, Chief Contee, what are the rules of engagement at the
D.C. protests?
Chief Contee. At D.C. protests, sir?
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Chief Contee. The only time that we engage, we don riot
gear, that kind of thing, is when--in situations where there is
an actual attack that's going on, sir. I'm not sure of that
question.
Mr. Gosar. I appreciate you, and thank you for your
service.
Madam Chairwoman, my constituents demand answers, but the
truth is being censored and covered up. As a result, the DOJ is
harassing peaceful patriots across the country. Without
accurate answers, conspiracies continue to form.
Russia hoax promoter, riot enabler, and Washington State
Representative Pramila Jayapal, who objected to the electors in
2016 without the required support of a Senator, filed an ethics
complaint against me for following the law under 3 U.S.C. Code
15, the Electoral Count Act, which she, herself, failed at in
2016.
Thirty-three of my Democratic colleagues even wildly
speculated that Republican Members of Congress gave
reconnaissance tours to protesters, offering no proof
whatsoever. I have repeatedly asked for the Capitol footage
from before and during January 6. Such footage would provide
answers, could contain exculpatory evidence regarding the
outrageous accusations against Member of Congress, and most
importantly, exonerate the many Americans who peacefully
protested and never set foot in the Capitol.
Mr. Rosen, wouldn't you agree that the security footage of
a public building, of public officials, paid for by public
taxpayers, potentially containing exculpatory evidence should
be provided to public defenders?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I'm just going to have to refer to
my opening remarks again, that there are some limitations I
have here today.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I--I do, and I believe the American public
should see that footage.
Madam Chairwoman, I and the American people commend you for
holding this hearing. If my Democratic colleagues really want
the truth, they would join me in demanding the release of these
Capitol surveillance footage on and the proceedings of January
6.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I now
recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Norton. You are now recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I very much
appreciate your holding this hearing so that we can bring out
the role of the respective parties, and I appreciate, Madam
Chair, that you praised the role of the D.C. Police Department,
which needs to come out at this hearing.
My questions are for Chief Contee, who illuminated that
role in his testimony and who noted that the MPD cannot enter
the Capitol without the permission of the Capitol Police Board,
and yet the D.C. Police Department played a historic role in
putting down the insurrection and saving the lives, by the way,
of Members of Congress, of staff, of employees, and I would
say, indeed, of democracy itself.
It should be noted that they have been repaid by
Republicans who voted unanimously against my D.C. Statehood
bill, which is moving along quite well notwithstanding, and the
District meets all the traditional elements that Congress has
considered in admitting new states. Surely the role of the MPD
on January 6 supports our bill for D.C. Statehood.
Chief Contee, I would like to ask you about two bills,
which can be implemented without statehood. My D.C. National
Guard Act would give the D.C. Mayor control over the D.C.
National Guard.
Now we know that the governors of the states and even of
the territories control their National Guards, but the
President controls the D.C. National Guard. If the D.C. Mayor,
Chief Contee, had control over the D.C. National Guard on
January 6, do you believe that the D.C. National Guard would
have been deployed to the Capitol earlier than it was on
January 6?
Chief Contee. Yes, I do believe that.
Ms. Norton. I think we see that in your deployment when
things got out of control and the Mayor was finally able to
send you to the Capitol.
Chief Contee, my D.C. Police Home Rule Act would repeal the
President's authority to Federalize the D.C. Police Department.
Now the President doesn't have the authority to Federalize any
other state or local police department. During protests in D.C.
after the murder of George Floyd, the Trump administration
threatened to Federalize the D.C. Police Department.
Chief Contee, do you think the President should have the
authority to Federalize the D.C. Police Department?
Chief Contee. No, I do not.
Ms. Norton. Whose authority should--in whose hands should
the authority over the D.C. Police Department be, even without
statehood?
Chief Contee. The Mayor of the District of Columbia.
Ms. Norton. Madam Chair, it is long past time for Congress
to give the D.C. Mayor control over the D.C. National Guard and
to repeal the President's authority to Federalize the D.C.
Police Department. I believe the events of January 6 spell that
out completely, and I thank you and yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. We are now
recognizing the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice. Mr. Hice is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to take time
to comment--let me mute this. There we go.
I would like to take some time to comment on how the media
and many Democrats have put forth a narrative that has been
circulating around since January 6 and has never been
corrected. For example, the narrative that President Trump
incited the riots on January 6, I don't even understand, Madam
Chair, why you, yourself, don't speak the truth as to what
President Trump actually stated.
And what he said on the morning of January 6, he said that
``I know that every one of you will soon be marching over to
the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your
voices heard today.'' Madam Chair, why don't you talk about how
the President used those words ``to peacefully and
patriotically'' instead of cherry-picking words that you want
to use to portray an image of something that did not happen.
The timeline of what happened on January 6, and these are
approximate times, but the best that we have been able to
gather. In the ballpark of noon, President Trump began his
speech. At about 12:45 p.m., violent protesters started
arriving at the Capitol.
Now let us keep in mind that the location where the
President started his speech, where the speech took place, it
is a 45-minute walk from that location to the Capitol. So if
the individuals who were at the speech were involved, they
would have had to leave before President Trump even started his
speech. He started speaking at 12 p.m. 12:45 p.m., the violent
protesters arrive at the Capitol.
Around 1 p.m., the Capitol is overrun, and there are
efforts to make a call to the National Guard. Between 1:10 p.m.
and 1:15 p.m., President Trump ends his speech and tells
attendees to peacefully and patriotically make their voices
heard at the Capitol. About 1:50 p.m., the Capitol is breached.
Now in this timeline, it would have been about 2 p.m.
before the earliest attendees of Trump's speech could have
arrived at the Capitol. So the Capitol is attacked at the
right--shortly after the President begins his speech. It is
breached before individuals could have gotten there. Where is
the real narrative in all of that?
Another narrative I want to bring up is that the media
claims that the tragic death of Officer Brian Sicknick was a
result of pro-Trump mobs bashing his skull with a fire
extinguisher, which we all know now did not happen. Officer
Sicknick, his autopsy revealed that he suffered no blunt
trauma. In fact, his mother has since come out saying he died
of a stroke. In fact, it was Trump supporters who lost their
lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives
of others.
You go down the list here. Ashli Babbitt was shot and
killed by a Capitol Police officer. Kevin Greeson suffered a
heart attack. Rosanne Boyland reportedly was crushed by
rioters. And Benjamin Philips died of a stroke.
So the narrative needs to be cleared up. The truth matters.
I would also like to discuss what we know about those who
were present on the day of the riots that took place. I
actually have here something that was sent to me by an
individual who was present. He said, ``It was a beautiful day,
peaceful, faith-filled support for free elections. When
agitators rolled in and began to coordinate a very different
agenda, I could see that their spirit was not the same. They
were forceful and angry. They were physically disguised, but
they could not disguise their spirit. They had tactical gear,
walkie-talkies, gas masks, and a plan. I was close and got
tear-gassed. I saw these agitators from 6 feet away. Make no
mistake about it. I was there.''
We have heard reports of buses of these individuals rolling
up. Who were they? Where is the information about these
individuals who rolled up? We saw reports of John Sullivan on
CNN disguising himself as a reporter, which he was not. It was
later found out that he is founder of Insurgent USA. He was
involved in insurgent activity, inciting violence. Why is that
type of thing not reported?
I see my time is running out, but it is unfortunate that
Mayor Bowser is not here today. I have a letter from her urging
no support from the National Guard, and what little support
they got, she wanted it for mere crowd control rather than
stopping the incidents that were taking place. She should be
here today testifying before us. It is extremely irresponsible,
in my opinion, that she is not here. It is time that we get to
the truth, that we start telling the truth, and we stop
creating a narrative that is untrue and misleading to the
American people. And with that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank
the chair for having this hearing.
I find it hard to believe the revisionist history that is
being offered by my colleagues on the other side. It is not a
45-minute walk from the Ellipse to the Capitol. You would think
that the gentleman has probably taken that walk himself several
times. It is several blocks. And so it just collapses the
entire scenario that he has put forward.
But, Mr. Miller, I live near the Capitol, and on January 5
and January 6, I had an opportunity to walk through the crowds.
They gathered on the 5th and then grew considerably during the
6th. And my personal observation was that the crowds on the
5th, January 5, were relatively peaceful. I walked in and among
them, and then again on the morning of the 6th, the business of
Congress, we were compelled to walk back and forth through
these crowds as they gathered around the Capitol.
What struck me, though, was after President Trump's speech
and how the crowd changed, the mood of the crowd changed after
those remarks. And in addition to what he said about initially
a peaceful protest, also in those same remarks that the
gentleman from Georgia neglects to repeat, is he said, ``You
better get up to the Capitol and fight like hell or you are not
going to have a country anymore.'' And that is when the mood
changed in that crowd.
Mr. Miller, you had some opportunity to comment on that.
Let me ask you, you have already done this in an interview with
Vice, but, but for President Trump's speech, do you think
anyone would have marched on the Capitol and tried to overrun
the Capitol without the President's remarks? I know you have
answered this question several times, but I would like for you
to answer it for the committee.
Mr. Miller. I think I'd like to modify my original
assessment. Based----
Mr. Lynch. Why am I not surprised about that? Go ahead.
Mr. Miller. Based on, as Chief Contee said, we are getting
more information by the day, by the minute, about what
happened, and to highlight some other observations that were
made, it's clear now that there were organized--although we're
going to find out through the Department of Justice process and
the legal system, it seems clear that there was some sort of
conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that
intended to assault the Capitol that day. So----
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time, I am just asking you the
same question you have answered before. Did the President's
remarks incite members to march on--people in the crowd to
march on the Capitol or did they not?
Mr. Miller. Well, he clearly offered that they should march
on the Capitol, so it goes without saying that his statement
resulted in that. The question that----
Mr. Lynch. OK. I am reclaiming my time. Let me just share--
--
Mr. Miller [continuing]. I was trying to answer----
Mr. Lynch. Let me just share with the committee what you
have said before. This is your quote. This is your quote.
``Would anybody have marched on the Capitol and tried to
overrun the Capitol without the President's speech?'' ``I think
it is pretty much definitive that would not have happened.''
Mr. Miller. I think now I would say that----
Mr. Lynch. In your written testimony----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. That was not the unitary factor at
all.
Mr. Lynch. What is that?
Mr. Miller. I would like to offer--I have reassessed. It is
not the unitary factor at all. It seems clear there was an
organized conspiracy with assault elements in place----
Mr. Lynch. In your written testimony for today----
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Going to assault regardless of
what the President said.
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time again, for your written
testimony for today, for today, this morning, you stated the
following about the President's quote: ``I personally believe
his comments encouraged the protesters that day.'' That was
this morning----
Mr. Miller. That's a fair statement----
Mr. Lynch. So this is a----
Mr. Miller. There's a----
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. Very recent reversal of your
testimony.
Mr. Miller. Absolutely not. That's ridiculous.
Mr. Lynch. You are ridiculous.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for your thoughts. I also want to
highlight that the----
Mr. Lynch. No, wait a minute. Reclaiming my time,
reclaiming my time, you also said, and I quote, ``The question
is did he know he was enraging the people. That is a different
matter.'' And I understand your reluctance to try to portray
what was in the President's mind. But in multiple occasions,
your testimony, both written and oral, you said that--you
said--and, again, without the President's speech, people would
not have marched on the Capitol and tried to overrun the
Capitol, and that you wrote this morning, ``I personally
believe his comments encouraged the President that day.'' So
you understand----
Mr. Miller. There's a difference----
Mr. Lynch [continuing]. How not believable your new
testimony, your new version of testimony that was apparently
created between the time you wrote your testimony this morning
and when you came before the committee today.
Mr. Miller. There's a difference----
Mr. Lynch. I yield back.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Between marching on the Capitol
and assaulting the Capitol.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. You
may answer. What?
Mr. Miller. There's a difference between marching on the
Capitol and assaulting the Capitol. That's the delineation I'm
trying to make, despite the partisan attack that I just was
subjected to.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I was not ready for that. First of all,
thank you for holding the hearing. I want to associate some of
my--with my colleague Mr. Hice on the timeframe. I think he
made a lot of sense.
I am trying to understand--well, first of all, Madam Chair,
I think we should have had somebody from the Capitol Police
Board maybe to testify, too. But, anyways, we have these pipe
bombs, Chief Contee. That were placed at the RNC and DNC
headquarters. Obviously, to me, that was a preplanned attack.
Would you agree? And, also, when you responded to these pipe
bombs and doing the investigation, do you know what their
motivations were? Could you identify who the perpetrators were?
Chief Contee. Yes, to answer your question, I do think that
these things were preplanned. We know through investigation
that these devices were set out there or positioned out there
by a lone individual. In terms of just our response to that,
you know, the Metropolitan Police Department responded along
with other Federal assets to the threat, to mitigate the threat
that we were facing at that time.
Mr. Gibbs. Do you know if this individual or individuals
had any contact or coordination with the people that entered
the Capitol?
Chief Contee. No, sir. At this point we do not know that.
No one has been apprehended. That investigation continues on.
Mr. Gibbs. The people that illegally entered the Capitol, I
have seen some reports; it looked like a lot of them had
military-type apparel on, gas masks, and so forth, things like
that. Is that correct?
Chief Contee. That is accurate, sir, yes.
Mr. Gibbs. So you would have to, I guess, come to the
conclusion that that was a preplanned, you know, initiative
before January 6. Would you concur?
Chief Contee. Yes. You know, we've seen individuals who
wear protective gear to demonstrations when they attempt to
negatively engage law enforcement. But in this one, with the
tactical gear and certainly with the helmets, there were
certainly some thoughts that things were going to be bad there.
Mr. Gibbs. Also, an FBI report I believe--I think maybe
three days before or the day before, about possible violence at
the Capitol. Was your department notified? Were you aware of
that?
Chief Contee. No, sir, not three days before. If you're
talking about the intelligence bulletin from Norfolk, no, sir.
Mr. Gibbs. You had notification the day before or not?
Chief Contee. No, sir. And I think my previous testimony at
another hearing we kind of addressed this issue, but the
notification was sent through--it was basically sent through an
email. It was emailed to various agencies within the
intelligence network, but I personally did not receive----
Mr. Gibbs. Did the Capitol Police have notification, are
you aware of or not?
Chief Contee. I found out later on that Capitol Police,
they did have some information, but this was after January 6
occurred.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I guess for the other witnesses, you know,
there was chatter--apparently there was chatter going around on
social media that there--even days before of organization or
coordination. Is Attorney General, Mr. Rosen, aware, was there
any chatter that the Department of Justice was aware of
before--days before January 6?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, FBI Director Wray has addressed
this in a previous hearing and I gather will again, so let me
address it maybe at a high level. There were very robust
mechanisms for looking for such things, but the Bureau has to
try to sort out what is aspirational versus what is real and
corroborated and verified. But they had a mechanism with the
police forces and with the other Federal partners to share
information. My understanding is that information was shared in
a timely way.
Mr. Gibbs. You think Big Tech could have had a role to help
surface that information out or not?
Mr. Rosen. Well, I think, again, I'd probably direct you to
the FBI for more specifics about this, but it's often the case
that they seek assistance from private sector counterparts as
well.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. Thank you. And I guess I am out of time. I
yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is now recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The January 6 insurrection was fueled by a big lie, fueled
and peddled by the President of the United States, Donald
Trump. Mr. Rosen, in your written testimony you say the
Department of Justice did not act on election fraud claims
because the Department had not seen evidence of widespread
fraud, and that you were committed to an orderly and peaceful
transfer of power. Is it correct that the Department also
declined to appoint any special prosecutors, file any lawsuits,
or make any public statements questioning the results of the
2020 election?
Mr. Rosen. That's correct.
Mr. Connolly. Prior to January--and I think that is
important for the record. These myths that are being
perpetrated by some amongst us that there was widespread fraud
is simply not borne out by the actions and decisions made by
the Department of Justice in the Trump administration itself.
Mr. Rosen, prior to January 6, were you asked or instructed
by President Trump to take any action at the Department to
advance election fraud claims or to seek to overturn any part
of the 2020 election results?
Mr. Rosen. Well, Congressman, as I just alluded to in your
prior question, I can tell you what the actions of the
Department were or were not----
Mr. Connolly. No, sir. No, sir.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. The outcome was. I cannot tell
you----
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Rosen, Mr. Rosen----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. Consistent with my obligations
today, about private conversations with the President one way
or the other.
Mr. Connolly. We had an unprecedented insurrection that led
to seven deaths, five here and two suicides, and you are saying
this is a privileged communication?
Mr. Rosen. I'm saying that my responsibility is to tell you
about the role of the Department of Justice----
Mr. Connolly. No, sir.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. And the actions we took.
Mr. Connolly. Your responsibility is to be accountable to
the American people and this Congress. I cannot imagine a more
critical question. Did you have conversations prior to January
6 with the President of the United States urging you to
question or overturn or challenge the election results of 2020?
That is a simple question. And, by the way, no executive----
Mr. Rosen. Well----
Mr. Connolly. No executive privilege has been invoked prior
to this hearing and your testimony, and you have known you were
coming here for over a month.
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, respectfully, I understand your
interest in the issue, and I've tried to be as forthcoming as I
can with regard to the facts at the Department of Justice. When
you ask me about communications with the President, I as a
lawyer don't get to make the decision on whether I can reveal
private conversations. Other people make that decision. And
I've been asked today to stick to within the ground rules that
I have to abide by, so that is----
Mr. Connolly. By whom?
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. What I have to do. I'd be happy to
check and get back to you.
Mr. Connolly. That would be great, because I think the
American people are entitled to an answer, Mr. Rosen. And I
think you and I as public servants have an obligation.
Did you meet with the President at the White House on
January 3?
Mr. Rosen. I did.
Mr. Connolly. You did. But you decline to talk--you decline
to tell us what the nature of that conversation was about. Is
that correct?
Mr. Rosen. I can tell you it did not relate to the planning
and preparations for the events of January 6.
Mr. Connolly. Can you tell us whether in any aspect it
involved a discussion about the election itself?
Mr. Rosen. I'm sorry, Congressman. Again, respectfully, I
don't think it is my role here today to discuss communications
with the President in the Oval Office or the White House
without authorization to do that. So I've tried to be as
forthcoming as I can be and will continue to do, but that one
I'm not going to be able to answer your question.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Rosen, before January 3, that meeting you
confirm you did have with the President, Jeffrey Clark, your
subordinate at DOJ, reportedly told you that your days as
Acting Attorney General were numbered and that DOJ was going to
stop Congress from certifying the election results. Is that
true?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, the items you are talking about I
have seen media accounts of, as I am sure you have. But that
set of--episode, if you will, is the subject of an Inspector
General investigation, and so I'm just not going to be in a
position to discuss that.
Mr. Connolly. So you are not going to talk about a meeting
you confirm you had with the President. I guess you are
claiming executive privilege, even though you have not invoked
executive privilege formally to the committee prior to your
appearance. And now you are arguing that because of a pending
IG investigation, an explosive report reportedly about a
conversation you had with Mr. Clark informing you your days
were limited and there was going to be an attempt to overturn
the results of the election, you are not going to discuss
because it is the subject of an IG report. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, both the Department of Justice and
my own counsel had conversations with the committee about the
ground rules for my appearing today. So I am going to conduct
myself in accordance with the responsibilities that I have and
the ground rules that were discussed.
Mr. Connolly. Well, it is the privilege of any member of
this committee to ask a question, Mr. Rosen, and it is also--
there is also a formal process for invoking executive
privilege, which you have, in fact, not invoked.
Let me just say, Madam Chairwoman, I disavow comments made
previously during this hearing about the nature of the
insurrection. Rewriting history serves no purpose other than to
cover up the violence and the brutality that we experienced and
that was exhibited on January 6, a shame for America, a shame
for this Congress, and revisionist history serves no purpose
but to cover that up and protect that brutality and that
violence. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is now recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rosen, four years ago, on January 6, 2017, was it
appropriate for Democrats to object to the 2016 Presidential
election results?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I think the things that are
appropriate or inappropriate for Congress to do are that they--
all members, of course, and all the rest of us have to adhere
to the Constitution. And so I'm going to say that that's an
issue for you as Members of Congress to assess.
Mr. Jordan. Well, now, you are former Acting Attorney
General, and we appreciate your service to the country. I am
just asking, was it OK for them--they told us we are not
allowed to object, we were not allowed to object on January 6,
2021. In fact, you are not even allowed to cosponsor
legislation that Democrats introduce if you did object to
accepting and counting the electors on January 6, 2021. I just
want your thoughts on was it OK for Democrats to do that on
January 6, 2017.
Mr. Rosen. What I would hope is people of all parties, all
political perspectives, would respect the Constitution, our
system of Government, and the rule of law.
Mr. Jordan. And does the Constitution allow members to
object to the Electoral College results on January 6 after a
Presidential election?
Mr. Rosen. My understanding is that it does.
Mr. Jordan. It does, right. And Democrats did it. I mean,
we had Jim McGovern, the Democrat chairman of the Rules
Committee, he objected to the very first state called. He
objected to Alabama back on January 6, 2017, a state President
Trump won by 30 points. Mr. Raskin objected to Florida. Ms.
Waters objected to Wyoming, maybe the only state that President
Trump won by more than he won Alabama. She objected to Wyoming.
And you are saying that was OK for Democrats to do. Mr. Rosen,
that was fine?
Mr. Rosen. Oh, I'm sorry, Congressman. I did not understand
if you were asking me to respond to that. Again, I mean, I
think Members of Congress should----
Mr. Jordan. So is it OK for Jim McGovern, a Democrat Member
of Congress, to object to Alabama on January 6, 2017? Is that
all right? He's allowed to do that, right?
Mr. Rosen. I think if members are adhering to their
constitutional rights and roles and responsibilities, you know,
that's, again, a question for all the folks in Congress to
assess.
Mr. Jordan. And Ms. Waters can object to Wyoming even
though President Trump won Wyoming by like 40 points? She can
object to that if she wants to, right?
Mr. Rosen. Well, at least the Constitution allows Members
of Congress to raise objections.
Mr. Jordan. Yes. We have heard a lot of talk from the
Democrats about revisionist history and the big lie. I just
think it is important that--we have had members, Democrat
Members of Congress tell us that we were not allowed to object,
that somehow we were trying to overturn the will of the
American people, even though we objected to states like
Pennsylvania, for example, where they, I believe in an
unconstitutional fashion, changed their election laws in the
run-up to the election, but somehow they are allowed to object
to Alabama, they are allowed to object to Wyoming, they are
allowed to object to Florida, but we are not allowed to object.
I fail to see the logic there.
How about the previous gentleman from Virginia talked about
brutality, talked about--I just want to read you a couple
statements here--well, no, let me ask you this question first:
Was the 2016 election stolen?
Mr. Rosen. I do not know of evidence that would say it was.
I think you're alluding to a troublesome thing about the
legitimacy of our past elections, sometimes governors' races
being called into question. And I think it's really necessary
and important for all of us to find ways to restore our
citizens' faith in the electoral process and in our
representative system of Government.
Mr. Jordan. Secretary Clinton said on May--speaking in May
2019, ``You can run the best campaign. You can even become the
nominee, and you can have the election stolen from you.''
September 2019, she said on CBS' ``Sunday Morning'' that
President Trump was an illegitimate President.
On October 2020, just a month before our last Presidential
election, she was referring to the 2016 Presidential election,
and she said it was stolen from her. Is she wrong?
Mr. Rosen. She is wrong.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, she is wrong, because the election was
valid in 2016. President Trump won. So when we talk about
revisionist history that we have heard from the Democrats and
we talk about the big lie, their nominee as recently as last
October was saying the election in 2016 was stolen. They can
object to Alabama, they can object to Wyoming, they can object
to states in 2017, but we are somehow not allowed to object to
anything, raise points about the 2020 election. I just--it is
not about revisionist history. It is about the double standard
that Democrats want to have. That is the part that bothers me
the most. And, frankly, I think that is what bothers the
American people the most.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi, is now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Mr. Miller, you do not deny that at least four people died
in connection with January 6, correct?
Mr. Miller. I do not know how to answer that. Yes or no? It
is not that easy. It is just not that easy to respond to that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And, sir, 140 police officers--140
police officers were injured, right?
Mr. Miller. I do not know.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And two Capitol Police officers later
died by suicide, correct?
Mr. Miller. I do not know. That's what I've read in the
paper.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Hundreds of rioters breached the
Capitol, right?
Mr. Miller. I am sorry?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Hundreds of rioters breached the
Capitol on January 6, correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, sir, I want to highlight a
paragraph in a Vanity Fair article about you from January. In
response to the critique that you were too slow responding to
the January 6 breach, you said, ``I know for an absolute fact
that historians are going to look and go, `Those people had
their game together.'"
Mr. Miller, I have a picture of January 6 and what the
Nation saw on TV. I can assure you these pictures of mayhem and
insurrection do not suggest anyone had their game together that
day.
Let me turn your attention to another topic, namely,
Russia. You said, ``I have professional respect for how they do
things. I kind of, you know, like professionally I'm, like,
wow, they are doing pretty well, and they are using a lot of
irregular warfare concepts, information, all this stuff in a
way that, you know, like, oh, good on them.''
Mr. Miller, according to the ODNI, on March 10, 2021,
Russia interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections, correct?
Mr. Miller. I did not read that report. I will take your
word for it.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On top of that, Russia invaded Ukraine
and annexed Crimea, right?
Mr. Miller. I am aware of that. Yes, sir, they did.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Miller, you know Vladimir Putin
tried to kill his political opponent, Alexei Navalny, with a
nerve agent, correct?
Mr. Miller. I do not know what that has to do with the
subject of this hearing.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Miller, according to the
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, Russia
is responsible for SolarWinds, the largest cyber attack waged
ever against the U.S. in our history. You are aware of that,
right?
Mr. Miller. I thought I was here to discuss unexplained
delays and unanswered questions of the event of 6 January.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, you said, ``Good on them,'' with
regard to Russia. Meanwhile, regarding the Department of
Defense which you headed, you told Vanity Fair, ``This f'ing
place is rotten.'' I think your comments, Mr. Miller, about
Russia and the DOD are bizarre and rotten, and I think they
illustrate unfortunately the problems of the response on
January 6.
Let me turn to January 6. On January 3, you informed the
President that Mayor Bowser requested National Guard support,
and according to page 11 of your written statement, the
President said to give the Mayor the support she requested,
correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. On January 6, according to your
statement, you became aware sometime on or before 1:30 p.m.
that day that the rioters breached the perimeter of the
Capitol, right?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. According to a DOD-created timeline, at
1:34 p.m. Mayor Bowser called Army Secretary McCarthy to
request ``additional forces to respond to the Capitol.''
According to page 8 of your statement, at 3:04 p.m.--so 1-1/2
hours later--you authorized mobilizing the D.C. National Guard
and providing these additional forces. That constituted a gap
of 1.5 hours. During that 1.5 hour gap, why did you and the
Secretary disobey the President's order to give the Mayor the
support she requested?
Mr. Miller. She already had the support she requested. What
is your question, sir?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, she requested additional support.
Do you see this mayhem and pictures of insurrection on January
6? She requested additional support from you, and during that
1.5 hours either you disobeyed an order given to you by the
President to help Mayor Bowser or the President changed his
order and asked you to delay support or you just plain froze
and were indecisive while people were being injured, killed,
while hundreds of rioters breached the Capitol and a Nation was
traumatized.
Sir, because of your----
Mr. Miller. There were 8,000 badged and credentialed police
officers on duty. The United States Armed Forces----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you were not there.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Should only be used as a last
resort.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you were AWOL. You were AWOL, Mr.
Secretary. You were AWOL. Remember----
Mr. Miller. That is completely inaccurate. That is
completely inaccurate.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. As you said before, you have
responsibility for everything. Something goes wrong, ``I own it
completely, 110 percent.'' Sir, you partially own this mayhem,
and that is why I am going to ask for a DOD investigation into
your actions.
Thank you.
Mr. Miller. I already requested that before I left the
Department of Defense.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I look forward to the report. Thank
you, sir.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time expires.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is now
recognized for five minutes. Mr. Higgins.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair,
constitutionalists support peaceful assembly to redress
grievance. We do not support violent protest. Today we are
discussing the forced occupation and violent protest of January
6. Unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle who hold the
majority choose to present this hearing today through a 100-
percent political prism.
The Founders were concerned about this. Madison wrote in
Federalist 10 that ``Liberty is to faction as air is to fire,''
that a dangerous or disturbing faction could indeed be born
within this new republic based upon the very liberties and
freedoms that the citizens were being provided, and yet none
would argue that liberty should be eliminated in order to
control a dangerous or disturbing faction. Madison and Hamilton
agreed that the answer would be a stronger faction to be born
within the citizenry to counter the disturbing or dangerous
faction.
I would argue that many Americans have come to believe that
Congress has become a disturbing faction in America. My
colleagues are referring to the actions of January 6, yet they
completely ignore the language and influence that their own
members cause across the country.
Maxine Waters: ``Well, we have got to stay on the street.
We have got to get more active. We have to get more
confrontational. We have to make sure they know we mean
business.''
Kamala Harris: ``But they are not going to stop. They are
not going to stop. They are not. This is a movement, I am
telling you. They are not going to stop, and everyone beware.''
Representative Pressley: ``There needs to be unrest in the
streets.''
Nancy Pelosi: ``I just do not know why there are not
uprisings all over the country.''
Maxine Waters: ``In a restaurant, in a department store, at
a gasoline station, you get out there and you create a crowd
and you push back on them, and you tell them they are not
welcome here anymore.''
Nineteen people died during BLM riots last year. Hundreds
and hundreds were injured. Two thousand police officers were
injured from BLM riots last year. And yet we are going to
discuss today, as if none of that happened, the events of
January 6.
The hypocrisy of this body is indeed disturbing to the
scores of millions of Americans that supported President Trump
and loved this country, and they have been denied access to
their own Capitol for over a year.
Chief Contee, let us jump into some law enforcement here,
shall we, sir? Be prepared for a question. Chief Contee, does
the United States Capitol Police utilize facial recognition as
a technology?
Chief Contee. I do not know what the United States Capitol
Police use, sir, in terms of----
Mr. Higgins. I thought you might be aware of that based
upon your background. I am sure you stay up with it.
Chief Contee. No, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Do you have an opinion about facial
recognition technology?
Chief Contee. We do not use it here in the Metropolitan
Police Department.
Mr. Higgins. OK. In your coordinated efforts with the
Capitol Police, do you discuss technologies used? Obviously,
there are many joint operations. This is not a difficult
question. It is not a critique, good sir. I am asking your
opinion as a law enforcement professional.
Chief Contee. Yes, I think that when you talk about
technology, certainly we look across the spectrum of best
practices with all agencies, sir, not just the Capitol Police.
Mr. Higgins. OK. Thank you. I concur. Chief, I was first
certified as a Taser instructor in May 2007, 14 years ago.
Taser as a technology has been around for a long time. Does
your department use Tasers?
Chief Contee. Yes, sir, we do.
Mr. Higgins. They save thousands of lives across the
country. Have you ever discussed with your chain of command
colleagues with the Capitol Police why they do not deploy
Tasers?
Chief Contee. No, that is not a conversation that we have
had, sir.
Mr. Higgins. When you have joint operations, which would be
normal, is it a consideration regarding crowd control?
Chief Contee. Well, it depends. It is a less lethal option,
and it just really kind of depends on the situation.
Mr. Higgins. Exactly. It is a less lethal option that the
United States Capitol Police has not deployed, despite the fact
that they have used the most modern technologies to further
their law enforcement mission, which I support.
Madam Chair, my time has expired, and I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is now recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Miller, Senator McConnell said that American citizens
attacked their own Government. They used terrorism to try to
stop a specific piece of democratic business they did not like:
the counting of the Electoral College votes. Do you agree with
that?
Mr. Miller. The statement that indeed this was a terrorist
attack?
Mr. Raskin. That they used terrorism to stop a specific
piece of democratic business, fellow Americans beat and
bloodied their own police, they stormed the Senate floor, they
tried to hunt down the Speaker of the House, they build a
gallows and chanted about murdering the Vice President. They
did this because they have been fed wild falsehoods by the most
powerful man on Earth because he was angry he had lost an
election. Do you disagree with any of that?
Mr. Miller. I agree that it was an act of terrorism.
Mr. Raskin. OK. Madam Chair, some of our distinguished
colleagues, including my friend from Louisiana, have been
invoking the 74 million who voted for Donald Trump. Here is
what Senate Minority Leader McConnell had to say about that:
``In recent weeks, our ex-President's associates have tried to
use the 74 million Americans who voted to reelect him as a kind
of human shield against criticism. Anyone who decries his awful
behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. That is an
absurd deflection. Seventy-four million Americans did not
invade the Capitol. Several hundred rioters did. And 74 million
Americans did not engineer the campaign of disinformation and
rage that provoked it. One person did and that was Donald
Trump.''
So this is an essential hearing, Madam Chair, but it will
barely scratch the surface of the questions that need to be
answered about the violent insurrection against Congress and
the Constitution to overthrow the results of the 2020
Presidential election. We need a complete bipartisan,
multipartisan, nonpartisan, 9/11-style commission to study the
causes and the events of January 6 and the response to it. But
our colleagues, alas, have done everything in their power to
block the formation of a commission, including slandering Black
Lives Matter, a non-violent movement for justice that they
continue to lie about with their propaganda. And today we have
heard different numbers bandied about, 25 people who died in
Black Lives Matter protests, 19 people who died and so on. A
lot of the people they are talking about are people who were
killed by right-wing counterprotesters or provocateurs.
For example, one of the deaths that they want to blame on
Black Lives Matter was Federal Protective Service Officer David
Underwood in Oakland, California, and I remember very clearly
when my colleagues came to Congress and said, ``Look what Black
Lives Matter did,'' and they were trying to blame this on this
movement. But, in fact, he was shot by Steven Carrillo, an Air
Force staff sergeant who was active with the right-wing
Boogaloo movement and is now standing trial for that murder.
They count as part of their number the two people that were
killed by 17-year-old vigilante gunman Kyle Rittenhouse, who
crossed state lines to kill protesters and is now standing
trial for first-degree murder.
So we cannot get into all of it, but they want--they are
saying we cannot have a commission to study what happened on
January 6, the attack on this Congress, the attack on the
Constitution, the attack to overthrow the Presidential election
unless we drag in the Boogaloo Boys and everything that
happened with these attacks on the Black Lives Matter movement.
This is an outrageous and unnecessary and irrelevant
distraction from this assault on America.
Now, after having lost the Presidential election by 7
million votes, 306 to 232, a margin that he had declared a
landslide in 2016 when he won by the exact same margin, Trump
tried unsuccessfully to get Republican state legislatures
across the country to throw out the popular vote and to
substitute teams of Trump electors. When that did not work,
they went and they tried to intimidate and coerce state
election officials like Brad Raffensperger in Georgia to just
manufacture votes. Trump called him up on the phone and
basically told him to commit election fraud, ``Just find me''--
I think it was--``11,780 votes,'' he said. And the whole world
saw it. And when that did not work, at that point he began to
appeal to his most right-wing supporters, the Proud Boys, who
he told to stand back and stand by, and the Three Percenters
and the Oath Keepers to come to Washington. Not, ``Don't go to
Georgia,'' ``Don't go to that place,'' but ``Come to
Washington,'' and not on any day but on the day we are counting
the Electoral College votes, and not at any time but one hour
before then. And then he pointed them like a loaded pistol at
the Capitol and said, ``You have got to go and fight like hell,
or you are not going to have a country anymore. You have got to
show strength, or you are not going to have a country
anymore.''
And now we are getting this outrageous, Orwellian,
revisionist history where Donald Trump is out there saying that
his most loyal followers came in literally, he said, hugging
and kissing the Capitol officers. Now, come on. This is why we
need a real commission to study the events of that horrific day
of an attack on America, study the causes of it and get to the
bottom of it. But my colleagues should stop with all of the
evasions, the diversions, and the distractions. Let us figure
out what happened to us on that day.
I yield back to you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I thank our
witnesses for being here today.
The American people deserve better than a purely partisan
inquiry that is led by House Democrats. If the goal is to
explore the circumstances surrounding January 6 and why it
happened as it did, I would expect to see Capitol Police at
this hearing. I would also expect to see a bipartisan panel
with a pinpointed focus on finding solutions like our
colleagues in the Senate have been doing for the last few
months.
Unfortunately, this House has turned the opportunity to
learn from what happened and work to prevent it into just
another round of partisan finger pointing.
Today we are here to examine the events of January 6. As we
all know, just steps away from here we saw violence and
destruction. As I posted on social media that afternoon,
``Violence like what we are witnessing in the United States
Capitol is unacceptable. People have the right to peacefully
protest, and there is absolutely no reason to resort to
destruction. God bless the brave men and women in the United
States Capitol Police for protecting us.''
As the events of the afternoon of January 6 continued to
unfold, I posted this: ``I am safe. Members of my staff are
safe. The protesters within the Capitol must immediately back
down. Senseless violence accomplishes absolutely nothing. Law
and order must be upheld.''
I appreciate the efforts from law enforcement and the
Department of Justice to bring those responsible to justice. We
must enforce the law and restore order when it is disturbed.
I have great respect for those who protect the Capitol and
were involved in responding to the events of January 6, and we
owe it to them, to this institution, and all Americans to
improve our response to events like this and get to the truth.
My questions are for Chief of Police Robert Contee. Chief,
do you think the events on January 6 would have escalated even
more and been worse if it were not for the heroic law
enforcement response?
Chief Contee. Yes, ma'am, I do.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. When officers anywhere are injured or
killed in the line of duty, I am sure you and your colleagues
are particularly affected. How do you feel when certain Members
of Congress say that law enforcement is ``beyond reform'' and
that policing in America should be eliminated altogether?
Chief Contee. I wouldn't agree with that statement.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Do broad-brush statements against law
enforcement harm your officers' morale and potentially
encourage more violence against them?
Chief Contee. I think when you talk about broad-brush
statements, I don't think that that is helpful for law
enforcement. I think you need to look at specific agencies and
the things that are happening in those agencies and be very
specific about that.
Ms. Foxx. And today the comments that are being made
unfortunately by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
are almost incendiary themselves.
Could you describe in your estimate what Washington, DC,
would be like without any law enforcement?
Chief Contee. Well, I think law enforcement certainly has a
role in society. It's the reason why I've been doing this for
30 years, and it's the reason why we have law enforcement
agencies all across the country. I think the issue is that
we've got to make sure that we have the best law enforcement
representatives out here doing the work in communities. That's
important. That's very important.
Ms. Foxx. Madam Chairman, I want to say again I think it is
really unfortunate that we are not focusing on learning what
happened on January 6 and why there was such a failure to
respond properly. I myself that morning, when I came in,
noticed that there was no beefed-up security, and I commented
on it to some people, because under normal circumstances, when
we are expecting people to be at the Capitol, there is beefed-
up security. And our security forces, those on the front lines,
do a great job.
I have been reading results of the IG's investigation and
others, and it is clear that there was a failure of leadership
here just as there is a failure of leadership in this House
during this time. And that is unfortunate.
The men and women of the Capitol Police put their lives on
the line for us every day, and I am truly grateful to them for
doing that. They are there in the wind, the rain, the snow,
whatever the conditions. They deserve to have had--be better
prepared that day and to have been given better direction as to
how to handle the events of the day. And with that, I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Ro Khanna, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Secretary Miller, I have never been more offended on this
committee by a witness statement than yours. You were more
concerned about defending your own reputation and justifying
your own actions than the sanctity of this Capitol and the
sanctity of our democracy. Have you no sense of accountability,
no sense of shame? Secretary Miller, I want to ask you today:
Will you at the very least apologize to the American public for
what happened on your watch?
Mr. Miller. I want to highlight the incredible job that the
members of our armed forces and the civilians in the Department
of Defense----
Mr. Khanna. Secretary Miller, I agree with you about our
armed forces.
Mr. Miller. That is the----
Mr. Khanna. Secretary Miller, it is my time. Your
pugnacious style is not going to override the democratic
process. Learn to respect it. My question is not about our
troops, our armed forces. Everyone recognizes they are
extraordinary. My question is about your incompetence in
leading them. Will you apologize to the American public for
what happened on your watch? Will you apologize to the troops
for what happened on your watch?
Mr. Miller. The Department of Defense and our members of
the armed forces performed magnificently on January 6 and
following----
Mr. Khanna. No one is questioning what they did but
questioning what you did. Is it your testimony that you refuse
to apologize to the American public for what happened?
Mr. Miller. I stand by every decision I made on January 6
as I highlighted----
Mr. Khanna. You think you did everything perfectly? Just
like the President said he did everything perfectly. Is that
your testimony, you did everything perfectly, no mistakes?
Mr. Miller. I want to highlight again that the armed forces
should only be used for domestic law enforcement, and all
other----
Mr. Khanna. Is it your testimony that you did everything
perfectly? Is that your view?
Mr. Miller. I am the most critical person, I am a career
special operator----
Mr. Khanna. Let me ask you this: On the day of January 6,
there is reporting that you or others in your office tried to
get to the President. That has been reported by journalists. I
remind you you are under oath. Did you or anyone in your office
ever try to get a hold of President Trump on January 6?
Mr. Miller. I did not. I have no idea about others in my
office----
Mr. Khanna. Did anyone in your office in the Department of
Defense try to get a hold of the President?
Mr. Miller. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Khanna. You testified that things are like a video
game--are not like a video game, and that we cannot quickly
move troops. What explains the 36-minute delay from when you
ordered the National Guard to that order being received? What
explains 36 minutes?
Mr. Miller. What 36 minutes are you referring to?
Mr. Khanna. Before the order was understood. You ordered
the authorization and 36 minutes later--are you not aware of
the timeline--everyone in the country is aware that it took 36
minutes.
Mr. Miller. I have seen----
Mr. Khanna. What explains the delay?
Mr. Miller. I have seen so many timelines and inaccurate
information----
Mr. Khanna. You were in charge of the whole Department.
Senator Blunt asked his question in a hearing that every
American watched why it took 36 minutes, and you do not know
that it took 36 minutes before you authorized something for it
to actually be implemented?
Mr. Miller. What 36 minutes again are you referring to? At
3 o'clock----
Mr. Khanna. It is unbelievable.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. I gave the order.
Mr. Khanna. How can you talk about this being--you doing
everything perfect when you are not even aware of the 36
minutes that took place before you----
Mr. Miller. Historians and members still argue about who
landed where and when on June 6, 1944.
Mr. Khanna. This is not an argument of who landed when or
where. Here is what happened. You ordered--you said, OK, the
National Guard should go out. It took 36 minutes before that
order was implemented. And you are saying you didn't know that
it took 36 minutes? Senators know, Congress people know, every
journalist knows. And you who made the order doesn't know? That
is worse than if you knew and would explain why it didn't
happen--and then you are here telling us that everything
happened perfectly and you are not willing to apologize? And
the gall to hide behind our troops who are extraordinarily
honorable. It is you who has let them down. I cannot believe we
have someone like you in that role--had someone like you. And
your whole testimony is no reflection. I thought if you came
here, if you apologized--instead, it is total self-promotion.
All you are trying to do is cover your own reputation.
Mr. Miller. That is the last thing it is. I want to
highlight again the enormously successful job that the District
of Columbia and our National Guard did that day along with the
Army staff----
Mr. Khanna. Sir, let me ask you one final question,
because, you know, we are not--you should look up the 36
minutes. But General Walker has said that there was a Quick
Reactionary Force that he could have deployed in minutes. Did
you ever talk to General Walker that day or ask him why it took
36 minutes? Did you ever pick up the phone and talk to him
about the Quick Reactionary Force?
Mr. Miller. General Walker was the tactical ground force
commander who had all the authority and approval he needed to
implement and deploy----
Mr. Khanna. It took 36 minutes. It took 36 minutes before
he had that.
I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Sessions.
Mr. Sessions, we cannot hear you. Mr. Sessions?
OK. We are now going to Mr. Grothman.
We are now going to recognize Mr. Mfume for five minutes.
Mr. Mfume.
Mr. Mfume. Madam Chair, thank you very much for holding
this hearing, and thank you even more for the efforts that are
being made to get to the truth.
In 2002, I served on the Continuity in Government
Commission. That commission was formed to get to the truth
surrounding the 9/11 attack on our Nation a year prior, but the
sole purpose was to get to the truth by using and not denying
what the facts were. That truth has been eluding us for some
time now because there are so many people that want to revise
what happened on January 6. I was there in the gallery, like
many of you, and we know what happened. It was an insurrection,
and it was fueled by the President. But let me go and quote the
words of another Republican President about the truth.
In 1848, in a speech delivered in Edwardsville, Illinois,
Abraham Lincoln addressed these words to his countrymen, and I
quote. He said, ``When you have ignored the truth, the question
becomes what constitutes the bulwark of our freedom and our
independence.'' Lincoln said, ``It is not our frowning
battlements, our bristling seacoasts, our army or our navy. For
all those,'' he said, ``are not our reliance against tyranny.
All those,'' he said, ``may be turned against us without having
made us weaker for the struggle.''
``Instead,'' he said, ``our reliance is in the love of
liberty which God has planted deep within us, that our reliance
is in the spirit of freedom that prides itself as the heritage
of all men and all women in all lands everywhere.'' He
admonished, ``Destroy this spirit, and you would have planted
the seeds of despotism at your own doorstep. Ignore the chains
of bondage and the facts and the truth, and you prepare your
own limbs to wear those bonds. Accustomed,'' he said, ``to
trample on the rights of others, and you would have lost the
creative genius of your own independence and as such would then
become the fit subject of the first cunning tyrant who rises
among you.''
In 2016, such a cunning tyrant rose among us, and his name
is Donald Trump. His fit subjects now have become some members
of the new Republican Party who are still going out of their
way unfortunately to rewrite the history of January 6.
Lincoln's words, uttered over 173 years ago, have gone unheeded
and have been replaced with things like, ``Oh, they were
peaceful patriots. They were just protesting.'' And then we are
told to salute them. And on the other hand, we are told to
condemn anybody or anything associated with the Black Lives
movement, the marchers of all races and all backgrounds all
over the world who took to the streets to condemn the murder of
George Floyd. That is an interesting juxtaposition, but it
sounds like escapism to me.
The truth of the matter is, truth, is that these are not
suggestions by me or anyone on this committee. Let me quote
Mitch McConnell. He said, ``There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day.'' So I do not care how many times we dress
it up and roll it back out. It is still a big lie. I served
with Ronald Reagan. I served with the first George Bush. George
W., the second one, and I became friends, working together,
oftentimes at odds on issues, but none of them--none of them--
have done in my opinion to the Republican Party or to the
concept of truth the disservice that we have seen as a result
of these events of January 6.
So let me just use, if I have some time left, Madam Chair,
to go back and ask a question of Mr. Rosen. Did you meet with
the President on January 3, 2021?
Mr. Rosen. I think I already addressed that whole thing
with Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Mfume. Well, yes, I know. But that is assuming that
everybody who is listening now was listening then. Is it yes or
no?
Mr. Rosen. The answer was yes.
Mr. Mfume. So you did meet with the President on January 3.
Did you discuss with the President the actions that were about
to unfold--the protest, I should say, on January 6?
Mr. Rosen. As I have already indicated, the discussion
there was not about----
Mr. Mfume. Just let me repeat again, Mr. Rosen----
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, it was not for the preparations
regarding the demonstrations and activities of January 6.
Mr. Mfume. And the events of January 6, which had not
unfolded, never entered into that discussion? I want to remind
you you are under oath.
Mr. Rosen. Could you state the question? Because I think I
have already answered it.
Mr. Mfume. Did you discuss anything about January 6 with
the President in your January 3 meeting with him?
Mr. Rosen. As I said, that meeting was not about the
preparations for January 6----
Mr. Mfume. That is not what I asked you. You are under
oath. Did you discuss anything about what was about to unfold
on January 6 with the President?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I think I have said what I can and
am going to say about that. I am not going to talk about the
substance of what the meeting was about. I have told you what I
can say about that.
Mr. Mfume. Well, I think you are evading a question that
most of America wants to know. Let me take that one step
further, though. On January 3, did you discuss anything about
the attempts to overthrow the election? Yes or no.
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, there were certain ground rules
under which I agreed to appear today and what the scope of what
I would address was. We sent 500 people up to the Capitol----
Mr. Mfume. We----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. At the time of the----
Mr. Mfume. We are----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mfume. I will yield back, Madam Chair, but let the
record reflect this is why it is so difficult to get to the
truth, because people do not want to answer straight questions.
I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sessions, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Madam Chairman, thank you very much. I want
to be sure that Chief Contee, that Attorney General Rosen, and
Secretary of Defense Miller understand that what they are going
through with this hearing is--would be unparalleled if
Republicans were in the majority. We ask witnesses to come up.
We take their testimony. We ask them questions. We do not try
to badger them or bully them. We do not try and make assertions
that are untruthful and then get them to go down this stream of
unfair consciousness when they have already agreed that they
would come and answer.
I think all three of you have been forthright about the
answers that you have given, but it does not fit the narrative
that this Democratic majority would like, and so they want to
argue with you and pin you down and then impugn you. I am
embarrassed that they would have to try and remind you that you
are under oath as if you would not be forthright about what you
wanted to answer.
Mr. Mfume. I object.
Mr. Sessions. You can object all day, so what does that
mean?
Mr. Mfume. I will object all day because you are impugning
everybody----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair? Madam Chair? Madam Chair, we have
not interrupted your witness, your----
Chairwoman Maloney. The time belongs to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Rosen, Mr. Miller, and Mr. Contee, I want you to know
that I believe that your professionalism and duty to this
country came into play not just that day, but it continues
today and in your service. And because it is not shaping the
narrative that they want, they want to ask the questions to
have you conform and then battle you over your professional
response.
I want to say this: Mr. Contee, it was very obvious to me
that the systems that were in place then need to be reviewed
again, not just about how you might be participatory as a
request, as I understand it, that would be to the police board,
but also, Mr. Miller, as it relates to the Guard. Do you have
anything that you would like to provide us that might further
provide us information about how we would streamline that, or
do you think that that process and procedures, not whether the
police did what they were supposed to do but the procedures
over getting the Guard and the police department, Metropolitan
Police Department, engaged, do you have any feedback, Mr.
Miller, about that?
Mr. Miller. I think this is really an important question,
and I'm glad you asked because I thought that was the purpose
of the hearing today, was to----
Mr. Sessions. Me, too, sir.
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Get lessons learned and have a
constructive discussion. I've been involved when a National
Security Special Event is established, as it was in advance of
the Inauguration, and it's done in other large public
gatherings, and that process seems to work very well for
meshing the state, local, and Federal entities together. I
think that's a good model and something that could probably be
teased out and needs to be refined in regards to lessons
learned from January 6.
Mr. Sessions. OK. But the process as it exists, you are
very comfortable with that, that you have noted your long-time
service to this Nation not only in war but here in the United
States, and you are satisfied that that process, though being
updated and potential threats, but you are happy with that
process?
Mr. Miller. I'm happy with the process, and it comes down
to the Department of Defense should only be used as a last
resort for domestic law enforcement. And we can argue about
whether that occurred, and it certainly did occur, obviously,
on January 6. But then that was what I was trying to describe,
was just the mechanics--I kind of was criticized pretty
robustly on that--the mechanics of military operations, and not
to be condescending or pedantic, but it takes time to make sure
that we're taking care of our soldiers, getting them to the
right place, coordinating with Chief Contee, coordinating with
Capitol Hill Police and all the other entities, and that's what
I was trying to highlight.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir, and I believe that was done.
Chief Contee, that question is: Now looking back, are there
anything procedurally wise that you would expect this committee
to look at that might need to be updated or changed from your
perspective, sir?
Chief Contee. Yes, from my perspective, I think that the
District of Columbia should not be like--we should not be
different from any other state. I think that the Mayor of the
District of Columbia should have the authority to call up and
deploy the National Guard. We would still be required to
coordinate. We would still require all the coordination that
has to happen to properly deploy them, make sure that they're
on mission and where they're supposed to be, doing the things
that need to be done. But I don't think that it requires the
consent of the President of the United States or Secretary of
Defense, and no disrespect to the Honorable Secretary, but I
don't think it requires that level of approval to deploy people
to traffic posts or crowd management type assignments when
that's not required anywhere else in our country.
Mr. Sessions. Yes, sir, but we were----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Specifically referenced to the
Capitol.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
We had two Democratic questioners, so we are now going to
have two Republican questioners. I now yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman. You are now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, Chief Contee, there were pipe bombs
discovered outside RNC and DNC. And you were deployed to both
locations, correct?
Chief Contee. That's correct, sir. We assisted the United
States Capitol Police. That's correct.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Has there been any progress made at all
on who would have put these bombs there?
Chief Contee. No arrests have been made, no suspects
identified. Working with our partners on the Federal side,
there have been surveillance videos that have been released
publicly showing that individual placing the pipe bombs, but no
arrests have been made at this point.
Mr. Grothman. How powerful were they? What type of damage
would have been done if they went off?
Chief Contee. It would have been significant damage, I'm
sure.
Mr. Grothman. Was there any other evidence of any other
bombs that day anywhere?
Chief Contee. No. Just the two.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Can anybody ask, how many people got in
the building from the public that day, how many people total
were in the Capitol? Do we have a number on that?
Chief Contee. No, I don't have the exact number. I can
comfortably say it was certainly over 1,000 people.
Mr. Grothman. In the Capitol?
Chief Contee. Inside of the Capitol.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And were some of those people let in the
Capitol?
Chief Contee. I can't say that the individuals were
necessarily let in. Certainly there's been surveillance video
that shows after the Capitol was overrun, at certain point, I
mean, it was just like a floodgate where people were just
flooding in. I don't know that the resources were necessarily
in place to prevent the people who were there, prevent folks
from getting in.
Mr. Grothman. I am not going to judge the actions of the
police that day because, obviously, it was an unprecedented
thing and they had to make quick decisions. I guess the
question I have, of the 1,000 people who were let in the
Capitol, how many, I guess I will say, broke in the Capitol and
how many were let in the Capitol?
Chief Contee. I would say--and that's a hard number to
parse out, but I think we know from video where we saw
individuals breaking windows, there was also the video that was
released of hundreds of officers that I had in the tunnel there
that were trying to prevent individuals from gaining access,
again, not really a good count on that number. But I think it's
safe to say that there were several individuals who forced
their way and were not just let into the Capitol.
Mr. Grothman. There is no question. That is what I wanted,
just a general, you know, were 800 let in and 200 broke in? Was
it, you know, 50 and 950, but we do not have any idea?
Chief Contee. No. That's correct, sir. We do not.
Mr. Grothman. OK. And of the people let in the Capitol, how
many were disruptive in the Capitol? I talked to one of the
Capitol Police. They told me a lot of people were just milling
around. Can you tell me how many were--do you have an estimate
how many were just milling around and how many were doing
damage?
Chief Contee. No, I do not have that estimate, no, sir.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Let me go back to the pipe bombs. Did
that cause--when you put people out there tracking down what
happened to the bombs, did that cause you to deploy people away
from the Capitol?
Chief Contee. We had people deployed there first before
they responded to the Capitol, and with respect to the previous
question that you asked, you know, Capitol Police may be able
to give you a better assessment based upon, you know, their
view of the videos inside of the Capitol, how many were milling
around and actually, you know, how many were let in.
Mr. Grothman. OK. There were clearly people who were doing
something coordinated to get in the Capitol. I am talking about
the people scaling the walls, that sort of thing. Do we have
any evidence on who those people were who were scaling the
walls? And were they directed by a central group or person?
Chief Contee. I think what we know for certain is that
there were individuals who coordinated the efforts, the radio
communication and hand signals.
Mr. Grothman. And who were they? Were they a member of a
group?
Chief Contee. I think some of the reports that have come
out, you know, they represent certain groups that have been
mentioned on----
Mr. Grothman. We do not know yet, though, huh? We do not
know.
Chief Contee. I think the U.S. Attorney's Office is
probably better suited to answer that. Obviously, upwards of
300 people have been arrested, and they're representative of
various groups across the country that were involved in what we
saw on January 6.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Were those 300 all doing damage? Or were
some of them, as one police officer told me, just milling
around?
Chief Contee. I don't have an answer for that, sir. I'm not
certain. Clearly, there was significant damage done to the
Capitol. I think we know that. But just those specific groups,
I'm not certain about that.
Mr. Grothman. Yes, OK. And just one followup. I encourage
any listeners to research the three founders of Black Lives
Matter, because it is something that concerns me so greatly
that somebody who apparently were trained Marxists to have
gained such influence in our country and people should really
familiarize themselves with the backgrounds and what the
founders of that organization stand for.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is now recognized
for five minutes. Ms. Tlaib.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Chairwoman, and just for folks to
know, you know, I work closely with the Movement for Black
Lives, and these are folks that are really trying to push real
efforts to try to recognize many of my black neighbors' right
to live without feeling truly unsafe or feeling like their own
Government is not supporting them.
It is also really important for colleagues, as they are
talking about these organizations, to know these are some
organizations that are literally made up of mothers who have
lost their children that were killed by police violence. So
just to be very clear, this is not some movement that just came
about. It came about because, you know, state-funded violence
killed their children. So I appreciate Madam Chair having this
hearing.
Mr. Rosen, I would like to discuss something that you did
not mention in your written testimony, the fact that in the
days leading up to the January 6 attack, FBI agents reportedly
visited more than a dozen extremists already under
investigations to discourage them from traveling to D.C., the
so-called Stop the Steal rally. According to one FBI senior
official, this was based on ``credible and actionable
information'' about extremists' ``desire to engage in violence
on January 6.''
So, Mr. Rosen, were you aware of the FBI's intervention and
efforts leading up to January 6?
Mr. Rosen. Well, I think you're referring to some
information that FBI Assistant Director Sanborn talked about--
--
Ms. Tlaib. Did you know they were interviewing people, Mr.
Rosen?
Mr. Rosen. The FBI periodically briefed me on intelligence
updates. I don't want to get into specifics of the
intelligence.
Ms. Tlaib. Oh, no. That is fine. I am glad they let you
know. But it seems like there was a significant step by the FBI
to actually initiate contact with some of the extremists who
may be under investigation or active monitoring and, you know,
tip them off that the Government is tracking their plans. If
the FBI was proactively engaged enough that the agency tried to
discourage extremists from traveling to D.C. on January 6, they
were clearly concerned about the potential for violence at the
National Capitol.
So let me make sure that I have this just clear, Mr. Rosen.
The DOJ had intelligence that was credible enough to act on,
but still decided not to issue a threat assessment. Is that
correct?
Mr. Rosen. I think the intelligence that we had was shared
with the police, all the police--the Capitol Police the Metro
Police, and the Park Police.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, that is good to know.
Mr. Rosen. As well as the Secret Service and others.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, but you all did not feel any--you gave the
information out, and there was no role for you to say that
there should be--there is a threat? You did not recommend----
Mr. Rosen. No, actually I think the threat of violence was
understood by everybody. That was a concern that----
Ms. Tlaib. Well, thank you.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. There could be violence at any of
the locations where demonstrators came. It was a concern, and
it's something the----
Ms. Tlaib. Yes, so it was not really--it was----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. Police are experienced to dealing
with.
Ms. Tlaib. It was not like milling around, right? It was
actual people that wanted to commit violence, right? They were
not just like loitering or hanging out. They did not want to
come and just hang out. They came with the initiation that they
wanted to commit some violent acts. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosen. Well, I don't want to discuss the individuals
that are subjects of investigation or prosecution. I'm just
talking about from an intelligence standpoint and general
awareness. I think the police were, as they often are in these
situations with large crowds coming to Washington, concerned
about the potential for violence.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. Police Chief, were you aware prior to
January 6 that the FBI had reached out to known extremists to
discourage them from traveling to Washington, DC.? Were you
aware of it?
Chief Contee. Yes.
Ms. Tlaib. OK. What did you do in response?
Chief Contee. We canceled days off. We deployed our entire
department. We put our members on 12-hour shifts. We brought in
agencies from three other departments stationed in the District
of Columbia. We had other agencies stationed outside the
District of Columbia in the event that they needed to respond
into the District, in the event that things go really bad, and
they did respond in.
Ms. Tlaib. And did you feel that you received sufficient
threat information about the intentions of those coming to
commit violence in Washington, DC, on January 6 from DOJ, which
was the lead agency in charge of intelligence gathering?
Chief Contee. So there has been a lot of discussion around
that, and I think before, I have publicly testified to the fact
that I think when you have information, whether it's raw,
unvetted data, et cetera, I think that in a situation like this
it certainly warrants more than an email being sent out to the
partners.
Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely. I could not agree more.
Chief Contee. That was the conversation that has been had,
and I can honestly say that since then, when there is threat
information, significant threat information, those are now
phone calls.
Ms. Tlaib. Well, I cannot help but think that if the FBI
and Department of Justice used even a fraction of the resources
that are dedicated explicitly, you know, toward what they call
``black identity extremism,'' and the secretive Operation Iron
Fist which the American public still know nothing about, that
this attack on our Capitol--I wish they put that kind of
resources and energy and focus, because it really did put the
lives of many of us Members, Senators, and the staff at risk,
which all could have been avoided if they, again, had the
political will and kind of intention of, again, treating these
folks that they have intelligence from already, that they were
going to commit violent acts.
Thank you so much, and I yield.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, you are now
recognized, Mr. Keller.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
Capitol Police who went above and beyond to protect our Capitol
on January 6. We can all agree that the actions taken by the
Capitol Police officers that day were nothing short of heroic.
I do have a couple questions, and they are going to be
directed at the former Acting Secretary of Defense, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller, you are in charge of the National Guard that
responded on January 6, correct?
Mr. Miller. The District of Columbia National Guard, not
all of the other states.
Mr. Keller. The District of Columbia National Guard, yes.
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Keller. It was mentioned earlier by some of my
colleagues that you got a request from Mayor Bowser at 1:30
p.m. or around that time?
Mr. Miller. I did not receive that request until 2:30, and
I don't know the nature exactly of that request. I've heard it
during this hearing.
Mr. Keller. Does the Mayor of Washington, DC, have the
authority to request for help on the U.S. Capitol Grounds?
Mr. Miller. I just learned--I don't know. That was new
information that I learned this morning from the Chief.
Mr. Keller. Actually, we did some research on that, our
committee staff did, and, actually, the request for help on the
Capitol Grounds has to come from Capitol Police. Did you
receive a request from Capitol Police on January 6?
Mr. Miller. I subsequently learned that there was a call
from the head of the Capitol Police, but the exact nature of
his request didn't get to me until 2:30 after clearly
Metropolitan Police and others got together to formulate their
request.
Mr. Keller. So once you got the request, you responded
rather quickly?
Mr. Miller. It was 30 minutes.
Mr. Keller. OK. I appreciate that, Mr. Miller.
While the subject matter of this hearing is extremely
important, we cannot fully investigate the events of January 6
as the Capitol Police are not present. Republicans have been
supportive of an equally bipartisan committee to review what
happened on January 6, but that is not what is happening now.
As it is National Police Week, I would be remiss if I did
not take this opportunity to thank all of America's police
officers for doing their utmost to protect our communities and
keep us safe. The safety of the American people everywhere
should be the first priority, and the destruction of property,
be it private or the United States Capitol, should be
considered a tragedy. And to look at this tragedy that happened
and to make sure that we have an effective response, we should
include all the agencies, including the Capitol Police. I think
this hearing is really premature and not thorough enough
because, again, we do not have the Capitol Police here. For
whatever reason, I guess they probably were not invited.
But I want to go back to the actions of people, and I want
to quote former President Ronald Reagan because it seems like
my colleagues bring former Republicans up now and again. But
this is one where President Reagan I think really hit the mark,
and his quote is: ``We must reject the idea that every time a
law is broken, society is guilty rather than the law breaker.
It is time to restore the American precept that each individual
is accountable for his actions.''
If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about a
holistic investigation that considers all the facts, I urge
them to join Republicans in supporting a bipartisan commission
to investigate the events of January 6.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And
thank you to all of our witnesses for coming here today and
offering your expertise and testimony.
Madam Chair, you know, I think one of the things that we
are really just trying to do is figure out and nail down a
basic timeline, which for whatever reason has been a little bit
difficult to have some of our witnesses, some testimony,
corroborate with other documents that we have received, and I
think it is just important for us to just get the facts on the
timing of some of these things.
So in that respect, I would like to submit to the record
the official Department of Defense timeline of the facts that
they are aware of on January 6.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, according to public reporting, D.C.
Mayor Muriel Bowser first called Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy
to ask for help at 1:34 p.m. That was about eight minutes after
the Capitol was evacuated.
Now, Mr. Miller, you are the former Acting Secretary of
Defense during the Trump administration. That is correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, by this point, 1:34 p.m., according
to your written testimony, you were ``aware that demonstrators
had breached the Capitol,'' and it seems as though at 3 p.m.,
about an hour and a half later, you determined that ``all
available forces of the D.C. National Guard are required to
reinforce MPD and USCP positions.''
Now, that is not an authorization to deploy to the Capitol,
correct?
Mr. Miller. I gave full authorization to deploy, ma'am.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. You gave full authorization to deploy at
3 p.m.?
Mr. Miller. That's--yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. I----
Mr. Miller. Well, no, I'm sorry. It went out at 3:04. I did
it at 3, yes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. OK. It seems here that this is in
contradiction with the Department of Defense timeline.
According to the Department of Defense timeline, you authorized
the National Guard to help clear the Capitol at 4:32 p.m.
Mr. Miller. That was based on I was awaiting the concept of
operations, the plan that General Walker put together, so he
had full authority in my mind at 3:04, and that he had to do
his planning sequence to figure out how he wanted to accomplish
that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So the actual order for the Guard to
help clear the Capitol did not, for whatever reason--you know,
processes that you allude to--did not happen until 4:32 p.m.,
correct?
Mr. Miller. That's when the concept of--the plan was
formally approved.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So it was formally approved at 4:32 p.m.
to send the National Guard to help clear the Capitol when the
breach--but the breach happened at 1:34 p.m. At 3:19 p.m.----
Mr. Miller. I did----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. One moment. At 3:19 p.m., Army Secretary
McCarthy spoke with Speaker Pelosi and Schumer and told them
that you had approved the full mobilization of D.C. National
Guard. At 4:08, Vice President Pence reportedly had a
conversation with you to ``clear the Capitol.'' Is that
correct? And I understand that he is not in the chain of
command, but that is correct in the nature of the conversation,
correct?
Mr. Miller. I did have a conversation with him, and I told
him that the Capitol was going to be cleared. He might have
said something to that extent, but it was more a conversation,
very brief.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So what we have here is that the order
was not issued after a conversation with D.C. Mayor Bowser. The
order to clear the Capitol was not issued after a conversation
with Speaker Pelosi. It was not issued after a conversation
with Leader Schumer. This conversation with Vice President
Pence happened at 4:08, and at 4:32 was when the actual verbal
authorization, according to the Department of Defense,
happened. That was nearly three hours after Mayor Bowser first
requested National Guard assistance. Why did it take 92 minutes
after ordering the full mobilization of the D.C. National Guard
at 3 p.m. to authorize and help clear the Capitol at 4:32?
Mr. Miller. And, I'm sorry--and I think this is a great
conversation, and I want to be completely helpful. So at 3
o'clock, 3 p.m., I gave the order to mobilize the National
Guard. Then the planning sequence went forward, so the concept
of the operation, the plan, was approved at the time you
designated.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And I apologize, just because I have a
short period of time. So it took 90 minutes to plan, to send
the National Guard to the Capitol.
Now, Major General Walker testified that it actually was
not until 5:08 p.m. that he finally received authorization to
deploy his forces to the Capitol. Mr. Miller, do you have any
reason to doubt Major General Walker's recollection of events
that day?
Mr. Miller. I do not have any reason to doubt. I think
there's--I hate to bring up Clausewitz, but the fog and
friction and there was so much going on, so I can understand
there's inconsistency and perhaps disagreement.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you very much. I yield my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman, you are now
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Norman. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
I would join some of my other colleagues in really saying
that I wish this were a true hearing to find out the truth. We
really need to have Mayor Bowser here. We need to have those in
the chain of command who really--we could get to the bottom of
exactly what happened. When I see this sheet on our timeline
and on the--let's see. OK, at 2:07 a mob of Trump supporters
breached the steps. I do not know who did a poll that it is
Trump supporters. You had the media saying the same thing, just
like you had the media saying Officer Sicknick was killed with
a fire extinguisher, which he was not. But I do not know who
did the poll to say that they were Trump supporters.
I do know this: Those that were on the grounds that saw
the--were actually there, midway of President Trump's speech
you had a group that got together, had armed gear, helmets,
flak jackets, other things. They had an intention. They had
planned this. And so, really, we are not getting--this is just
a--we are going through the motions to blame a President who
has no--had no reason--he had thousands of people there. Those
that breached the Capitol were intended to do damage.
Now, let me ask the Chief, am I right, the groups that
stormed the Capitol used Facebook, not just Parler, but one
group had 8,000 Facebook followers that directed people to come
to--had travel routes to come to D.C. Is that correct, Chief?
Chief Contee. Sir, I'm not sure about that. There was a lot
of information that was out there, but specifically to what
you're speaking to, I can't answer affirmatively to that.
Mr. Norman. So you do not know if that was--you all had no
knowledge of anything that this was going on?
Chief Contee. Had no knowledge of what going on exactly,
sir? I'm sorry. I'm just trying to understand your question.
Mr. Norman. That groups were using Facebook, that on the
social media chatter they were talking about coming here en
masse, certain groups. You all had no knowledge----
Chief Contee. Oh, no, certainly we knew that there was--
there were social media postings all over the place talking
about people coming here. It's the reason why we activated the
entire department, you know, the whole nine yards there, so
yes.
Mr. Norman. Where was the breakdown, though? As others have
mentioned, it said at 2:07 a mob of Trump supporters breached
the steps. You know, we are talking about many of them--the
National Guard did not get there until after the fact and after
they had breached the Capitol. What is your opinion why--why
was that not stopped earlier? If you had knowledge or had
suspicions through social media or otherwise, why wouldn't the
chain reaction be to get people there who could stop what was
going on?
Chief Contee. Well, I think that's a great question to ask
the Capitol Police. Again, we responded to assist the Capitol
Police. The individuals breached the bike fencing that the
Capitol Police had established the perimeter. They pushed past
the U.S. Capitol Police officers that were there as they made
their way up the west front of the Capitol to ultimately breach
the Capitol. Members of the Metropolitan Police Department were
called in to assist, as we did in this situation. So I think
that they would be better situated to really answer the
question about why they were not able to stop the advance with
the resources that they had deployed on that day.
Mr. Norman. Would they not have had the same information
that you had about the threat, be it social media, be it just
general hearsay, that this could potentially be a problem?
Chief Contee. I would say that they had generally the same
information. I think we've learned since then that there was an
intelligence bulletin that circulated within the organization
of the U.S. Capitol Police that was not shared with the
Metropolitan Police Department. But, generally, I think, you
know, as the law enforcement agency here in the city, we were
all preparing for things to happen, even violence in this
instance.
Mr. Norman. Yes, and the right thing--well, really the
Capitol Hill Police need to be at this hearing today to answer
the same question, because it is a timing. If you are looking
at large crowds, and President Trump had large crowds, but you
had people there that intended to do violence, tear things up.
You agree with that, don't you?
Chief Contee. I agree, yes, sir.
Mr. Norman. And they did.
Chief Contee. And they did. That's correct.
Mr. Norman. And it was not--however many people there,
10,000, whatever, there was a group of people in the Capitol
that came prepared, it was not based on a talk. This was
preplanned. And I guess my question: Why wasn't the
coordination there to stop it? Crime is crime. I do not care
what group they are in. When they come with the gear that they
had, baseball bats with barbed wire, I am just wondering why
that would be an issue to get the people there to stop it,
because you had film that some of them would just let in, could
just walk past an officer, which no one understands to this
day.
Chief Contee. Yes, I think those are great questions for
the Capitol Police, sir, to be quite honest with you. Again,
the Metropolitan Police Department's primary responsibility and
role, to ensure the safety of the streets of the District of
Columbia. I can tell you firsthand that this mob of people, the
people that you are talking about, they marched down the panels
of the Mall making their way to the Capitol prior to the breach
taking place. Why Capitol Police, how many people they deployed
or didn't deploy, it's a great question for the Capitol Police
leadership to answer.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time expired.
The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to
take a moment to correct some of the dangerous rhetoric and
falsehoods uttered by Republicans during this hearing. You
would think that they would have learned something. After all,
it was lies about the 2020 election that led to the January 6
insurrection in the first place.
My colleague from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, used his questions
today to downplay the actions of violent insurrectionists that
left 140 police officers injured and four people dead. Instead,
he had the audacity to claim the Capitol Police executed a pro-
Trump rioter who was attempting to breach--who was attempting
to breach the House chamber.
Mr. Rosen, you are, in fact, aware that the Department of
Justice conducted an investigation that cleared the Capitol
Police officers of any wrongdoing in connection with the death
of Ashli Babbitt, correct?
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, I have not followed the results
of investigations after I left on January 20, so I'm going to
refer you to the Department of Justice for that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, it is a fact that the
Department of Justice did clear the Capitol Police officers.
That is most definitely a fact. And it's shocking how quickly
Republicans will turn on law enforcement when it fits their
agenda.
I would also like to followup on questions asked of
Secretary Miller by my colleague Mr. Lynch. Mr. Secretary, I do
not know why you decided today to forgo the opportunity to
demonstrate political courage, but it saddens me. You said of
Mr. Trump's comments, ``He clearly offered that they should
march on the Capitol, so it goes without saying that his
statement resulted in that.'' That is a gross understatement of
what Donald Trump urged his supporters to do on the morning of
January 6. Trump repeatedly used violent rhetoric to encourage
his supporters to ``fight like hell'' against this ``act of
war.'' He circulated a message which promised that on January
6, 2021, the ``cavalry is coming.''
Mr. Miller, according to your written testimony, on January
3 and 4 you convened Cabinet-level calls in preparation for
January 6. You noted that, ``I want to be very clear. It is not
and was not the role of the Department of Defense to convene
these sorts of interagency and intergovernmental meetings or
calls concerning domestic law enforcement matters.'' However,
you argued, ``I felt it was my responsibility to initiate these
discussions given my sense that these efforts and coordination
were not tightly wired at that point.''
What did you mean by ``not tightly wired''?
Mr. Miller. I was very concerned that we were going to put
National Guard troops into a situation where we hadn't thought
through it well enough. I just want to highlight that was the
purpose of the calls, and then by the end of that, I felt very
comfortable with the plan and the execution.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Mr. Rosen, is it true that the
Department of Justice, which was cited in a Washington Post
article, that Chief of Staff Mark Meadows designated the
Department of Justice as the ``lead Federal agency to
coordinate security preparations leading up to January 6''? Is
that accurate?
Mr. Rosen. I don't think that is accurate.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. So DOJ was not the lead agency?
Mr. Rosen. So the DOJ had specific responsibilities for
coordinating intelligence and information sharing with respect
to the Federal agencies DHS, Interior, DOD, and ourselves, and
there had been, as I set forth in my written testimony, very
robust information-sharing and intelligence-sharing activities
with both the Metropolitan Police having a Joint Operations
Command Center and the FBI having a Washington Field Office
post where representatives of all the police organizations and
the Federal agencies were participating, so we----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time--reclaiming my
time, thank you. Nailing down who was in charge has been like
trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, and the old adage that when
everybody is in charge, then nobody is in charge appears to be
what happened on January 6. It was----
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, I don't think that's----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am sorry. Reclaiming my time, the
time is mine. This appears to have been a Keystone Kops
operation when it comes to the executive branch agencies
pointing fingers at one another.
I would also like to ask Mr. Miller--and I am going to give
you another opportunity to correct the record. If it were not
for the violent and incendiary rhetoric of Donald Trump, would
we have had an insurrection on January 6 at the Capitol?
Mr. Miller. I don't know.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Well, you certainly seemed to think
that his rhetoric contributed to it at the time. Do you no
longer think any of his rhetoric contributed to the riots and
insurrection that happened at the Capitol?
Mr. Miller. I was highlighting the assault elements that
went into the Capitol. Everything changes by the day. I'm still
learning things that I didn't know----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Reclaiming my time, including your
commitment and your truthfulness, because, on the one hand, you
said that that was what contributed to it, and then you had a
chance to rethink it when maybe the wrath of Donald Trump came
down upon you. That is disgusting and disloyal to the country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Miller. I think that thinking people----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Miller. I think that thinking people would obviously--
--
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Madam Chair----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, he can finish the question.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.--the time was mine, and I have
yielded it back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Time has expired. Time has expired.
The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You know, Democrats have said the events at the Capitol on
January 6 were an assault on our democracy, and if that is
true, if disorderly conduct in a restricted building is an
assault on democracy, then what do we call setting fire to
Federal court in Portland, Oregon, where people inside--what do
we call that? For a year we watched riots in American cities,
and House Democrats remained silent or actually supported the
violence. The Federal courthouse in Portland was under attack
every night, and Democrats said nothing. I would like you to
please play Video Number 1.
Madam Chair, I would like my time stopped while we are
waiting for the video to be cued up and played.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Biggs. Madam Chair, as we are watching this rioting,
this insurrection, this violation of the rule of law, this
attempt to change our government system taking place in
Portland, I wonder why Democrats have refused to hold hearings
regarding those riots. We should all condemn every form of
political violence, in fact all violence. As we watch this, I
have unmistakably condemned violence in Portland, like we're
seeing here, as well as violence at the Capitol on January 6. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
You can stop the tape now. Thank you. Stop the video now.
Thank you.
Now, Representative Lynch implied that Representative Hice
did not know what he was talking about when he said the
Ellipse, walking the Ellipse to the Capitol takes about 45
minutes. Representative Lynch suggested, oh, it is just two
blocks, a couple of minutes. Just all you have to do, Mr.
Lynch, take a look at your mapping app, you will see it is 45
minutes when there is no crowd, much less when there is a huge
crowd.
I want to go to Mr. Miller and just clarify a few points,
as well as Mr. Rosen, so please stand by. Mr. Miller, I believe
you testified that you had all the authority you needed without
talking to President Trump on January 6. Is that accurate?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And, Mr. Rosen, you also said you did not need
to talk to President Trump on January 6 because you also had
all the authority that you needed to act. Is that correct?
Mr. Rosen. Yes.
Mr. Biggs. And, Mr. Miller, you talked about an ``organized
conspiracy''--that is the quotes I have from you earlier in
testimony--about what took place on January 6 in some respects.
Was it organized, the attack?
Mr. Miller. I don't know. I think we're going to have to
find out through forums like this and further investigation,
but it appears that way based on the communications protocols
and what-not.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Thank you.
Now, it has got to be hell to have Donald Trump living in
your head like my colleagues across the aisle have. Everything
they do is based on what Donald Trump said or did not say. But
the reality is he did talk about moving peacefully and
patriotically to the Capitol.
One last clarification for you, Mr. Miller. The Democrats
keep talking about breaching the Capitol in their timeline, but
there is a big difference between breaching the outer barriers
of the Capitol that surround the Capitol versus actually
getting into the Capitol Building, is there not?
Mr. Miller. That's exactly what I was trying to explain,
yes.
Mr. Biggs. And so some of their timeline is screwed up
because they do not delineate and distinguish between those two
important facts.
Mr. Miller. I think there's a misunderstanding about when
you talk about the security perimeter versus entering the
Capitol.
Mr. Biggs. Yes, you are too diplomatic. I say they screwed
up their timeline. So in my last little bit of time, Madam
Chair, I want to submit to the record four different pieces of
media that have come in detailing the treatment of protester
Christopher Worrell as well as Paul and Marilyn Hueper from
Alaska. One is a Politico article, ``January 6 defendants win
unlikely Dem champions as they face harsh detainment''; another
Politico article, ``Capitol riot suspects held in D.C. are in
`restrictive housing,' District says.'' Another one is ``FBI
tortures Proud Boy member--kept in isolation for 23 hours a day
while awaiting trial for bashing a window out at U.S. Capitol,
faces 20-year prison term.'' And ``What do January 6 patriots
and Guantanamo inmates share?'' Another periodical.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch,
you are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, Madam Chair.
To my colleague Mr. Biggs, I condemn the violence in
Portland. We are here today to discuss the failure of the
authorities to protect the Capitol.
Mr. Rosen, you testified that the Department of Justice
normally focuses on gathering intelligence about threats of
violence and sharing that information with police and Federal
partner agencies. Prior to January 6, were you personally aware
of the calls for violence that were all over social media?
Mr. Rosen. At some level. I mean, I had been paying close
attention to the fact that the January 6 rallies had been
announced in the media and were coming and asking that our
organization do everything we should be doing to prepare
appropriately and to coordinate and to share information. So I
wasn't the intelligence analyst, but I was certainly briefed on
the activity.
Mr. Welch. Well, let me followup on that. You said at some
level. It is your job to anticipate things bad that can happen
and be prepared, right?
Mr. Rosen. Of course, and we were doing that.
Mr. Welch. And President Trump had been calling for this
rally for really since the election itself. Is that not
correct?
Mr. Rosen. I'm not sure if I know the answer to that. I was
just generally aware that this rally was going to happen. There
had been previous ones in November and December.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Rosen, this question about what the
President was doing, it was all in plain sight. I mean, this is
not a big intelligence coup to read the newspaper or hear what
the President is tweeting and saying. He wanted people to come
to the Capitol. You are aware of that.
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, there had been previous rallies in
November and December, so, yes, I was aware of these rallies.
Mr. Welch. Right, and you understood that the line of the
rally was that the folks who were coming had real objections to
the outcome of the election and were of the view that the
election had been stolen, right?
Mr. Rosen. I think in a general way I was aware that they
were coming because they were dissatisfied with that, so----
Mr. Welch. You know, I have got to stop you. If you are in
intelligence, you are like skeptical; you are worried; you are
concerned. It is your job to be concerned about what is the
worst-case situation that can happen. Or is that not how you
define it? Whatever is in the news is just what is in the news
and it is just another story? I am serious. That is a serious
question, OK?
Mr. Rosen. So, Congressman, let me address that. I was
concerned that the appropriate preparations were underway----
Mr. Welch. OK. Did you direct----
Mr. Rosen. The Capitol Police are responsible for the
Capitol. I don't have people guarding the Capitol. But we're
trying to make sure that people are coordinating and sharing
information appropriately.
Mr. Welch. Did you direct Director Wray to investigate
further? Did you consult with Chief Contee or Chief Sund? Just
answer those three questions: direct Wray, consult with Contee,
consult with Sund.
Mr. Rosen. I had conferred repeatedly, including the day
of, but certainly in the week prior, with the FBI, including
the leadership. With regard to others, we had, as I said in my
written testimony, mechanisms in place for regular
coordination, including people that were embedded together at
the MPD, JOCC, and at the WFO, you know, the FBI field office.
And then we eventually set up the national coordination at the
FBI headquarters SIOP.
Mr. Welch. Here is why it is hard to understand what you
are talking about. You did not do anything. The day after this
event, we put up----
Mr. Rosen. How can you say that when we sent over 500
agents and officers on an urgent basis on January 6 to provide
assistance at the Capitol----
Mr. Welch. Here is why----
Mr. Rosen.[inaudible] Agents, these FBI agents, the U.S.
Marshals. I think they need to be applauded, Congressman.
Mr. Welch. Well, I certainly applaud the front-line Capitol
Police and all the folks who came here. I definitely do that.
We are all in agreement. But you know what? January 5 would
have been a better day to send them.
Mr. Rosen. The Capitol Police did not request that.
Mr. Welch. This is an intelligence--this was not an
intelligence failure. The news was out there. It was as plain
as day. It was a cavalier decision that was made, in my view,
on the basis of the fact that it just was inconceivable that a
Trump rally could result in an attack on the Capitol, so it was
not taken with the seriousness that would have been applied had
it been any other instigator than President Trump.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rosen. I differ with that, but I think you are
misunderstanding who's responsible----
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Fisher [continuing]. For security at the Capitol, which
is the Capitol Police.
Chairwoman Maloney. At the request of one of our witnesses,
we are going to take a five-minute bathroom break. The
Committee stands in recess for five minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Clyde?
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This hearing is called the ``Capitol Insurrection.'' Let us
be honest with the American people. It was not an insurrection,
and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge
English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote,
``an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their
government and take control of their country, usually by
violence.''
And then from the Century Dictionary, ``The act of rising
against civil authority or governmental restraint, specifically
the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the
state.''
As one of the Members who stayed in the Capitol and on the
House floor who, with other Republican colleagues, helped
barricade the door until almost 3 p.m. that day from the mob
who tried to enter, I can tell you the House floor was never
breached, and it was not an insurrection.
This is the truth. There was an undisciplined mob. There
were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism. But
let me be clear. There was no insurrection, and to call it an
insurrection, in my opinion, is a boldfaced lie.
Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol
and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly
fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos
and pictures. You know, if you didn't know the TV footage was a
video from January 6, you would actually think it was a normal
tourist visit.
There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached
the Capitol. Also, the only shot fired on January 6 was from a
Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli
Babbitt, in what will probably be--eventually be determined to
be a needless display of lethal force. We heard earlier that
her death certificate ruled her death to be a homicide.
So based on the definition that I just outlined from two
dictionaries, this question for former Acting Attorney General
Jeff Rosen. Would you call the events of January 6 an
insurrection or a riot with vandalism, similar to what we saw
last summer, sir?
Mr. Rosen. I think whatever you call them, they were a huge
disappointment, and I think all of us wish they had not
occurred. With regards to the specifics of some of the labels
that we use, I need to be careful because they could have legal
significance. And I've been asked, and I think it's my
responsibility as well, not to do anything that might interfere
with or in any way jeopardize the cases that are pending.
So I want to stay away from the terminology, but I think
the events of January 6, we all have to agree, are things that
should never have happened.
Mr. Clyde. Oh, absolutely. I agree with that 100 percent.
You know, but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my
lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with
participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner
of Russia, Russia, Russia.
High-ranking employees from these Federal agencies and
members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false
narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen
and illegitimate. Democrats were on the news almost every night
saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media
amplified the fake news. This was, indeed a very coordinated
and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to
overthrow our duly elected President, Donald J. Trump.
Now I have a question for the good Chief Contee.
Specifically, sir, can you briefly describe your rules of
engagement for protests, and at what point are your officers
allowed to use lethal force? And then, as a followup, does that
change if the situation is declared to be a riot, sir?
Chief Contee. Well, the Metropolitan Police Department, it
would be very difficult to use lethal force in a situation
where you have a riot or where there are multiple individuals
involved. I mean, unless we were able to isolate a specific
person who is committing an act that creates a life-threatening
situation for our officer or for someone else, we would not
ordinarily use lethal force in a situation like this.
Mr. Clyde. OK. Does that change then if it is--well, first
off, was the situation on January 6 declared a riot? And if it
was, what time?
Chief Contee. Yes, sir. It was declared a riot, and I
believe the time was around about 1:50 p.m.--about 1:50 p.m.
Mr. Clyde. OK. All right, 1:50 p.m. So do your rules of
engagement change then if the situation is declared to be a
riot? Is that different from a protest in any way?
Chief Contee. Yes, for us, it is. In a situation where we
declared a riot, members then are donning hard protective gear.
Several people were dismantling the inauguration stand and
using other things to assault many of the officers. I had 65
officers that reported significant injuries as a result of what
we were faced with.
Mr. Clyde. OK. But did the rules of lethal engagement
change?
Chief Contee. No, the rules of lethal engagement does not
change. In other words, we would not, you know, just randomly
start using lethal force. But we used every less than lethal
weapon that we had available to us, pepper spray and other
munitions, to try to bring the situation under control.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much, Chief. I appreciate your
very informative comments.
And with that, I see my time has expired, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. And the
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is now recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Mr. Miller, on December 31, the Mayor
[inaudible] January 6 because she was concerned about the
likelihood of violence by Trump supporters. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Miller. I'm sorry, Congressman. This is Chris Miller
here. You came in distorted at the beginning. I didn't hear the
question.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, I just asked a question. On December
31, that is the first request for National Guard to back up law
enforcement in Washington, DC, because of fears of violence by
Trump supporters on January 6. Correct?
Mr. Miller. That was the first--that was the request, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And that request was not approved by you until
January 4.
Mr. Miller. It was that----
Mr. Johnson. Correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, it was that long weekend. So the----
Mr. Johnson. And the request and the authorization that you
gave was to activate 340 National Guard troops. Correct?
Mr. Miller. In accordance with the Mayor's request, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And you ordered that the Guardsmen and the
Guardswomen not be issued riot gear. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Miller. In accordance with the Mayor's guidance.
Mr. Johnson. And you placed restrictions on the deployment
of an additional 40 National Guard quick-reaction force who
were staged nearby at Joint Base Andrews. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Miller. I did not, no.
Mr. Johnson. You did not place restrictions on the
deployment of the quick reaction force?
Mr. Miller. No. General Walker had full authority to deploy
the quick-reaction force, so he----
Mr. Johnson. So you issued--so you issued no order
restricting the deployment of those 40 quick-reaction forces?
Mr. Miller. I gave guidance that I wanted to be involved,
but if he felt he needed to deploy the quick-reaction force on
his own, he could do that on his own without my approval.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, you were aware also on January 4
that Capitol Hill Police Chief Sund also inquired about
deployment of National Guard troops to the Capitol on January
6. Correct?
Mr. Miller. On January 4, I was not aware that he asked,
and he did not put in a request for National Guard support.
Mr. Johnson. OK, fair enough. Did you attend the Trump
rally on January 6?
Mr. Miller. No, I was at the Pentagon. There was quite a
lot going on in the world that day.
Mr. Johnson. And so you were observing the events at the
rally from the Pentagon. Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. No, I was--the television was on, but I was
involved in other matters.
Mr. Johnson. Did you--when did you first become aware that
marchers were on their way from the rally to the Capitol?
Mr. Miller. Congressman, I've listed it here. I want to say
it was 1 p.m., right about then. Someone came in, and they told
me.
Mr. Johnson. And you began to monitor the situation closely
at that point. Correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes. And there were 8,000 badged and
credentialed law enforcement officers on duty.
Mr. Johnson. But you were aware that the Capitol barricades
had been breached. In real time, you were watching that.
Correct?
Mr. Miller. I can't recall if I saw it in real time or
whether it was a replay.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you were aware that at 1:26 p.m. on
January 6, the U.S. Capitol Police had ordered the evacuation
of the Capitol. Correct?
Mr. Miller. I don't know if I knew it right at that moment,
but I was aware right within this timeframe.
Mr. Johnson. And you were aware eight minutes later at 1:34
p.m. that Mayor Bowser was again requesting National Guard
troops be sent to the Capitol. Correct?
Mr. Miller. I was not aware of that.
Mr. Johnson. You were not aware that at 1:49 p.m. Chief
Sund was frantically asking for deployment of National Guard
troops to the Capitol?
Mr. Miller. No, I was not aware of that.
Mr. Johnson. At 2:28 p.m., were you aware that Chief Sund
was also making another urgent request for National Guard
support?
Mr. Miller. I was not aware of that specific request at, as
you said, 2:28 p.m.
Mr. Johnson. But you said it was at 3:04 p.m. when you
ordered that all available forces of the National Guard would
be required to reinforce law enforcement at the Capitol.
Correct?
Mr. Miller. That was based on a meeting I had with the Army
Secretary and the Chief of Staff at a little after 2:30 p.m.
Mr. Johnson. But you never gave him verbal authority to
conduct operations at the Capitol until 4:32 p.m. Correct?
Mr. Miller. I was not in the position to give him verbal
authority. That was Secretary McCarthy. He was the operational
commander that was involved with that.
Mr. Johnson. So, in short, it was almost--it was three
hours after the first request for National Guard assistance at
the Capitol before permission was granted by you. Isn't that
correct?
Mr. Miller. No, I don't think that's the case. A request--a
911 call does not equate to a formal request. I had an
obligation----
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this. Did you--how did it
come to pass that you slow-rolled the deployment of National
Guard troops to put down a violent insurrection that you were
observing taking place at the Capitol? How could it be--how
could it be that three hours would pass before you authorized
National Guard troops to reinforce the Capitol Hill Police and
the D.C. Police?
Mr. Miller. That's completely inaccurate and is not what
happened.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you didn't issue an order for 3--until 4
p.m., 4:30 p.m.
Mr. Miller. No, at 3 p.m., I ordered the full mobilization
of the District of Columbia National Guard.
Mr. Johnson. Well, then why is it that at 5--in Senate
testimony, Major General Walker testified under oath that it
was at 5:08 p.m. that he received your approval to deploy
National Guard troops to the Capitol? 5:08 p.m.
Mr. Miller. I don't know. He had all the approval and
authorities he needed at 3:04 p.m. when the order went out.
Mr. Johnson. Did you ever plan with anyone inside or
outside of the Trump administration or with President Trump
himself to delay deployment of National Guard troops to the
Capitol on January 6?
Mr. Miller. No. And I most emphatically say no and
absolutely not.
Mr. Johnson. Were you ordered to delay deployment of the
troops?
Mr. Miller. One hundred 10 percent absolutely not. No, that
is not the case.
Mr. Johnson. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair, and I
thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is now recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to the witnesses that are here today,
specifically Christopher Miller and Contee, I want to
appreciate the uniforms that you represent and the frontline
men and women who wear them. Thank you for being here today.
I wanted to spend some time filling in maybe some of the
gaps. It is my understanding that as of April 12, 372 people
have been charged in relation to the events on January 6. Mr.
Rosen, how many of them were Members of Congress?
Mr. Rosen. I don't know the answer to that question.
Mr. Cloud. You don't know if a Member of Congress has been
charged or not?
Mr. Rosen. Well, let me put it differently. I'm not aware
that any have.
Mr. Cloud. OK. Now our Speaker has said, assuredly has
informed the American people, that the enemy is within the
House of Representatives. She went on to say that she hoped the
Republican Members that were involved would be charged and has
continued to state this false accusation.
Meanwhile, the Capitol Police and Sergeant of Arms, we met
with them. I met with them personally and asked them very
specifically, has there ever been any intelligence to relate,
to lead to the idea that Members of Congress were involved in
the events or, as was alleged, giving surveillance tours? And
they said that there was never any intelligence to lead to
that.
Would you, any of you differ with that statement, or would
you agree with it?
[Pause.]
Mr. Cloud. Any of the witnesses? Hello? Can you agree,
disagree? Are we disconnected?
Chief Contee. Yes, for the Metropolitan Police Department,
we have no information about that.
Mr. Cloud. OK, thank you.
The Speaker also promulgated the false information that an
officer was killed by a fire extinguisher. This information was
also used in an impeachment hearing as evidence for
impeachment. It is beyond me why the Speaker would feel the
need to lie about either Members of Congress or about the
officers who serve in our halls. It is tragic for someone
serving in that capacity.
It is notable that actions regarding January 6 and the
incursion at the Capitol have uniformly been condemned by
Republicans, that we have called for anyone who broke the law
to be prosecuted. Are you aware of any House Member or House
Republican Member or Senate Member posting bail, raising money
for the defense of anyone charged?
Chief Contee. Is that directed to one of us, sir, or----
Mr. Cloud. Yes, to any of you.
Chief Contee. I'm not aware from the Metropolitan Police
Department.
Mr. Cloud. OK. I appreciate that. I am not aware of any
either. We know that that has been done on the Democratic side,
including--including the Vice President.
Mr. Miller, it seems that no one wants to let you talk
today. You mentioned that the--your initial estimate has been
revised as intelligence has played out and been gathered since
the events. I was on a plane with a number of people on January
6 and still have the luxury of being incognito sometimes, and
so I just asked them, as a citizen, just, hey, you were at the
event, what happened? And a number of them said what Capitol
Police had confirmed in discussions, that there was a
distinction definitely between people who came to attend the
rally and the spirit and enthusiasm they came with versus
people who came with--to quote a Capitol officer--evil intent
in their eyes and intent to do harm.
You have mentioned that there were agitators who came
prepared. There has been some discussion about whether it takes
45 minutes or not to walk from the Mall to the Capitol. I
certainly think, if there were people who came in battle gear,
so to speak, and gas masks and that they were motivated by
anything that President Trump said, that they didn't have time
to go back to their house, put on their gear, within the time
to make it to the Capitol.
Could you speak to that and some of the lessons learned in
the new information that has come to light?
Mr. Miller. I just felt as I saw some of the video, the
particular video is where a column is going up the stairs, and
they are holding onto each other, and they are kitted up in a
way that was pretty dramatic and I'd seen before. That struck
me as an example of this was--they were organized and had
thought through this.
Mr. Cloud. So they showed up on the Mall prepared?
Mr. Miller. That's my assessment, but that's not--I'll
leave it for you all to determine definitively, as well as law
enforcement.
Mr. Cloud. Well, the people I spoke to on the ground who
had attended the rally, that is what they said as well. That
they had seen people pull up even in vans and had a completely
different spirit about them.
Thank you for your testimony today.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is now recognized for
five minutes. Mr. Sarbanes?
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to talk about where we go from here. One hundred
twenty-six days ago, the Capitol was overrun by
insurrectionists. So it has been more than four months, and
even today, we have heard some new testimony. We have learned
some new facts, and we are still learning more about what
happened on January 6. And there are a lot of unanswered
questions that remain.
In February, as we know, Speaker Pelosi proposed an
independent commission, which was modeled after the 9/11
Commission to study the January attack and the factors that led
to it. Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, Republicans have
opposed this commission, even as the Speaker has indicated her
openness to compromise by proposing that the commission, for
example, have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats and
that the chair and the ranking member share subpoena authority.
So she has made a good-faith effort to try to construct this in
a way that is nonpartisan.
One criticism that we have heard from Republicans is that
the scope of the commission should include protests against
police brutality that took place in the summer of 2020. We got
a little bit of a taste of that perspective today. But that is
an entirely different subject. It does not relate to the
January 6 attack. It would dilute the important focus that we
need to place on the events of that day. We need to get solid,
cogent answers to questions about what happened at the Capitol
and how it happened.
In April, a coalition of 140 national security leaders who
served under Democratic and Republican administrations sent a
letter to Congress urging us to create a 9/11-style commission
to provide a ``full picture of events and an analysis of their
causes.'' They wrote further, ``Given the gravity of January 6
as a national security matter, the violent disruption to the
transition of power, and the continuing threat of future
attacks, a national commission examining the lead-up to the
January 6 assault and the attendant security lapses is not only
appropriate, but a critical component of the national
response.''
And Madam Chair, I ask for unanimous consent for this to be
entered into the record.
Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Miller, do you agree with these national
security professionals' assessment that the January 6 attack
was a grave matter of national security?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Do you think something like the January 6
attack could happen again?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Would an independent review of the events of
January 6 help prevent a reoccurrence and/or make us better
prepared in the future?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. Rosen, can you give me your perspective
on the value of a 9/11-style commission?
Mr. Rosen. Congressman, I think we start with the premise
that the events at the Capitol, the attack on the Capitol, were
unconscionable, outrage. I think I said in my opening statement
a national travesty. So knowing that, it is important to get
the facts established, understood, and have an opportunity to
try to ensure that something like that never happens again.
Whether to do that by a commission or some other means, I
think that's really a question for the Congress, and I leave it
to you and your colleagues to determine that.
Mr. Sarbanes. Well, I appreciate that. I mean, if you look
back at the 9/11 Commission, not only did it produce in a
bipartisan fashion an analysis of what occurred then, it became
kind of the gold standard for how we respond to traumatic
events. And so it is the natural place to go to construct
something of that kind in response to what happened on January
6, and I think that is why there is such a strong case to be
made there.
And it helped, I think it helped the country and the
American people and lawmakers, all who were affected by it, to
come to terms with what happened on that day, on 9/11, in a
significant and, in a sense, healing fashion. I think that is
the promise of a commission in this instance. It produced a
unanimous report, the 9/11 Commission did. Nearly all of its
recommendations were adopted.
So we must examine the January 6 insurrection, I believe,
with the same level of scrutiny. I think the future of our
democracy is very much dependent on taking that step. I urge
all my colleagues to support the commission.
I yield back the balance of my time to you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman for his
statement. I couldn't agree more that 9/11 gave us a diagram of
going forward to make this country safer. It was truly a
determined bipartisan effort that moved this country forward. I
hope we can do the same with a commission looking at what
happened at our Capitol on January 6.
With that, I would like to recognize the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Franklin. You are now recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses. You have endured a lot over
these last several hours, and I appreciate your time today.
I had held great hopes that we would get to the bottom of
some of the events that happened on January 6. It was no doubt
a dark day in our country's history. Unfortunately, this
hearing has not been anything like I would have anticipated.
This is not an effort to get to the truth. It is not to find
out what really happened. It is nothing but a political show,
and let me dive into that a little bit.
But first, I do have a question for our three witnesses.
And first, Chief Contee, which law enforcement agency would you
say has the primary responsibility for protecting the Capitol?
Chief Contee. The United States Capitol Police.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, sir. Mr. Rosen, would you agree
with that assessment?
Mr. Rosen. I do agree with that. The Capitol Police are
part of the legislative branch and are responsible for security
at the Capitol.
Mr. Franklin. OK, thank you. And Mr. Miller, would you
agree as well?
Mr. Miller. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Franklin. OK. Thank you all. It is interesting that we
have no one here from Capitol Police today.
Chief Contee, this will be a question coming to you. But on
January 3, the Capitol Police issued an internal report called
``A Special Event Assessment,'' stating that the Intelligence
and Interagency Coordination Division was tracking several
protests that were to take place on January 5 and 6, and that
there were indications that the protesters could be armed. It
doesn't appear that that internal report was shared with other
law enforcement agencies or the FBI. Was your agency made aware
of that report?
Chief Contee. No, not prior to January 6. That's correct.
Mr. Franklin. Would it have been helpful information to you
to know that there was another corroborating source that there
might be armed folks come--taking place in those events on the
6th?
Chief Contee. I believe it would have been helpful. But the
Metropolitan Police Department, just in terms of our
deployment, we had signs posted on the National Mall regarding
individuals who could be armed, that kind of thing. But it
certainly would have been helpful.
Mr. Franklin. Great. Thank you.
A similar report was issued by the FBI's field office in
Norfolk. We have heard about that. It was in the press. Warning
that extremists were sharing online plans to travel to D.C.,
encouraging each other to be violent and ``ready for war.'' The
FBI claims that information was shared with the field office in
Washington and then, subsequently, the Joint Terrorism Task
Force, which includes Capitol Police, the Park Police, D.C.
Metro Police, among others.
Chief, were you aware of that report from the Norfolk FBI
office?
Chief Contee. No. It was emailed to our agency.
Mr. Franklin. OK. So that it was emailed to the agency, but
not--didn't make it to your attention. OK? That is correct?
Chief Contee. That is correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Franklin. OK. Our understanding as well, Chief Sund of
the U.S. Capitol Police claims that he didn't receive that
report either. Seems to me like that would be some pretty
critical information to know.
But everyone seems in agreement that the Capitol Police
would be the agency most responsible for protecting the
Capitol, and yet they are not here today. I can't, for the life
of me, fathom why if we are going to call a panel of witnesses
that the agency primarily responsible for safeguarding this
institution wasn't invited to participate. That is another
question for another day.
So beyond that, another topic that came up here. It was
brought to my attention, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Miller, the two of
you, along with Secretary McCarthy, received a letter from
Mayor Bowser on January 5. Are you familiar with the letter I
am talking about, or should I refresh you guys on it?
Mr. Rosen. I'm familiar. It's attached to my written
testimony.
Mr. Franklin. OK. And could you elaborate for all of us
here a little of what the Mayor was stating in her letter to
you?
Mr. Rosen. Yes. She wrote to the Army Secretary and to the
Acting Secretary of Defense and me and just indicated that she
wanted us aware that--I'll just read the beginning. ``As the
law enforcement agency charged with protecting residents and
visitors throughout the District of Columbia, the Metropolitan
Police Department is prepared for this week's First Amendment
activities. MPD has coordinated with its Federal partners,
namely the Park Police and U.S. Capitol Police and U.S. Secret
Service, all of whom regularly have uniformed personnel
protecting Federal assets in the District of Columbia.''
And she goes on and clarifies or expresses that, ``The
District of Columbia government has not requested personnel
from any other Federal law enforcement agencies, and to be
clear, the District of Columbia is not requesting other Federal
law enforcement personnel and discourages any additional
deployment without any notification to and consultation with
MPD if such plans are underway.''
Mr. Franklin. Well, thank you. And it seems to me that that
is important information, and you know, again, I would love to
have the Mayor here so we could ask her directly about some of
this. But for whatever reason, my colleagues across the aisle
have not deemed those witnesses to be important enough to bring
before us today.
I look forward to getting to the bottom of this when we are
ready to have a serious hearing, and apparently, that is not
the case today.
But thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier, is recognized for five
minutes. Ms. Speier?
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you both for
your participation today.
Let me just start with you, Mr. Rosen. Earlier in your
comments today, you said that there was no widespread evidence
of fraud that the Department uncovered. Can you give us
specific evidence of fraud that you uncovered in the election?
Mr. Rosen. Well, Congresswoman, I know you're alluding to
page 2 of my written testimony, and pretty much what I have to
say, I've said there. I am not at liberty to get into the
details of specific investigations in particular locales, but I
have shared the results of that.
Ms. Speier. But there was nothing that would constitute
widespread. They were isolated incidents around the country,
any different than they are at any other election?
Mr. Rosen. As I said, nothing widespread or on a sufficient
scale to overturn the election.
Ms. Speier. All right. I think everyone agrees that there
was an abysmal failure of intelligence. There was so much on
social media that was ignored, and in my work on the
Intelligence Committee, I think there is a bias against using
open source information. But in this case, clearly, the open
source information was raising red flags all over the place.
On social media and rightwing forums, such as
TheDonald.win, supporters of President Trump telegraphed out in
the open their intent and aspirations to attack the Capitol.
One user posted, ``If we occupy the Capitol building, there
will be no vote.''
The top response read, ``Got to overwhelm the barricades
and cops.'' Another individual posted, ``January 6 is the
chance to restore this country. Barging into the Capitol
through multiple entryways is the surest way to have our bases
covered and apprehend these traitors.''
Some users shared maps of the Capitol building. These
conversations weren't happening hidden away in encrypted chat
rooms or on the dark web. They were out in the open for
everyone to see.
Mr. Rosen, prior to January 6, were you aware that
supporters of Donald Trump had made these specific public
threats against the U.S. Capitol and Members of Congress?
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, as I've alluded to in my written
testimony, there was a very robust effort at the FBI to track
appropriate and available information and to share it with the
police departments, and that was done, and with the Federal
agencies, the DHS and the Secret Service, for example. I was
aware that there was the potential for violence, as was
everybody, I think. And I think I share your unhappiness with
those kind of comments. I think they're bad things.
I'd refer you to Director Wray's testimony before a Senate
committee a couple of months ago where he addresses how the
Bureau has to deal with things that are aspirational versus
real intent and corroborated. And that's a challenge for the
intelligence community.
I would disagree with you that there's an intelligence
failure. I think the information that was available was a
robust effort and was shared.
Ms. Speier. All right. Let me--let me go on.
The FBI easily issued warnings in advance of the peaceful
racial justice protests. They quickly deployed additional law
enforcement personnel in the summer of 2020. What does the
Department of Justice and FBI need to change to ensure that
obvious warning signs are taken seriously?
Mr. Rosen. I'm not sure if I'm following your question.
Because on January 6, we had pre-positioned and alerted our
tactical assets at the FBI and the ATF, the U.S. Marshals. And
on January 6, with great urgency, we deployed over 500 men and
women from the Justice Department to provide assistance at the
Capitol----
Ms. Speier. But that was after the breach, was it not?
Mr. Rosen. It was after the breach, but we had pre-
positioned some of them to be available.
Ms. Speier. Reclaiming my time. We are talking about before
the breach. Before the breach is when intelligence becomes so
important, when you could prepare.
Mr. Rosen. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your
question. I think the reason I misunderstood your question,
Congresswoman, is the Capitol Police are responsible for
security of the Capitol, and they're part of the legislative
branch. They don't report to me, and I don't have any authority
over them.
Ms. Speier. No, I understand----
Mr. Rosen. But we did try to get them the information we
had.
Ms. Speier. Well, Mr. Rosen, the information--there was red
alarm information that was being promoted online that should
have raised all kinds of red flags. And yet there was some
obscure memo that came from some division that never had any
kind of heightened awareness. It reminds me a lot of 9/11,
where it never percolates to the top.
So I continue to be concerned that there was plenty of open
source information that this riot, this insurrection was going
to take place, and it was not properly communicated. And to
point fingers saying we have no jurisdiction over the Capitol,
my God, this is where the seat of government is. How can you
not recognize your responsibility?
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Rosen. Madam Chair, might I briefly respond?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Mr. Rosen. Thank you. I think there's a misunderstanding
here. The point I'm making is the people with the
responsibility for securing the Capitol are the Capitol Police,
but the FBI and the Justice Department are, in fact, collecting
information and sharing it with the Capitol Police, as well as
others, and that did occur.
So if there's a question directed specifically at the
Capitol Police's awareness of the potential for violence, I
mean, I think they were aware of the potential for violence.
But I'm just not the one you should ask that question to. I
think if you want to get an understanding, there are other
participants you'll want to talk to.
Chairwoman Maloney. OK. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Kansas, Mr. LaTurner, is recognized for five
minutes. Mr. LaTurner?
Mr. LaTurner. Madam Chairwoman, respectfully, the way this
hearing is being conducted today is disappointing, to say the
least. As evidenced by the witness list and some of the
shameful statements and questions being asked by the majority
party, this hearing is a continuation of the Speaker's partisan
approach to obtaining the facts and putting steps in place to
ensure that this never happens again. That should be what we
are doing here today.
Here is the truth. Many in the Democratic Party are
politicizing this issue and making gross attempts to link the
concerns of tens of millions of Americans about the last
election and the peaceful actions of their elected
representatives to the violent acts of January 6. Those tens of
millions of Americans that I mention and all of their elected
representatives on both sides of the aisle are disgusted by the
violence on January 6 and believe that should never happen in
the United States of America.
I want to remind the majority members of this committee
that Democrats have contested the Presidential election results
of every single Republican victory for the last 20 years. In
fact, Speaker Pelosi said in 2004 about the Democrats objecting
to the Electoral College, ``Today, we are witnessing democracy
at work. This isn't as some of our Republican colleagues have
referred to sadly as frivolous. This debate is fundamental to
our democracy.''
I urge my colleagues on this committee to stop the
hypocrisy and stop politicizing this tragedy. This country and
this Congress are divided enough already. It is time for the
metal detectors on the House floor and the ridiculous fences to
come down and for us to roll up our sleeves and get to work on
behalf of the American people.
Part of that work is getting to the bottom of what happened
on January 6, and we know exactly how to do that as a Congress
and as a Nation. I urge my colleagues to all support H.R. 275,
legislation I have cosponsored, which is modeled after the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which we know is the gold standard
for commissions enacted after events similar to January 6.
We can do this, and we can do it in a bipartisan manner,
guaranteeing full accountability for the people that committed
these crimes and full accountability for those leaders that
failed to secure the Capitol. We were able to do the exact same
thing after the harrowing events of September 11, 2001, and we
must do it again.
This hearing today and the continued partisan efforts of
the Speaker will not make our Capitol any safer, our Nation any
more united, and it will certainly not help to prevent another
similar tragedy down the road. It is my greatest hope that we
can stop the political games and come together on this
important matter so our very divided nation can begin to heal.
I would like to ask any of the conferees here today--Mr.
Rosen, Mr. Miller, you both have endured a lot of incoming. I
would like to give you a little time. Is there anything that
you would like to correct for the record or anything that you
would like to add that you haven't had an opportunity to?
Mr. Rosen. I guess, just to followup on my previous line of
questioning, I'd just like to clarify, because it occurred to
me that sometimes I may know what the role and responsibilities
of different entities are and not all the Members of Congress
will. So let me just try to clarify one thing.
Everybody is trying to work together and coordinate, and
nobody is trying to say we don't want to be helpful and we
don't have responsibility. But it's a little bit like, you
know, Bill Belichick says about football players. Everyone has
to do their own job, as well as be supportive of the folks
doing the other jobs.
So with regard to the Capitol Police, who provide the
security at the Capitol, when I'm making the point that they do
not report to the Justice Department, they're not even part of
the executive branch, right? I'm not saying we don't try to
assist and collaborate and coordinate because we do. And we
shared information.
The point I'm making is, ultimately, the decision what to
do with the information falls on--in that instance, because it
depends which police force it is--but in that instance, on the
Capitol Police to decide what to do, and if they feel like they
need additional assistance or additional resources, they have
the ability to reach out to lots of different folks, to the
other police forces or the Justice Department if they need
resources, or in some instances if they need--particularly if
they need large numbers of bodies--to the National Guard.
And so there's mechanisms for people to coordinate, but
everyone has got to do their own job, and then everyone is
trying to help each other with their jobs. And that's why I
make the point, we had pre-positioned some resources. We hoped
that they weren't needed.
Nobody had asked the Justice Department for them. But
thankfully, they were available so that when the terrible
events of January 6 occurred, we were in a position to send
over 500 DOJ personnel to the Capitol in short order. And that
involves some that were nearby and some that were helicoptered
from Quantico, Virginia.
So I just want to be--clarify that because I think some of
these people don't understand the relevant roles and
responsibilities while people are working very hard to assist
one another.
Mr. LaTurner. Mr. Rosen, I think they understand more than
you think. It just doesn't fit in neatly with the partisan
narrative that is being pushed.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for five
minutes. Ms. Kelly?
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
On January 6, as we have been talking about, the world
watched as the Capitol building became a danger zone filled
with chaos. Members and staff shocked and in fear as the United
States Capitol Police, the D.C. Metro Police Department worked
to ensure the safety of everyone.
I was one of those people stuck in the gallery with 20, 25
of my other colleagues, wondering if we would get out safe and
sound and wondering why I was even in this position. And some
of my colleagues are still suffering from that day.
Mr. Miller, in your written testimony, you stated that for
the Department of Defense to ``properly provide military
support to law enforcement agencies within D.C.,'' it is
``necessary to confer, coordinate, synchronize with at least 10
different entities.'' That includes Metro Police Department,
the Metro Transit Police, the Capitol Police, the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Justice,
including the FBI, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Marshals, Federal Protective Service, the U.S. Secret Service,
and the U.S. Park Police.
In your written testimony, you stated that in the days
prior to January 6, the Department of Defense became concerned
with ``the apparent lack of coordination, synchronization, and
information exchange with and between the numerous domestic law
enforcement organizations charged with protecting D.C. and the
Capitol.''
Mr. Miller, who is at fault for the lack of coordination
and communication in the days leading up to the insurrection?
Mr. Miller. Thank you for the question, and thank you for
highlighting--highlighting the human cost. And huge empathy,
and I know the fear and the terror that goes on when you're
being attacked, and I don't want to--I just wanted to highlight
that, ma'am, for all of you because this partisan rancor, you
guys were there. So God bless you.
I don't know. I don't know. I'm going to answer your
question succinctly. I just don't know, but it's got to be
somebody, and it has to be determined and----
Ms. Kelly. Well, which Federal agency or department needed
to do more coordination and synchronization? Who should have
been the lead for the Federal Government?
Mr. Miller. I felt that we were very good getting the
Federal Government piece together, and we also had good
coordination with many of the local law enforcement. But there
was not one person or one entity in charge, writ large.
Department of Justice, to be clear, was the lead agency and
did a fine job. So I want to be clear about that. But in terms
of writ large, it's the thing that needs to be decided, yes,
ma'am.
Ms. Kelly. That is what we need to do much better going
forward?
Mr. Miller. I believe so, yes.
Ms. Kelly. You also testified that you felt it was your
responsibility to initiate discussions to coordinate Federal
planning efforts prior to January 5. Why do you feel it was
your personal responsibility, and who specifically did you feel
was not taking this responsibility or that should have?
Mr. Miller. I don't think it was anyone's--it wasn't
malicious or anything. And thank you for the question, and
thank you for allowing me to answer with a little more
thoughtfulness.
I had an obligation to the mothers, fathers, spouses of the
people that are going out there. So I took that extremely
seriously, and that's why I felt it was incumbent upon me to
make sure that I was the convening authority, at least
initially, to bring everyone together and get the system going,
which occurred.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Since you took on convening these
meetings prior to January 6, do you take personal
responsibility for any gaps in communication or intelligence
sharing that occurred prior to or on January 6?
Mr. Miller. I wish things would have gone a lot better,
obviously, because of the storming of the Capitol. I just
wanted to reiterate and highlight, and this is not some trying
to cover my you know what. The Department of Defense, it's not
good for the Republic, it's not good for our American citizens
to have the Department of Defense be involved in civilian law
enforcement matters except as the last resort and when all
civilian law enforcement has been expended.
So I know that sounds mundane, but it's really, really
important for our people and for this body to understand my
thought processes that day.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Chief Contee, I am grateful to the
members of the U.S. Capitol Police, Metro Police, D.C. National
Guard, and Federal law enforcement who responded to the day's
attack. It is clear that the communication and coordination
between these departments was lacking and potentially delayed
the ability to stop the insurrection.
Chief Contee, during the January 6 attack, how would you
describe the communication between MPD and the U.S. Capitol
Police?
Chief Contee. We had good communication on that day. They
were present here. They had a representative here. We had
representatives there. So----
Ms. Kelly. How about your communication between your
department and the Department of Defense and the D.C. National
Guard?
Chief Contee. I had conversations with Secretary McCarthy
leading up to January 6, and there were several coordination
calls that the Department of Defense was not necessarily part
of, but between local law enforcement and members of the
Federal law enforcement entities--Capitol Police, Secret
Service, Park Police, FBI, United States attorney's office.
There were several calls, coordination calls that led to the
date of January 6.
Ms. Kelly. And I am going to go forward because other
people did. Since that time, what has been done to improve
communication and coordination, if anything has been done? And
then I will yield back.
Chief Contee. Yes, ma'am. The thing that's different now
is, I mean, obviously, if there's an urgent matter or something
that needs to be talked about amongst the principals, those are
phone calls that take place. Those are conversations that take
place.
I think one of the things that was highlighted during this
was that there were these intelligence things that were
circulating, and some things were emailed to different
agencies, and I don't think you can necessarily qualify that or
check the box as a notification. If it's a matter of
importance, then those are things the principals should be
talking directly about. So certainly there has been more of
that since January 6.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, is now recognized. Mr.
Fallon?
Mr. Fallon. Madam Chair, thank you.
``Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both
impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a
descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral
because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his
understanding and seeks to annihilate rather than to convert.
Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than
love.''
One of the greatest Americans to ever live uttered those
words over a half century ago, Reverend Martin Luther King.
What happened on January 6 I think every member of this
committee in our chamber would agree was horrific, criminal,
and completely inconsistent with the values of a vibrant and
healthy republic and should receive just condemnation from all
quarters.
What we should be doing today and, for that matter, what
leadership of this chamber should have been doing for the past
four months is trying to find out what happened on January 6
and why. What accounted for the massive security failure, and
who was truly at fault for that failure? How can an unorganized
mob of strangers, most unarmed completely, while others with
flag poles and pepper spray, have breached the United States
Capitol?
The best and most effective way to answer these questions
is to take the obvious political theater out of the equation
altogether. If the events of January 6 received bipartisan
condemnation, which they did, then the best way to discover the
causes for the riot, the riot itself and for the security
failures that allowed the breach, should be through a
bipartisan commission.
And for the record, just such a proposal was presented by
Republicans on January 12, and Speaker Pelosi has since dragged
her feet, which begs the question, ``Why?'' This delay and lack
of leadership is inexcusable.
I was one of the last to leave the chamber on that fateful
day, and I will tell you straight up with full candor, I didn't
know what was on the other side of that door. I heard Capitol
Police shout, ``Shots fired. Shots fired.'' It was harrowing.
And hell yes, I was scared.
I will also be forever proud of those brave Members in the
chamber who stood their ground to the right and left of me with
the Capitol Police. Congressman Markwayne Mullin, Troy Nehls,
Ronny Jackson, Tony Gonzalez--they augmented Capitol Police,
and through their actions, we will also be able to forever tell
the world that the House chamber, unlike the Senate, was never
breached.
Our Democratic colleagues and their friends in the
mainstream media are quite fond of labeling January 6 as an
insurrection or even a rebellion, but are those descriptions
accurate, or are they hyperbolic? To be sure, January 6, an
unruly and dangerous mob of about 400 broke the law, criminally
trespassed, committed various other crimes, and endangered the
health, safety, well-being, and lives of many innocent people.
As mobs so often do, they resorted to the lowest common
denominator and devolved from peaceful protesting to violent
actions.
Mobs are not only unruly, they are stupid as well. They are
mindless, and they are irrational. That is precisely why they
are so dangerous.
So was it a rebellion? Was it sedition? Was the mob intent
on killing and overthrowing the Government? Let us not allow
speculation and conjecture and partisan opinion to rule the
day. Let us look at what the individuals in the mob that
breached the Capitol were actually charged with. Were there any
charges filed for murder, attempted murder, treason,
insurrection? Well, not that we could find.
So was January 6 an insurrection, or could it be more
accurately described as a mob of misfits committing disorderly
conduct, violent entry, civil disorder, vandalism, unlawful
entry, et cetera? You know, the crimes that these people were
actually charged with.
At the end of the day, Republicans have proven themselves
the only ones who have been--maintained consistency. We have
condemned violence, rioting, and mayhem at every turn. We did
so in the summer of 2020 during the BLM and Antifa violent
riots that swept the country in 140 cities, cost $2 billion in
damages, and killed two dozen Americans. And we remembered the
revered remarks of Dr. Martin Luther King and condemned that
violence.
No committee hearings to my knowledge have been held to
examine the root causes of all that destruction and loss of
life. Republicans have condemned that violence and mayhem on
January 6 as well, and it was abhorrent, disgusting, beneath
the dignity of respectful citizens. The best way to ensure the
Capitol is never again breached is to appoint a bipartisan
commission forthwith to examine the events of January 6 and to
do so without the looming and tempting fog of political gain
hovering over the process.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and I now
recognize the gentlelady from Missouri. Ms. Bush is now
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bush. St. Louis, and I thank you, Madam Chair, for
convening this necessary hearing.
At Trump's January 6 rally, he told the crowd, ``If you
don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a country
anymore.'' And so that is what they did. On January 6, a
violent mob of insurrectionists--let us call them who they
are--attacked the Capitol in an attempt to overturn the U.S.
Presidential election.
I want to raise a pressing question today. Would this
attack have happened, would it have been allowed to happen if
those who stormed the Capitol were there to stand up, stand up
for black lives rather than fight for white supremacy? Mr.
Rosen, what would the DOJ's response have been that day if the
majority of the people who participated in the attack looked
like me?
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, I appreciate that question. The
first thing I want to say is I deplore hatred, bigotry,
discrimination of any kind. And when I was at the Department of
Justice, we prosecuted a number of significant hate crime cases
and some cases involving racially and ethnically motivated
violence. So from my vantage point, there is no tolerance for
that at all.
To answer your question, I believe that the responses the
Department of Justice took when I was there were the
appropriate ones and that the relief that we provided of over
500 people urgently going to the Capitol that occurred. I think
our responses--our preparation and our responses would have
been the same.
Ms. Bush. OK, thank you. I am going to have to disagree
with you. I appreciate the first part of your comment, but I am
going to have to disagree.
I don't have to guess--we witnessed the differences in
response with the January 6 attack and the protests affirming
the value of black lives last summer. The treatment of
protesters defending black lives last summer by law
enforcement--the DOJ, the National Guard, and others--was
incomparably--it was egregious. We were teargassed, and I can
say ``we'' because I am not talking about what I think. I am
talking about what I know because I was there.
We were teargassed marching for justice in our own
communities. The white supremacist mob, the white supremacist
mob was able to break in with weapons and with zip ties and put
their feet up on the desk in the Speaker's office after
violently storming the Capitol grounds. The contrast is stark.
As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, Donald Trump was
impeached for inciting the January 6 attack. But make no
mistake, he is not the only one responsible. Some of my
colleagues continue to question the results of the last
election, even when it means questioning the legitimacy of
American voters. This contradicts the facts which have stood up
through audits, stood up through court cases.
President Joe Biden was duly elected in a free and fair
election, defeating Donald Trump. But baseless conspiracy
theories and those who encourage them are harmful, in and of
themselves. But the disinformation surrounding them incited the
insurrection and continues to harm our democracy. Public
officials and other leaders have encouraged insurrectionists
and with raised fists implored conspiracy theorists to hold the
line or supported them in other ways by implying that Donald
Trump is really the President.
Mr. Rosen, you led the agency coordinating Federal security
preparations for January 6. Were you aware that public
officials were inciting and supporting the insurrection? Mr.
Rosen?
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, I think the best thing I can do
on this is refer you to the public statements that I made at
the time, both on January 6, on January 7, and the days that
followed. And I don't think I could have been any more vocal in
expressing my disapproval, how we watched in disbelief as a mob
breached the Capitol building and required help to restore
order.
Ms. Bush. Specifically the public officials, specifically
the public officials?
Mr. Rosen. I'm sorry. I apologize, but I'm not sure that I
followed the question.
Ms. Bush. This is about public officials and--OK. This is
about public officials. Were you aware that they were inciting
or supporting the insurrection?
Mr. Rosen. I'm not sure. I'd have to think, but I don't
know that I understand the question. I mean, the----
Ms. Bush. OK.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. There was awareness of the
newspapers----
Ms. Bush. OK, reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Rosen. OK.
Ms. Bush. Yes. So the truth is clear. The violence that day
was built on a theory of lies and on months of disgraceful
attempts to further suppress the votes, suppress the votes of
black and brown communities, undermine our election and
overturn the results. When asked if Trump should concede once
electors vote on December 14, one senior member of this
committee said, ``No. No way. No way. No way.''
We should still try to figure out exactly what took place
here. Mr. Miller, yes or no, would you agree that the
unconstitutional attempts to overturn the election and
dangerous rhetoric that I just cited played a role in inciting
violence on January 6? Yes or no?
Mr. Miller. I just think that the Department of Defense, we
just did our job, taking into consideration all the factors and
the political factors that you brought up.
Ms. Bush. So yes or no?
Mr. Miller. The question is kind of--I hate to be--seem
deceptive, but the question is one more time?
Ms. Bush. The question is, would you agree that the
unconstitutional attempts to overturn the election and that
dangerous rhetoric played a role in inciting the violence on
January 6?
Mr. Miller. I think the entire entertainment, media,
political complex is culpable in creating this environment that
is just intolerable and needs to change.
Ms. Bush. OK, thank you. I believe we should investigate
all who had a role----
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, she is long over time.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady from New Mexico, Ms.
Herrell, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you,
witnesses, for being here today.
And this is a great segue into the questions that I have.
Because of all of the media, the social media posts--Twitter,
Facebook, et cetera--Mr. Rosen, do you think that the social
media, all the posts, social media, everybody was watching to
see what was happening. Do you think these impacted the ability
to do a fair investigation after the riot on January 6?
Mr. Rosen. I think that the investigators primarily at the
FBI are extremely professional and know how to do that properly
and correctly, and I look to them to do their jobs, and I'm
confident that they try to do them extremely well.
Ms. Herrell. OK. Mr. Miller, I would ask you the same
question. How much--do you feel like the well has been poisoned
here? I mean, we have had so much fake news, cynical
politicians, disinformation, far, far from the truth. I mean,
we heard that Officer Sicknick was killed by a fire
extinguisher in the riot, but indeed, he died by natural
causes, a stroke. In fact, that was put out by the D.C. medical
examiner.
How much of an impact do you think social media and other
outlets had on an investigation?
Mr. Miller. Congresswoman, I have no idea, but I think you
highlight a very, very important fact. And that's what I was
trying to highlight that the gentleman from California tagged
before. Some people are doing it against us very effectively,
and we need to figure out how to manage this and how to bring
about some needed changes.
Ms. Herrell. Yes, I think they call that fake news.
Mr. Contee, just a question. Capitol Police, are they in
charge solely of securing the Capitol and protecting it?
Chief Contee. Yes, they are.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you. Mr. Miller, then who has authority
to authorize deployment of National Guard troops to the
Capitol?
Mr. Miller. Based on a request from a lawfully sanctioned
entity, ultimately I had responsibility and the authority to do
that.
Ms. Herrell. OK. And just really quick because I know we
are short on time, Mr. Rosen, do you classify the events of
January 6 as a riot or an insurrection, one or the other?
Mr. Rosen. I say whatever you call it, it was an outrage.
It was unconscionable. It was intolerable. I've heard it called
both of those things. I just think we all have to agree that
this is something we can never allow to happen again.
All of those phrases are fine, but what really counts is
the conduct is something we cannot tolerate to ever occur
again. And I just hope that one of the things that people take
away----
Ms. Herrell. Thank you.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. Is greater respect for the
Constitution and the rule of law.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you. Mr. Miller, the events of January
6, do you classify them as a riot or an insurrection?
Mr. Miller. I'm not a lawyer. It was bad, regardless. I saw
it as an assault on the Capitol, an assault on our
Constitution.
Ms. Herrell. All right. Mr. Contee, I will ask you the same
thing, a riot or an insurrection?
Chief Contee. I think that there was--there was a riot, but
there was also an insurrection that took place, in my view.
Ms. Herrell. I understand. And then just this was touched
on just a little bit earlier. But after the incident, did the
teams, you or your team engage with any other--any other
agencies? Was there interagency engagement after? And I think
you all touched on this just a little bit.
Mr. Rosen, and you may or may not have been there after the
20th, but to your knowledge, did your team or your Department
engage after the riot with other agencies?
Mr. Rosen. I'm confident the answer to that is yes. I'd
refer you to the Department of Justice and the FBI for
specifics.
Ms. Herrell. Right. Mr. Miller, same question. Because I
think what we want to ensure is that this is a fair and
balanced investigation and that there aren't silos of
individual information being withheld from other agencies. I
think the public, Congress, others are due truth in this, and I
think having these conversations and sharing that information
is just paramount. So I am asking you the same question. Were
you or your Department heads or your Department engaged with
interagency engagement after the riot?
Mr. Miller. We were before and even more aggressively
after. For the final 14 days, as you can assume, rightfully so,
the focus of the Department at that point was to provide
necessary security for the inauguration.
Ms. Herrell. And Mr. Contee, same question to you.
Chief Contee. Could you repeat the question, ma'am, please?
Ms. Herrell. Yes, sir, very quickly. Did you or your
department have interagency engagement after the riots on the
6th to share information and----
Chief Contee. Yes. Yes. I just wanted to make sure I
understood the question. Yes, we did.
Ms. Herrell. Ms. Chair, I am out of time, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back,
and the gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Lawrence, is now
recognized for five minutes.
Mrs. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair.
One thing I do want to say is that I, too, was one of the
Members who were on the floor when the mob was banging on the
door. And we keep talking about being partisan today. I will
tell you, it was bipartisan. Every Member on that floor was
running for their life. Every Member on that floor, whether you
were a Democrat or Republican, pro Trump or not, you were
running for your life. It was absolutely unacceptable.
And trying to rationalize it today does not give me any
sense of comfort that we are doing our jobs as Members of
Congress. So you can call it a riot or insurrection, this man
died while he was in the middle of this attack on our Capitol,
a police officer died, and many more were injured. I am pro
police, but I am pro the professional respect of the shield to
serve and protect and not to attack and kill.
But I have a question for you, Mr. Rosen. In your written
statement, you stated that you observed on TV the mob from the
pro Trump rally was moving to the Capitol. Can you tell me what
time that was that you observed on TV that this was happening?
Mr. Rosen. Unfortunately, not with specificity. You know,
as I said, some of these things blur together. So I remember
people coming into my office. I remember the television was
on----
Mrs. Lawrence. I am going to ask you the next question. I
am going to ask you--at that point, when you observed on TV,
were there any DOJ law enforcement personnel already at the
Capitol?
Mr. Rosen. I think there were some ATF agents nearby
because of the explosive devices, the bomb threats near the----
Mrs. Lawrence. Did you----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. Republican and Democrat
headquarters, and that was part of why we could get some people
to the Capitol so quickly.
Mrs. Lawrence. Did you order any----
Mr. Rosen. But we got a lot more after that, you know, with
great urgency. I think--I mean, I think I said in the written
statement, it was around 2 p.m. that I saw the things on TV,
but I can't pinpoint the time.
Mrs. Lawrence. You said later. You said later, and I quote,
``I am horrified and dismayed,'' as you watched on television
as the rioters breached the Capitol, and that was around 2 p.m.
And you stated you soon learned that ATF and FBI, among others,
had received requests from the Capitol Police and were
beginning to respond.
How many ATF and FBI officers were deployed to the Capitol,
and what time--so you didn't call for them. You learned by
watching on--you later learned that they were deployed. You did
not call for them?
Mr. Rosen. So, Congresswoman, the way this works is the
Capitol Police establish what they need in advance, and then if
they need additional help, they coordinate it ahead of time
with the MPD, the Park Police, the Justice Department, DHS,
National Guard. And when the violence occurred, they requested
help from ATF and FBI, and we responded with great urgency. As
I said, we had pre-positioned some resources. I had hoped that
was cautionary, but we also called them in as quick as
possible.
Mrs. Lawrence. So you said in your statement----
Mr. Rosen. So we sent over 500 Federal agents from the
Justice Department.
Mrs. Lawrence. Exactly. So the 500 agents have been
deployed to the Capitol more than four months after the January
6. This is new evidence----
Mr. Rosen. No, no, no. The same day, January 6.
Mrs. Lawrence. Right. But this was new information to us.
As you know, the committee, along with six others, sent a
request for documents and information onto the DOJ on March 25
concerning the events of January 6. We need the Department to
provide us with the information and documents that we asked for
so Congress can get to the bottom of this.
The DOJ needs to start producing information, and we also
need an independent--I agree with my Republican colleague who
said we need an independent commission to study, to understand
what went wrong. Because I will tell you, as we sit here
today--and some of you have responded in a way that seems
almost dismissive and arrogant--sitting on that floor and being
in almost a combat zone, fearing for your life, not knowing
what is going to happen, hearing shots fired, hearing banging
on the door, this is not something that should be repeated.
And I want to say to every one of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, I don't give a darn who the President
was. This can never happen again, and I will commit myself to
ensuring that this ``I don't remember'' and ``That is a
partisan answer'' and ``You are ridiculous'' crap stops so we
can get to the bottom of this.
I yield back. I thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you
for your strong statement.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Donalds, is recognized for
five minutes, and I thank him for his attendance here today and
thoughtful participation. Thank you.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is--I wanted to be here for a while and actually
listen to the testimony in this hearing because it is actually
quite abhorrent. I actually agree with part of the testimony
from our previous colleague because I was on the floor, too. I
was on the floor for actually quite some time. So I remember
the banging at the door. I remember being evacuated with other
Members of Congress, and at that point, we stopped being
Republicans and Democrats. We were just Members trying to make
sure that each other were getting to safety.
So I remember it very clearly. I will never forget it a day
of my life. I remember not just myself, but many colleagues on
the Republican side of the aisle condemning the attack on the
Capitol, flat out condemning it as being unacceptable. And it
is not acceptable.
I am glad that this hearing is happening because what we
have to be able to get to is the actual facts, the actual
responses, what actually occurred, and not politics, not
supposition, not innuendo, not tweets, not cute hashtags on
social media. We ought to get to the actual facts.
I would say that one of the agencies or, frankly, the
agency, it has been said multiple times in this hearing,
responsible for the security of this very facility is not here.
And so I do want to ask our witnesses, Mr. Rosen, have you been
in contact--when you were Acting Attorney General, were you in
contact with Capitol Police before, during, and after the
events on January 6?
Mr. Rosen. The Department of Justice, the FBI, and the U.S.
attorney were, yes.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Miller, in your capacity as Acting
Secretary of State, were you in touch with Capitol Police
before, during, and after the events on January 6?
Mr. Miller. I was not personally, but the Department of
Defense was in close contact.
Mr. Donalds. OK. Chief Contee, the same question to you.
Were you in touch with Capitol Police before, during, and after
the events on January 6?
Chief Contee. Yes.
Mr. Donalds. Well, I mean, I find it pretty interesting
that the three witnesses here today have all been in touch with
Capitol Police before, during, and after. Yet Capitol Police is
not here to talk about what they were doing on January 6.
This is not meant to demean Capitol Police. They were
standing there, frankly, in front of Members of Congress,
getting us out of harm's way. But it is important if we are
going to have a hearing that unveils all of the issues that
occurred and the ways that this could never happen again, they
need to come before this committee as well.
A couple of questions. Mr. Miller, I know that you said
earlier that you were in contact with--or you received a
request from Mayor Bowser with respect to National Guard
troops. When did you receive that request from Mayor Bowser?
Mr. Miller. December 31, 2020. I spent the weekend going
over it to finalize the plan with the D.C. National Guard and
the Department of the Army and Army staff.
Mr. Donalds. At what point did you and President Trump
actually have a discussion on this request from Mayor Bowser?
Mr. Miller. I had a meeting with President Trump on the 3d
of January concerning some international threats, and at the
very end, he asked if there were any requests for National
Guard support, and I informed him of Mayor Bowser's request.
Mr. Donalds. Mr. Miller, to clarify that point, did you
tell the President about the Mayor's request, or did President
Trump ask if there were requests?
Mr. Miller. He asked if there were requests.
Mr. Donalds. What was the President's response to you with
regard to the request made by Mayor Bowser?
Mr. Miller. Fill it and do whatever was necessary to
protect the demonstrators and that were executing their
constitutionally protected rights.
Mr. Donalds. OK. And what happened in response to--with
Mayor Bowser. What happened when you notified her that her
request had been fulfilled? What did she do with that
information?
Mr. Miller. I don't know.
Mr. Donalds. Did Mayor Bowser ever followup after the
agreement from the President to provide support, actually
asking for that support to be deployed?
Mr. Miller. I know there was that January 5th letter that
was referred to earlier that Acting AG Rosen referred to.
Mr. Donalds. Oh, this is the letter--Acting AG Rosen, this
is the letter in which Mayor Bowser basically declined support.
Is that correct?
Mr. Rosen. Well, it indicated that she thought that the
police had things in hand and did not need additional support
at that time.
Mr. Donalds. My last question is this. Mr. Miller, in your
estimation, how long does it actually take, logistically
speaking, how long in terms of minutes, hours, does it take to
deploy National Guard anywhere, for that matter?
Mr. Miller. It was--I think it will go down in history as
one of the most expedient deployments in National Guard
history. I would just like to highlight that our premier active
duty force that's on strip alert has a three-hour window to
deploy, and they deployed, based on my calculations, much
quicker. The National Guard deployed much quicker than our
active duty forces are expected to.
Mr. Donalds. Madam Chair, I know I am over my time, but may
I ask one brief question?
Chairwoman Maloney. So granted.
Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Miller, in your estimation, on average, how long does
it take to deploy the National Guard when requested? On
average.
Mr. Miller. I'm not being deceitful. It's just it
absolutely depends what the mission is, where they're trying to
go to, and all of these other factors.
Mr. Donalds. But this was the most expedient?
Mr. Miller. I think if we looked at it definitively, if we
had historians or analysts look at it, I think you will find
and it will be clarified as one of the most expedient
deployments in National Guard modern history.
Mr. Donalds. All right. Thank you so much.
I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the ability.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman
from California, Mr. DeSaulnier, is recognized for five
minutes. The gentleman from California?
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this
hearing. I think all of us will agree that it is painful
revisiting this, but it is important.
I had a perspective on January 6. I got to the Capitol
early because I think we all would agree we knew that there was
a potential for trouble. And I was told to get there early
because I had to be removed. I wasn't on the floor because of
health conditions. I was across the hall in an office that
afforded me a view of the Mall and also allowed me to watch
television, both we were monitoring the floor, but I was able
to listen to news reports about what was happening on the
Ellipse.
So, and then later, I was able to quite visually see the
attack on the Western front where it is still disturbing to me,
watching what happened at that doorway and watching Capitol
Police officers try to defend on the other side of where the
temporary bleachers had already been put up for the
inauguration.
So, Mr. Rosen, one of the times that I look back and I
started to accelerate my concern, and this is my perspective
listening to the then-President. I always thought, well, it is
that person, and he has a different way of communicating. But
we now know that the people who broke the law and entered the
Capitol thought that he was telling them to do what they did,
and that will come forward more and more as these cases
proceed.
So, for you, my moment of heightened concern was when I
became aware, as I saw them coming up the Mall--I couldn't see
Pennsylvania Avenue from where I was--was when I found out what
was going on at the Ellipse and the content of what the
President was telling them.
So when did you become aware of that, and how did you
respond? And particularly the spirit and specifically saying
``you have got to go up there and fight like hell'' and that
``I will be with you.'' Do you remember when you became aware
of that? Mr. Rosen?
Mr. Rosen. Not of that phrase or that language. I remember
that I was at my office and I was interested in how large was
the crowd at the Ellipse. And I contacted the U.S. attorney who
had provided some reconnaissance on that. I recount some of
this in the written testimony, so I'll give you the short
version because I know time is limited.
But I was told that the crowd was actually at the low end
of the estimates that we had all received, might even be below
it, and that at that point they were not unruly or violent. And
I asked for continued updates, which I continued to receive.
Obviously, when I was receiving them, as I have alluded to
earlier, sometime around 2 p.m., give or take--I don't remember
the exact time----
Mr. DeSaulnier. Appreciate that.
Mr. Rosen. I learned that----
Mr. DeSaulnier. I'm sorry.
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. That the perimeter was breached.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Rosen, just did you--well, let's go to
Mr. Miller. When did you find out about what happened at the
Ellipse and what the President had instructed the mob to do?
Mr. Miller. I don't recall when I was told. I just--when
the movement started to the Capitol, whatever time that was--
and I still can't--we still can't figure that out. It was
somewhere I call based on my notes between 1 p.m. and 1:30 p.m.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Chief Contee, when did you become aware of
what the President was instructing the mob to do?
Chief Contee. Probably days later. I was in the midst of
all the stuff that was going on. I was at the West Front of the
Capitol at one point. So unable to watch television and to hear
what he was saying, but more importantly, just there as the
situation unfolded.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Well, in hindsight--I know hindsight is 20/
20. But it certainly seems that it was clear that he was
communicating accurately to that group of people. Because they
have said that they were following out instructions by the
President of the United States. Do you have the same
perception?
Chief Contee. This group of 300 or so that was--that kind
of led the charge, if you will, I know that they were on the
move toward the Capitol prior to the President making his
remarks. It would be unfair for me to say that they were
listening to him.
I just don't know. I think some of that is coming out as
the FBI makes its cases, that individuals are saying that they
were following those. But I don't know that personally, sir.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Miller, you said that you feel strongly--is what I
took--strongly about an independent bipartisan commission. Is
there anything specifically that you would hope to tell them
that we should do to avoid this from happening again?
Mr. Miller. Thanks for the question, sir.
I think everybody has pretty much hit that is just let's
get some lessons learned, and let's not let this happen again.
And let's figure out how to rebuild our bonds of connection and
affinity for each other.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Comer, is now recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Rosen, you were the Acting Attorney General during the
events of January 6 through January 20. Correct?
Mr. Rosen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Comer. And in that capacity, did you oversee the
efforts to investigate, arrest, and prosecute those
responsible?
Mr. Rosen. During that time, yes.
Mr. Comer. Were those investigations a priority for the
Department of Justice under your leadership?
Mr. Rosen. Yes. It would be hard to have had a higher one.
I think I pointed out in some of my public remarks at the time
that that evening of January 6, we had prosecutors and
investigators working through the night. I think we brought the
first charges on the 7th and continued to work at breakneck
speed, particularly the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI,
because it was of such a priority.
Mr. Comer. And your Department was also involved with
quelling the unrest at the Capitol on January 6. Can you tell
us how many Federal law enforcement officers within the
Department of Justice responded on that day?
Mr. Rosen. It was in excess of 500 agents and officers from
the FBI, the ATF, U.S. Marshals Service. I don't have the exact
count, but it's north of 500.
Mr. Comer. Right. Mr. Miller, you were Acting Secretary of
Defense during the events on January 6. Correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, sir.
Mr. Comer. And in that capacity, you authorized a National
Guard deployment as requested by the Mayor of D.C. prior to
those events. Correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Comer. Your testimony states that you discussed this
with the President for less than a minute on January 3 and that
the President said to give the Mayor the support she requested.
Is that correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Comer. And your testimony also states that President
Trump had no role with respect to the Department of Defense's
efforts on January 6 to respond to the Capitol. Is that
correct?
Mr. Miller. Yes, that's what I got paid to handle.
Mr. Comer. Can you confirm that on January 6 the White
House did not at any time order the National Guard to stand
down or impede the deployment of the National Guard to the
Capitol?
Mr. Miller. Without equivocation or hesitation, that is
correct. That did not happen.
Mr. Comer. Well, that is the headline of this hearing, much
to the disappointment of my colleagues on the left. You have
confirmed that there was no White House interference, despite
many of the stories in the media counter to what you have just
testified. The Capitol Police Board specifically denied a
request from then-Chief Sund on January 4 to declare an
emergency and authorize the National Guard. Do you have any
insight into why the Capitol Police Board denied this request?
Mr. Miller. I do not.
Mr. Comer. Could you please explain why the military should
ordinarily be hesitant to get itself involved in domestic law
enforcement matters?
Mr. Miller. When we've done it in the past, it's been a
complete nightmare for the United States and for our Armed
Forces, and it's not something we should do lightly and without
great forethought.
Mr. Comer. That is right. A lot of Democrats on this
committee have criticized you all in the Government for doing
that in the past in some of the cities, if I remember
correctly.
Your testimony responds to criticism about the Department
of Defense's response to the January 6 events at the Capitol.
And you have stated that a deployment like this isn't like a
video game where you can move forces within an urban
environment with the flick of a thumb. Can you explain why you
believe the criticism as to the timing of your response is
unfounded?
Mr. Miller. I believe it's a lack of familiarity with the
nature of military operations or, as I said in my statement, a
politicization of this issue. Probably a little bit of both,
but I don't know exactly why there is such confusion.
Mr. Comer. Do you--my last question, sir. Do you continue
to stand by the command decisions you made on January 6, given
the information you had at the time?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, thank you, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman's time has
expired, and the gentleman from California, Vice Chair Gomez,
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney.
January 6 was a day that a lot of us are going to remember
from--forever. I was in the gallery. I was one of about a dozen
members who got trapped in the gallery trying to escape. As the
door shut on us, we were all fearful of our lives. We had to
duck and cover behind whatever we could find, flimsy chairs, a
little wall, whatever we could find. And some Members couldn't
hide at all.
And I was sitting there, and I texted my wife that I was
with--I was trying to get out, and I was with Capitol Police.
But I didn't want to tell her, ``Oh, I love you.'' I didn't
want to say any of those words because then it might create a
lot of fear in her.
But I knew that we were in a bad situation, and I knew that
if the mob got in that bad things could happen. So I had my--I
took off my jacket earlier, my lapel pin, my tie, because I
didn't want to look like a Member of Congress.
And it wasn't--I believe it wasn't enough to impeach
President Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting
violence against the U.S. Government because he wasn't alone.
Some Members of this body have insisted and continue to insist
that President Joe Biden was not duly elected.
Audit after audit and court case after court case has
affirmed the fact that Donald Trump was defeated fairly by
President Joe Biden. And yet these conspiracy theories
continue, and they proliferate online, are given oxygen within
the Republican Party. Many of them have failed to condemn and
today have expelled one of their own from their ``big tent of
leadership'' for not subscribing to this lie.
In the name of this debunked conspiracy theory, violence
was committed here, and further violence has been promoted
against other elected officials, including our colleagues.
My colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene has gone on record
saying, ``Speaker Pelosi is a traitor to our country and guilty
of treason, and a crime punishable by death is what treason
is.'' This, of course, is a baseless claim.
This rhetoric remains a threat to our democracy and to all
public servants charged with keeping our democracy running. As
we investigate the failure of the Federal Government to respond
to white supremacists, we have also an obligation to create an
independent commission to support ongoing congressional
oversight and examine root causes of this insurrection. This
includes the investigation of any of its own members that might
have instigated or incited the storming of the U.S. Capitol for
their own political gain.
Mr. Miller, in your testimony, you have stated an
obligation to prevent a constitutional crisis. What concerns
did you have regarding the possibility of a coup and whether
the Armed Forces would be co-opted in an effort to overturn the
results of the election?
Mr. Miller. I had absolutely no concerns that the Armed
Forces of the United States were going to violate their sacred
oath to the Constitution. I was extremely concerned by the
imprecise and inflammatory rhetoric that was out there that
somehow the Armed Forces were at risk of that, and No. 2, if I
would have put U.S. military forces on Capitol Hill before the
events of January 6, I feel very confident that that would have
created--reinforced the narrative by many that the Armed Forces
were going to try to weigh in and overturn the election, and I
wasn't going to have that happen.
Mr. Gomez. Mr. Miller, so I didn't have any belief that
they would turn either. I know a lot of my constituents did,
but I didn't think that would happen, just because of the
professionality of the women in uniform.
Earlier, you walked back on Trump's responsibility in the
January 6 insurrection by saying there was a difference between
the march and the assault. Do you believe that Trump had no
role in the assault?
Mr. Miller. I have absolutely no idea. I can't imagine he
did. But thank you for highlighting that. And again, the--your
explanation of the fear that goes on with this, that the same
sort of thing is happening to our soldiers as we're getting
them ready to go. So that's another important factor that goes
into how long it takes to plan and make sure that they're ready
to go.
So thank you for bringing that up and highlighting that
again.
Mr. Gomez. And, but do you also view, when somebody repeats
that the only way that they can get their country back, that it
was stolen from them, that those words coming from the
commander-in-chief of the United States of America and of the
Armed Forces could be enough to incite the incidents on January
6?
Mr. Miller. It absolutely could. It could be. I just--I
note the clock just hit. You know, I have a family. I'm no
longer under protection, and no matter what I say in this
matter, half of the population--and there are some wingnuts on
both sides that are going to now send me crazy letters and
threaten my family. And that's why I'm being very delicate of
how I respond to this.
It's not because I don't have a view. It's because I'm out
there alone and unafraid. I want to be clear with that. I can
take care of myself. So I appreciate your consideration of
those matters for those of us that are out of Government now.
Mr. Gomez. And Mr. Miller, just that fear exists across the
board on both sides that if--and I think that is what is
causing some of the behavior is that a real fear that elected
officials, their families would be targeted, and that is one of
the things that we both agree on both sides of the aisle that
we have to condemn that.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back, and the
gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized for
five minutes. Ms. Pressley?
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
On December 19, 2020, Donald Trump tweeted, ``Big protest
in D.C. on January 6. Be there. Will be wild.'' This was five
days after the Electoral College certification, and indeed, it
was very wild.
There were people brandishing Trump flags, Confederate
flags, wearing T-shirts that said ``Camp Auschwitz,'' referring
to United States Capitol Police officers who are black
Americans, hurling racial epithets at them, using the N-word,
and a noose was erected on the West Lawn of the Capitol. This
was a violent white supremacist mob who assaulted the Nation's
Capitol. It was a deadly and dangerous insurrection that was
incited by Donald Trump.
And I want to just hold space for the congressional staff,
the custodial workers, the food service workers, the Members
and all who experienced trauma, those who endured injury, and
hold space for those who lost their lives. And for those
custodians, who demonstrated true patriotism, cleaning up a
ransacked space after a violent white supremacist mob so that
we could continue to honor our constitutional duties. And our
clerks, who worked through the night as well.
These events have taken undoubtedly a mental and physical
toll, and we have to provide the Capitol Police and everyone
who labors in Congress with the comprehensive mental health
supports and resources that they deserve and desperately
require. Furthermore, as Members of Congress, it is our duty to
investigate and to rectify the circumstances that failed them
in the first place.
The response by the DOJ and the DOD on January 6 was
delayed. It was disorganized. And compared to previous months,
it was deficient. When community organizers and people of all
ages took to the streets chanting ``black lives matter''
following the murder of George Floyd last May, the Trump
administration used every tool at its disposal to try and stop
them, including rubber bullets and chemical warfare.
Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said, ``I think the
sooner that you mass and dominate the battle space, the quicker
this dissipates.''
Here in D.C., to intimidate peaceful protesters calling for
racial equity, the Department of Justice activated a plethora
of Federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Park
Police, FBI, Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Marshals Service, ATF,
CBP, and even the TSA. Armed Federal officials were wearing
unmarked gear, and they dominated the streets.
Mr. Rosen, you were Deputy Attorney General when the racial
justice protests took place during the summer of 2020. Mr.
Rosen, were you aware of DOJ's efforts to mobilize a Federal
security response during the summer of 2020 in the streets of
Washington, DC, yes or no?
Mr. Rosen. Congresswoman, I'm going to say what I said
before because I think it's important to start with the fact
that the entire time I was at the Department of Justice, I
deplored and had no patience for any forms of hatred, bigotry,
discrimination, and that was never something we would tolerate.
We prosecuted many instances of hate crimes and the racially
and ethnically motivated violence.
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. Mr.
Rosen, you were the head of the--you were the head of the lead
Federal agency responsible for coordinating the preparations
for January 6. For the record, how many personnel did you
coordinate from the TSA for January 6?
Mr. Rosen. I think you're under a mistaken impression. I
didn't have any authority over personnel from TSA or other
agencies.
Ms. Pressley. OK, OK. Are you----
Mr. Rosen. We engaged in information sharing.
Ms. Pressley. Reclaiming my time. Can you for the record
share with us what personnel from CBP, ICE, and TSA were
engaged for the events of January 6? Can you provide that?
Mr. Rosen. A little bit. I think you would need to talk to
the Department of Homeland Security. But it was my
understanding that there were Federal agents from DHS who went
to the Capitol to assist with the restoration of order, along
with the others from DOJ and the MPD and other police forces.
Ms. Pressley. We will followup, but reclaiming my time for
now. Mr. Rosen, do you agree, based on your observation and
your expertise, that the DOJ acted differently in preparation
for the January 6 attack than it did during the summer or 2020?
Just a yes or no.
Mr. Rosen. I think we're dealing with two very different
situations, and in both, the responses were tailored to the
situation at the time. I would say that on January 6 in
particular, because that's what I'm here for today, I feel that
while it was a horrendous day, and I appreciate the justified
anger that you and others have expressed because I don't think
anyone in Congress should ever have to deal with that again and
shouldn't have had to that day----
Ms. Pressley. Mr. Rosen, yes or no, was the preparation----
Mr. Rosen [continuing]. But I do think that DOJ responded
appropriately.
Ms. Pressley [continuing]. Different, yes or no? Was it
different for Black Lives Matter than it was on January 6?
Mr. Rosen. I think we're talking about very different
situations, and I can't----
Ms. Pressley. OK, reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.
Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, her time has expired.
Chairwoman Maloney. You may answer. OK, the last speaker we
have now and the last questioner is the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Quigley. You are now recognized for five minutes,
Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Mr. Miller, you had told the chairwoman earlier today that
you didn't speak with former President Trump on January 6.
However, a reporter quoted another senior Defense official who
said they couldn't get through. They tried to call him.
To your knowledge, did you or anybody you know try--in the
office try to contact President Trump on January 6?
Mr. Miller. I did not. And to the best of my knowledge, I'm
not aware of anyone else that did from my office either.
Mr. Quigley. Was there a discussion about whether or not
the President should be reached about this?
Mr. Miller. No, we were able----
Mr. Quigley [continuing]. During all this discussion that
were taking place, the decisions that had to be made?
Mr. Miller. No, I had all the authority I needed to make
the decisions.
Mr. Quigley. Also, in the aftermath of January 6, to your
knowledge did anyone at the White House or DOD attempt to limit
the scope, the degree of which DOD or DOD personnel cooperated
with any investigation, including congressional investigations
into the January 6 attacks?
Mr. Miller. No. There has been--there has been nothing like
that that I'm aware of.
Mr. Quigley. You know, I am the last questioner. I just am
struck with what you said twice now. That you wouldn't change
anything about the DOD's response on January 6, that you had no
regrets. I mean, it is coming from the military. We lost that
battle, right?
I, too, was in the room where it happened, and it is almost
like someone in the military saying, sure, we lost the battle,
but we carried out our plan perfectly. I can't imagine you
would look back at that and see the results of what took place
and say somehow that that is a victory or that you succeeded
somehow.
Mr. Miller. There were 8,000 badged and credentialed police
officers on duty that day. I don't know how many from the
Capitol. I want to highlight Chief Contee, who did all hands on
deck, which was very laudable and his force----
Mr. Quigley. I am just talking about DOD. And again, how
would you answer this? If this is a victory, if this is
success, what do you--how would you have classified a failure?
Mr. Miller. I want to highlight it's not the correct role
for the Department of Defense and our Armed Forces to be
involved in civilian law enforcement matters except as the
absolutely last resort and when all civilian law enforcement
has been expended. That did not occur until about 2:30 p.m., in
my estimation.
Mr. Quigley. The last resort, you came in after the fact--
--
Mr. Miller [continuing]. Fail. I hear your----
Mr. Quigley. I was in the room. I remember hearing
colleagues saying when does the effing cavalry get here. If you
are the effing cavalry, you never showed up. You never got
there on time, and we were exposed because of this.
Mr. Miller. And if you would----
Mr. Quigley. Anyway, I just would respect you a lot more if
you said, ``We could have done this and this better.'' And with
that, OK, you are at least trying. OK? You don't win every
battle. But to lose a battle and to say it was everybody else's
fault.
Mr. Miller. That's not what I said. That's not what I said.
Mr. Quigley. It just does a disservice to the Department of
Defense.
Mr. Miller. That's not what I have said. If we had a valid
request and a necessary request from your body, I guarantee you
that the Department of Defense would have been there in
strength as required.
Mr. Quigley. All right. So you would acknowledge we lost
the battle. We lost the----
Mr. Miller. Oh, yes.
Mr. Quigley [continuing]. Building for the first time since
1814.
Mr. Miller. Horrifying.
Mr. Quigley. And it was everybody else's fault but DOD?
Mr. Miller. I absolutely disagree with the statement that
it was everybody else's fault----
Mr. Quigley. I am paraphrasing you, the only way that it
makes sense when you say you wouldn't do anything different.
You wouldn't do anything differently. OK, that implies what I
am saying that it was everybody else's fault in your mind.
Because it was a catastrophic failure.
Mr. Miller. And I just had an obligation to protect and
defend the Constitution and guarantee that the Armed Forces
were used appropriately and not in a manner that would be seen
as extraconstitutional.
Mr. Quigley. Look, the Constitution is not a treaty of
surrender. It affords you the opportunity to do what is
necessary to defend the people and the democracy of the United
States. I mean, if looked upon, the destruction afterwards,
looking back, you say, ``Well, at least I defended the
Constitution'' is another perverse way of looking at this.
And nothing was DOD's fault, and at least you did, in your
own mind, defend what you thought was right for the
Constitution. Never mind how many people got hurt and how much
damage was done to our Government in the meantime.
Mr. Miller. I will absolutely take that on and take that as
a compliment because the Armed Forces of the United States was
completely prepared and ready to respond to any valid request
from any department or agency or local or Federal law
enforcement office.
Mr. Quigley. You lost, and you don't have the integrity
and----
Mr. Miller. No.
Mr. Quigley [continuing]. Fortitude to own up to your part
of the responsibility. And I get it. A lot of people screwed
up. You're one of them.
Mr. Miller. I respectfully disagree. We'll respectfully
disagree. We'll respectfully disagree on that, and I thank you
for your point.
Mr. Quigley. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. Yes, but I was
in the room. You weren't.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman yields back.
Before we close, I want to offer the ranking member an
opportunity to offer any closing remarks he may have. Ranking
Member Comer, you are now recognized.
Mr. Comer. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And I have been
sitting here, thinking throughout the five-hour hearing how I
would close, and I think that CNN summed up the hearing pretty
well. And I don't say that very often about CNN.
But they said the hearing was unproductive, and I hope that
people in America watched this hearing because you saw a sharp
contrast between the behavior of the Republicans on the
committee versus the Democrats on the committee. The
Republicans on the committee, we asked questions to the
witnesses, pertinent questions, and we allowed the witnesses to
answer those questions.
On the other hand, the Democrats yelled at the witnesses,
most of them did, and cut them off and wouldn't allow them to
answer the questions. Ironically, this is a Democrat-called
hearing with the Democrat hand-chosen witnesses.
So I feel like we have a lot of problems in America, and
there is no shortage of issues that this great committee can
investigate. Just as we sit here now, Israel is being attacked
by Hamas. We have a crisis at the Southern border. The Biden-
Pelosi energy policy has kicked in, and we are facing gas
shortages.
The Biden-Pelosi enhanced welfare programs are working as
we predicted, so well so that there are at least 7.5 million
jobs available right now that employers are begging to try and
pleading with Congress to do something to help them find
workers. The Biden-Pelosi stimulus bill printed so much money
here recently that is just now circulating through the economy
that the consumers of America are faced with inflation for the
first time since the Jimmy Carter years.
And yes, we have witnessed an unacceptable uptick in mob
violence. Not only on January 6, but also all across America
last summer in the big cities. Yet here we are today focused
solely on January 6.
As I said in my opening statement, I called, along with
Rodney Davis and John Katko, for a bipartisan commission
immediately after January 6. But the truth of the matter is,
despite some of the Democrats in the hearing saying they
supported that, that Speaker Pelosi has drug her feet for over
three months to try to politicize January 6 in every way,
shape, or form possible to benefit her conference instead of
trying to seek a bipartisan solution like the 9/11 Commission
to figure out exactly what happened and find solutions to
prevent the problem from happening in the future.
But this hearing did confirm two things, two big things
that I feel like are worth repeating. First of all, President
Trump had no role with respect to Department of Defense efforts
on January 6. And second, the White House did not order the
National Guard to stand down.
Now I mention those two things because that is contrary to
what a lot of the liberal media has reported throughout this
process. So from that angle, I am glad that we had the hearing.
I am glad that that was proven today with the witnesses that
the majority party chose to have here today, the witnesses who
were the appropriate witnesses to have with respect to that
particular subject.
I wish the Capitol Police had been here because the Capitol
Police, their main role is to protect the Capitol. And
obviously, they had a role in this, and if we are sincere about
trying to solve the problem and prevent this from happening in
the future, we should have heard from the Capitol Police.
But saying that, I conclude by again, Madam Chair, thank
you for having the hearing. I hope that we can have hearings on
other issues of the utmost importance to the American people,
and I hope that we can do it in a manner that allows the
witnesses to actually answer credible questions from members on
both sides of the aisle.
With that, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. I thank the gentleman for yielding
back, and I now recognize myself.
In response to the Capitol Police, there have been several
hearings in this Congress with the Capitol Police under the
House Administration Committee that has jurisdiction. We are
bringing in new people. The people who testified today had not
testified before.
And I appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses
today, especially Chief Contee, whose officers displayed so
much heroic action during the attack on our Capitol. But I was
surprised and disappointed by the testimony of Mr. Rosen and
Mr. Miller. They would have us believe that DOJ and DOD did
everything right on January 6, that there was no room for
improvement, and that the horror that every American saw on
television was not their problem.
I strongly disagree. January 6 was a historic failure. The
Capitol was overrun. Several Americans died, and our Nation's
peaceful transfer of power was delayed and nearly derailed.
If the Attorney General had done his job, then our law
enforcement agencies would have been better prepared for the
threat of violence by President Trump's supporters. If the
Defense Secretary had done his job, the mob attack would have
been repelled hours earlier.
Mr. Miller learned rioters had breached the Capitol
perimeter by 1:30 p.m. He ``activated'' the D.C. National Guard
at 3 p.m., but the Guard did not deploy until Mr. Miller
approved an operational plan. And he admitted today that he did
not approve that plan until 90 minutes later at 4:32 p.m.
All of us watching at the Capitol or on television saw the
horror in our Capitol and the threat to lives. And the delays
did not end then. The National Guard did not actually begin
operations at the Capitol until 5 p.m., many hours after House
and Senate leadership, the Mayor, and the Capitol Police had
all urgently, urgently called for help.
Mr. Miller claimed this response was ``rapid,'' but the
facts show it was disastrously slow. Of course, the person most
responsible for this national travesty is former President
Trump himself. He set the date. He fed the big lie to his
supporters. He told them to go to the Capitol and ``fight like
hell.''
And when they attacked, when they put lives at risk, when
they entered our Capitol, he just sat back and did nothing, did
nothing to protect the Capitol and the people. The Trump
administration must be held accountable for the January 6
attack. They cannot pass the buck.
This committee will continue to seek the truth. To do that,
we need the documents, the documents we requested from DOJ and
FBI and other agencies well over four months ago. We also need
witnesses to provide complete testimony without hiding behind
phony claims of confidentiality. We need documents in order to
conduct a proper investigation, and they have yet to come.
I am also hopeful that we will soon have a bipartisan
commission to examine the root causes of this insurrection and
help prevent similar attacks in the future. The 9/11 Commission
was government at its best. This Congress came together,
Republicans and Democrats, and we were united and determined.
We created a commission, passed it, funded it, gave it
subpoena power, and appointed two outstanding public servants
to head it. Former Governor of New Jersey Tom Kean, former
Member of Congress, Chairman Hamilton. They worked together
hand-in-hand. They wrote the report together.
When it came out, it sold more copies than Harry Potter. I
really actually nominated them for a National Book Award, but
they didn't win the award, but they really won the battle with
what they came out with--51 strong recommendations of how to
make this country safer and stronger. This Congress continued
to work together, and we enacted every single one, at least 49
out of the entire recommendations, and it has made this country
stronger and better.
We need the same united determination. No one is better or
stronger than this country when we pull together and work
together. We need a commission that is funded with appropriate
subpoena powers, all the time they need to do a thorough
investigation and report on how to respond to this in a
substantive way so that it never happens again.
I yield back.
And I also would like to add in closing that I thank our
panelists for their remarks, and I want to commend my
colleagues for participating in this important conversation.
With that and without objection, all members will have five
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as
you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]