Politic?: Sleepwalking Intelligence Alerts : Dereliction of Duty

"None of the intelligence we received predicted what actually occurred."
"We properly planned for a mass demonstration with possible violence. What we got was a military-style coordinated assault on my officers and a violent takeover of the Capitol Building."
"I actually just in the last 24 hours was informed by the department that we actually had received that report."
"[Intelligence reports compiled from information from the Capitol Police, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Department of Homeland Security and Washington Metropolitan Police showed that] the level of probability of acts of civil disobedience/arrests [on Jan. 6 ranged from] remote [to] improbable."
"In addition, the daily intelligence report indicated that 'the secretary of homeland security has not issued an elevated or imminent alert at this time'."
"Without the intelligence to properly prepare, the USCP was significantly outnumbered and left to defend the Capitol against an extremely violent mob."
"I notified the two sergeant-at-arms by 1:09 p.m. that I urgently needed support and asked them to declare a state of emergency and authorize the National Guard. I was advised by Mr. Irving that he needed to run it up the chain of command. I continued to follow up with Mr. Irving, who was with Mr. Stenger at the time, and he advised that he was waiting to hear back from congressional leadership but expected authorization at any moment."
Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund

"That's very concerning whether or not [there are] procedures for the head of the intelligence on the U.S. Capitol Police to get the intelligence report, to review it, especially when there were significant other indications of potential violence."
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)

"What the FBI sent, ma'am, on Jan. 5 was in the form of an email."
"[I would think a warning] that something as violent as an insurrection at the Capitol would warrant a phone call or something."
Robert Contee, acting chief, Washington police

"We did discuss whether the intelligence warranted having troops at the Capitol."
"The collective judgement at that time was no -- the intelligence did not warrant that."
Paul Irving, former sergeant-at-arms, House of Representatives and Senate

The United States was and is in a turmoil of political, ideological fundamental social disequilibrium. There was so much grumbling, anger, threats, obvious polarization within the population, divisions between rural and urban Americans on the politics they chose under their system of democratic Republicanism, an overall level of alert awareness should have been front and centre in all plans for the January 6 Congressional certification of the election win of Joe Biden for the U.S. presidency.

Ever since the October election and the hugely disputed results, the undercurrent of voter fury, the continued incitement to reject the win as unlawful, conceived in a series of corrupt processes, the din on social media of ardent Trump supporters who vowed they would never accept a Democratic win over the incumbent Republican, mirrored in part the reaction of the Democratic furious over the 2015 ascendancy of a Republican candidate to the U.S. presidency. The non-stop efforts to decertify President Trump's win saw its reflection in the more recent obverse.

The difference, of course, was that while the Democrats used all defamatory means within the law to express their anger and disappointment, the Republicans saw fit to go outside the law to express theirs. They were in actual fact, doing the bidding of the man they were loyal to, who obliquely instructed them in how to proceed, and they obliged. That violent thugs also took part in the effort at an uprising in the seat of American governance should have been predictable.

And while President Trump saw fit to urge his followers to violently invade Congress, his vice-president was aghast and refused his president's order to oppose Congressional validation of the Biden win, becoming an instant traitor to the cause, and a target for violent abuse. Lawmakers on both sides of the House failed to cover themselves with glory; all too many among them instead behaved like rioters themselves, stopping short of emulating the intruders, paralyzed with fear. All, however, stoked the fires of national fury that resulted in the rampaging mob desecrating Congress.

The FBI had issued a warning notice of the potential for a protest by supporters of Donald Trump which had the capacity to become violent. The recipient of the notice was the U.S. Capitol Police which gave them ample time to take necessary proactive steps before the assault occurred. Unfortunately top officials in charge of Congress security happened not to have noticed the heads-up.

We've seen this before. When there was a lack of communication and therefore warning, between the CIA and the FBI prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.

Two Senate panels studying the failures linked to the January attack on the Capitol building heard testimony that gives no credit to those tasked with the security of the building and protection of its inmates, in particular at a crucial time in the turnover of administrations. They were quite simply unprepared for hundreds of Trump loyalists in tactical gear storming the building.

Conflicting accounts of discussions prior to the assault lingered on whether the National Guard be called in for support and whether to do so would slur the reputation of an open Capitol in injured pride as a free and open democracy, for the American public.

Yet the FBI's Norfolk Virginia office sent out a warning notice the day before giving ample warning that extremists were preparing a violent offence the day to follow, in an effort to stave off the departure of President Trump as Joe Biden prepared to ascend to the presidency and accompanying occupation of the White House.