FBI And DHS Ignored 'Massive Amount' Of Intelligence Before Jan. 6, Senate Says

The first congressional report focusing on intelligence failures by specifically the FBI and DHS, which occurred in the days leading up to, and even on the day of the Jan. 6 capitol riot has been released. There appears to be a great deal of information that was ignored or downplayed, and this continued onto the day of the riot when there was already news reporting and video coverage of the violence, yet the FBI and DHS took no action nor called in any other government agencies, including police departments, to help bring the situation under control and to protect the congress and its staff in the capitol building. The FBI was receiving tips directly from Parler, one of the social media platforms favored by Trump supporters, but did not act on the information.

The new Senate report details how the agencies failed to recognize and warn of the potential for violence ahead of the insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Link

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security downplayed or ignored “a massive amount of intelligence information” ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S Capitol, according to the chairman of a Senate panel that on Tuesday released a new report on the intelligence failures ahead of the insurrection.

The report details how the agencies failed to recognize and warn of the potential for violence as some of then-President Donald Trump’s supporters openly planned the siege in messages and forums online.

Among the multitude of intelligence that was overlooked was a December 2020 tip to the FBI that members of the far-right extremist group Proud Boys planned to be in Washington, D.C., for the certification of Joe Biden’s victory and their “plan is to literally kill people,” the report said. The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee said the agencies were also aware of many social media posts that foreshadowed violence, some calling on Trump’s supporters to “come armed” and storm the Capitol, kill lawmakers or “burn the place to the ground.”

Michigan Sen. Gary Peters, the Democratic chairman of the Homeland panel, said the breakdown was “largely a failure of imagination to see threats that the Capitol could be breached as credible,” echoing the findings of the Sept. 11 commission about intelligence failures ahead of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The report by the panel’s majority staff says the intelligence community has not entirely recalibrated to focus on the threats of domestic, rather than international, terrorism. And government intelligence leaders failed to sound the alarm “in part because they could not conceive that the U.S. Capitol Building would be overrun by rioters.”

Still, Peters said, the reasons for dismissing what he called a “massive” amount of intelligence “defies an easy explanation.”

While several other reports have examined the intelligence failures around Jan. 6 ― including a bipartisan 2021 Senate report, the House Jan. 6 committee last year and several separate internal assessments by the Capitol Police and other government agencies — the latest investigation is the first congressional report to focus solely on the actions of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis.

The inaction of these agencies indeed "defies an easy explanation.” Although the report does not suggest it outright, it sure seems suspect that these agencies in particular sounded no alarm to the local law enforcement agencies or to the National Guard. One explanation by Trump officials was that they didn't want to be accused of overreacting as they had during the DC George Floyd demonstrations. The difference was that the George Floyd protests were peaceful. Yes, there had been arson and other violence over that Memorial Day weekend, but when the crackdown occurred, the protests were all peaceful, as was reported by many news outlets and which included video footage.

Even as the attack was happening, the new report found, the FBI and Homeland Security downplayed the threat. As the Capitol Police struggled to clear the building, Homeland Security “was still struggling to assess the credibility of threats against the Capitol and to report out its intelligence.”

And at a 10 a.m. briefing as protesters gathered at Trump’s speech and near the Capitol were “wearing ballistic helmets, body armor, carrying radio equipment and military grade backpacks,” the FBI briefed that there were “no credible threats at this time.”

The lack of sufficient warnings meant that law enforcement were not adequately prepared and there was not a hardened perimeter established around the Capitol, as there is during events like the annual State of the Union address.

The report contains dozens of tips about violence on Jan. 6 that the agencies received and dismissed either due to lack of coordination, bureaucratic delays or trepidation on the part of those who were collecting it. The FBI, for example, was unexpectedly hindered in its attempt to find social media posts planning for Jan. 6 protests when the contract for its third-party social media monitoring tool expired. At Homeland Security, analysts were hesitant to report open-source intelligence after criticism in 2020 for collecting intelligence on American citizens during racial justice demonstrations.

One tip received by the FBI ahead of the Jan. 6 attack was from a former Justice Department official who sent screenshots of online posts from members of the Oath Keepers extremist group: “There is only one way in. It is not signs. It’s not rallies. It’s f――― bullets!”

The social media company Parler, a favored platform for Trump’s supporters, directly sent the FBI several posts it found alarming, adding that there was “more where this came from” and that they were concerned about what would happen on Jan. 6.

”(T)his is not a rally and it’s no longer a protest,” read one of the Parler posts sent to the FBI, according to the report. “This is a final stand where we are drawing the red line at Capitol Hill. (...) don’t be surprised if we take the #capital (sic) building.”

It seems a lot of excuses given are the same as the ones given post 9/11. However, I would argue that the intelligence failures associated with 9/11 were due to negligence and incompetence, whereas some component of the failures for 1/6 could very well have been due to the political agenda of some agents and officials in the FBI and DHS. This report doesn't even go into the matter of how the Secret Service had all their agents purge their cell phone text message records from Jan 5 and 6, and very soon after Jan. 6 updated there system, and purging their archives of these texts. Just a little bit too convenient.

Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and 6, 2021 – after oversight officials asked for them, watchdog says

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

In becoming less apolitical, various aspects of the government and military have steadily become more unprofessional, which carries the baggage of lessened competence.

Cheers

a reply to: MrInquisitive

You think they failed...lol. They did exactly what they needed to do to not only have more undercover agents and informants implanted feeding intel before during and after. But also used said assets to feed into and guide the events of that day into the event we saw unfold. I followed the recent Proud Boy J6 cases quite closely and the fraction of what publicly came out (knowing good and well that was not even close to all the shady crap that went on) easily shows what really went down. We like to say these government officials and agents are either dumb or incompetent at their jobs a lot...but I contend they are anything but and we just aren't privy to theirs actual goals so to use it appears so. Especially with those in any kind of decision making or leadership role. I have mentioned before I have a family member who runs campaigns for state and local politicians....up to reps and senators. I have seen behind the curtain at that level and its all corrupt as hell bit none of them were dumb and most were very good at using their positions to get what they want.

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: MrInquisitive

You think they failed...lol. They did exactly what they needed to do to not only have more undercover agents and informants implanted feeding intel before during and after. But also used said assets to feed into and guide the events of that day into the event we saw unfold. I followed the recent Proud Boy J6 cases quite closely and the fraction of what publicly came out (knowing good and well that was not even close to all the shady crap that went on) easily shows what really went down. We like to say these government officials and agents are either dumb or incompetent at their jobs a lot...but I contend they are anything but and we just aren't privy to theirs actual goals so to use it appears so. Especially with those in any kind of decision making or leadership role. I have mentioned before I have a family member who runs campaigns for state and local politicians....up to reps and senators. I have seen behind the curtain at that level and its all corrupt as hell bit none of them were dumb and most were very good at using their positions to get what they want.

No, I didn't say I think they failed. I said the so-called "failures" appear to be more than just negligence and incompetence. I have been suspicious of the various LEO agencies since the end of the day of Jan. 6. Congress members had been fearful of something happening, and had most of their staff members stay home, and they said special good-byes to their spouses and children that day. And the slowness with which the National Guard was called out, and the resistance by the Pentagon to call out the National Guard. If I remember right, half of either the Capitol Police or the DC Police weren't on duty that day. Security was meant to fail that day.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Well the sergeant at arms denied assistance offered for the day which reports say Pelosi was involved in. They obviously knew real time what was happening as we found out on trial that they had something like 5 to 10 UC and IC per actual person surveilled. Lord knows what others secret assets involved as the fight just to uncover that much was very protracted and severely hindered by the judge. So not only would the agencies involved know, but Pelosi and the sergeant at arms would know what was set to happen and they refused assistance. Then of course all the video of police waving folks and letting people in and roam free.

Off topic a bit...like I said...I have family that runs political campaigns and that's same part of my family is full of judges now. I have seen behind the curtain of politics and the legal system...and none of it is free of corruption. Some people will be more or less corrupt and willing to play the game....but I've never seen anyone advance anywhere important without being fully willing to play the game. I myself had some old warrants from my early 20s taken care of because when my family member ran a campaign for commonwealth attorney of a town with and outsider he hand picked won...he gained the number 2 role in that office. And because the commonwealth attorney from where I had issues needed a favor...my stuff got sorted. It only scales up from there...at the national level its exponentially bigger.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

Except for Pelosi, who had her daughter there filming for a "documentary" while Nancy and Schumer repeated their scripted lines.

It all happened exactly as they planned.

All of the violence was initiated by the Capital police after their operatives removed barriers and unlocked doors.

a reply to: MrInquisitive
What failure?
They spied on American citizens, within the United States.

Is that not enough?

Or is it illegal to hold political beliefs now???

a reply to: RickyD

What evidence is there that Nancy Pelosi refused extra security for the capitol? I did hear some criticism of the Sergeant at Arms, but forget what that was.


As to another poster suggesting that Pelosi's daughter being there filming a documentary was suspicious, why? It was likely the last time Pelosi would be Speaker of the House when a Democratic president was officially elected by electors. Oh and Pelosi and Schumer were repeating scripted lines, huh? Riiiiight.

The Capitol Police initiated the violence, huh? That is why they were trying to hold doors shut, and keep the rioters out, and were fighting for their lives? And all the rioters breaking in were encouraged to do so, huh? Were you even watching the news footage that day?

And all the hundreds of convictions and guilty pleas by rioters, what are they about? No doubt you'll dismiss them all as kangaroo courts. Yet I have yet to hear any defendant or their lawyer claim the trials were shams.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: MrInquisitive
What failure?
They spied on American citizens, within the United States.

Is that not enough?

Or is it illegal to hold political beliefs now???

Who has said anything about holding political beliefs? We're talking about people who threatened violence against Congress, and many people who took part in the riot. And no, threatening violence is not protected speech. If you bothered to read the excerpts I quoted, there were social media posts encouraging people to come armed to the Capitol. If that is not a red flag for law enforcement, I don't know what is.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: MrInquisitive

Except for Pelosi, who had her daughter there filming for a "documentary" while Nancy and Schumer repeated their scripted lines.

It all happened exactly as they planned.

All of the violence was initiated by the Capital police after their operatives removed barriers and unlocked doors.

Bingo, it went down as planned and was used to try and ensure Trump never came to Washington again. They did impeach him for it. Like everything they do, it was criminal, it failed, and it is coming to light.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

It's funny you see the same things as we do, but interpret them differently. Through the eyes of TDS.

Trump asked for National Gurard to be present. To protect his people.
www.reuters.com...

According to Miller's testimony, Trump asked during that meeting whether the District of Columbia's mayor had requested National Guard troops for Jan. 6, the day Congress was to ratify Joe Biden's presidential election victory.

Trump told Miller to "fill" the request, the former defense secretary testified. Miller said Trump told him: "Do whatever is necessary to protect demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights."

Steve Sund, the chief of Capitol Police asked for national guard to be present. 6 times. and was denied each time.
www.npr.org...

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it.

Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence. He says Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger recommended that he informally request the Guard to be ready in case it was needed to maintain security.

everyone knew the sh!t was going to hit the fan. But the Demorats WANTED this to be exactly what it was. Which makes the whole Ray Epps thing much more interesting, coupled with how many Feds were embedded in the crowd and what were their roles.

You think you can spin this on Trump, but you just provided a platform to show how Pelosi and Shumer were able to orchestrate this.

And if you knew for a fact that was the case, you would applaud it. Because you are sick.

Anyone on social media knew ahead of time that it was not going to be a good day. The chatter leading up was not good.

The day itself was odd. The NG was not in place, nor the decision to override Bowser as was done previously by the President and bring in 5000 fully equipped with air support was not done, which if the claim of optics is accurate, why reduce it down to a measly 300? Then Miller sent those 300 NG away from the Capitol and knee capped them with no equipment and instructions not to interfere with the protesters, which was noted in a memo. The Commander In Chief himself refused to call for assistance for over 3 hours that day. Refused pleading from congress, his family, news hosts, his aides. There is testimony that both Guiliani and Meadows knew it was going to be a wild day before it happened and spoke about it to that effect.

The leadership of the FBI WFO at that time was Jim Jordan's buddy D’antuono, who sent the email stating "there was no credible threat" " There is no information to suggest there will be anything other than protected First Amendment activity".

As you mentioned the deleted SS text. That has now become a criminal investigation.

Something was definitely awry that day. Don't forget the VP flat out refused to get in the car with Tony Ornato. His head of security stated that he said " He's not going with you Tony, you'll take him to Alaska or something". I've never heard of a VP or his security wary of the very people who were supposed to protect him.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

The Jan 6th protests turned out to be a great point of propaganda for the Democrats and one more means for them to try and persecute their political rivals.

The Jan 6th protests haven't helped Donald Trump in any way.

Given the real life outcome of the events; if there was deep state running interference for political gain as you suggest than the FBI and DHS wherr helping Democrats not Donald Trump by ignoring information that a riot might break out.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

The Jan 6th protests turned out to be a great point of propaganda for the Democrats and one more means for them to try and persecute their political rivals.

The Jan 6th protests haven't helped Donald Trump in any way.

Given the real life outcome of the events; if there was deep state running interference for political gain as you suggest than the FBI and DHS wherr helping Democrats not Donald Trump by ignoring information that a riot might break out.

How did it help the Democrats that the FBI and DHS were derelict? The Dems wanted the president officially elected, they didn't want to be threatened with physical violence.

The people here claiming that the Democrats and feds set this up have the same mentality as the Sandy Hook denialists, and it is the same for every other violent event involving alt-right people: "it's all a set-up and a false flag to make alt-right/MAGA people look bad". What a convenient excuse to use over and over again.

For a Contrast at what the Gov considers Threats

Whistleblowers claim FBI wrongfully targeted gun owners, concerned parents

Rep. Massie referenced the House committee's FBI Whistleblower Testimony Highlights Government Abuse, Misallocation of Resources and Retaliation report. The National Desk (TND) obtained a copy of the full report, embedded below.

~

The report concluded the FBI not only invaded Americans' privacy, but they worked with a private banking institution to obtain otherwise confidential records without correct legal process. The House publication continues that Hill's revelation was corroborated by Special Agent-in-Charge Joseph Bonavolanta, who testified separately about his concerns over this same matter.

Priorities are a bit different than one would imagine given past events

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

The Jan 6th protests turned out to be a great point of propaganda for the Democrats and one more means for them to try and persecute their political rivals.

The Jan 6th protests haven't helped Donald Trump in any way.

Given the real life outcome of the events; if there was deep state running interference for political gain as you suggest than the FBI and DHS wherr helping Democrats not Donald Trump by ignoring information that a riot might break out.

How did it help the Democrats that the FBI and DHS were derelict? The Dems wanted the president officially elected, they didn't want to be threatened with physical violence.

The people here claiming that the Democrats and feds set this up have the same mentality as the Sandy Hook denialists, and it is the same for every other violent event involving alt-right people: "it's all a set-up and a false flag to make alt-right/MAGA people look bad". What a convenient excuse to use over and over again.

The number one Propaganda point for the Democrats over the last two years have been the Jan 6th riots. The Democrats have turned those events into a one of their most lucrative campaign assets and they have used it to persecute their political rivals. That is how Jan 6th events have helped the Democrat party.

If what you are suggesting is true; that the FBI and DHS had a part in the Jan 6th riots by willfully ignoring intelligence than the only conclusion can be it was done to help the Democrats who have benefited immensely from the events. No one other than the Democrat have benefited from the Jan 6th riots.

Further still no one but the Democrat party "could" have ever benefited from the riots; there is no direction that the riote could have taken that would have benefited Donald Trump except ending the riots before they even began.

So again if you are correct in your assertion that the FBI and DHS were complicit in the Jan 6th riots and if the only people who could have possibly benefited from the Jan 6th rights is the Democrat party than the logical conclusion is that the FBI and DHS where doing the bidding of the Democrat party.

a reply to: frogs453

I have a feeling we're going to be learning a lot more in the near future. The special counsel has apparently gotten a lot of big names to flip over the past week. The most recent being Rudy, who testified yesterday. They seem to be zeroing in on the January 5th meeting that occurred at the Willard Hotel.

So when some key election counting centers close unusually early while Trump is in the lead, to then have mystery 3am ballot dumps that put Biden in power it is not foreseeable that this going to cause problems. Just forget about all the protests going on in DC up till the Jan 6 congress decision day.

Instead lets just focus on some unsubstantiated rants. The only ones getting shot on jan 6 was the protestors. But hey, it makes a good reason for more big brother snooping and crack down on anyone that disagrees with a government policy and has an emotional outburst about it.

it all fits with the current political standard.

a reply to: network dude

First off, Miller was an unconfirmed acting Sec of Def., who Trump appointed very late in his term.

Second, according to the article, Miller said that Trump told him to have NG in Washington that day, but he didn't do so. You don't find that odd?

Moreover, that article you cite is very short and lean on details.

Here's an article that contradicts the article you cited.

Former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller told the House select committee investigating the Capitol Hill insurrection that former President Donald Trump never gave him a formal order to have 10,000 troops ready to be deployed to the Capitol on January 6, 2021, according to new video of Miller’s deposition released by the committee.

“I was never given any direction or order or knew of any plans of that nature,” Miller said in the video.

Miller later said in the video definitively, “There was no direct, there was no order from the President.”

Trump has previously said that he requested National Guard troops be ready for January 6. He released a statement on June 9 that he “suggested & offered” up to 20,000 National Guard troops be deployed to Washington, DC, ahead of January 6 claiming it was because he felt “that the crowd was going to be very large.”

The committee released Miller’s testimony after already revealing that Trump did not make calls to military personnel or law enforcement to intervene as the Capitol attack was unfolding. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the committee that he never received a call from Trump as the attack as unfolding.

Trump’s defense secretary denies there were orders to have 10K troops ready to deploy on January 6

Don't know how to reconcile these two supposed versions of testimony by Miller. Here, however, is an article that does, which says he has contradicted his public remarks and prior testimony.

Trump’s former defence secretary contradicts own sworn Jan 6 testimony

Donald Trump’s former acting defence secretary contradicted his previous remarks about his former boss lodging a formal request to have more than 10,000 troops deployed to the Capitol on 6 January 2021, according to a video released by the committee investigating the riot.

In the caption to the tweet sharing the video, the committee states: “To remove any doubt: Not only did Donald Trump fail to contact his Secretary of Defense on January 6th (as shown in our hearing), Trump also failed to give any order prior to January 6 to deploy the military to protect the Capitol.”

The testimony that the former defence secretary made upsets a narrative of the events on Jan 6 that has been touted by Trump-loyalists and the president himself, not to mention Mr Miller’s own public remarks and under oath testimonies.

So Miller has contradicted his own testimony and prior public remarks. Can't really trust him one way or the other.

As for what Sund said, that was during in an interview. He did testify, and said that he contacted both the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate, but they both declined requesting the NG be called out. I know Pelosi demanded the House SaA resign, which he did. Don't know about the Senate SaA.

I do agree with you and folk on your side of the aisle that how the security was handled for Jan. 6 stunk to high heaven; however, we disagree for the reasons why.

And as for what Pelosi said/did regarding National Guard troops:

Fact Check: Did Pelosi Reject Trump’s Request for National Guard Troops on January 6?

The claim that Pelosi rejected Trump’s request for a National Guard presence on January 6 is false.

“The speaker of the House does not have the power to block an order from the commander in chief,” Drew Hammil, deputy chief of staff for Pelosi, told The Dispatch Fact Check via email. “This is fiction.”

Josh Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute, similarly told The Dispatch Fact Check that “the speaker does not have control of any branch of the armed services.”

“The National Guard can only be activated by the president or a governor,” Huder added. “In the case of D.C., it can only be mobilized by the president of the United States.”

A statement from Ryan McCarthy, secretary of the Army under Donald Trump, on the “National Guard response to timing and coordination with other States,” does not mention Trump’s request for a National Guard presence, nor does it mention anything about Pelosi rejecting the alleged request.

The MAGA crowd like to claim Pelosi rejected the NG, but for some reason they don't mention Mitch McConnell, who was the Senate Majority Leader at the time. Seems he would be as responsible for the Capitol's security as the Speaker of the House.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

Trump supporters like to talk about the deep state that was after Trump. It appears there was indeed a deep state element, but it was running interference for Trump in the days leading up to, and the day of the capitol riot.

The Jan 6th protests turned out to be a great point of propaganda for the Democrats and one more means for them to try and persecute their political rivals.

The Jan 6th protests haven't helped Donald Trump in any way.

Given the real life outcome of the events; if there was deep state running interference for political gain as you suggest than the FBI and DHS wherr helping Democrats not Donald Trump by ignoring information that a riot might break out.

How did it help the Democrats that the FBI and DHS were derelict? The Dems wanted the president officially elected, they didn't want to be threatened with physical violence.

The people here claiming that the Democrats and feds set this up have the same mentality as the Sandy Hook denialists, and it is the same for every other violent event involving alt-right people: "it's all a set-up and a false flag to make alt-right/MAGA people look bad". What a convenient excuse to use over and over again.

The number one Propaganda point for the Democrats over the last two years have been the Jan 6th riots. The Democrats have turned those events into a one of their most lucrative campaign assets and they have used it to persecute their political rivals. That is how Jan 6th events have helped the Democrat party.

If what you are suggesting is true; that the FBI and DHS had a part in the Jan 6th riots by willfully ignoring intelligence than the only conclusion can be it was done to help the Democrats who have benefited immensely from the events. No one other than the Democrat have benefited from the Jan 6th riots.

Further still no one but the Democrat party "could" have ever benefited from the riots; there is no direction that the riote could have taken that would have benefited Donald Trump except ending the riots before they even began.

So again if you are correct in your assertion that the FBI and DHS were complicit in the Jan 6th riots and if the only people who could have possibly benefited from the Jan 6th rights is the Democrat party than the logical conclusion is that the FBI and DHS where doing the bidding of the Democrat party.

Sure, the Democrats have made hay of the Jan. 6 riot, who can blame them. But that in no way is evidence that they were hoping such a situation would happen. Who said no one else could've benefited from the riot? Who told the crowd at his speech to go down to the Capitol and tell Congress not to install the other guy as president? That was Trump. He wanted to stop the validation of the election and attempt to throw the result into further limbo. There is testimony that he sat around for three hours in the WH watching the riot, enjoying it and refusing to call in the National Guard. Your inability to acknowledge his benefiting from the direct action of the riot shows your extreme bias. Claiming the Democrats were behind it because they thought it might help them down the road is a big stretch. The direct benefactor of the riot, if it succeeded was Trump.