Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumShould Figliuzzi's Criticism of the Jan 6 Committee Questions Be Heeded As Sept 18 Approaches?
transcript:
FIGLIUZZI: Yes, I was wholly unimpressed with what I heard in the first hearing. And I realize it`s likely just a prelude of what`s to come.
But here`s the bottom line. Try as I might, Lawrence, I cannot make sense out of the security failure that occurred on January 6th. And here`s why. Even when I factor in the very real civil liberties concerns and legal constraints on what law enforcement can and can`t do in monitoring social media and collecting intelligence on U.S. persons, I get that, I factor that in.
Even when I factor in the possibility of political intervention in the planning and later response to the insurrection, and that needs to be investigated.
Even when I do that, I still am faced with a conflict here. We have former chiefs of police and sergeants at arms saying that the intelligence available to them did not indicate a threat in their professional minds.
Yet we know that the intelligence was crystal clear that people were violently going to target the Capitol, and the target was the center of the -- the Capitol was the center of the action that day.
So here`s my conclusion. We seem to collectively have a problem in this country, writ large and in the law enforcement community, with seeing people who look like us as threats even when the threat and intelligence is staring us in the face.
And I want to be clear I`m not saying that these officers, former executives in law enforcement are lying. I`m saying that would be something we could deal with. We have laws against lying to Congress.
I`m saying it`s more disturbing than that. They`re telling us the truth, that when they look at the available intelligence, intelligence that I saw sitting at home of what was being planned and what was going to be executed, they say that wasn`t a threat to them.
And I`m saying collectively the hard question here is why, why not? And when you contrast that on the flip side and say look at the deployment and security presence for Black Lives Matter protests where there was little to no intelligence indicating a threat, you see that disparity.
And you`re left with the conclusion I write about in my article released today that we`ve got a problem seeing ourselves as a threat. And we find it much easier to find people who don`t look like us as a threat even when they`re not.
O`DONNELL: So what`s an example of the way the Congress should focus its questions going forward?
FIGLIUZZI: So we`re going to hear next week, I believe it`s on Tuesday -- we`re going to hear from the federal side. We`re going to hear from active duty FBI and other federal agencies. So we`re likely to hear very valid lessons that we all need to listen to about what they can and can`t do on social media.
You know, this myth that big brother government is listening to everybody and monitoring everything is simply not true. And we don`t want that to be true. But we need to ask those folks why is it that you find these other groups a threat yet the intelligence was so unapparent to you that you just send it casually in an e-mail? We need that answer.
ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)dismissal of the security concerns for the Jan 6 attack.
ancianita
(35,816 posts)enforcement's inertia.
The DOJ is overloaded with cases that law enforcement should have handled on the spot. It's not that Merrick Garland is weak; it's that this country's legal enforcement problems are too big.
The length of time it took to later apprehend the 600 that law enforcement let go on Jan 6 is all on law enforcement, not the DOJ.
Law enforcement just didn't want either the paperwork or the covid exposure.
So Republicans have now gotten the Big Stall they wanted to use to reframe the whole plot to nullify the popular vote.
ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)blame shift from a big money backed attack on the Constitution to failures in law enforcement.
They want failure of government institutions to be blamed, not the people who were calling to overturn the election.
ancianita
(35,816 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 3, 2021, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
cannot yet be understood by children. So they used a lie campaign as their ruse to again stigmatize the last remaining democratic institutional experience of children, and to intimidate higher education.
Sure they want failure, and the way they do it has been the same since the 70's:
1. Defund (e.g., PR against public schools as "in crisis," "failing the nation" )
2. Reform (as in 'deform' remaining functions; create a treadmill of "innovations" by outside managers)
3. Stigmatize (create PR campaigns of the worst failings of schools -- teachers unions, parents, 'criminal' kids & introduce police)
4. Privatize (turn over institutions to corporations -- subcontract military, transportation, schools as 'charters,' etc.
Get the public confused across a generation and then come in as their trumpcult corporate savior. It's the longstanding Koch model. He's quoted by Jane Mayer as saying, "If you don't have the courts, you've got nothing."
ShazamIam
(2,559 posts)ancianita
(35,816 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)with law enforcement in general, and not so much about the specifics of Jan. 6th. Sounds like he wants an investigation on policing in general, which is par for the course. I think most 'experts' that opine about the FBI follow the same pattern. They are critical within certain parameters, and even then there is a 'but'. The response on Jan. 6th was no mistake in intelligence. It was on purpose. Hence the military having the National Guard stand-down. On that day only, the military alone had the power to make that call.
ancianita
(35,816 posts)The military call was all on civilian command that day. Esper and Trump stalled the military's actions, and now want to obscure that.
Biden won't let any of that happen this time. How he deals with the FBI is the question. I hope Figliuzzi has some insider knowledge of what he does.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)the part the FBI has in Jan 6th. I thought they did issue warnings....I seem to remember one of the Capitol Police officers mentioning that....but I could be wrong. I'm more concerned with what others did....like this
It's unclear why the Army denied that Charles Flynn, attended the meeting, in which one official (it's not clear who) described the Capitol rioters as "peaceful" and several officials resisted deploying additional troops. The Army's delay in sending National Guard troops to assist Capitol Police and Washington, D.C. officers who were overrun by the pro-Trump mob has come under increasing scrutiny from lawmakers. National Guard backup did not arrive at the Capitol until nearly four hours after the then-president's supporters had breached the complex, after most of the violence was already over.
===================================
Officials in D.C. called the Army to plead for assistance dealing with the riot. Though the D.C. National Guard had deployed more than 300 troops in advance of the riot, they were limited to traffic control and other unarmed efforts intended to free up police. The teleconference became tense as D.C. Police Chief Robert Contee grew "incredulous at the Army's reluctance to engage," according to the report. Five officials on the call confirmed to the Post that the Army resisted sending in the National Guard because they were "concerned about the visuals" of troops at the Capitol. Contee and then-Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund were "flabbergasted" by the Army's response, according to the report.
https://www.salon.com/2021/01/21/why-did-army-repeatedly-deny-that-michael-flynns-brother-was-involved-in-capitol-riot-response/
ancianita
(35,816 posts)and so everyone in other entities were puzzled, led to act as if they were to have a "big tourist" event, even with all kinds of warnings flying, and then the way other security entities were told to disarm, they were left vulnerable.
The tone of the coup planners was 'no big thing,' while the message in the cult bubble was 'get ready to rumble and stick to The Plan.'
Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)ancianita
(35,816 posts)Evolve Dammit
(16,632 posts)gerrymandering, voter suppression and rage intimidation.
Wild blueberry
(6,543 posts)He is one of our "FBI translators" with long experience in the FBI and a broader perspective.
Thank you.