Skip to main content

tv   Former Acting Attorney General Defense Secretary Testify on January 6...  CSPAN  July 9, 2021 8:01pm-12:52am EDT

8:01 pm
the attack. it's followed by president biden signing an executive order today and the promoting competition in the u.s. economy. then donald trump, jr. speaks at the conservative political action conference in dallas. later, a review of the supreme court's most recent turn from a constitution -- the national constitution center. >> 2 former trump administration officials appeared before the house oversight committee back in may to answer questions about their actions during the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. former acting defense secretary christopher miller told lawmakers he stood by every decision he made that day." former acting attorney general jeffrey rosen shared a similar view, stating the justice department "acted with the utmost integrity and urgency." d.c. police chief robert contee was also at the hearing.
8:02 pm
>> it was harrowing and heartbreaking. of our democracy we are familiar with as our own homes was overrun by a mob bent on murdering the vice president and members of congress. their 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 near feet from the house floor.
8:03 pm
the cause of this horrific attack, for private citizens died, three police officers lost their lives. had it not been for the heroic men and women of law enforcement based down the mob, there would have been 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 inciting violence as a government of the united states. to quote senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. "there is no question, none, that president trump is morally responsible for provoking the events that day." but the failures of january 6 go beyond the lies and provocations of one man. the federal government was
8:04 pm
unprepared for this insurrection. even though it was planned in plain sight on social media for the world to see. and despite 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 capital was overrun. it is our duty to understand what went wrong that day. to seek accountability, and take action to present this -- prevent this from ever happening again. we are joined today by the chief of d.c. metropolitan police department, robert contee. on january 6, he and his officers did not hesitate to answer the call. over 800 d.c. police officers voluntarily rushed to the aid of the capital.
8:05 pm
d.c. police stood side-by-side with capitol police and displayed tremendous heroic actions. chief contee, we are in your debt. willingness to testify today. former acting general jeffrey rosen led the department of justice, reportedly designated as the lead federal agency for coordinating security in washington on january 6th. the potential for violence that day was clear. in december, the new york police department warned the fbi that certain protesters used it as an opportunity for violent revolt.
8:06 pm
then again on january 5, the fbi office in virginia warned that extremists were discussing specific calls for violence against congress on january 6th. including a message to go there ready for war. the justice department and fbi have a special duty to warn of a domestic terrorist threat, 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 failed to adequately prepare for violence because it had a blind spot or a right wing domestic terrorism? as the lead agency on january 6th, why did the justice
8:07 pm
department fail to coordinate an effective and timely response to the attack on the capital? we simply do not know. in part, because neither doj nor the fbi have produced a single piece of paper in response to the request 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 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'm pleased to announce he has agreed to appear before
8:08 pm
this committee in june. i look forward to his testimony then. our final guest today is christopher miller. he led the department of defense on january 6. when the capitol building came under siege, the capitol police were badly outnumbered. the world looked to the department of defense to protect our government from the attack. yet dod did not authorize the deployment of d.c. national guard troops until nearly 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."
8:09 pm
dod's explanations of its own actions have failed to address critical questions. why did military leader's place unusual restrictions on commanders on the ground? mr. miller says he first learned the mob had entered the capitol between 1:00 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. so why did the defense department wait until after 5:00 p.m. before sending the national guard to the capital. today's hearing at the end of our investigation, this committee with other committees will seek a full accounting of this attack. the inspector of the capitol, this oversight is essential. but we also need bipartisan
8:10 pm
commission focused on investigating the root cause 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 nations security and intelligence operations, and congress followed through in a bipartisan way, passing legislation to implement most of the 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
8:11 pm
big lie and violent insurrection that it inspired. no member of congress, whether a freshman representative or house conference chair should face punishment for seeking -- speaking the truth about what happened that day. as congresswoman cheney said last night, "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 6th and say never again. i now recognize the distinguished ranking member for
8:12 pm
an opening statement. i yield back. >> thank you, madam chair. what happened on january 6th at the u.s. capitol is unacceptable. those who committed crimes must be held accountable. the justice department is actively working to do just that. as of april 16, 410 defendants have been arrested. their names, charges, and place of arrest are listed on doj's website. the charges include assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, some of which used a deadly or dangerous weapon, some charged with conspiracy. others charged with trespassing on federal property. the fbi continues to seek perpetrators of crimes committed on january 6th. the fbi's website is filled with pictures, 866 photos and videos of individuals being sawed in connection with the events on january 6th.
8:13 pm
less than a week after the attack, i joined ranking members rodney davis and john cap in introducing a bill for bipartisan commission to investigate the facts and circumstances related to the attack. the commission would also identify, review, and evaluate lessons learned 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 6th attack. until last week, speaker pelosi refused to entertain and 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't control, the security at
8:14 pm
the capitol, speaker pelosi, chairwoman maloney, and other democrats have wrong 1 -- wrongly targeted perceived conservative technology companies for the role they may have played in this violence. in looking at the facts, it is clear facebook, twitter, and other big tech company platforms were used to organize this violence. the fbi and doj 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
8:15 pm
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 the crime ballots and mob tactics. this was on january 6th, and it 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 speaker pelosi and democrats refuse to examine the political violence americans witnessed on television every night last
8:16 pm
summer. according to one report, 25 americans died during the 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. no wonder america things congress is broken. we can't ignore acts of violence and use others for political gain, which is what we are doing today. this is unbecoming of americans,
8:17 pm
elected representatives in congress. the justice system must work its course to hold violent offenders accountable. congress must examine the january 6 attack and 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 construct examination of missteps that occurred on january 6, and strategies for guarding against these errors in the future. 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 past several months. our law enforcement who put their lives on the line for us each and every day deserve better. they deserve strong and decisive leadership. i will close by thanking them and remembering the following. may god bless them and their
8:18 pm
families. that, i yield back. >> i would now like to introduce the witnesses that will testify today. the first is christopher miller, former acting secretary of defense, and who served in that role of january 6. then we will hear from jeffrey rosen, the former acting attorney general. he also served in that role on january 6th. we will hear from robert contee, the chief of the metropolitan police department and district of columbia. the witnesses will be un-muted so we can swear them in. raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
8:19 pm
without objection your written statements will be made part of the record. you are now recognized for your testimony. mr. miller. >> chairwoman and members of this committee. the january 6th, 2021 attack was unconscionable. i am grateful for the opportunity to provide needed context and insight to this committee about the events that day and what i will believe is your military's response. this is long overdue. i would like to express my thanks to the first responders who tried to contain the mob and defend the capitol complex and individuals there. they are true heroes. that word is often overused but not in this case. as we assess the response we should not lose sight of the brave actions that day. i served as the acting secretary of defense that day and
8:20 pm
ultimately responsible to support local and federal agencies who had primary responsibility to safeguard the vice president, members of congress in the capitol complex. i served in the army for over 30 years, including service in the district of columbia army national guard, and units with responsibility protecting washington dc i lead soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in urban environments following -- environments. following my retirement as a colonel, i had a variety of positions including national national security council, where i focused on defeating al qaeda and retooling the government to address the challenge of domestic terrorism. unanimously confirmed to serve as the director of national counterterrorism center. november 9, 2020, designated as acting secretary of defense and served in that position until the new administration took office.
8:21 pm
i'm now a private citizen. i have remained focused on supporting the armed forces veterans and their families. those events leading up to january 6th -- on december 31, d.c. mayor bowser sent a request seeking and armed national guard support to the district of columbia metropolitan pd for planned demonstration scheduled for five and six of january. i approved the request on january 4, 2021. we received no further request or additional support until the capitol was breached. i want to highlight, you said in my opening statement -- i want to clarify. between 1:00 and 1:30, i noticed the outer perimeter was breached. not the capitol itself. i know sometimes it's difficult
8:22 pm
to understand that is one of our purposes of a hearing today, we need to get the lexicon straight. during that time, there was irresponsible commentary about a possible military coup, that advisors of the president were -- martial law. i was also very cognizant of the fears and concerns about the prior use of the military in the june 2020 response protest near the white house. just before the electoral college certification, 10 former secretaries of defense signed an op-ed warning of the dangers politicizing and inappropriately using the military. no such thing was going to occur on my watch, but these concerns and hysteria nonetheless factored into my decisions regarding the appropriate and limited use of our armed forces to support civilian law enforcement during the electoral college certification. my obligation to the nation was to prevent a constitutional crisis. historically, military responses
8:23 pm
to domestic protests have resulted in violations of american civil rights, even in the case of the kent state protest, the vietnam war tragic death. i fervently believe the military should not be utilized in such a scenario other than as a last resort, and only when all other assets had been expended. on january 6th, 2021, 8000 local federal law enforcement officers were on duty in the district of columbia. i was told during planning such an that such -- session that such a force routinely manages demonstrations and 100,000 demonstrators. that is what they are trained, equipped, and expected to do. many mischaracterized my instructions, and the secretaries -- guidance somehow contributed to the inability of the guard to respond, or even worse, 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.
8:24 pm
the request for the mayor was for unarmed support for local law enforcement. we authorized the support she in -- and general walker requested. at about 2:30, it became clear local law enforcement personnel were insufficient to address the situation. the department of defense would be required to play a much larger role to reestablish order and maintain security in washington, d.c. 3:00 p.m., i approved the mobilization of the full district of columbia national guard, capitol police, and metropolitan police department. at 5:20 p.m., national guard personnel arrived at the capitol and began operations to support domestic law enforcement. order was restored by 8:00 p.m. that evening the a look torah college votes were certified. those of you with military experience to understand the nature of military deployments would recognize how rapid our response was. criticism of the military response unfounded and
8:25 pm
inexperience, or lack of understanding the nature of military operations, or worse, is simply the result of politics. i suspect a combination of both of these factors. the complexities to redeploying forces in an urban environment, and disregard of subordinate role of the military must play in rare instances it is necessary to use such force to support domestic law enforcement agencies. this isn't a videogame where you can move forces -- or a movie, where you go over those logistical challenges in the time required to coordinate and synchronize with the multitude of other entities involved. or complying with the important legal requirements involved with use of such force. i have been in more crisis situations than i can meaningfully recall. i personally have been in riots, fistfights, brawls, gunfights, mortars, rockets, and as a leader, i have commanded forces engaged in the most complex and hazardous military activities
8:26 pm
and operations known to humankind. good leaders slowed things down to plan and brief soldiers, ultimately saving time and lives. assembling soldiers, equipping them correctly, conducting abbreviated planning sessions, briefing those involved with the task, purpose, and rules engaged, coordinating and synchronizing domestic agencies on the ground to guarantee the national guard's movements reported their efforts. the assembly point to the appropriate location and deputizing them by a civilian law enforcement official prior to employing them. this is not a near symbolic exercise. it all takes time. i also had responsibility to members of our armed forces and their families to make sure 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
8:27 pm
poor planning or execution. our arrival needed to impress upon the mob situation and fundamentally change -- discipline, organize, and overwhelming strength so the balance of power 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 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 and joint chiefs of staff, the military is -- response that day, responded at "print speed." i stand by every decision i made on january 6th and the following days. i want to emphasize our nations armed forces are to be deployed for domestic law enforcement
8:28 pm
only when all civilian assets are expended, and only as an absolute last resort. to use it for domestic law enforcement in any other manner is contrary to the constitution and a threat to the republic i ask you to consider the response in congress if i had unilaterally deployed thousands of troops into washington, d.c. that morning against the express wishes of the mayor and the capitol police, who indicated they were prepared. i know that the brave law enforcement officers serving on the front lines on january 6th, 2021 did their best to protect the capitol, and individuals, many in this hearing today, were in harm's way for a long mob acting nearly two and a half centuries of peaceful and respectful transfer of power. an enormously proud of these national guard soldiers an airman who answered the call on january 6th, and in the
8:29 pm
subsequent weeks, supported domestic law enforcement and our constitution. watching them, talking to them, listening to them, and supporting them as best as i could remain a high points of my term as acting secretary of defense. they are america's treasure and our true patriots. we must be worthy of their self-service and sacrifice. thank you. >> thank you. mr. rosen you are now recognized for your testimony. mr. rosen: good morning. my name is jeff rosen. from december 24, 2020, to january 20 of this year, i had the honor of serving as the acting attorney general of the u.s. i appreciate this opportunity to discuss the actions by the department of justice on january 6 to restore order at the
8:30 pm
capitol and enable the completion of congress is 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 capital, 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. to all of you and your staff who lived through that day, i share the justified anger at what you endured. 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 a violent mob. i said in my written testimony
8:31 pm
the department of justice prepared appropriately in the period before january 6 and i am 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 capital. that included the number two officials from doj and fbi, personally going to the rotunda while the intrusion was still underway. all of these outstanding men and women from doj worked with urgency to assist the capitol police in the midst of an unprecedented security breach and helped to clear and secure the hallowed epicenter of our representative government. as to holding the wrongdoers accountable, i am extremely proud of the swift action taken
8:32 pm
thereafter by doj personnel and the fbi and the d.c. u.s. attorney's office to investigate and 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 what i know about the january 6 events in light of my prior role at the doj. 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 and the legislative branch came under attack on january 6. the violence that occurred at the capitol on the afternoon of january 6 could never -- should never be repeated as a society -- repeated.
8:33 pm
we need to restore greater respect for our constitution, representative form of government, and employ the role of law. i look forward to your questions about january 6. there are 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 am sure for all of us, there are some aspects that are seared in memory and others that have become a blur. i can authorized by the department of justice to testify here today only on certain topics within the scope of today's hearing. i am bound as a lawyer and the former cabinet officer, the executive branch, to maintain
8:34 pm
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 i will do my best to address the events of january 6 as i saw them. with that, thank you for inviting me today and i look forward to your questions. >> the gentleman yields back and our next appointed speaker is mr. contee. chief contee: good morning, ranking member comer and members of the committee. 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 important that we, members
8:35 pm
of congress, district leaders, and representatives and all-americans find answers to questions about this. i would like to use the facts as we know them at this time based on the point of the metropolitan police department and the government of the district of columbia. as with any example of multiple agencies, thousands of people, there were inevitably several perspectives and possibly inconsistencies that will need to be aligned as more information is gathered. i would like to get key facts to ensure the committee understand the different roles and the district of columbia including mpd and those congressional authorities. first, mpd is prohibited from entering the capital -- capitol to patrol, make arrests, or serve warrants without the request of the capitol police
8:36 pm
board. second, unlike any other jurisdiction in the country, the president of the united states, not the mayor of the d.c., controls the d.c. national guard. any request submitted by the maybury -- mayor must be approved by the president and the scope of the request must be limited to supporting the district's role and doris diction and authority, which excludes federal entities. a request for the guard assistance at the capital would have to be made by capitol police with the consent of the department of defense. third, a public health emergency was declared 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 partners with the first amendment selling -- assembly on federal land while continuing to
8:37 pm
patrol and respond to calls for service throughout city neighborhoods. in preparation for the anticipated demonstration and the possibility of violence on city streets, the department was deployed for 12 hour shifts the week of january 4. our federal partners, each at their primary areas of responsibility, the secret service was focused on the security of the former president. our police was focused on the ellipse and capitol police have responsibility for the capitol, including the building and grounds. in advance of the demonstration, mutual aid was requested from several police departments to be on standby in the district in 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
8:38 pm
assembly and continue to provide services to d.c. neighborhoods. what followed with his -- was an outline of mpd's role. at 12:45 p.m., the first pipe bombs were found. the first at the republican national committee headquarters. the second was 30 minutes later it found at the democratic national committee headquarters. mpd responded to assist the capitol police. at 12:58 p.m., the chief asked for the assistance to address the mob at the capital. officers were on the route to deployed to the west front of the capital coed and arrived within minutes. the violent mob avoided protective measures prior to the arrival of the mpd officers. they began working to achieve our objectives. stopping people from entering the capitol building and removing those inside.
8:39 pm
securing a perimeter to the capitol could be cleared for lawmakers. enable congress to demonstrate to our country and the world that our democracy was still intact. lastly, only once the third objective has been accomplished, the making arrests of anyone violating the law. at 2:20 2 p.m., a call was convened with myself and capitol police and the d.c. national guard and the department of the army. on this call, the capitol police chief made a request for support from the national guard due to the dire situation. 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.. for seven hours, between the call for help from the capitol police to mpd and the resumption of work at 8 p.m., will be
8:40 pm
etched in the memory of every law enforcement officer who was on the scene and it is undoubtedly in the minds of the elected officials, congressional staffs, and other capitol employees forced to seek safety behind locked doors. other harm from this day will be felt but possibly unacknowledged. law enforcement training anticipates hours of hand-to-hand combat. even brief physical fights are draining. i appreciate the opportunity to highlight the help of the empty -- mpd officers and all law enforcement officers who responded to the capitol to protect the capitol, congress, and our democracy. to ensure the continued safety of the district and its residents. mpd officers and others, we
8:41 pm
must be frank at looking at several issues. the federal police force is re-examining their security protocols given foreign and domestic terrorism. as achieve of the municipal police force, i would think about our preparation for possible attacks and the daily impacts of the changing operations of our federal partners. if they were not targets, other buildings under mpd jurisdiction may have been targeted. thank you again for the opportunity. i will be happy to answer questions as we try to come to terms with january 6. rep. maloney: when vice president pence, speaker pelosi, and other congresspeople had to be evacuated because of violent
8:42 pm
mob had breached the capitol january 6. you the acting secretary of defense on it -- generally six, mr. miller. does president trump -- did president trump call you during the january 6 attack to ensure the capitol with secure? mr. miller. mr. miller: no, i had all the authority i needed from the president to fulfill my constitutional duty. rep. maloney: did you speak with president trump at all as the attack was unfolding? mr. miller: on january 6? rep. maloney: yep. mr. miller: no, i did not. i did not need to. i knew it had to happen. rep. maloney: did you speak with vice president pence during the attack? mr. miller: yes. rep. maloney: according to a defense department timeline, it was the vice president and not president trump who called during the speech -- siege to say the capitol was not secure
8:43 pm
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 did not direct me to the capitol. he is not in the chain of command. i discussed the situation. he provided insights and i notified him or warned him that by that point, the district of columbia national guard was fully mobilized and incoordination local and federal law enforcement to assist in clearing the capital. rep. maloney: according to the dod timeline it, the vice president's call occurred at four: oh 8 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 vice president pentz at 4:32 p.m. that you authorized d.c. national guard troops to deployed to the capital. did you issue your order in
8:44 pm
response to the vice president's call? mr. miller: no, i issued it to mobilize the district of columbia national guard to provide all necessary support to civilian and local and federal law enforcement at 3 p.m. and the order was issued at 3:04 p.m.. rep. maloney: your order to deploy came 24 minutes after the vice president called you. your testimony is they are unrelated? do i have that right? mr. miller: you will have to say that again. rep. maloney: is hard for me to believe but i will move on. mr. miller: i have one other question. rep. maloney: excuse me. let me turn to you, mr. rosen. 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?
8:45 pm
mr. rosen: i did not. i did not. i do not require any authorities that the department do not already have. rep. maloney: well, i think that the lack of direct communication from president trump speaks volumes. didn't he swear an oath to protect the constitution and to faithfully execute his duties as commander-in-chief? his supporters attacked our nation's capitol. he was nowhere to be found. he left it to others to scramble to respond. i would like to close with a few simple questions. this to rozen, you were the head of the justice department on january 6. do you believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen it president trump? -- from president trump? mr. rosen: i addressed that issue in my statement and don't have anything other than that
8:46 pm
but to say there was no evidence presented of widespread fraud of a sufficient scale to overturn the election. rep. 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. rosen: yes. rep. maloney: 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 his constitutional duty. my time has expired and i now recognize the gentleman from arizona, mr. gose r. -- mr. gosar. rep. gosar: the fbi is fishing
8:47 pm
for homes of veterans and citizens with no criminal record and restricting the liberties of individuals that have never been accused of a crime. mr. biden caused january 6 the worth -- worst attack since the civil war. a president was impeached for his role in that riot. it was reported early, totally unconfirmed, that an armed insurrection " beat a police officer to death with a virus signature." the government has enlisted americans to turn in fellow neighbors. a federal prosecutor continued shock and all strategy. any of my democratic colleagues opposed the shock and all strategy in iraq. we should oppose its application
8:48 pm
against american citizens. mr. rosen, do you claim the doj would "spare no resources." did the doj confiscate any firearms from suspects charged the with breaching the capitol on january 6? mr. rosen: as i alluded to in my opening remarks, there are limitations about pending investigations. rep. gosar: i will ask a question of people who can answer it from the fbi. the answer is no. here are the firearms from suspects charged with breaching the capitol. was the officer killed by rioters with a fire extinguisher? mr. rosen: congressman, the officer was there acting in the line of duty and went into harm's way and i think as others
8:49 pm
have said, he acted as one of many heroes on that day. rep. gosar: he did her broglie but he died of natural causes. -- heroically but he died of natural causes. he was the single individual at or outside the capitol on january 6. have they been stride with insurrection? mr. rosen: if you are asking me about charges being investigated , i can't addresses. rep. gosar: not a single person has been charged with insurrection to my knowledge. do you recall the name of the young lady, a veteran wrapped in an american flag, who was killed in the u.s. capitol? mr. rosen: idea. her name was ashli babbitt. rep. gosar: was she armed? mr. rosen: i need to be respectable of your observations
8:50 pm
and i don't want to talk about individual situations. rep. gosar: you're wasting my time. no she wasn't. was her death a homicide? mr. rosen: congressman, i am not trying to be unhelpful. rep. gosar: i understand by your cutting my time. the death certificate says it is a homicide. mr. rosen: congressman, i will have to say the same thing. i don't want to get into -- rep. gosar: thank you very much. chief contee, what of the rules of engagement at the d.c. protests? chief contee: at d.c. protests, sir? we engaged in situations where there was an attack on officers. rep. gosar i: appreciate you and thank you for your service.
8:51 pm
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. write enabler. washington state representative objected to the electors in 2016 without the required support of senators. he filed an ethics of plate -- complaint against me for following the law. she herself failed that in 2016. 33 of my democratic colleagues speculated republican members of congress gave reconnaissance towards to protesters offering no proof whatsoever. i have asked for the capitol footage from before and during january 6. they could contain exculpatory evidence regarding the
8:52 pm
accusations against congresspeople and will exonerate americans who never set foot in the capitol. wouldn't you agree the security breaching of a public building of public officials, paid for by taxpayers, containing exculpatory evidence should be provided to public defenders? chief contee: i'm going to have to refer to my opening remarks. rep. gosar: i believe the public should see that footage. madame chairwoman, i and the american people commend you for holding this hearing. if my democratic colleagues want the truth, they would demand the release of the surveillance footage it's -- footages. i your back. rep. maloney: the gentleman yields back. i recognize the yellow -- gentlewoman from the district of columbia. your recognize for five minutes. mr. norton: thank you very much. i very much appreciate you holding this hearing so we can bring out the role of the
8:53 pm
respective parties and i appreciate, madam chair, that you phrased the role of the police eat -- played the role of the d.c. police department which needs to come out at this hearing. my questions are for chief co ntee, who eliminated that role in his testimony. as you noted, the mpd, 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 ay, of congresspeople and employees and i would say of democracy itself. it should be noted --
8:54 pm
[laughter] --they have been paid by republicans who voted unanimously against idc statehood bill, which is moving quite well notwithstanding. the district meets all the traditional elements that congress has considered and admitting new states. surely the role of the mpd on january 6 supports a bill for d.c. statehood. chief contee, i would like to ask you about two bills which can be implemented without statehood. by national guard act would give the d.c. mayor control over the d.c. national guard. we know the governor of the states and even of the territories control their
8:55 pm
national guards. but the president controls the d.c. national guard. if the d.c. mayor, chief contee, had control of 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. del. norton: 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. home rural act would repeal the president's authority to defederalize the
8:56 pm
d.c. police department. the president does not have the authority to federalize any other states or local police departments. 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. del. norton: whose authority and whose hand it -- chief contee: the mayor of the district of columbia. del. norton: it is 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
8:57 pm
federalize the d.c. police department. i believe the events of january 6 seller completely and i thank you and yelled back. rep. maloney: where recognizing the gentleman from georgia, mr. heise. he is recognized for five minutes. rep. heise: i would like to take time to comment. let's see. let me need this. there we go. i would like to take time to comment on how the media and the many democrats have put forth a narrative that has been circulating around since january 6 and it 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
8:58 pm
yourself don't speak the truth as to what president trump actually stated. what he said on the morning of january 6, he said i know everyone of you will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voice is today. madame 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 to the best we have been able to gather in the ballpark, he began his speech at noon. violent protesters starting arriving at the capitol at 12:45. the location where the president started his speech, where the speech took place, it is a 45 minute walk from allocation to
8:59 pm
the capitol. if the individuals who were at the speech were involved, they would have had to leave for president trump even started his speech. he started speaking at 12:00, 12: 45, the violent protesters arrived at the capitol. around 1:00, the capitol was overrun and there were efforts to make a call to the national guard. between 1:10 and 1:15, president trump and his speech and tells attendees to peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard at the capitol. about 1:50, the capital co. is breached. it would have been 2:00 before the earliest attendees of trump speech could have arrived at the capitol. so the capitol is attacked shortly after the president begins his speech. it is breached before
9:00 pm
individuals could have gotten there. where is the real narrative in all of that? another narrative i want to bring up is the media claims the tragic death of officer brian sicknick was a result of pro-trump mobs dashing his skull with a fire at signature. we all know now that did not happen. officer sicknick, his autopsy revealed he suffered no blunt trauma. his mother has come out saying he died of a stroke. in fact, it was trump's supporters who lost their lives that day. not truck supporters who were taking the lives of others. you go down the list here. ashli babbitt was shot and killed by capitol police officer. kevin greeson suffered a heart attack. rosanne boyland reportedly was crushed by rioters. and benjamin phillips died of a stroke.
9:01 pm
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 have something that was sent to me by an individual who was present. he said it was a beautiful day. faithful support for free elections. when agitators rolled in and began to form a different agenda, i can see their spirits was not the same. there were forceful and angry. they were physically disguised. they could not disguise their spirits. they had tactical gear, walkie-talkies, gas masks, and a plan. i was coast -- close and got teargas. i saw them from six feet away. make no mistake about it. i was there. we confirmed reports of buses from individuals rolling up your where is the information about these individuals who rolled up?
9:02 pm
we solve reports of john sullivan on cnn disguising himself as a reporter, which he does not. he later found out she was the founder of insurgent usa. it 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 the mayor is not here today. i have a letter from her urging no support from the national guard. she wanted it for crowd control rather than stopping it the incidents 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 we get to the truth and start telling the truth and stop creating a narrative that is untrue and misleading to the
9:03 pm
american people. i yield back. rep. maloney: the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, is recognized for five minutes. rep. lynch: i think the chair for having this hearing. i find it hard to believe the revisionist history offered by my colleagues on the others. it is not a 45 minute walk from the ellipse to the capitol. you would think the gentleman has probably taken that walk himself several times. several blocks. so it just collapses the entire scenario he has put forth. mr. miller, i live near the capital and on january 5 and generally six, i had the opportunity to walk through the
9:04 pm
crowds. they gathered on the fifth and grew considerably during the six geared -- sixth. my observation was the crowds on the fifth, january 5, or peaceful. i walked in and among them. then again, on the morning of the six. 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 speech and how the crowd changed, the mood of the crowd changed after those remarks. in addition to what he said about initially a peaceful protest, also in the same remarks that the gentleman from
9:05 pm
the -- georgia neglected to repeat his he said you better get up to the capitol or fight -- and fight like hell or you will not have a country anymore. that is when the mood changed in the crowd. you had some opportunity to comment on that. let me ask you, mr. miller. you have already done this in an interview with vice, but before president trump speech, do you think anyone would have marched on the capitol and tried to overrun the capital without the president's remarks? i know you have answered this question several times but i would like you to answer it for the committee. mr. miller: i think i would like to modified my original assessment. [laughter] >> i'm not surprised. mr. miller: we are getting more information by the day, by the
9:06 pm
minute about what happened. to highlight some other observations that were made, it is clear now there were -- although we will find out through the department of justice process the legal system, it seems clear there was some sort of conspiracy where there were organized assault elements that intended to assault the capitol that day. rep. lynch: i'm asking you the same question as before. did the president's remarks and site members to march -- the crop to march on the capital? mr. miller: he offered they should march on the capitol. it goes without saying his statement resulted in that. rep. lynch: let me share what you said before. "would anybody have marched on the capitol and tried to overrun
9:07 pm
the capital without the president's speech? i think it is definitive that would not have happened." mr. miller: i think now i would say -- it was not a factor at all. i would like to offer -- reassess, it is not the unitary factor at all. it seems clear there was an organized conspiracy with assault elements. rep. lynch: in your original testimony before today, proclaiming my time, for your written testimony for today, -- this morning --you stated the following. i personally believe his comments encourage the protesters that day. so this is --this is a recent reversal of your testimony. mr. miller: absolutely not. that is ridiculous. rep. lynch: you are ridiculous. mr. miller: thank you for your thought.
9:08 pm
rep. lynch: proclaiming nighttime. he said the question is did you think -- no he was enraging the people? i understand your reluctance to try to portray what was in the president's mind. on multiple occasions, your testimony, both written and oral, you said, without the president speech, people would have not marched on the capitol and try to overrun it. you wrote, this morning, i believe his comments encouraged the president that day. do you understand 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
9:09 pm
you came before the committee today? rep. maloney: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. miller: there is a difference between marching on the capitol and assaulting the capital. that is the delineation on trying to make this partisan attack that was objected to. rep. maloney: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> i think that made a lot of sense, the timeframe. i am trying to understand, first of all, we should've had somebody from the capitol police board to testify. we have these pipe bomb's that chief contee had replaced at the
9:10 pm
headquarters. to me, that was preplanned. would you agree and also, when you responded to these pipe grounds, did you know the motivations were identified who the perpetrators were? chief contee: these devices were planted by a lone individual. our response to that -- the police department responded along with other federal assets to mitigate the threat we were facing at that time. >> you know if they had coordination with the people at the capital? chief contee: at this point, we
9:11 pm
do not know that. no one has been apprehended. the investigation continues. rep. gibbs: i've seen some reports. it looks like a lot of people who entered the capitol had military apparel, gas masks, and things like that. is that correct? chief contee: that is accurate, sir. yes. rep. gibbs: you would have to come to the conclusion that was preplanned, you know, initiative before january 6. would you agree? chief contee: yes, we have seen individuals who wear protective gear to demonstrations or a ttempts to engage law enforcement but this one with tactical gear and helmets was
9:12 pm
a process that things were going to be bad. rep. gibbs and fbi report. :two days before or the day before possible violence began. was your department notified or aware of that? chief contee: no, sir. no, sir. rep. gibbs: you got a notification the day before or not? chief contee: no, sir. i said in my previous testimony, we address this issue. the notification was sent vaguely through an email to various agencies within the intelligence network. rep. gibbs: did the capitol police have notification? chief contee: i found out later on they had information after january 6 occurred. rep. gibbs: i guess we are
9:13 pm
dealing with the other chair. the chair was going around on social media days before of an organization or coordination. was the attorney general aware days before jan. 6? mr. miller: congressman, fbi director wray has addressed this previously and i will again. let me address it at a high level. the robust mechanisms for looking for such things. the bureau has to sort out what is aspirational versus what is real and corroborate and verify. they had a mechanism with the police forces and other federal partners to share information. my understanding is the
9:14 pm
information was shared. rep. gibbs: do think big tech should have sorted that -- could have sorted that information out? mr. rosen: i would direct you to the fbi for more specifics about this but it is often the case that they seek assistance from private sector counterparts, as well. rep. gibbs: thank you and i yield back. rep. maloney: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia, mr. conley, is recognized for five minutes. mr. conley: 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 ricin --
9:15 pm
written testimony, you say the department did not act because the department had not seen evidence of widespread fraud and you are committed to an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. is it correct that the department also declined to appoint any special prosecutors, file lawsuits, or make public statements questioning the results of the 2020 election? mr. miller: that is correct. rep. connolly: i think that is important for the record. these myths that are being perpetrated by some amongst us that there was widespread fluoride -- fraud was not borne out by the actions and decisions made by the department of justice in the top -- trump administration. prior to january 6, were you asked to take action at the department by president trump to
9:16 pm
advanced election fraud claims or to seek to overturn any part of the 2020 election results? mr. rosen: congressman, as i alluded to in your prior question, i can tell you what the actions of the department were. rep. connolly: mr. rosen. mr. rosen: i cannot tell you about private conversations with the president one way or the other. rep. connolly: we had an insurrection that led to seven deaths, two suicides, and you are saying this is a privileged communication? mr. rosen: i'm saying my responsibility is to tell you about the role of the department of justice. rep. connolly: your responsibility is to be accountable to the american people in this congress. i couldn't imagine a more critical question. did you have conversations with the president of the united states urging you to question or overturn or challenge the
9:17 pm
election results of 2020? it is a simple question and by the way, 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 have tried to be as forthcoming as i can with regard to the facts of the department of justice. you asked me about communications with the president, i do not get to make the decision on whether i can reveal private conversations and other people make that decision and i've been asked to stick to within the ground whorls i have to abide by. i would be happy to check and get back to you. rep. connolly: that would be great because the people are entitled to an answer and public servants have an obligation. did you meet with the president at the white house on january 3? mr. rosen: i did. rep. connolly: you did but you
9:18 pm
declined to tell us what the nature of the 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. rep. connolly: can you tell us whether it involved a discussion about the election itself? mr. rosen: i'm sorry, congressman. respectfully, i do not 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. i have tried to be as forthcoming as i can be and will continue to do but i will not be able to answer question. able to answer question. rep. connolly: jeffrey clark, before generate third, your subordinate, reportedly told you your days as acting attorney
9:19 pm
general were numbered and doj was going to stop congress from certifying the election results. is that true? mr. rosen: congressman, i don't know what you're talking about. i have seen media accounts, 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 not going to be in a position to discuss that. rep. connolly: you won't talk about a meeting you were confirmed to have with the president. i guess you are claiming executive privilege even though you have not invoked it formally to the committee prior to your appearance. now you are arguing that because of an impending ig investigation, and exposed report, reportedly about a conversation with mr. clark informing you your days were limited and there was going to
9:20 pm
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 -- the department of justice and my counsel had conversations about the groundrules for my appearing today with the committee. i will conduct myself in accordance with the responsibilities i have and the ground rules that were discussed. rep. connolly: is a privilege of any member of this committee to ask a question, mr. rosen. mr. rosen: of course. rep. connolly: there is also a formal process for executive privilege which you have not invoked. let me say, madame chairwoman, i disavow comments made about the nature of the insurrection. rewriting history serves no purpose other than to cover up the violence and brutality we
9:21 pm
experienced on generate six. a shame for america and this congress. revisionist history serves no purpose but to cover that up and protect that brutality and violence. i yield back. rep. maloney: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, is recognized for five minutes. rep. jordan: by january 6, 2017 17, 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 --all members and all the rest of us have to adhere to the constitution and so i'm going to say that is an issue for you as members of congress. rep. jordan: we appreciate your service. i am asking you -- they told us we were not allowed to object on generate six, 2021 -- january 6, 2021.
9:22 pm
you're not even allowed to cosponsor legislation that democrats introduced if you objected in 2020 one. 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. rep. jordan: does the constitution allow members through object -- to object to the electoral college results on generate six after a presidential election? it does. democrat said it does. jim mcgovern objected to alabama the very first day on january 6, 2017. estate president trump won 30 points. mr. raskin objected to florida. ms. waters objected to wyoming. president trump won by more than
9:23 pm
he won alabama. you're saying that is ok for democrats to do. mr. rosen? not responding? mr. rosen: i'm sorry. i did not understand if you are asking me to respond to that. rep. jordan: is it ok for the democratic member of congress to object to alabama on january 6, 2017 smart he is allowed to do that, right? mr. rosen: members adhering to the responsibilities, that is a question for all of the votes in congress. rep. jordan: ms. waters objected to wyoming. she can object to that. right? mr. rosen: the constitution allows members of congress to raise objections. rep. jordan: we have heard talks from the democrats about revisionist history and the big lie. i think it is important. he has had democrats tell us we were not allowed to object and
9:24 pm
somehow we were trying to overturn the will of the american people, even though we objected to states like pennsylvania where i believe onken's -- unconstitutionally changed their election laws in the run up to the election but somehow they are allowed to object to wyoming and alabama and florida but we are not allowed to object. i feel to see the logic. the previous gentleman from virginia talk about brutality - -i want to redo statements here. let me ask you this first. was the 20 election stolen? -- 2016 election stolen? mr. rosen: i do not know of evidence that would say it was. you are alluding to a troublesome thing about the legitimacy of our past elections. the pines governors race is being held into question. i think it is necessary and important for all of us to find ways to restore our citizens'
9:25 pm
faith in the electoral process and in our representatives. rep. jordan: secretary clinton says you can run the best campaign and have the election stolen from you. september 2019, she said president trump was an illegitimate president. on october 2020, a month before our last election, she referred to the 2016 election. she said it was stolen from her. issue wrong? mr. rosen: she is wrong. rep. jordan: the election was valid in 2016. he won. when we talked about revisionist history and the big lie, their nominee has recently as last october saying the election was stolen. but we are somehow not allowed to object to anything, race
9:26 pm
points about the 2020 election. if it is not about revisionist history, it is about the double standards democrats want to have. that bothers me and the american people the most. i yield back. rep. maloney: the gentleman from illinois, -- illinois is recognized. >> mr. miller, you don't deny that at least four people died in connection with january 6. correct? mr. miller: i don't know how to answer that. yes or no? it is not that easy. it is just not that easy. >> 140 police officers were injured, right? mr. miller: i don't know. >> to capitol police officers later died by suicide, correct? hundreds of rioters breached the capital, right? mr. miller: i'm sorry?
9:27 pm
>> hundreds of rioters breached the capital: generate six, correct? mr. miller: yes. >> i want to highlight an 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 may have an insurrection do not suggest anyone has their game together that day. let me turn your attention to another topic, mainly russia. you said, i have professional respect for how they do things. i kind of, you know, like, professionally, i am like, wow. they are doing well and using irregular warfare concepts,
9:28 pm
information, all of the stuff in a way that, you know, like, good on them. mr. miller, according to the od night, on march 10 -- odni, rusher interfered in the 2016 and 2020 elections. -- russia invaded ukraine and annexed crimea. mr. miller, you know vladimir putin tried to kill his opponent with a nerve agent, correct? mr. miller: i don't know what that has to do with the subject. >> according to the cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, russia is responsible for the largest cyberattack waged against the u.s. in our history. you are aware of that, right? mr. miller: i thought i was here to discuss the unanswered questions of the event of six january. >> you said good on them with regard to russia but regarding the department of defense, which you headed, told vanity fair,
9:29 pm
this effing place is rotting. i think your comments, mr. miller, about russia and the geo dr bazaar and brought it -- dod are bizarre and rotten and they demonstrate the problem of january 6 riots. on january 3, you informed the president mayor bowser requested the national guard support and according to page 11 of your written statement, the president said to give the mayor the support she requested, correct? on january 3, you informed the president that mayor bowser requested support. on page 11 of your written statement, the president said to give the mayor the support she requested, correct? secretary 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
9:30 pm
perimeter of the capitol, right? secretary miller: yes. mr. krishnamoorthi: according to a d.o.d. created timeline at 1:34 p.m. mayor bowser called army secretary mccarthy to request, quote-unquote, 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 in providing the additional forces. that constitute 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? secretary miller: she already had the support she requested. what's your question, sir? mr. krishnamoorthi: sir, she requested additional support. you see this mayhem 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 by the president to help mayor bowser, or the president changed his order and add to the delayed
9:31 pm
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 actions -- secretary miller: there were 8,000 badged and credentialed police officers on duty -- mr. krishnamoorthi: you weren't there. you were awol, mr. secretary. you were awol. remember -- secretary miller: completely inaccurate. mr. krishnamoorthi: you said before you have responsibility for everything. something goes wrong, quote-unquote, i own it completely. 110%. sir, you partially own this mayhem. and that's why i'm going to ask for a d.o.d. investigation into your actions. thank you. secretary miller: i already requested that before i left the department of defense. mr. krishnamoorthi: i look forward to the report. thank you, sir. chair maloney: the gentleman
9:32 pm
from louisiana, mr. higgins, is 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 protests. today we are discussing the forced occupation and violent protests of january 6. unfortunately, my colleagues across the aisle who hold the majority choose to present this hearing today through a 100% 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 on the very liberties and freedoms that the citizens were being provided. and yet none would argue that liberties should be eliminated
9:33 pm
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. they completely ignore the language and influence that their own members caused across the country. maxine waters, well, we've got to stay on the street. we 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'm telling you. they are not going to stop.
9:34 pm
and everyone beware. representative pressley, there needs to be unrest in the streets. nancy pelosi, i just don't know why there aren't 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. 19 people died during b.l.m. riots last year. hundreds and hundreds were injured. 2,000 police officers were injured from b.l.m. 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.
9:35 pm
to the scores of millions of americans that supported president trump and loved this country and have been denied access to their own capitol for over a year. chief conte, let's jump into law enforcement here, shall we, sir. be prepared for a question. chief conte, does united states capitol police utilize facial recognition as a technology? chief conte: i don't know what the united states capitol police use, sir. mr. higgins: i thought you might be aware of that based upon your background. i'm sure you stay up with it. do you have an opinion about facial recognition technology? chief conte: we do not use it here in the metropolitan police department. mr. higgins: ok. in your coordinating efforts with the capitol police, did you discuss technologies used? obviously many joint operations. it's not a difficult question. it's not a critique. i'm asking your opinion as a law enforcement professional.
9:36 pm
chief conte: i think that when you talk about technology, certainly we look across the spectrum of best practices with all agencies. the capitol police. mr. higgins: i concur. chief, i was first certified as a taser instructor in may of 2007. 14 years ago. taser as a technology been around for a long time. does your department use tasers? chief conte: 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 support tasers? chief conte: no, that's not a conversation we have had, sir. mr. higgins: when you have joint operations, which would be normal, is it a consideration regarding crowd control?
9:37 pm
chief conte: it depends. it's a less lethal option and kind of defends on the situation. mr. higgins: exactly. it's 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. chair maloney: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, is recognized for five minutes. mr. raskin: thank you, madam chair. million 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 electoral college votes. do you agree with that? the statement this is a terrorist attack? mr. raskin: they used terrorism, fellow americans beat and bloodied their own police. they tried to hunt down the speaker of the house.
9:38 pm
they built gallows and chanted about murdering the vice president. they did this because they had been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he lost an' lection. do you agree? secretary miller: i agree it was a an act of terrorism. mr. raskin: ok. madam chair, some of our distinguished colleagues, including my friend from louisiana, has been invoking the 74 million who voted for donald trump. here's 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 re-elect him as a kind of human shield against criticism. anyone who decries his awful behavior is accused of insulting millions of voters. that's an absurd deflection. 74 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.
9:39 pm
this is an essential hearing, madam chair, but it will barely scratch the surface about 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, multiparty, nonpartisan, 9/11-style commission to study the causes and the events of january 6, and the response to it but our colleagues have done everything in their power to block the formation of a commission, including slandering black lives matter, a nonviolent movement for justice, that they continue to lie about with their propaganda. today we have heard different numbers bandied about. 25 people who died in black lives matter protests. a lot of the people talking about it are people who were
9:40 pm
killed by right wing counterprotestors or provocateurs. one of the deaths they want to blame on black lives matter was federal protective service officer david underwood in oakland, california. i remember very clearly when my colleagues came to congress and said, look what black lives matter did. they were trying to blame this on this movement. but in fact, he was shot by steven an air force staff sergeant who was active with the right wing boog-a-loo movement and now standing trial for murder. that count as part of their number. the two people killed by 17-year-old vigilante government kyle riddenhouse who crossed state lines who kill protestors and standing trial for first degree murder. we can't get into all of it. but they are saying we can't 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
9:41 pm
drag in the boog-a-loo 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. after having lost the presidential election by seven million votes, 306-232, a margin he 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 substitute teams of trump electors. when that didn't work, they went and tried to intimidate and coerce state election officials, like brad raffinsburger 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. the whole world saw it. when that didn't work, at that
9:42 pm
point, he began to appeal to his most right-wing supporters, the proud boys, where he told them to stand back and stand by. the 3%ers and oath keepers to come to washington. don't go to georgia. come to washington and not on any day but the day we are counting the electoral college votes, not at any time but one hour before then. he pointed to them the loaded pistol at the capitol and said you got to go and fight like hell or you are not going to have a country anymore. show strength. and now we are getting this outrageous orwellian revisionist history where donald trump is out there saying 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 and attack on america. study the causes of it and get to the bottom of it but my
9:43 pm
colleagues should stop with all of the evasions, the diversions, and the distractions. let's figure out what happened to us on that day. i yield back to you. chair maloney: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from north carolina, dr. foxx, is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam chairman. i thank our witnesses for being here today. the american people deserve better than they truly -- than a truly partisan inquiry led by house democrats. if the goal 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 pinger pointing. today we are here to examine the
9:44 pm
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. end quote. 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 protestors 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
9:45 pm
events of january 6. 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 conte. chief, do you think the events on january 6 would have escalated even more and been worse if it weren't for the heroic law enforcement response? chief conte: yes, ma'am, i do. ms. foxx: thank you. when officers anywhere injured or kill in the line of duty i'm sure you and your colleagues are particularly affected. how do you feel when certain members of congress say that law enforcement is, quote, beyond reform, end quote and policing in america should be eliminated all together? chief conte: i wouldn't agree with that statement. ms. foxx: thank you. do broadbrush statements against law enforcement harm your
9:46 pm
officers' morale and encourage more violence against them? chief conte: i think when you talk about broadbrush statements i don't think that that's 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: today, comments 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, d.c., would be like without any law enforcement? chief conte: well, i think law enforcement certainly has a role in society. that's the reason i have 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 got to make sure we have the best
9:47 pm
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's 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 frontlines, do a great job.
9:48 pm
but i have been reading results of the i.g.'s investigation and others and it's 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's unfortunate. the men and women of the capitol police put their lives on the line for us every day and i'm truly grateful to them for doing that. they are there in the wind, rain, snow, whatever the conditions. they deserve to have had better -- be better prepared that day and to have been given better direction on how to handle the events of the day. with that, i yield back. chair maloney: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california, is 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
9:49 pm
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? secretary miller: i want to highlight the incredible job that the members of our armed forces and the -- mr. khanna: i agree with you about the armed forces. it's my time. your pugnacious style is not going to override the democratic process. learn to respect it. my question isn't about our troops or armed forces. everyone recognizes they are extraordinary. my question is about your incompetence in leading them. will you apologize to the american public nor what happened on your watch? will you apologize to the troops for what happened on your watch? secretary miller: the department
9:50 pm
of defense and our members of the armed forces performed magnificently. mr. khanna: no one questions what they did. they are questioning what did you. is it your testimony you refuse to apologize to the american public for what happened? secretary miller: i can by every decision i made on -- mr. khanna: you said you did it perfectly. just like the president said. is that your testimony, you did everything perfectly, no mistakes? secretary miller: i want to highlight again the armed forces should only be used -- mr. khanna: it's your testimony that you did everything perfectly, is that your view? secretary miller: i am the most critical person on this -- mr. khanna: on the day of january 6, there is reporting that you or others in your office tried to get to the president.
9:51 pm
that's 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? secretary miller: i did not. i had no idea -- mr. khanna: anyone in your office or department of defense try to get hold of the president? secretary miller: not that i am aware of. mr. khanna: you things testified things aren't like a video game and quickly move troops. what explains the 36-minute delay from when you ordered the national guard to that order being received. >> what 36 minutes are you referring to? >> are you not aware of that timeline? it took 36 minutes. what explains the delay? >> i have seen so many time lay-ups and inaccurate information. >> sir, you were in charge of the whole department. the senator is questioned in a hearing that every american watched why it took 36 minutes and you don't know that it took
9:52 pm
36 minutes before you authorized something for it to actually be implemented? >> what 36 minutes again are you referring to? at 3:00 we gave the order. >> how can you talk about this being -- you doing everything perfect when you're not even aware of the 36 minutes that took place? before you were -- >> historians and members still argue about who landed where and when on june 6th, 19 -- [overlapping speakers] >> here's what happened. you said okay the national guard should go out. it took 36 minutes before that order was implemented and you're saying that you didn't know it took 36 minutes? senators know, congress people know, every journalist know and you who made the order didn't know. and then you're hear telling us that everything happened perfectly and you're not willing to apologize? and the goal to hide behind our troops who are extraordinarily honorable, it's you who's let
9:53 pm
them down. i can't believe we have something like you in that role, and your whole testimony is no reflection. i thought if you came here, if you apologized, instead, it's total self-promotion. all you're trying to do is cover your own reputation. >> that's the last thing it is. i want to highlight again the enormously successful job that the national guard did that day, along with the army staff. >> let me ask you one final question because we're 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 reaction force? >> general walker was the tactical ground force commander, he had all the authority and approval he needed -- >> it took 36 minutes. it took 36 minutes before he had that. i yield back my time.
9:54 pm
>> 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. go to another person? we're now going to mr. grossman.
9:55 pm
>> 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's so many people that want to revise what happened on january the 6th. i was there in the gallery like many of you and we know what happened. it was an insurrection and it was fuelled by the president.
9:56 pm
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's not our embattlements, seacoast, or army or navy. 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 with the heritage of all
9:57 pm
men and all women in all rands everywhere. he admonished, destroy this spirit and you will have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doorstep. ignore the chains of bondage and you prepare your own let me see to wear -- limbs to wear the bonds. accustom to trample on the rights of others and you will 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 have become some members of the new republican party who are still going out of their way, unfortunately, to rewrite the history of january the 6th. lincoln's words uttered over 173 years ago have gone unheeded and have been replaced with things like oh, they were peaceful
9:58 pm
patriots. they were just protesting. and then we're told to salute them and on the other hand, we're 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's an interesting juxtaposition but it sounds like escapism to me. the truth of the matter is that these are not suggestions by merely anyone on this committee. mitch mcconnell said there is no question that president trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. so i don't care how many times we dress it up and roll it back out, it's still a big lie. i served with ronald reagan. i served with the first george bush. george w., the second one and i
9:59 pm
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 the 6th. so let me just use if i have some time left, madam chair, to go back and ask the question of mr. rosen. did you meet with the president on january the 3rd, 2021? representative: so you did meet with the president january 3. did you discuss with the president the actions that were about to unfold, the protests i should say, on january 6? mr. rosen: as i have indicated -- the discussion was not for
10:00 pm
the preparations regarding demonstrations and activities of january 6. representative and the events of january 6, which had not unfolded, never entered into that discussion? i remind you, you are under oath. >> could you restate the question? representative: did you discuss anything about january 6 with the president in your january 3 meeting with him? >> as i said, the meeting was not about preparations for january 6 representative: -- january 6. representative: that is not what i asked. you are under oath. did you discuss january 6 in your meeting with the president? >> i have said what i'm going to say. i am not going to discuss the substance of what the meeting was about. i have told you what i can say. representative: you are evading a question most of america wants to know. let me take that one step further. on january 3, did you discuss
10:01 pm
anything about attempts to overthrow the election? yes or no? >> there were certain ground rules under which i agreed to appear today, and what the scope i would address was. we sent 500 people to the capitol at the time. chair: the gentleman's time has expired. representative: let the record reflect this is why it is so difficult to get to the truth -- because people don't want to answer straight questions. i yield back. chair: mr. sessions is recognized for five minutes. representative sessions: madam chair, thank you. i want to be sure that chief contee, attorney general rosen and secretary of defense miller understand that what they are going through with this hearing
10:02 pm
would be unparalleled if republicans were in the majority. we ask witnesses to come up, we take their testimony, we do not try to badger them or bully them. we do not try to 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. all three of you have been forthright about the answers that you have given. but it doesn't fit the narrative that this democratic majority would like. so they want to argue with you and pin you down and then impugn you. i am embarrassed that they would have to remind you that you are under oath, as if you would not be forthright about what you wanted to answer. representative: i object.
10:03 pm
representative: you can object all day. representative: i will object all day. because -- representative: madam chair, we haven't interrupted your witness. chair: tom belongs to the gentleman from texas. representative: thank you. mr. rosen, mr. miller, mr. conte, i believe your professionalism and duty to this country came into play not just that day, but it continues today in your service. and because it is not shaping the narrative that they want, they want to ask questions to have you conform, and then battled you over your professional response. i want to say this, mr. conte, it was obvious to me that the systems that were in place then need to be reviewed again. not just about how you might be
10:04 pm
participatory as a request, as i understand it, that would be to the police, but also to mr. miller as it relates to the guard. do you have anything you would like to provide us that might further provide 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 police department, metropolitan police department engaged, do you have any feedback, mr. miller, about that? mr. miller: this is a really important question. i thought it was the purpose of the hearing today. representative: me too. mr. miller: and have a constructive discussion. i have been involved in the
10:05 pm
national inauguration and other public gatherings in the process seems to work very well for mashing state, local and federal entities together. that is a good model and something that can probably be teased out, a needs to be refined regarding lessons learned from january 6. representative sessions: but as it exists, you are comfortable with 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, although needing to be updated, but you are happy with that process? mr. miller: i am happy with the process. it comes down to come of the department of defense should only be used as a last resort for domestic law enforcement. we can argue whether that occurred. it certainly did occurr, did
10:06 pm
occur, obviously, january 6. i was trying to discuss the mechanics and would criticized robustly over that, mechanics of military operation. not to be condescending, but it takes time to make sure we are taking care of our soldiers, getting them to the right place, coordinating with chief conte, capitol hill police and other entities. and i believe that was done. representative sessions: chief conte, are there any procedures you would expect the committee to look at that might need to be updated, from your perspective? chief conte: the district of columbia, we should not be different from any state. the mayor of the district of columbia should have the authority to call up and deploy the national guard.
10:07 pm
we would still be required to coordinate. we would still require all the coordination that has to happen to properly deploy, make sure they are on mission and doing things that need to be done. but i don't think that it requires the concerns of the president of the united states or secretary of defense. no disrespect to the secretary, but i don't think it requires that level of approval to deploy people to traffic posts. that is not required anywhere else in our country. representative sessions: we were referencing the chief contee -- we were referencing the capitol. chair: time is expired. i yield to the gentleman from wisconsin. you are recognized for five minutes. representative: there were pipe bombs discovered outside the dnc.
10:08 pm
you were deployed to the locations. chief contee: we assisted the u.s. capitol police, yes. representative: was there any progress made on who would have put these bombs there? chief contee: no suspects have been identified. we are working with our partners. video has been released publicly showing the individual placing the pipe bombs, but no arrests at this point. representative how powerful were they? chief contee they would have done significant damage. representative was there evidence of any other the bombs that they? chief contee: no, just those two -- representative: have any people total were in the chief contee
10:09 pm
-- were in the capitol on that day? chief contee: i don't have a number. it was certainly over 1000 people. representative: were some of this people let in the capital? -- in the capitol? chief contee: i can't say. surveillance video shows after the capitol were overrun, like a flood gate, people flooding in. i don't know if resources were necessarily in place to prevent the people. representative: i am not going to judge actions of the police that they. it was unprecedented. they had to make quick decisions. of the 1000 people that were let in the capital, how many broke into the capitol and how many were let into the chief contee let into the capitol -- let into
10:10 pm
the capitol? chief contee: that is a hard number. there was video released of the officers that were trying to prevent individuals from gaining access. we didn't count that number but it is safe to say there were several individuals were forced their way in and were not let into the capitol. representative: that is what i wanted to know, were 800 let in and 200 broke in? was it 50 and 950? we don't have any idea. chief contee: no, we don't. representative: how many people were disruptive? chief contee, capitol police told me a lot of them were milling around. how many were doing damage? chief contee: i do not have that estimate. no, sir. representative: ok. ok. i will go back to the pipe bombs.
10:11 pm
did that because, when you put -- did that because, when you put people out tracking the bombs, did that cause you to deploy people away from the capitol? chief contee: we had people deployed their first before they responded to the capitol. and with respect to the previous question, capitol police may be able to give you a better assessment based upon their view of the videos inside of the capitol, how many were milling around. representative: ok. there were clearly people who were doing something coordinated to get into the capitol, people scaling the walls, that sort of thing. do we have evidence on who those people were who were scaling the walls, and were they directed by a central group or person? chief contee: what we know for certain is that they were
10:12 pm
individuals who coordinated their efforts for radio communication hand signals. representative: were they a member of a group? chief contee: some reports have come out that they represent certain groups that have been mentioned. representative: we don't know yet though? chief contee: the u.s. attorney's office is probably better suited to answer that. more than 300 people have been arrested and they represent various groups across the country that were involved in what we saw on january 6. representative: were the 300 all doing damage or were some just milling around? chief contee: i don't have an answer, sir. i am not sure. clearly there was damage done to the capitol. we know that. but the specific groups, i am not certain about that. representative: i encourage any listeners to research the three
10:13 pm
founders of black lives matter, because it is something that concerns me greatly, that somebody who apparently was a trained marxist is gained such influence in our country. people should familiarize themselves with the backgrounds, and what the founders of that organization stand for. thank you. chair: the gentle lady from michigan is recognized for five minutes. representative: thank you. i work closely with the movement for black lives and these are folks that are really trying to push efforts to try to recognize many of my black neighbors' right to live without feeling unsafe or that their own government is not supporting them. it is also really important for colleagues that they are talking about these organizations to know that these are organizations that are literally made up of others who lost their children, that were killed by
10:14 pm
police violence. just to be very clear, this is not some movement that just came about. it came about because state-funded violence killed their children. so i appreciate, madam chair, having this hearing. mr. rosen, i would like to discuss something you didn't mention, the fact that in the days leading up to the january 6 attack, fbi agent reportedly visited more than a dozen extremist already under investigation, to discourage them from traveling to d.c. for the so-called stop the steal rally. according to one fbi senior official, this was based on "credible and actionable information on extremists' desire to engage in violence. january 6" were you aware?
10:15 pm
mr. rosen: you are referring to information fbi assistant director -- the fbi periodically briefed me on intelligence update. representative: i'm glad they let you know. it seems like there is a significant step by the fbi to initiate contact with some extremists who may be under investigation or monitoring and you tipped them off at the government is tracking their plans. if the fbi was proactively engaged enough that the agency tried to discourage extremists traveling to washington on january 6, they were clearly concerned about the potential for violence at the national capitol. let me make sure i have this clear -- the doj had intelligence that was credible enough to act on, but decided not to issue a threat assessment, correct? mr. rosen: the intelligence we
10:16 pm
had was shared with police, capitol police, metro police and park police, secret service and others. representative: but you didn't feel any -- you gave the information and there was no role for you to say that there is a threat? mr. rosen: i think the threat of violence was understood by everybody. that was a concern, that there could be violence at any of the locations where demonstrators came. it was a concern. representative: nobody was milling around, right? it was actual people who wanted to commit violence, right? they weren't hanging out. they came with the initiation that they wanted to commit violent acts, correct? mr. rosen: i don't want to discuss individuals who are subject to investigation or prosecution. i am just talking about, from an intelligence endpoint and
10:17 pm
general awareness, i think the police were concerned about the potential for violence. representative: thank you. police chief, were you aware prior to january 6 that the fbi reached out to known extremist to discour -- to discourage them from traveling to washington dc? chief contee yes. we deployed our entire department. we put members on 12-hour shifts. we brought in agencies from three other departments, stationed in the district of columbia. we had others stationed outside the district of columbia in the event things got bad. and they did respond. representative: do you feel you received sufficient threat information about the intentions of those coming to commit violence in washington dc from doj, the lead agency in charge of intelligence gathering? mr. rosen: there have been a lot
10:18 pm
discussions around that. i have testified to the fact that when you have information that is raw, and unvented, -- and unvetted, it warrants more than an email sent out to partners. representative: i couldn't agree more. chief contee: when there is threat information that is significant, there should be phone calls. representative: i can't help but think the fbi and doj used even a fraction of the resources allocated explicitly toward what they call black identity extremism, and operation iron fist, what's the american public knows nothing about. i wish they put that kind of resources and energy into this, because it put the lives of
10:19 pm
senators, members and the staff at risk, which could have been avoided if they had the political will and intention of treating these folks that they have intelligence about already that they were going to commit violent acts. i yield. chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania, you are recognized, mr. keller. representative keller: thank you, and thank you to the capitol police. we can all agree actions taken by capitol police officers that they were nothing short of heroic. i have a couple questions directed at the former acting secretary, mr. miller. mr. miller, you are in charge of the national guard that responded january 6? chief contee: district of columbia national guard, not all the other, yes. representative: it was mentioned
10:20 pm
earlier that you got a request from mayor bowser at 1:30 p.m. or around that time? chief contee: i did not receive the request until 2:30 and i did not know to the nature of the request. i heard it at this hearing. representative: does the mayor of washington dc have authority to request for help on the u.s. capitol grounds? representative: i just learned. i didn't know. that was new information i learned this morning. representative: our committee staff did research on that. the request for help on capitol grounds has to come from capitol police. did you receive a request from capitol police? mr. miller: i learned there was a call from the head of the capitol foleys, but the nature of his request did not get to me until after the metropolitan police and others got together. representative: once you got the
10:21 pm
request, you responded rather quickly? chief contee: it was 30 minutes. -- mr. miller: it was 30 minutes. representative: we cannot fully investigate the events of january 6 if the capitol police are not present. republicans have been supportive of a 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-american police officers to protect our communities and keep us safe. the safety of the american people should be the first priority, and distraction of property, private or the u.s. capitol, should be considered a tragedy. and to look at this tragedy and make sure we have any fact of
10:22 pm
response -- have an effective response, we should include all agencies including the capitol. this hearing is premature and not thorough. because we don't have the capitol police here. for whatever reason. i guess they were not invited. 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 hit the mark. "we must reject the idea that every time a law is broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. 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, irons them to join republicans in
10:23 pm
supporting a bipartisan commission to investigate the events of january 6. thank you. i yield back. chair: the gentlewoman from new york, miss ocasio-cortez, is recognized. representative: thank you. i think one of the things we are trying to do is nail down a basic timeline which, for whatever reason, has been difficult to have some of our witnesses, testimony corroborated with documents we have received, and the facts on the timing of some of these things. in that respect, i would like to submit for the record the official department of defense timeline of these facts that they are aware of on january 6.
10:24 pm
chair: without objection. representative: according to reporting, d.c. mayor muriel bowser called on secretary of the army ryan mccarthy for help at 1:44 p.m., eight minutes after the capitol was evacuated. mr. miller, you are former acting secretary during the trump administration, correct? mr. miller: by 1:34 p.m. according to your testimony, you were aware demonstrators breached the capitol. and it seems at 3:00 p.m., you determined that all available forces of the d.c. national guard are required to reinforce mpd and cpd positions per that is not an authorization to deploy to the capitol, correct? mr. miller: i gave full authorization to deploy. representative: at 3:00 p.m.? mr. miller: yes.
10:25 pm
i'm sorry, 3:04. representative: it seems 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 general walker put together. so he had full authority in my mind at 3:04, and he had to do his planning sequence to figure out how he wanted to accomplish that. representative: so the actual order for the guard apostrophes -- the guard's to clear the capitol for whatever reason did not happen until 4:32 p.m., correct? mr. miller: that is when the plan was formally approved. representative: it was formally
10:26 pm
approved at 4:32 p.m. to send the national guard to help clear the capitol, but the breach happened at 1:34 p.m. at 3:19 p.m., army secretary mccarthy spoke with speaker pelosi and senator schumer saying that you had full mobilization of the national guard. at 4:08, vice president pence parton lee had a conversation with you to "clear the capitol," is that correct. i understand he is not the chain of command, but that is the nature of the conversation? mr. miller: i did have a conversation with him. i told him the capitol was going to be cleared. he might have said something to that extent, but it was more of a conversation. very brief. representative: 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
10:27 pm
was not issued after conversation with speaker pelosi, it was not issued after a conversation with leader schumer. the conversation with vice president pence happened at 4:08 and 4:32 was when the verbal authorization, according to the dmd, happened -- dod, happened. that was 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 3:00 p.m. to authorize and help clear the capitol at 4:32? mr. miller: i am sorry. this is a great conversation. i want to be helpful. at 3:00 p.m., i gave the order to mobilize the national guard. then, the planning sequence went forward. the concept of the operation, the plan was approved --
10:28 pm
representative: i apologize, i have limited time. it took 90 minutes to plant to send the national guard to the capital -- to the capitol. major general walker testified was actually 5:08 p.m. when he finally received authorization to send forces to the capital. you have any reason to doubt his recollection of events? mr. miller: i do not have any reason to doubt. i hate to bring up the fog and friction and so much going on, so i can understand there is inconsistency and perhaps disagreement. representative: thank you. i yield. chair: the gentleman from south carolina, mr. norman, your recognized. representative: thank you. i would join some of my colleagues and say i wish this were a true hearing to find out the truth. we really need to have mayor bowser here.
10:29 pm
we need to have those in the chain of command so we could get to the bottom of what happened. when i see this sheet on my timeline and at 2:07, a mob of trump supporters reached the steps. i don't know who did a poll that it is trump supporters. you have the media saying the same income it just like the media saying the officer was killed with a fire extinguisher, which he was not. but i don't know if they did a poll to say they were trump supporters. i know 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.
10:30 pm
they planned this. so this is just a going through the motions to lame a press -- to blame a president who had no reason -- he had thousands of people but those that reached the capitol intended to do damage. in my right that the groups that stormed the capital used facebook, not just parler, but one group had 8000 facebook followers that directed people and had travel routes to come to d.c., is that correct? chief contee: i am not sure about that. a lot of information was out there, but specifically, i can't answer to that. representative: so you all had no knowledge of anything, that this was going on? chief contee: no knowledge of what going on, exactly? representative: that groups were
10:31 pm
using facebook, that on social media chatter, they were talking about coming here en masse, certain groups. chief contee: certainly we knew. social media posts were all over the place talking about people coming here. it is the reason why we activated the department, the whole nine yards, so yes. representative: where was the breakdown? it says at 2:07, a mob of trump supporters breached the steps. many of the national guard didn't get there until after the fact and after they had to breached the capitol. why was that not stopped earlier, if you had knowledge or suspicion on social media or otherwise, why wouldn't the reaction be to get people there who could stop what was going on?
10:32 pm
chief contee: that is a great question to ask the capitol police. we responded to assist in the capitol police. the individuals reached this fencing that the capitol police established as a perimeter. they attacked capitol police that were there as they made their way to ultimately breach the capitol. none of the metropolitan police department were called to insist -- to assist. they would be better situated to answer the question about why they were not able to stop the advance with the resources they deployed that day. representative: would they not have had the same information you had about the threats, be it social media, be it general hearsay, that this could be potentially a problem? chief contee: they had generally the same information. we have learned since then that there was an intelligence bulletin that circulated within
10:33 pm
the u.s. capitol police that was not shared with the metropolitan police department. but generally, as a law enforcement agency in the city, we were preparing for things to happen, even violence in this instance. representative: the capitol help police need to be at this hearing to answer the question. because it is timing. if you're looking at large crowds, and president trump had large crowds, but people they are intended to do violence, tear things up. do you agree? chief contee: yes. representative: and they did. chief contee: correct. representative: and however many people were there, 10,000 or whatever, a group of people in the capitol came prepared. this was preplanned. wasn't based on a talk. why wasn't coordination there to stop it?
10:34 pm
crime is crime and i don't care what group they are in. when they come with the gear that they had, i am wondering why that would be an issue to get people there to stop it? because you have film that some were just let in to walk past an officer, which no one understands that this day. chief contee: those are great questions for the capitol police. the metropolitan police department's primary responsibility was to ensure the safety of the streets of the district of columbia. this mob of people you are talking about marched down the panels of the mall, to the capitol prior to the breach. why capitol police, how many people they deployed, it is a great question for capitol police leadership.
10:35 pm
chair maloney: time expired. the gentlelady from florida is recognized for five minutes. representative: thank you. i want to correct dangerous rhetoric and falsehoods uttered by republicans in this hearing. you would think they would have learned something after all, it was lies about the 2020 election that led to the insurrection in the first place. my colleague from arizona mr. gosar downplayed the actions today of violent insurrectionists that left 140 police officers injured in four people dead. he had the audacity to claim capitol pulleys executed -- police executed a riot or who was attempting to breach the capitol. an investigation cleared capitol police officers in the death of ashli babbitt, correct? chief contee: i have not seen the investigation results after
10:36 pm
i left. i refer you to the department of justice. representative: it is a fact the department of justice it clear they -- did clear the capitol police officers. and it is shocking how quickly republicans turn on law enforcement when it fits their agenda. i would like to follow up on questions asked of secretary miller. i don't know why you decided to forgo political courage today, but it saddened me. mr. trump clearly offered that they should march on the capital. it is a gross understatement of what mr. trump urged his supporters to do on january 6. trump used violent rhetoric to encourage his supporters to fight like hell against this act of war. he said a cavalry is coming. according to your written testimony, you convened cabinet level calls in preparation for
10:37 pm
january 6. you noted, i want to be very clear, it was not the role of the department of defense to convene enter agency meetings concerning domestic law enforcement matters. however, you argued i felt it was my responsibility to initiate these discussions, given they were not tightly wired. 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 that we hadn't gone through well enough. that was the purpose of the calls. by the end of that, i felt very comfortable with the plan and execution. representative: mr. rosen, is it true the department of justice, that chief of staff mark meadows designated the department of justice as the lead at religions each to coordinate security leading up to january 6?
10:38 pm
mr. rosen: i don't think that is accurate. representative: doj was not the lead agency? mr. rosen: doj had responsibilities for coordinating intelligence and information sharing with respect to federal agencies, dhs, interior, dod and ourselves. there have been very robust information sharing and intelligence sharing activities with metropolitan police having a joint operations command center and the fbi having a washington field office post where representatives of all police organizations and federal agencies were participating. representative: nailing down who was in charge as been like trying to nail jell-o to a wall. and the old adage, when everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge, appears to be what happened january 6. mr. rosen: i don't think that is
10:39 pm
right. representative: reclaiming my time. this appears to be a keystone cops operation when it comes to the executive ranch and pointing fingers at one another. i would like to ask mr. miller, and i'm going to give you another opportunity to correct the record, if it were not for the violent rhetoric of donald trump, would we have had an insurrection on january 6 that the capitol? >> i don't know. representative: you seemed to think his rhetoric contributed to it at the time, so you no longer think is rhetoric contributed to the riot and insurrection that happened at the capitol? >> i was highlighting the assault elements that went into the capital. -- went into the capitol. everything changes by the day. representative: including your commitment and your truthfulness. because on the one hand, you said that that was what
10:40 pm
contributed to it. then you had a chance to rethink it when the wrath of donald trump came down upon you. that is disgusting and disloyal to the country. i yelled back. reclaiming my time. >> he can finish the question. chair maloney: time is expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. representative: thank you. democrats have said the events at the capitol were an assault on democracy. if that is true, than what we call assault on a federal court in oregon? for a year, we watched riots in american cities and house democrats remained silent or supported the violence. the federal courthouse was under attack. please play video number one.
10:41 pm
i would like my time to stop while we are waiting for the video. [police whistles] [sounds of insurrection] >> i got him. [smashing sounds]
10:42 pm
representative: as we are watching this insurrection, this rioting, this violation of the rule of law is an attempt to change our government in portland, i wonder why democrats said, please don't do anything regarding those rights? we should condemn every form of political violence, and all violence. [indiscernible] and urge my colleagues to do same. you can stop the tape now. thank you.
10:43 pm
representative lynch implied that representative heise did not know what he was talking about when he said walking the ellipse to the capitol takes 45 minutes. representative lynch says it is two blocks and takes a couple minutes. look at your mapping app. you will see it is 45 minutes when there is no crowd, much less when there was 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. i believe you testified that you had all of the authority you needed without talking to president on january 6, is that accurate? >> yes. >> and mr. miller, you talked about an organized conspiracy -- and mr. miller, you said you at all the authority you need to act, is that correct? >> yes. representative: and mr. miller,
10:44 pm
you talked about an organized conspiracy about what took place on january 6, was it organized the attack? , >> i don't know. i think we are going to have to find out through forums like this but it appears that way , based on the communication and protocols and whatnot. representative: thank you. it's 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 did or did not say. but the reality is did talk , about moving peacefully and patriotically to the capital. mr. miller, the democrats keep talking about in their timeline, but there's a difference between talking about breaching the outer barriers that surround the capital versus actually getting into the capitol building, is there not? >> that's exactly what i was trying to explain. representative: so their timeline is screwed up because they don't distinguish between those important facts?
10:45 pm
>> i think there is a misunderstanding when you talk about the security perimeter versus the capitol. representative: you are too charitable. i say they screwed up the timeline. in my last little bit of time, i want to submit to the record different pieces of media that have come in detailing the treatment of protester christopher worrall. as well as paul huber from alaska. one is a "politico" article saying capitol right suspects held in dcr in restricted housing. another one says fbi tortures , proud boys member while awaiting trial for bashing a window at the u.s. capitol and faces a 20-your prison term. and what do the january 6 inmate and guantanamo inmate share?
10:46 pm
another periodical. i yield back. chair maloney: you are recognized for five minutes. representative: thank you. 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 a focuses on gathering intelligence about threats of violence and sharing that information with police and partner agencies. prior to january 6, were you aware of the calls for violence that were all over social media? mr. rosen: at some level. i had to been paying close attention to the fact that the january 6 rallies had been announced and were coming, and
10:47 pm
asking our organization to do everything to prepare and coordinate and share information. i was certainly briefed. representative: let me follow-up. 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. representative: and president trump had been calling for this rally, for, really since the election itself, correct? mr. rosen: i'm not sure if i know the answer. i was generally aware this was going to happen. there was a previous one in december. representative: this is a question about what the president was doing in plain sight. this is not a big intelligence coup to hear what the president
10:48 pm
was tweeting and saying. he was saying he wanted people to come to the capitol? mr. rosen: there had been previous rallies and yes, i was aware of the rallies. representative: and you understood that the folks 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: in a general way, i was aware they were coming because they were dissatisfied with that. representative: i've got to stop you. if you are in intelligence, you are skeptical, worried, you are concerned. it is your job to be concerned about, what is the worst case situation that could happen? whatever is in the news is just in the news and just another story? that is a serious question. mr. rosen: i was concerned that
10:49 pm
appropriate preparations were underway. representative: did you direct the capitol police? mr. rosen: we are trying to make sure people are coordinating and sharing information. representative: did you direct director wray to investigate further? did you consult with chief contee or chief sund? answer those three questions. director wray, chief contee, chief sund? mr. rosen: i conferred repeatedly, including the day of and certainly in the week prior with the fbi, including leadership. with regard to others, we had mechanisms for regular coordination, including people who were embedded together at the j occ -- jocc and fbi
10:50 pm
field office and then we set up a national coordination at the fbi headquarters. representative: here is why it is hard to understand what you are talking about. you didn't do anything. the day after this event -- mr. rosen: how can you say that? we sent over 500 officers and agents on january 6 to provide assistance at the capitol. fbi agents, u.s. marshals. i think we should be applauded, congressman. representative: i certainly applaud the frontline capitol police and all the people who came here. we are in agreement. but january 5 would have been a better day to send them. hold on. 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 was
10:51 pm
inconceivable that a trump rally could result in an attack on the capitol. so it wasn't taken with the seriousness that would have been applied had it in any other instigator than president trump. thank you. mr. rosen: i differ with that. but you are misunderstanding who is responsible for security at the capitol, which is the capitol police. chair maloney: we are going to take a five-minute break. the committee stands in recess for five minutes. [gavel striking block] chair maloney: this hearing will come to order. [gavel striking block]
10:52 pm
representative: thank you this hearing is called the capitol insurrection could let's be honest. it was not an insurrection and we cannot call it that denby truthful. the cambridge and ghost dictionary defines -- cambridge english dictionary defines insurrection as an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat the government and take control of the country, usually by violence. from another dictionary, the active rising against civil authority or governmental restraint, specifically armed resistance of persons to the power of the state. as a member who stayed in the capitol and on the house floor who with other republican colleagues helped eric kate at the door until almost 3:00 p.m. that day from the mob, the house floor was never breached and it was not an insurrection. there was a mob, rioters and some who committed vandalism.
10:53 pm
there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection is a lie. watching tv footage of those who entered the capitol showed people in an orderly fashion staying between stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures. if you did not know the tv footage was video from january 6, you would actually think that it was a normal tourist visit. there were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the capitol. the only shot fired january 6 was from a capitol police officer who killed unarmed protester ashli babbitt in what will probably be determined to be a needless display of legal force. we heard her death certificate ruled her death to be a homicide. based on the definition i outlined, this question former former -- question for the former acting attorney general
10:54 pm
rosen, would you call january 6 in insurrection or a riot with vandalism similar to last summer? mr. rosen: whatever you called them, they were a huge disappointment and i think all of us wish they had not occurred. with regards to specifics of some of the labels, i need to be careful because they could have legal significance. i have been asked and it is my responsibility as well not do anything that might interfere with or jeopardize cases that are pending. so i want to stay away from the terminology, but the events of january 6, we all have to agree are things that never should have happened. representative: absolutely. i agree. the only insurrection i have witnessed was the one conducted by members of the fbi with participants from doj and other agencies under the banner russia, russia, russia.
10:55 pm
these agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and set a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was illegitimate. democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is they are in the mainstream media amplify the news every this was a very coordinated and well-funded effort by determined people to overthrow our president, donald trump. i have a question for the good chief contee. specifically, can you describe rules of engagement for protests and at what point are your officers allowed to use lethal force? and does that change if the situation is declared a riot? chief contee: the metropolitan police department, it would be very difficult to use lethal force where you have a riot and multiple individuals involved.
10:56 pm
you have to isolate a specific person who is committing an act that creates a life-threatening situation. we would not ordinarily use lethal force in a situation like this. representative: was the situation january 6 declared a riot, and if it was, what time? chief contee: it was declared a riot and i believe the time was 1:50 pm. representative: do your rules of engagement change if the situation is declared a riot? chief contee: yes. in the situation where we declare a riot, members are donning hard, protective gear. people were dismantling the inauguration stand to assault the officers.
10:57 pm
65 officers reported significant injuries. representative: but do the rules of lethal engagement change? chief contee: no. the rules of lethal engagement does not change. we would not randomly start using lethal force. we use every less than lethal weapon we have available to us, pepper spray and other munitions to bring the situation under control. representative: thank you. i appreciate your informative comments. my time is expired. i yield back. chair maloney: the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, is recognized. representative: thank you. [indiscernible] band january 6 -- and january 6
10:58 pm
because she was concerned about the likelihood of violence by trump supporters, correct? >> i'm sorry. you came in distorted. i didn't hear the question. representative: on december 31, that is the first request for the national guard to backup law enforcement in washington dc, because of fears of violence by trump supporters on january 6, correct? mr. miller: yes. representative: and that request was not approved by you until january 4? mr. miller: yes. representative: and the authorization you gave was to activate 340 national guard troops, correct? mr. miller: yes. representative: and you ordered
10:59 pm
guards men and guards women not be issued riot gear, correct? mr. miller: in accordance with the mayor's guidance. representative: and you placed restrictions on the deployment of 40 national guard quick reaction force who were staged nearby, correct? mr. miller: no. representative: you did not place restrictions on the deployment of the quick reaction force? mr. miller: no. general walker had. . full authority deploy the force representative: -- had full authority to deploy the force. representative: you we no authority restricting the forces? mr. miller: i gave guidance that i felt i should be involved but if you want to deploy the quick reaction force on his own, he could do that without my approval. representative: you were aware also on january 4 that capitol hill police chief sund also inquired about deployment of national guard troops to the
11:00 pm
capitol on january 6, correct? mr. miller: on january 4, i was not aware he asked and he did not put in a request for national guard support. representative: fair enough. did you attend the trump rally january 6? mr. miller: no. i was at the pentagon. representative: so you were observing events at the rally from the pentagon, correct? mr. miller: quick snow, the television was on. representative: you begin to monitor the situation at that point, correct? you are aware that the capital
11:01 pm
barricade had been breached in real time, you were watching that, correct? >> i cannot recall if i saw it in real time or if i saw a replay. >> you were aware that at 1:26 p.m., the police had ordered evacuation of the capitol, correct? >> i don't know if i knew it at the moment. >> you were aware eight minutes later that mayor bowser was again requesting national guard troops be sent to the capitol, correct? >> i was not aware of that. >> you were not aware at 1:39, the chief's son was frantically asking for deployment of national guard troops to the capitol? >> i was not aware of that.
11:02 pm
>> you said it was at 3:04 when you ordered the national guard be redeployed to the capitol, correct? in short, it was three hours after the first request for national guard assistance before permission was granted by you, is that correct? >> no, i don't think that was the case. a 911 call does not equate to a
11:03 pm
formal request. >> how did it come to pass that you slow boat 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 that three hours would pass before you authorize national guard troops to reinforce the capitol hill police? >> that is completely inaccurate and is not what happened. >> you did not issue an order until 4:00, 4:30. >> at 3:00 i ordered deployment of the national guard. >> what is it that in senate testimony made to general walker you testified under oath that it was at 5:08 p.m. that he received approval to deploy troops to the capitol? >> i don't know.
11:04 pm
he had all the approvals and authority he needed it re-: 04 when the order went out. >> did you ever plan with anyone inside or outside with the administration or with president trump himself to delay deployment of national guard troops to the capitol on january 6? >> i most emphatically say no and absolutely not. >> were you ordered to delay deployment of troops? >> 110% not, no, that is absolutely not the case. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair, and thank you, to the witnesses that are here today. i appreciate the uniforms you represent and the frontline men and women who wear them. thank you for being here today.
11:05 pm
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. how many of them were members of congress? >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> you don't know if a member of congress has been charged or not? >> let me put it differently -- i'm not aware that any have. >> ok, now, our speaker has said 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 sergeant at arms met with them.
11:06 pm
i met with them specifically and asked if there has been any intelligence to lead to the idea that members of congress were involved in the event, or as was alleged, in surveillance tours, and they said there was never any intelligence to lead to that, would any of you differ with that statement, or would you agree with that? any of the witnesses? hello? any of you agree, disagree? are we disconnected? >> the metropolitan police department, we have no information about that. >> ok, thank you. the speaker also provided information that an officer was killed by a fire extinguisher.
11:07 pm
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 or halls. it is tragic for someone serving in that capacity. it is notable that actions regarding january 6 and the insurgents at the capital, that we 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? >> is that directed to one of us, sir? >> to any of you. >> i'm not aware at the metropolitan police department.
11:08 pm
>> i'm not aware that has been done on the democratic side, including the vice president. mr. miller, it seems that no one wants to let you talk today. you mentioned that your initial estimate has been revised as intelligence has played out and been gathered since the event. i was on the plane with a number of people on january 6 and still have the luxury of being incognito sometimes, and so i was asked as a citizen, hey, you were at the event, what happened ? there was definitely a distinction between people who came to attend the rally versus people who came with intent to do harm. you have mentioned that there were agitators who came
11:09 pm
prepared. there has been some discussion about if 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, if they were motivated by anything president trump said, that they did not have time to go back to their house, put on their gear within the time it takes to get to the capitol. can you speak to that and the lessons learned and some of the new information that has come to light? >> the particular videos where the crowd is going up the stairs and holding onto each other and kitted up in a way that is pretty dramatic. that struck me as an example of they were organized and had thought through this. >> they showed up on the mall
11:10 pm
prepared? >> that is my establishment. i will leave it to determine definitively to you. >> thank you for your testimony today. >> the gentleman from maryland, mr. cy vance, is now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, madam chair. i want to talk about where we go from here. 126 days ago, the capitol was overrun by insurrectionists. 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. there's a lot of unanswered questions that remain. in february, as we know, speaker pelosi proposed an independent
11:11 pm
commission, which was modeled after the 9/11 commission to study the january attacks and the factors that lead to it. unfortunately, with few exceptions, republicans have opposed this condition, even as the speaker has indicated her openness to compromise. i have proposed the commission, for example, have an equal number of republicans and democrats, so that the chair and the ranking member share the authority to try to construct this in a way that is nonpartisan. one criticism we have heard from republicans who spoke with the commission should include protest events to police brutality that occurred in the summer of 2020. we got a little taste of that perspective today, but that is an entirely different subject that does not relate to the january 6 attack.
11:12 pm
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 republican administrations sent us -- sent a letter to congress urging us to create a 9/11-style commission to provide a "full picture of events and analysis of causes." they wrote further, given the gravity of january 6 as a national security matter, the violent disruption to the transition of power and continuing threat of further attacks, a national commission examining the lead up and the attendant security lapses is not only appropriate but a critical component of the national
11:13 pm
response. i asked for unanimous consent for this to be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> mr. miller, do you agree with these national security professionals' assessments that the january 6 attack was a grave matter of national security? >> yes. >> do you think something like the january 6 attacks could happen again? >> yes. >> would and independent review of the events of january 6 help prevent a reoccurrence and/or make us better prepared in the future? >> yes. >> mr. rosen, can you give me your perspective on the value of a 911 style commission? >> congressman, i think we start the premise that the events at the capitol, the attack on the capitol were an unconscionable
11:14 pm
outrage. i think i said in my statement a national travesty. knowing that, it is important to get the fact established, understood, and have the opportunity to try to ensure something like that never happens again. doing that we are commission or some other means, i think that is really a question for the congress, to leave it to you and your colleagues to determine that. >> i appreciate that. you look back at the 9/11 commission, not only did it produce in a bipartisan fashion and analysis of what occurred, it became kind of a 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's why there was such a strong case to be made there.
11:15 pm
i think it helps the country and the american people and lawmakers, all who were affected by it, to come to terms with what happened that day on 911 in a significant and in a sense healing fashion. i think that is the promise of a convention in this six. 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. >> i thank you for your statement. i could not agree more that 9/11 gave us a diagram of going forward to make this country
11:16 pm
safer. it was truly a determined, bipartisan effort to move this country forward. i hope we can do the same to look at what happened at our capitol january 6. with that, i would like to recognize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you to our witnesses. you have endured a lot over the last several hours. i hold great hopes will get to the bottom of the events that happened january 6. it was no doubt a dark day in our country. unfortunately, this hearing has not been anything like i would haven't hesitated. this was not an effort to get to the truth, not to find out what really happened. it is nothing but a political show. i do have a question -- which law enforcement agency would you say has the primary responsibility for protecting the capitol? >> the united states capitol police.
11:17 pm
>> thank you, sir. mr. rosen, do you agree with that assessment? >> i do. the capitol police are part of the legislative branch and are responsible for securing the capitol. >> thank you. mr. miller, would you agree as well? >> yes. >> thank you all. it is interesting we have no one here from capitol police today. on january 3, the capitol police issued an internal report stating that the intelligence and interagency coordination division were tracking protests that were to take place on january 5 and 6, and there were indications the protesters could be armed. it does not appear that internal report was shared with other law enforcement agencies or the fbi. was your agency made aware of that report? >> no. >> what it have been helpful information to you to know that there was a corroborating story
11:18 pm
among the army folks? >> i believe it would have been helpful, but just in terms of deployment, we had posted on the national guard individuals that could be armed, that sort of thing. >> we have heard about the field office in norfolk warning that extremists were sharing online plans encouraging each other to be violent and ready for war. the fbi claims that information was ready to be shared with the field office in washington and subsequently, the joint terrorism task force. chief, were you aware of that report from the nor folk office? >> no. >> it was emailed to the agency but did not make it to your attention. >> yes, sir.
11:19 pm
>> our understanding as well, the chief's son of the u.s. capitol police did not receive that information, either. 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 cannot for the life of me adam why if we are going to call witnesses that the agency primary responsible -- primarily responsible for guarding this institution was not invited to participate. that is another question for another day. beyond that, another topic came up here and was brought to my attention. the two of you along with secretary mccarthy received a letter from mayor bowser on january 5. are you familiar with the letter i'm talking about? >> it is attached to my recent testimony. >> could you elaborate a little
11:20 pm
bit about what the mayor was stating to you? >> i guess she wrote to the army secretary and to the acting secretary of defense and me and indicated she wanted us aware that -- i will just read the beginning -- as the law enforcement agency charged with protecting residents throughout the district, the metropolitan police department is prepared for activities, all of whom have uniformed personnel protecting federal assets in the district of columbia. she goes on and clarifies or expresses that the district of columbia government had not requested personnel from any other federal law enforcement agencies and to be clear, the district of columbia is not requesting other law enforcement
11:21 pm
personnel and discourages additional deployment without immediate notification in consultation with cpd if such plans are under way. >> thank you. it seems that is important information. again, i would love to have the mayor here so we could ask her directly, but for whatever reason, my colleagues across the aisle have not deemed that person to be important enough to bring to us today. i look forward to getting on with this when we are ready to have a serious hearing, and apparently that is not the case today. >> the gentleman yields back. the young lady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> i think madame chair and thank you both for your participation today. let me start with you, mr. rosen. earlier in your comments today, you said that there was no widespread evidence of fraud that the department uncovered.
11:22 pm
can you detail the specific evidence of fraud that you uncovered during the election? >> i know you are alluding to page two of my written testimony and putting much what i have to say, i have said there. i'm not at liberty to get into the details, the specific investigations into secure locales, but i have shared the results of that. >> but there was nothing that would constitute widespread. there -- they were isolated incidents across the country. >> as i said, nothing on a sufficient scale to overturn the country or widespread. >> i think everyone agrees there was an abysmal failure of intelligence. there was so much on social media that was ignored. in my work on the intelligence committee, i think there is a bias, but clearly, in this case,
11:23 pm
the open source information was raising red flags all over the place. on social media and right-wing forums, supporters of president trump telegraphed out in the open their intended 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 user posted january 6 is a chance to restore this country . charging the capitol is the surest way to have our bases covered and apprehend these traders -- these traitors. some users shared maps of the capitol building. these conversations were not
11:24 pm
happening 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 public threats against the u.s. capitol and members of congress? >> yes, congresswoman, as i have alluded to in my written testimony, there was a robust effort at the fbi to track appropriate and available information and to share it at the police departments, and that was done. 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 are bad things. i would refer you to director ray's testimony a couple of months ago before the senate where he addresses how the
11:25 pm
bureau has to deal with things that are aspirational versus real intent and corroborated, and that is a challenge for the intelligence community. i would disagree that there is an intelligence failure. i think the information that was available was different. >> let me go on. what does the department of justice and fbi need to change to ensure that obvious warning signs are taken seriously? >> not sure if i'm following your question. on january 6, we had repositioned and alerted our tactical assets at the fbi and atf, the u.s. marshals. on january 6, with great urgency, we deployed over 500 men and women from the justice
11:26 pm
department to provide assistance at the capitol -- >> but after -- but that was after the breach, was it not? >> it was after the breach, but we had repositioned them to be available. >> we are talking about before the breach. before the breach is when intelligence becomes so important. >> i'm sorry, i misunderstood your question. i think the reason i misunderstood your question is the capitol police are responsible for security at the capitol, and they are part of the legislative branch. they do not report to me, and i don't have any authority over them. >> 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,
11:27 pm
where it never percolates to the top. 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 pointing fingers over we have no jurisdiction over the capitol -- my god, this is where the seat of government is. how can you not recognize responsibility? >> might i briefly respond? >> [inaudible] >> thank you. i think there is a misunderstanding. the point i'm making is the people with the responsibility of 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 is a question directed specifically at the capitol police's
11:28 pm
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 two. if you want to get an understanding, there are other participants you should talk to. >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> 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 majority parties, this hearing is a continuation of the speaker's partisan approach to obtaining facts and putting steps in place to ensure this never happen against. that should be what we are doing here today. here's the truth -- many in the democratic party are politicizing this issue and making gross attempts to link the concerns of tens of millions
11:29 pm
of americans about the last election and the peaceful actions of their elected representatives to the violent actions of january 6. those tens of millions of americans that i mentioned at 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 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 democrats contesting the house, this debate is fundamental to our democracy. i urge my colleagues on this committee to stop the hypocrisy and stop politicizing this
11:30 pm
tragedy. this country and this congress are divided enough already. it is time for the metal detectors on the house floor and the ridiculousness 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 in the congress and in the nation. i urge my colleagues to all support hr 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 january 6. we can do this and do it in a bipartisan manner, guaranteeing full accountability for the people who commit these crimes and full accountability for the leaders that failed to secure the capitol. we were able to do the exact same thing after the harrowing events of september 11, two
11:31 pm
thousand one, 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 a 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 anyone here today -- mr. rosen, mr. miller, you have tendered a lot of incoming. i would like to give you a little time, is there any -- anything you would like to correct for the record or anything you would like to add that you have not been given a chance to? >> i guess just to follow-up on my previous line of questioning, i would just like to clarify because it occurs to me that
11:32 pm
sometimes i may know the roles and responsibilities of the different entities, and not all members of congress will. everybody is trying to work together and coordinate, and nobody is trying to say we don't want to be helpful or don't have responsibility when it is a little bit like bill belichick says about football players. everyone has to do their own job as well as folks doing the other jobs. 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 are not even part of the executive ranch, right? i'm not saying we don't try to assist and collaborate and coordinate -- we do. we share information. the point i'm making is ultimately, the decision what to do with the information falls in that instance -- because it depends which police force it is -- but it depends on the capitol
11:33 pm
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 together, police forces for the justice department if they need resources or in some instances, if they need particularly large bodies of the national guard. there is mechanisms for people to coordinate, but everyone has got to do their own job and everyone is trying to help each other with their jobs. we have pre-positioned some resources. we hope they were not needed. nobody 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. that involves some that were nearby and some helicopter from
11:34 pm
virginia. i wanted to clarify that because i think some of these people do not understand the relevant roles and responsibilities when people are working very hard to assist one another. >> i think they understand more than you think. it just does not fit in with the partisan narrative being pushed. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> he yields back. the gentlelady from illinois is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. on january 6, we have been talked about worldwide since the capitol became a danger zone filled with chaos. i was one of the 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.
11:35 pm
some of my colleagues are still suffering from that day. mr. miller, in your written testimony, you stated that the department of defense -- in order for the department of defense to provide military support, it is needed to coordinate with several other agencies. 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 and information exchanged with and between domestic law enforcement organizations charged with protecting d.c. and the capitol." who was at fault for
11:36 pm
the lack of coordination and information exchange in the days leading to the insurrection? >> thank you the question and thank you for highlighting the human cause. huge empathy, and i know the fear and terror that goes on when you are being attacked. i just wanted to highlight that 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 questions to sickly. i just don't know, but it's got to be somebody, and it has to be determined -- >> which federal agency or department needed to do more? who should have been the lead for the federal government? >> i felt that we were very good getting the federal government pieced 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 written large.
11:37 pm
those lead agencies did a fine job, so i want to be clear about that, but in terms of writ large, it is a thing that needs to be decided. yes, ma'am. >> that is what we need to do much better going forward? >> i believe so, yes. >> you also testified you felt it was your responsibility to initiate discussions to coordinate federal planning efforts prior to january 6. why do you feel it was your responsibility? and who specifically do you feel had this response ability or should have? >> thank you for the question. thank you for allowing me to answer with a little more thoughtfulness. i had an obligation to the mothers and fathers of the people who were going out there, so i took that extremely seriously, and that's why i felt it was incumbent upon me to ensure i was the convening authority, at least initially, to bring everyone together and
11:38 pm
get it going, so i did that. >> do you take personal responsibility for the gaps in communication or intelligence sharing that occurred prior to or on january 6? >> i wish things had gone a lot better, obviously. i just wanted to reiterate, highlight, this is not some trying to cover my you know what. it is not good for the republic or our american citizens to have the department of defense be involved, except as a last resort and when all civilian law enforcement has been expended. i know that sounds mundane, but it is important for our people and this body to understand my thought process. >> thank you. i'm grateful to members of the u.s. capitol police, d.c. national guard, and federal law enforcement who responded to the day's attack.
11:39 pm
it was clear that coordination was lacking. chief, during the january 6 attack, how would you describe communication? >> we had good communication on that day. they were present here. they have represented us here. we have representatives there. >> thank you. how about the communication between the department of defense and the national guard? >> i had conversations with secretary mccarthy leading up to january 6, and there were several organizational calls the department of defense was not necessarily part of, but between local law enforcement and members of the aderholt law enforcement, capitol police, fbi , united states attorney's office, there were several coordination calls that made up the information chain january 6.
11:40 pm
>> since that time, what has been done to improve communication coordination, if anything has been done? and then i will yield back. >> the thing that is different now is an urgent matter or something that needs to be talked about amongst the principals, the phone calls that take place, the conversations that take place. one thing that was challenging during this was there were those things taking place along with emails between different agencies, and i don't know that that would necessarily qualify as a notification. >> the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is now recognized. mr.. >> madam chair, thank you.
11:41 pm
violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and moral. it is eight descending spiral ending in the destruction of all. it is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. one of the greatest americans who ever lived under those words over half a century ago, reverend martin luther king. what happened on january 6 i think every member of this committee and our chamber was horrific, criminal, and completely inconsistent to the values of a vibrant, healthy republican should receive just condemnation from all quarters. what we should be doing today, and what members of the chamber should have been during the past four months is try to find out what happened on january 6 and why. what accounted for the massive security failure and who was
11:42 pm
truly at fault for that ale your? how could an unorganized mob of strangers have breached the united states capitol. the solution is to take the obvious political theater out of the equation altogether. if the events of january six received bipartisan condemnation, which they did, than the best way to discover the causes for the riot and the security so -- security failures that allowed the breach should be to allow a bipartisan initiative. speaker pelosi has dragged her feet, which begs the question -- why? this delay and lack of leadership is shameful. i was one of the last to leave the chamber and i will tell you
11:43 pm
with full candor i did not know what was on the other side of that door. i heard from capitol police "shots fired! shots fired!" it was terrible. i will forever be grateful for those who stood to the right and left of me. 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. my friends and colleagues and the media are fond of labeling the events of january 6 and insurrection, but is that accurate or hyperbolic? as mobs often do, they resorted
11:44 pm
to the lowest common denominator and evolve from peaceful protest into violent action. mobs are not only unruly, they are stupid as well. they are mindless and irrational. that is precisely why they are so dangerous. so was it a rebellion? was the mob intent on killing and overthrowing the government? let's not allow speculation and conjecture and partisan opinion to rule the day. let's look at what member's the mob were actually charged with. were there any charge for murder, attempted murder, insurrection? was january 6 and insurrection, or can it more accurately be described as a mob of ms. fitz committing unlawful conduct, breach of entry, etc.? at the end of the day, republicans have proven themselves the only ones to
11:45 pm
condemn it. we have condemned violence since 2020 went antifa -- when antifa brought up violent results. no committee hearings have been held, to my knowledge, to discover the root causes of that violence. the best way to ensure the capitol is never again breached is to appoint a bipartisan commission forth with to examine the events of january 6 and to do so without the looming and tempting fog of political gain hovering. madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, and i now recognize the
11:46 pm
gentlelady from missouri, ms. busch. >> i thank you, madam chair, for convening this necessary hearing. at trump's january six valley, he told the crowd, "if you don't fight like hell, you are not going to have a country anymore." -- at trump's january 6 rally. a violent mob of insurrectionists -- let's call them who they are -- stormed the capital in an attempt to overturn election results. i want to raise a pressing issue today. with this attack have happened, would it have been allowed to happen if those groups on the capitol were there to stand up -- stand up -- for black lives rather than fight for white supremacy? mr. rosen, what would the doj response have in that day if the majority of people who participated in these attacks
11:47 pm
looked like me? >> congresswoman, i appreciate that question. firstly, i want to say that 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 involving racially and ethnically motivated violence, so from my vantage point, there's 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 we provided of over 500 people urgently going to the capitol that occurred -- i think our preparation and responses would have been the same. >> ok, thank you. i'm going to have to disagree with you.
11:48 pm
i appreciate the first part of your comment, but i have to disagree. we witness the differences in response with the january 6 attacks 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 teargas -- and i can say we because i'm not talking about what i think i'm talking about, what i know because i was there -- we were teargas fighting for justice in our own community. the white supremacist mob -- the white supremacist mob was able to break in with weapons 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
11:49 pm
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 to audits, stood up to court cases. president joe biden was a duly elected in a free and there election, defeated donald trump, but baseless conspiracy theories and those who encouraged them are harmful in and of themselves. public officials and other leaders have encouraged insurrection 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. he led the agency coordinating federal security preparation for january 6. were you aware that federal
11:50 pm
officials work inciting and supporting the insurrection? mr. rosen? >> i think the best thing i can do on this is refer you to the public statements that i made on the time on january 6, on january 7, and the days that followed. i don't think i could have been any more vocal in expressing my disapproval. how we watched in disbelief as the mob breached capitol building -- >> specifically, the public officials. >> i'm sorry, i apologize, but i'm not sure i follow the question. >> this is about public officials. were you aware that they were supporting the insurrection? >> i'm not sure. i guess to think about it, i'm
11:51 pm
not sure i understand the question. >> ok, reclaiming my time. the truth is clear. the violence that day was built on a series of lies and disgraceful attempts to further suppress the votes of black people to undermine our election and overturn the results. one senior member of his committee said, "no way." we should still try to figure out exactly what took place. would you attempt that attempts to overturn the election and the dangerous rhetoric i just decided played a role in the january 6 insurrection? >> i should note that the
11:52 pm
department of defense just did our job and did not take into account all of the political factors you brought up. >> so yes or no? >> the question is kind of -- i hate to seem defensive, but the question -- one more time?
11:53 pm
>> the question is would you agree that unconstitutional attempts to overturn the election and dangerous reddick -- rhetoric work responsible for the violence on january 6? >> i think the entire media conflict is culpable in creating this conflict. >> thank you. >> madame chair, she is long
11:54 pm
over time. >> the gentlelady from new mexico, ms. harrell, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madame chair. this is a great segue into the questions that i have. because of all the social media posts on twitter, facebook,
11:55 pm
etc., do you think these impacted the -- do you think these impacted the ability to conduct an investigation after january 6? >> i said the investigators primarily at the fbi are extremely professional and know how to do that properly and correctly. it is to them to do their jobs, and i'm confident they try to do
11:56 pm
them extremely well. >> do you feel the well has been poisoned here? we heard that officer sicknick y
11:57 pm
11:58 pm
every member on that floor was running for their life. every member on that floor. whether you were a democrat or plunker pro tump or not you were running for your life. it was absolutely unacceptable. and itrying to rationalize it today does not give me any sense of comfort that we're doing our jobs as members of congress. so you can call it a riot or
11:59 pm
resurrection, man died while he was in the middle of this attack on our capitol. a police officer died. many more were injured. i'm pro police but i'm pro the professional respect of the shield to serve and protect not to attack and kill. but i have a question for you, mr. rosen. in your written statement you said you observed on tv the mob from the pro-trump rally was moving to the capitol. can you tell me what time that was ta you observed on tv that this was happening? >> unfortunately not with specificity. some of these things blurred together, people coming into my office. >> at that time when you observed on tv were there d.o.j.
12:00 am
law enforcement personnel already at the capitol? >> i think there were some a.t.f. agents nearby buzz of the explosive devices, the bomb threats. near the republican and democrat headquarters. that was part of why we could get some people to the capitol so quickly. we got a lot more after that. it was around second basing that i saw things on tv but i can't. >> you said later. i'm horrified and dismayed as you watched television as the rioters tbleached capitol around 4:00. and you stated you soon learned that a.t.f. and f.b.i. among others that received requests from the capitol police were beginning to respond. how many a.t.f. and f.b.i.
12:01 am
officers were deployed to the capitol and what time -- so you didn't call for them, you learned by watching on --ulater linebacker will -- later learned that they were deployed you didn't call for them. >> the way this works, capitol police establish what they immediate in advance and if they immediate additional help they coordinate it ahead of time with the park police, the justice department, d.h.s., national guard. and when the violence occurred they requested help from a.t.f. and f.b.i. and ewe responded with great urgency. we had prepositioned some resourceses. i had hoped that was cautionary. i called them in as quick as possible. 500 federal agents from the crusties department. >> 500 agecies have been deployed to the capitol more than four months after the
12:02 am
june -- the january 6. this is new -- >> no, no, no. the same day. january 6. >> right. but this was new information. as you know the committee along with six others sent a request for documents and information o5 concerning the events of january 6. we need the department to provide us with information and documents we asked for so congress can get to the bottom of this. the d.o.j. needs to start producing information and we also need an independent -- i agree with my republican colleague who said we need an independent commission you said
12:03 am
you were fearing your life not knowing what's going to happen, 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's a partisan answer and you're ridiculous crap stops and we can get to the bottom of this. i yield back. i thank you. >> the gentlelady yields back. thank you for your strong statement. the gentleman from florida, mr. donldz, is recognized for five minutes. i thank him for his attention here today and thoughtful participation. thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> i wanted to be here for a while. i actually agree with part of the testimony from our privates
12:04 am
colleague because i was on the floor too. i was on the floor for quite some time. so i remember the banging at the door. i remember the -- being evacuated with other members of congress. at that point, we stopped being republicans an democrats. we were just members. trying to make sure that each other were getting to safety. i remember it very clearly. i'll never forget it a day in my lifism 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's not acceptable. i'm 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 hash tags. on social media. we've got to get to the actual
12:05 am
facts. i would say one of the agencies responsible for the safety of this area is not here. 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 of january 6? >> yes. >> were you in touch with capitol police before, during and after the events of january 6? >> i was not personal by but the department of defense was in close contact. >> chief, the same question to you. were you in touch with capitol police before, during and after the events on january 6? >> yes.
12:06 am
>> i find it interesting that the three witness -- witnesses here today have 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's important if we're going to have a hearing that unveils all the thshes -- shashes that occurred and how to make this never happen again they need to be here as well. mr. miller, i know you said you were in contact, or you received a request from may you are bowz we are respect to national guard troops. when did you receive that request from mayor bowzer? >> december 31, 2020, and spent the weekend going over the plan with the national guard and department of army and army staff.
12:07 am
>> at what point did you and president trump actually have a discussion on this request from mayor busker? >> i had a -- mayor bowzer? >> i had a meeting with president trump on some international threats and he asked if there were requests for national guard support. i informed him of mayor bowzer's request. >> to clarify that point, did you tell the president of the mayor's request or did president trump ask if there were requests? >> he asked if there were requests. >> what was the president's response to you with regard to the request made by mayor bowz her. >> fill it, do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators and -- that were executing their constitutionally protected right. >> ok. and what happened in response tt happened when you notified her that her request has been fulfilled what did she do with the information? >> i don't know.
12:08 am
>> did mayor bowzer follow up after the agreement from the president to provide support actually asking for that support to be deployed? >> i know there was that 5 january letter referred to earlier that acting a.g. rosen referred to. >> the letter, acting a.g. rosen in which mayor bowzer declined support is that correct? >> it indicated that she thought the police had things in hand and did not need additional support at that time. >> my last question is this. mr. miller, if 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? >> i think it will go down in history as one of the most expedient deployments in national guard history, i would like to highlight our premier active duty force on strip alert
12:09 am
has a three-hour window to deploy and they deployed based on my call calculations much quicker. the national guard deployed much quicker than active duty forces are expected to. >> madam chair i know i'm over my time, may i ask one brief question? >> granted. >> thank you, madam chair. in your estimation, on average, how long does it take to deploy the national guard when requested? >> i'm not gg -- i'm not being deceitful, but it depends on what thing mys, where they're trying to go to and all these other factors. >> this was the most expedient? >> i think if we looked at it definitively if we had historians and analysts look at it, i think you will find and it will be clarified as one of the most ex-peend yent deemployments in national guard history. >> thank you, i yield back, thank you, madam chair.
12:10 am
>> the gentleman from california, mr. desaulnier, is recognized for five mines. the gentleman from california. >> thank you, madam chair. thank you for this hairing -- this hearing. i think all of us will agree it's painful, revisiting this. but it's 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. 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 a -- in an office that afforded me a view of the mall and also allowed me to watch television, we were monitoring the floor, but i was able to listen to news reports about what was happening on the eclipse. and then i was able to quite visually see the attack on the western front where still
12:11 am
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 looked back and i started to accelerate my concern, and this, my perspective, listening to the then-president, i thought, wealths that person he has a different way of communicating, but we now know the people who broke the law and entered the capitol thought that he was telling them to do what they did. and that'll come forward more and more as the 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 eclipse and the
12:12 am
content of what the president was telling them. so when did you become aware of that and howdied you respond and particularly, the spirit and specifically saying you've got to go out there and fight like hell and i will be with you. do you remember when you became aware of that? >> 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 time is limited. 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. i asked for continued updates which i continued to receive.
12:13 am
obviously, when i was receiving them, as i alluded to earlier, sometime around second basing, give or take, i don't remember the exact time, i learned that the perimeter was breached. >> mr. rosen, just -- did you -- let's go to mr. miller. when did you find out about what happened at the eclipse and what the president had strucked the mob to do? >> the, i don't recall when i was told -- i just -- when the movement started to the capitol, whatever time that was, we still can't figure that out, i recall based on my notes between first basing and 1:30. >> when did you become aware of what the president was instructing the mob to do, chief? >> probably days later. i was in the midst of all that was going on, i was at the west front of the capitol at one point. unable to watch television, to hear what he was saying. but more importantly just there
12:14 am
as the situation unfolded. >> in hindsight, and i know hindsight is 2020, it certainly clears -- it seem clears he was communicating accurately to that group of people. they have said they were following up instructions by the president of the united states. do you have the same perception? >> um, this group of 300 or so 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, you know. 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 f.b.i. makes its cases that individuals are saying they were following those but i don't know that personally.
12:15 am
>> you said you support strongly an independent, bipartisan commission. is there anything you would tell them about this? >> thank you for the question. i think everybody has hit that. let's get some lessons learned and let's not let this happen again and let's figure out how to rebuild our connection and affinity for each other. >> thank you, madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky, mrr five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. mr. rosen, you were the acting attorney general in the events of january 6 through january 20, correct? >> yes, sir. >> in that capacity did you oversee efforts to investigate or prosecute those responsible? >> during that time, yes. >> were those investigations a prayerty for the department of justice under your leadership? >> 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
12:16 am
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 work at breakneck speed, particularly the u.s. attorney's office and the f.b.i. because it was such a priority. >> 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? >> it was in excess of 500 agents and officers from the f.b.i., the a.t.f., u.s. marshal service. i don't have the exact count but it's north of 500. >> mr. miller, you were acting secretary of defense during the events on january 6, correct? >> yes, sir. >> in that capacity you authorized a national guard deployment as requested by the mayor of d.c. prior to those events, correct?
12:17 am
>> yes. >> 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 ta correct? >> yes. >> 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? >> yes, that's what i got paid to handle. >> can you confirm that on january 6, the white house did not at any time order this national guard to stand down or impede the deployment of the national guard to the capitol? >> without equivocation or hesitation, that is correct. that did not happen. >> that's the headline of this hearing, much to the disappointment of my colleagues on the left.
12:18 am
you confirm there was no white house interference despite many of the stories in the media. counter to what you just testified. the capitol police report specifically denied a request from then-chief sun on january 4 to declare an emergency and authorize the national guard. do you have any idea why the capitol police board denied this request? >> i co- i do not. >> can you please explain why the military should ordinarily be hesitant to get itself involved in domestic law enforcement matters? >> when we've done it in the past it's been a complete nightmare for the united states and for the armed forces and it's not something we should do lightly and without great fore thought. >> that's right. a lot of democrats on this committee have criticized you all and 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
12:19 am
of defense's response to the january 6 eventss 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? >> i believe it's a lack of familiarity with the nature of military operations or, as i said in my statement, a polityization of this issue -- po litcyization of this issue. i don't know why there's such confusion. >> do you continue to stand by the command decisions you made on january 6 given the information you had at the time? >> yes. >> madam chair, thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman's time has expired and the gentleman from california, vice chair gomez is recognized for five minutes.
12:20 am
>> thank you, theirwoman maloney. january 6 is a day that a lot of us are going to remember 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 doors shut on us. we were all fearful of our life. we had a 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 i texted my wife that -- that i was trying to get out and i was with capitol police but i didn't want to tell her, 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 we were in a bad
12:21 am
situation. i knew if the mob got in that bad things could happen. soy had my -- i took off my jacket earlier, my lapel pining, 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 creams and misdemeanors for inciting violence against the u.s. government because he wasn't alone. some members of this body have been in-- have insisted and continue to insist that president joe biden was not duly elected. audit after audit and court case after course case has athe fact that donald trump was defeated fairly by president joe biden. and yet these conspiracy theories continue. and they proliferate online, are given ox jeb within the republican party. many of them have failed to condemn and today have expelled one of their own from their, quote, big tent of leadership,
12:22 am
for not subscribing to this lie. in the name of this defunct conspiracy theory, violence was committed here and further violence has been promoted against other elected officials, including our colleagues. my colleague, marjorie taylor grine has gone on record, quote, saying speaker pelosi 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 ince gayed or incited the storming of the u.s. capitol
12:23 am
for their own 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 co -- of a coupe. >> i had no concerns that the armed forces of the united states would violate their 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 number two, if i were to put u.s. military forces -- forces on capitol hill before the events of january 6, i feel very confident that that would have created reenforced 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.
12:24 am
>> mr. miller, 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 othey have professionalty of the women and men in uniform. earlierier you walked back on trump's responsibility in the insurrection saying there was a difference between the march and the assault. do you believe trump had no role in the assault? >> i have absolutely no idea. i can't imagine he did butch thank you for highlighting that and i again -- the -- your explanation of the fear that goesen o-- that goes on with this, the same sort of things happened to our soldiers as we're getting them ready to go. that's another important factor that go into how long it takes to plan and make sure they're ready to go. thank you for bringing that up an highlighting that again. >> but do youal view, when somebody repeats that the only way they can get their country back, that it was stolen from them, that those words coming
12:25 am
from the command for the chief of the united states of america and the armed forces could be enough to incite the incident dent on january 6? >> it absolutely could. it could be. i just -- i know that clock just hit. i have 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 now going to 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 in the because i don't have a view it's because i'm out there alone and unafraid, i want to be clear with that, that i can take care of myself. i appreciate your consideration of the matters for those of us out of government now. >> mr. miller, just -- that fear is across the board on both sides that if, i think that's what's causing some of the behavior is that a real fear
12:26 am
that elected officials, their family, would be targeted and that's one of the things we both agree on both sides of the aisle that we have to condemn that. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentlewomann from massachusetts, ms. press lye is recognized for five minutes. ms. press lye. >> thank you, madam chair. on december 19, 2020, donald trump tweeted, this protest -- 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 notes was erected on the west lawn of the capitol. this was a violent white
12:27 am
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 leaves. 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 duty 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
12:28 am
with the comprehensive mental health support and resourceses 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 d.o.j. and d.o.d. on january 6 was delayed, it was disorganized and compared to privates months it was deficient. when community organizers and people of all ages took to the streets chanting "black leaves matter" following the murder of george floyd last may, the trumping or organization used every tool at their disposal to try to stop them including rubber bullets. they said as soon as you map and dominate the battle space the quicker this dissipates. here in d.c. to intimidate peaceful protesters calling for racial equity the department of
12:29 am
justice activated a pret rah of law enforce. agencies including the u.s. park police, bureau of prisons, u.s. marshal service, a.t.f., c.b.p. and even t.s.a. armed federal officials were wearing unmarked gear and dominated the streets. you were deputy attorney general when the racial justice protests took place in the sum over 2020. were you aware of d.o.j.'s efforts to mobilize a federal security response during the summer of 2020 in the streets of washington, d.c.? yes or no? >> 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 racial -- racially and ethnically
12:30 am
motivated -- >> reclaiming my time. you were the head of the lead federal agency responsible for cord niet -- coordinating the preparations for january 6. for the record how many personnel did you coordinate from the t.s.a. for january 6? >> i authority over personal from the tsa or any agencies. rep. pressley: can you share with us what personnel from c.p.b., i.c.e. and tsa were engaged for the events on 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 is my understanding that there were federal agents from d.h.s. that want to assist with the restoration of order along with others from the d.o.j. and mpd and other police forces. rep. pressley: we will follow
12:31 am
up. reclaiming my time for now. do you agree based on your observation and your expertise that the d.o.j. acted differently in preparation for the january 6 attack than for the summer of 2020? just a yes or no. mr. rosen: we are talking about two different situations. the responses were tailored to the situation of the time. i would say on january 6, which is what i am here for, today, while i feel that 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. rep. pressley: was the preparation different from black lives matter than it was on january 6? mr. rosen: we are talking about different situations. rep. pressley: reclaiming my time. >> madam chair, her time has expired.
12:32 am
chairwoman maloney: ok. the last speaker we have now, and the last questioner, is the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley. you are recognized for five minutes, mr. quigley. rep. quigley: thank you madam chairwoman. you told of chairwoman earlier today mr. miller, that you didn't speak with former president trump on january 6. however the reporter quoted another senior official who said they could not get through. they tried to call him. to your knowledge, did you or anybody you know in the office try to contact president trump on january 6? mr. miller: i did not, and to the best of my knowledge, i am not aware of anyone else from my office either. rep. quigley: was their -- there a discussion about whether an active president should be reached about this, in the discussions that were taking place, decisions that had to be made? mr. miller: i had all the authority and needed to make the
12:33 am
decision. rep. quigley: in the aftermath of january 6, to your knowledge, did anyone at the white house or dod attempt to limit the scope, the degree to which the dod or personnel cooperated with any investigation, including congressional investigations into the january 6 attack? mr. miller: no. there has been nothing like that that i am aware of. rep. quigley: i am the last questioner. i am struck by what you said twice now, but you wouldn't change anything about the dod's response on january 6. you have no regrets. it is coming from the military we tuscaloosa battle. right? i, too, was in the room where it happened. 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
12:34 am
of what took place and say somehow that that is a victory or that you've succeeded somehow? mr. miller: there were 8000 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. rep. quigley: i am talking about the dod. how would you answer this, if this is a victory, a success, how would you have classified a failure? mr. miller: i want to highlight, it is not the correct role for the department of defense or the armed forces to be involved in civilian law enforcement matters except at an absolute last resort and when all civilian forces have been expended. that did not occur until about 2:30 in my estimation. rep. quigley: the last resort. you came in after the fact. i was in the room. i remember the colleagues saying when is the f-ing cavalry getting here?
12:35 am
you never showed up on time. we were exposed because of this. i would respect you a lot more if you said, "we could have done this and this better." had i thought that, ok, you were at least trying -- you don't win every battle, but to lose the battle and say it was everybody else's fault? that does a disservice to the department of defense. mr. miller: that's not what i said. if we had a valid and necessary request from your body, i guarantee you the department of defense would have been there in strength as required. rep. quigley: would you acknowledge we lost the battle?
12:36 am
mr. miller: oh, yes we did. rep. quigley: the first time since 1814. mr. miller: horrifying. rep. quigley: and it was everybody else's fault but the dod. mr. miller: i absolutely disagree with that statement. rep. quigley: i am paraphrasing you. it is the honor thing that makes sense when you say you wouldn't do anything differently. 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. rep. quigley: the constitution is not a treaty off -- of surrender. [laughs] it affords you the opportunity to do what is necessary to defend the people and the democracy of the united states. i mean, looking back and saying, "at least i defended the constitution" is another perverse way of looking at this. 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
12:37 am
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 law-enforcement agency. rep. quigley: you lost and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to own up to your responsibility. and i get it. a lot of people screwed up and you are one of the. i yield back, madam chairwoman. mr. miller: i respectfully disagree. rep. quigley: i was in the room and you weren't. chairwoman maloney: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. before we close, i want to offer the ranking member sent opportunity to offer any closing remarks you may have. ranking member comer, you are recognized. rep. comer: thank you, madam chair. i have been sitting here thinking throughout the five-hour hearing how i would close. i think cnn summed up the hearing pretty well, and i don't say that very often about cnn,
12:38 am
but they said the hearing was unproductive. and i hope people in america watch this hearing. because you saw a sharp contrast between the behavior of republicans on the committee and democrats on the committee. republicans, we asked questions to the witnesses, pertinent questions. we allowed witnesses to answer those questions. on the other hand, democrats yelled at the witnesses -- most of them did -- and cut them off and would not allow them to answer the questions. ironically, this is a democrat-called hearing with a 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 committee can investigate.
12:39 am
just as we said 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 program is working as predicted. so well so that there are at least seven and a half million jobs available right now that employers are begging and pleading with congress to do something to help them find workers. the biden-pelosi stimulus bill printed so much money recently that it 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
12:40 am
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. i said in my opening statement, i called along with rodney davis and others, for a bipartisan commission immediately after january 6. but the truth of the matter is, despite some of the democrats saying they supported that, speaker pelosi has dragged 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 big things that i feel like are
12:41 am
worth repeating. first of all, president trump had no role with respect to the department of defense efforts of january 6. secondly, the white house did not order the national guard to stand down. i mentioned those two things because that is contrary to what a lot of the liberal media have reported throughout this process. so from that angle, i am glad that we had the hearing, glad that was proven today with the witnesses that the majority party chose to have your today, the witnesses who were the appropriate witnesses to have with respect to the particular subject. i wish the capitol police would have been here because the
12:42 am
capitol police, their main role is to protect the capitol, and policy they had a role in this. i think if we are sincere about trying to solve the problem and preventing this from happening in the future, we should have heard from capitol police. but saying that, i conclude by again, madam chair, thank you for having the hearing. i hope we can have hearings on other issues of utmost importance to american people, and 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. i appreciate the testimony of all of our witnesses today,
12:43 am
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 the d.o.j. 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 an historic failure. the capitol was overrun. several americans died, and our nation's peaceful transfer of
12:44 am
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 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 capital perimeter. by 1:30 p.m.. he activateded the d.c. national guard at 3:00 p.m.. but the guard did not deploy until mr. miller approved an operational plan and he admitted today he did not approve that plan until 90 minutes later at
12:45 am
4:3 2:00 p.m.. all of us watching at the capitol and on our television saw the horror in our capital and the threat to lives. and the delays did not end then. the national guard did not actually begin operations at the capital until 5:00 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 quote rapid. but the facts show it was disastrously slow. of course, the first and most -- person most responsible for this
12:46 am
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 quote fight like hell". when they attacked and put lives at risk and entered our capitol, he just set 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 funny 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
12:47 am
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, past it, funded it, gave it subpoena power, and appointed to outstanding public servants to head at.- to head it. the former chair hamilton and the governor of new jersey, tom cain. when it came out it sold more copies than harry potter. i nominate them for a national book award.
12:48 am
but they did not 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 continue 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.
12:49 am
on how to respond to this in a substantive way, so that it never happens again. i yield back. and i would like to add, in closing, that i think our -- thank our panelists for the 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. [gavel]
12:50 am
[background conversations] announcer: c-span's washington journal. every day we're taking your calls live, on the air, on the news of the day and we'll discuss policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, john lott from the crime prevention center discussing gun violence
12:51 am
in the u.s. and the new republic talks about the bipartisan infrastructure bill. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern saturday morning. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. ♪ announcer: c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. come scast partnering with 1,000 community centers to create wi-fi enabled lests. giving you a front row seat to democracy.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on