Capitol Police were told to hold back on Jan. 6, report finds
WASHINGTON — The Capitol Police had clearer advance warnings about the Jan. 6 attack than were previously known, including the potential for violence in which “Congress itself is the target.” But officers were instructed by their leaders not to use their most aggressive tactics to hold off the mob, according to a scathing new report by the agency’s internal investigator.
In a 104-page report, the inspector general, Michael Bolton, criticized the way the Capitol Police prepared for and responded to the mob violence on Jan. 6. The report was reviewed by The New York Times and will be the subject of a Capitol Hill hearing today.
Bolton found that the agency’s leaders failed to adequately prepare despite explicit warnings that pro-trump extremists posed a threat to law enforcement and civilians and that the police used defective protective equipment. He also found that the leaders ordered their Civil Disturbance Unit to refrain from using its most powerful crowd-control tools — like stun grenades — to put down the onslaught.
The report offers the most devastating account to date of the lapses and miscalculations around the most violent attack on the Capitol in two centuries.
Three days before the siege, a Capitol Police intelligence assessment warned of violence from supporters of President Donald Trump who believed his false claims that the election had been stolen. Some had even posted a map of the Capitol complex’s tunnel system on pro-trump message boards.
“Unlike previous postelection protests, the targets of the pro-trump supporters are not necessarily the counterprotesters as they were previously, but rather Con
gress itself is the target on the 6th,” the threat assessment said, according to the inspector general’s report. “Stop the Steal’s propensity to attract white supremacists, militia members, and others who actively promote violence may lead to a significantly dangerous situation for law enforcement and the general public alike.”
But on Jan. 5, the agency wrote in a plan for the protest that there were “no specific known threats related to the joint session of Congress.” And the former chief of the Capitol Police has testified that the force had determined that the likelihood of violence was “improbable.”
Bolton concluded such intelligence breakdowns stemmed from dysfunction within the agency and called for “guidance that clearly documents channels for efficiently and effectively disseminating intelligence information to all of its personnel.”
That failure conspired with other lapses inside the Capitol Police force to create a dangerous situation on Jan. 6, according to his account. The agency’s Civil Disturbance Unit, which specializes in handling large groups of protesters, was not allowed to use some of its most powerful tools and techniques against the crowd, on the orders of supervisors.
“Heavier, less-lethal weapons,” including stun grenades, “were not used that day because of orders from leadership,” Bolton wrote. Officials on duty on Jan. 6 told him that such equipment could have helped the force to “push back the rioters.”
Bolton’s findings are scheduled to be discussed today, when he is scheduled to testify before the House Administration Committee. He has issued two investigative reports — both classified as “law enforcement sensitive” and not publicly released — about
the agency’s shortcomings on Jan. 6. He is also planning a third report.
CNN first reported on a summary of the latest findings.
The report, titled, “Review of the Events Surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, Takeover of the U.S. Capitol,” reserves some of its harshest criticism for the management of the agency’s Civil Disturbance Unit, which exists to prevent tragedies like Jan. 6. Instead, nearly 140 officers were injured, and one, Officer Brian D. Sicknick, later collapsed and died after being assaulted by rioters.
The Civil Disturbance Unit, Bolton wrote, was “operating at a decreased level of readiness as a result of a lack of standards for equipment.” In particular, Bolton focused in on an embarrassing lack of functional shields for Capitol Police officers during the riot.
Some of the shields that officers were equipped with during the riot “shattered upon impact” because they had been improp
erly stored in a trailer that was not climate-controlled, Bolton found. Others could not be used by the police in desperate need of protection because they were locked on a bus in the middle of the siege.
“When the crowd became unruly, the CDU platoon attempted to access the bus to distribute the shields but were unable because the door was locked,” the report said, using an abbreviation for the Civil Disturbance Unit. The platoon “was consequently required to respond to the crowd without the protection of their riot shields.”
He also said the agency had an out-of-date roster and staffing issues.
“It is my hope that the recommendations will result in more effective, efficient, and/or economical operations,” Bolton wrote.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-calif., chairwoman of the Administration Committee, called the inspector general’s findings “disturbing” but said he had provided Congress with “important recommendations” for an overhaul.
Since the Jan. 6 attack, Congress has undertaken a series of security reviews about what went wrong. The three top security officials in charge on that day resigned, and they have since deflected responsibility for the intelligence failures, blaming other agencies, each other and at one point even a subordinate for the breakdowns that allowed hundreds of Trump supporters to storm the Capitol.
“None of the intelligence we received predicted what actually occurred,” the former Capitol Police chief, Steven Sund, testified in February before the Senate. “These criminals came prepared for war.”
But the inspector general report makes clear that the agency had received some warnings about how Trump’s extremist supporters were growing increasingly desperate as he promoted lies about election theft.
“Supporters of the current president see Jan. 6, 2021, as the last opportunity to overturn the results of the presidential election,” said the assessment three days before the riot. “This sense of desperation and disappointment may lead to more of an incentive to become violent.”
The Department of Homeland Security warned the Capitol Police on Dec. 21 of comments on a pro-trump website promoting attacks on members of Congress with a map of the tunnel system, according to the inspector general’s findings.
“Several comments promote confronting members of Congress and carrying firearms during the protest,” a Capitol Police analyst wrote.
Among the comments reported to the Capitol Police: “Bring guns. It’s now or never,” and, “We can’t give them a choice. Overwhelming armed numbers is our only chance.”
On Jan. 5, the FBI’S Norfolk field office, in Virginia, relayed another threat from an anonymous social media thread that warned of a looming war at the Capitol.
“Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being spilled,” the message read. “Get violent … stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”
Last month, the former police chief testified that the FBI report reached the Capitol Police the day before the attack, but not him directly. He said that an officer assigned to a law enforcement joint terrorism task force received the document and sent it to an unnamed intelligence division official on the force.
Nevertheless, Bolton said, Capitol Police fell short in several other ways in preventing a mob attack.
The agency did not train its recent recruits with the required 40 hours of civil disturbance training, citing concerns about the coronavirus, and failed to ensure its officers completed their 16 to 24 hours of annual training over “the past few years.”
Munitions stocked in the police armory were beyond their expiration date, and the agency repeatedly failed to adequately complete required quarterly audits of the unit, the inspector general said.
Moreover, within the agency, the Civil Disturbance Unit “has a reputation as an undesired assignment” and that fostered a “culture” that decreased “operational readiness,” the inspector general found.