Sources told CNN that in order for this report, compiled by the House Security and Senate Rules Committees, to receive support from both sides, the language must be carefully crafted and this includes the exclusion of the word “uprising,” which in particular straight does not appear outside of citations of footnotes and footnotes.
“Have we considered Trump̵
“The report does not attempt to examine the origins and development of the groups or individuals who participated in the attack on the Capitol,” the aide said.
Yet it marks the government’s most comprehensive report on the security failures that led to the Capitol uprising. Congressional investigators reviewed “thousands of documents,” received written statements from 50 police officers defending the Capitol, and received testimony from a wide range of current and former officials who played a role in security training and response.
Like previous eyewitness accounts and independent reports of failures surrounding the attack, the Senate report paints a damned portrait of security gaps at several levels, both before and on Jan. 6.
Senate aides said the report was leaked from a variety of sources, including public hearings, private communications and five transcripts interviewed, including with former Acting Secretary of Defense Chris Miller and Acting Capitol Police Chief Yoganait Pita.
But there was a clear sense of dissatisfaction among the committees that not everyone was fully cooperating with their requests for information. The report is based on information received from Capitol police.
“We have developed some information regarding DHS and the FBI. Not that DHS and the FBI have withheld information. Their response so far has been very partial and frankly unsatisfactory,” said a Senate aide.
Moreover, Senate investigators encountered institutional obstacles – including from the chamber’s sergeant, who did not provide information to the committees, as the chamber is somehow responsible for its own affairs and the Senate is responsible for its own affairs, “said an aide.
New details on the level of communication between the rebels
Aides said the Senate investigation had previously revealed new information about the extent of communication between the explosions, including increased traffic to a website about the tunnels in Washington.
Aides have been pressured as to why, despite growing evidence that there are plans to attack the Capitol, law enforcement appears to be relying on MAGA’s past campaigns, which remain largely nonviolent. Assistants said law enforcement intelligence focused on clashes between groups, not on violence against a building.
The report also concludes that the Capitol’s main police intelligence unit was “aware of the potential for violence in the days and weeks before January 6.” But not everyone was aware. The investigation found that the USCP’s “decentralized” intelligence operation meant that some people saw these warnings while other officials remained in the dark.
Pittman gave significant testimony in both interviews and open hearings. However, the report noted obvious variations in her responses, some aides admitted but declined to explain further.
“You will see significant quotes from Acting Chief Pitman in the report, and we point out places where there have been some inconsistencies, including with regard to intelligence products,” the aide said.
A statement from Capitol police said the intelligence reflected “a large demonstration involving various groups, including some encouraging violence.” However, the agency added: “What she did not know, as Acting Chief Pitman noted, was that the large-scale demonstration would turn into a large-scale attack on the Capitol building – as there is no specific, reliable information about such attacks. “
“Neither the USCP, nor the FBI, the US secret service, the metropolitan police or our other law enforcement partners knew that thousands of rebels were planning to attack the US Capitol,” the agency added. “The famous intelligence just didn’t support that conclusion.”
Boundaries of a bipartisan probe of Congress
The narrow scope of the report underscores the limits of a bipartisan investigation in Congress. While evidence and interviews were gathered over months by bipartisan staff and members of two commissions, the information covered almost entirely the security and intelligence shortcomings that have led to this day, without focusing on why people would come to the Capitol in the first place. place and role of Trump.
Democratic Senate investigators took careful steps not to alienate their Republican counterparts in the investigation, which meant not looking more closely at Trump’s role in promoting the Jan. 6 rally and months of trying to pressure local officials, lawmakers in Congress and then-Vice President Mike Pence to undermine the will of the electorate.
Helpers also avoided languages that could unlock some Republicans, including not referring to the attack as an “uprising.”
“The language chosen was purposeful – and represents the consensus of the four members and their respective staffs,” said a Senate committee aide. “We did our best to stick to the facts as we understood them, and left characterizations in quotes where there were characteristics.”
In a clear example of this, the report’s application includes Trump’s full speech to the crowd on Jan. 6 – but does not go on to explain how this affected the Capitol rebels. A Senate aide said a decision had been made to avoid inserting “our editorial judgment” into the speech.
While the report did nod to some of Trump’s statements and tweets leading to the events in the Capitol, the report does not fully explore the root causes of what led to the Capitol uprising, nor does it directly accuse the former president of spreading lies that the election was stolen. which mobilized supporters to gather at the Capitol on January 6.
The congressional inquiry comes weeks after the Senate rejected a bill by the House of Representatives that would set up a bipartisan commission to study the uprising. This body would be hired by individuals outside Congress and the administration. This investigation would be far away and would have the task of investigating some of the events that may have been responsible for triggering the events of the uprising. However, the bill failed to gain power in the Senate, where only a handful of Republicans joined Democrats to support it.
Senator Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican and a member of the National Security Committee, who authored the congressional report Tuesday, voted to advance legislation that would create the committee. But Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican who was the best member of the GOP by the rules, did not.
Blunt argues that the congressional report has gone far enough to provide a framework on how to improve the security of Capitol Hill, which could be postponed if a committee is set up.
“I think the commission would slow down the things we need to do,” Blunt said last month. “Honestly, I don’t think there are so many gaps in what happened on Jan. 6 when it comes to building security.”
It is not clear what the bipartisan Senate report will mean for the leaders of the Democratic Chamber, who may decide in the coming days and weeks to launch their own investigation either through a new selection committee or through already established committees investigating the incidents. January for months.
After the report comes out, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer may argue that it does not go far enough and may force another vote to form a commission. However, there would be no Republican votes to accept it. Without 60 votes or a united democratic club that wants to blow up the filibuster, a commission cannot be set up.
CNN’s Marshall Cohen contributed to this report.