Senate Hearings - Jan 6

[p0rtia]

Watching the Senate Committees on Rules and Homeland Security hearings on C-Span.

- Just incredible. So now we know who fucked it up. Spoiler: DOD.

- Yes, Gen. Charles Flynn was not only "on the call" but one of two people advising against sending help to the Capitol because of "optics."

- DOD did not have the guts to send anyone to the hearing who was on the call: They sent instead a sacrificial lamb, Robert G. Salesses, a senior official in the Department of Defense. Jesus. Heads need to role.

- William J. Walker, commanding general of the D.C. National Guard, is a superstar. I want him to run everything. Competence, experience, clear-speaking, self-contained.

Holy shit.

ETA: Jill Sanborn is either an incompetent speaker or in full cover-your-ass mode with right-wing CP features. She and Salesses remind me of what it was like for four years listening to the brown-nosers of the former guy.

[AndyinPA]

I watched most of it yesterday and some of it this morning. I have to go out in a few hours and will be gone for the rest of it. I see Blunt is spinning now. We need a bi-partisan committee to really find out what happened.

[p0rtia]

Jill Sanborn 100 percent says that boy oh boy, it's really a shame that the report on the attempt to invade the Capitol didn't get handed to the right people, and gee, yeah, wow, the VP, the future VP, the Speaker and a whole bunch of other important folks were in the Capitol, yep, and "100 percent let's go back and figure out what we could have dne differently."

JHC

Not half an hour after it was pointed out that the news of the attempt to stop the vote were out in the open for weeks.

[p0rtia]

Melissa Smislova, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security:

"I read all the reports in preparation of this hearing, and wow they were good, and nope, we didn't have any reports on an attempt to storm the Capitol on Jan 6."

[p0rtia]

Jill Sanborn: "None of us had any intelligence that the people coming to Washington intended to storm the Capitol. That is the intelligence we lacked."

I kid you not. The assistant Director of the FBI just said that.

[AndyinPA]

I've been in and out and channel-hopping, but your impression of Jill Sanborn is right on.

[Reality Check]

Did it ever occur to even one of these senators to ask a simple few questions: "Did the fact that the President of the Untied States stood up and asked the crowd to march to the Capitol and stop the count make any difference? Did it make the situation worse or was it the nexus of what happened?".

[p0rtia]

I can't even begin to describe Jill Sanborn's explanation as to why social media conversations, including those that said, "Let's occupy the Capitol on Jan 6" were not in the purview of the FBI. Okay, yes I can explain it: Cause they had to ignore anything on SM. (A Sinema question, FYI.) That's why they didn't know.

But she never wants to have this happen again. They are asking, is there some where else they should have looked? "100 percent you can rest assured that they want to continue to improve and get better."

J.
F.
C.

[raison de arizona]

[p0rtia]

Melissa Smislova, a senior official in the Department of Homeland Security:

We're looking at ways to figure out where on Social Media we might look to find examples of this type of information about gatherings.

Jill Sanborn: 100 percent

JFFFC. Insane.

Mark Warner: I'm pretty disappointed with both of your answers. We hear repeatedly that we're going to get better about collecting data and information and partnering. Neither of you referenced that there are dozens of organization that monitor domestic terrorism. This threat has been around for years.

[p0rtia]

Recap:

1:49 General Walker*, NG,receives frantic call from Sund, CP: perimeter breached, dire emergency. DOD (Flynn and another guy) rejects the request, because it won't look good (the "optics" response).

5:08 General Walker receives word that Acting. Def. Sec. Miller has approved NG.

5:45: NG begins to arrive.

*Walker put his DC NG folks that were on stand-by into buses at some point after this, so that they would be ready to when the approval came.

[Kendra]

FBI Counterterrorism chief Jill Sanborn just made a crucial point: the FBI does not believe it has the authority to monitor PUBLIC social media posts unless there is predication such as an open investigation. That’s largely the bureau missed so many of the threats.

I have heard this point made by other former FBI peeps on the cable news.

[pipistrelle]

So that’s how I knew there was going to be violence and the FBI didn’t.

[noblepa]

FBI Counterterrorism chief Jill Sanborn just made a crucial point: the FBI does not believe it has the authority to monitor PUBLIC social media posts unless there is predication such as an open investigation. That’s largely the bureau missed so many of the threats.

I have heard this point made by other former FBI peeps on the cable news.

I find this incredible, if true.

If someone is standing on a soapbox in the public square, making a speech, the FBI is allowed to listen.

If that someone makes the same speech in a private meeting, the FBI can not barge into the meeting, even just to listen.

If someone writes a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, the FBI is allowed to read it.

IMHO, social media, at least posts that are not restricted to a group of friends, approved by the forum host, are today's equivalent of standing on that soapbox..

If it is true that the FBI lacks the authority to "listen in" to public social media content, that is, in itself, criminal and should be changed ASAP.

I'm not saying that LE should be allowed to monitor private email or private social media content without a warrant, but public posts and tweets are, or should be, fair game.

[Kendra]

FBI Counterterrorism chief Jill Sanborn just made a crucial point: the FBI does not believe it has the authority to monitor PUBLIC social media posts unless there is predication such as an open investigation. That’s largely the bureau missed so many of the threats.

I have heard this point made by other former FBI peeps on the cable news.

I find this incredible, if true.

If someone is standing on a soapbox in the public square, making a speech, the FBI is allowed to listen.

If that someone makes the same speech in a private meeting, the FBI can not barge into the meeting, even just to listen.

If someone writes a letter to the editor of the local newspaper, the FBI is allowed to read it.

IMHO, social media, at least posts that are not restricted to a group of friends, approved by the forum host, are today's equivalent of standing on that soapbox..

If it is true that the FBI lacks the authority to "listen in" to public social media content, that is, in itself, criminal and should be changed ASAP.

I'm not saying that LE should be allowed to monitor private email or private social media content without a warrant, but public posts and tweets are, or should be, fair game.

I agree with all of you here. If there's something that Congress needs to correct so that the FBI can be proactive, let's get it done already.

[pipistrelle]

Thread to follow.

[Kendra]

We should have started the drinking game at the first hearing. Take a sip every time they bring up the Portland riots. Think how sauced we'd be

[p0rtia]

We should have started the drinking game at the first hearing. Take a sip every time they bring up the Portland riots. Think how sauced we'd be

If you'd had "100 percent" you'd be dead.

Actually, I was wondering were all the QOPs were. It seemed like it was 3 to 1 for the Dems.