9 posts from Tuesday, December 24, 2024

and I briefed all of the leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi. So you didn't have one call, you didn't have two calls, you had three calls. So Speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to you are inaccurate. That is correct, sir. Today we're here to discuss the security failures that occurred on January 6, 2021 and how we can prevent these failures from occurring again. I want to drive into the questions, Chief Sun. In your transcribed interview, you mentioned that you met with the House Surgeon in Arms regarding the National Guard prior to January 6. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And who is the House Surgeon in Arms leading up to and on January 6? That would be Paul Irving. And the House Surgeon in Arms is appointed by who? As appointed at that time by Speaker Pelosi. And in your transcribed interview, you mentioned that when you first brought up the National Guard to the House Surgeon in Arms and the days leading up to January 6, that Mr. Irving said he "didn't like the optics." Is that correct? That is correct. He referenced being concerned for optics. And on January 6, when he went to Mr. Irving to get his approval to call in the Guard, Mr. Irving said he would "run it up the chain." Is that correct? Yes, sir. That was a telephone call. I didn't see him in person when I first made that request. The House Surgeon in Arms is considered probably the most senior security official on the House side. When Mr. Irving says yes to "run it up the chain," what did that mean? I took that to mean his leadership chain. And who would be his leadership chain? He's functionally the most senior security official on the House side, correct? That's his title. That's part of the title of the senior law enforcement official for the House of Representatives. But he would have been referring to the leadership team that goes up to Speaker Pelosi. So the political leadership team, meaning elected officials, not another security official? That is correct, sir. He's the top security official for the House. So running up the chain would most likely, in your opinion, is through the Speaker's office and possibly to Speaker Pelosi? That would be where to end, yes. Okay. So let's park that there, and then let's jump to a second set here. In a press conference on January 7, Speaker Pelosi called for your resignation on national television. Speaker Pelosi also stated that she had not talked to you since the initial breach of the Capitol. But according to your transcribed interview, you're on the phone with Speaker Pelosi a few times. Can you explain that discrepancy? Yeah, that is correct. I spoke to Speaker Pelosi three times that evening. And she went on national TV and said I'd never spoken to her. But I spoke to her three times. The three times were the first time when I went over to brief Vice President Pence at the secure location. I had called House Sergeant Arms Irving, told him I was going over to brief the Vice President. I was also going over to do a personal assessment of the Capitol. At that point, things were getting under control. Went over there, briefed him on when we can get them back into chambers with Mr. Irving being fully aware. He said he wanted to get Speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone. Had approximately 534 where I first briefed Speaker Pelosi. The second call was when I left that location. As I was walking away, I met up with Mr. Stinger and we started walking over to the Senate to go brief the Senate. When Jennifer Hemingway, I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway, handed me the cell phone. And it was Emily Barrett's cell phone calling her. And it was Speaker Pelosi on the other line. This is my second call with Speaker Pelosi. Questioning the information I'd given to Vice President Pence about when we can get back into chambers. I assured her that information was correct. I could get them back into chambers by 7 PM and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 6.25 PM. I was over at the Senate from the secure location. I mean, from where the Senate had been sequestered and on a cell phone using Robert Karam's cell phone. They dialed leadership who was over offsite at a secure location. And I briefed all of the leadership of the plans to get them back into chambers. That would have been call number three with Speaker Pelosi. So you didn't have one call. You didn't have two call. You had three calls. So Speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to you are inaccurate. That is correct, sir. Let me show gears and go back as it relates to the optics of bringing people up to Capitol Hill and in running things up the chain of command, ultimately to the Speaker's office. Do you think Speaker Pelosi's office or Speaker Pelosi herself politicized Capitol security? I have no idea on that, sir. Okay. Any other clarifications you'd like to make as it relates to Speaker Pelosi's comments that you didn't speak to her? I just wish she had considered that. Wish she had considered some of the stuff that I've faced and the efforts I went through to bring in the outside resources on that day before she called for a resignation. Thank you very much for being here. I yield back. Thank you, Jim. The leader and Jim are exactly right. This has always been about politics and today's actions of the Speaker just confirm that. But frankly, and I've said this before, what else are they going to talk about? I mean, they're so focused on the January 6 Committee. What else are they going to talk about crime? In fact, the crime is up in every major urban area in this country. They're going to talk about the border crisis. I mean, think about this. March was the highest month on record for illegal crossings until April. April was the highest month on record until May. May was the highest month on record until June. Can't talk about that. They're going to talk about inflation. They're going to talk about the fact that the price of eggs is up. The price of milk is up. The price of bread is up. The price of gas is up. The price of the airline tickets up. The price of everything is up. They can't talk about that. So they're going to be partisan and they're going to focus on this. But as the leader said, and as Mr. Banks said, I don't think they're going to address the fundamental question. The fundamental question of why wasn't there a proper security presence at the Capitol that day? They're not going to address that. And only one person can answer that question. Only one. Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. My hunch is the reason I want to address that question. My hunch is because what happened all last year? The Democrats normalized anarchy. They normalized rioting and looting. And when rioters and looters attacked our law enforcement personnel, when rioters and looters destroyed small businesses, what do Democrats do? They went out and raised money to bail them out of jail and they continue to talk about defunding the police. And in fact did that in all these major urban areas, which is why crime is up. So they don't want to talk about that stuff. They just want to be partisan. They just want to continue to attack the former president. They want to play their political games. So I applaud leader McCarthy for saying we're going to do our job. We're going to continue to work and get to the bottom and answer the questions that the leader raised. The questions that frankly the American people want answers to. Honestly, I agree. Last Congress, the other side passed a lot of very bad bills. I don't think quantity of bills is a good legislation and actually wasted a lot of money. And unfortunately, you know, they had control on the whole houses and presidency and were able to do a lot of bad legislation and no dealing with real issues affecting Americans with crushing debt inflation and the spending and, you know, and what's happening in our border is very destructive for our country and they don't want to do and they don't even want to find bipartisan agreement on these issues, this Congress, which is very sad for me to see. You know, I know there is a lot of discussions about, you know, January 6th and I've been in the chamber in January 6th and I'll tell you something, you know, we call this insurrection. I'll have to tell you if the people that show up there wanted to do it, they would have succeeded, but they didn't show up for that reason. It was people that were upset because the quality of people came there, they were mad because we are not governing for the people. And that's unfortunately what was very strange to me, that Speaker Pelosi didn't have a security. Speaker Pelosi insisted for us to stay in the chamber where I personally demanded, demanded to leave that chamber. So a lot of things, you know, the other side dropped the ball and it was very unfortunate for me to see that. So I think this is beyond the subject of this matter, but I need, we need to stop, you know, accusing people that disagree with the government, they've been very corrupt and oppressive, you know, to actually come here and, you know, express peacefully their dissatisfaction. And there are always some bad players and who knows who they are, but they don't call all people insurrectionists. This is just un-American to do it and I'm sick and tired of the other side constantly doing it because I knew a lot of people that were there in the crowd and the good Americans patriotic that love this country. But go first, you know, I know that maybe, you know, Chairman Issa said it might be a waste of time, you know, and Hunter Biden is going to invoke the fifth amendment. But you know what? What he's doing right now beyond that, it is a blatant disregard of congressional subpoena, that how he does. He actually dears enough. No other American would show up actually in the face, you know, of Congress and defy and say, I'm going to decide how things are going to happen. This is just respectful, disrespectful. Only someone who think a lot too much of himself would go actually do something. People might disagree fighting in the courts, but not in the face. As Representative Bishop said, that is actually extremely disrespectful to this institution to do what he is doing. And if we look at the matter of the fact, we can debate, attract, you know, to get attention to other issues and deliberate. But ultimately, I think that should be, you know, and Representative Moran said that is setting up a very bad precedent. If the other side decide, you know, that, you know, somebody can just act like that with the Congress, they might shoot themselves in the foot because next Congress, there could be something different and they will be on the other side because we're setting up a precedent. But somebody is going to decide if they're going to comply or not of the deposition subpoena. And I don't think this institution, you know, should allow that happen. If you know, this is a very serious impeachment inquiry. If Hunter Biden want to explain what's happened, he has a chance to come. And it's not like in a deposition, you have just one side, you have both sides, equal amount of time, everything can be questioned. So it's a very bipartisan process, but not a five minute presentation that we'll just go and do just here for five minutes talking points with his lawyers. And it's not going to really get to the subject matter because subject matter at stake, it's extremely serious. I think we should start taking actually impeachment inquiries and proceedings much more seriously than the other side did. It's not a politics. It's not a joke. We're a serious institution. And I do not think people think that way here now. And it's unfortunately what we have became, we became a circus entertainment and talking points and not really looking at issues seriously. It's sad for me to see. And I think this is a reflection, you know, on where we are heading as a republic. And it's a sad reality, but we have to decide, are we going to be adults in the room and start looking at the issues or we're just going to do presentations here. So I think if we go to the narrow matter or the discussion, do we allow anyone to defy the congressional subpoena? And the other sides will have to make a decision how they're going to vote for that. But they might regret that they're doing politics right now. So I hope they will rethink this and support in this resolution. So I yield back. Director Davis, is it true that the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for the care, control and custody of the January 6th detainees? Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. It would be for those that are still pending trial. Yes. Very good. Okay. Are you aware of a Lieutenant Crystal Lancaster? Offhand? No, I'm not. Okay, fair enough. What about Mr. Ronald Colton Maccabee, this former deputy behind me who is a January 6th inmate at the D.C. Department of Corrections? Mr. Chairman, I am not. I'll just remind you that we do have over 59,000 people. Fair enough. I'll just ask you a question. You're aware, you're not. Director Davis, on September 5th, 2022, at around 11.45 a.m. in the D.C. Department of Corrections, Lieutenant Lancaster confronted Mr. Maccabee at the medical cart for not wearing his face mask. We're in a height of COVID. I got it. Not having his face mask. It is my understanding that Lieutenant Lancaster then deployed her handheld O.C. spray, sprayed it all into his face at close range. It's been reported Lieutenant Lancaster intentionally used these chemical agents several times against Mr. Maccabee without any provocation. As a former sheriff did it for a long, long time, 30 years. So, I want to talk a little bit about the use of this chemical agent, these O.C.s. In the use of force model, the use of force continuum, it would require that even if an inmate is passivity, the restraint, he's not being physically assaultive. An officer would not be authorized to use these chemical munitions unless the inmate was assaultive. If video footage were to show that Mr. Maccabee was not assaultive, would Lieutenant Lancaster have violated Colton's civil rights under the color of law? I'm sorry, can you repeat the question, Mr. Chairman? Would Lieutenant Lancaster have violated Mr. Colton's civil rights under the color of law if he was not showing any type of assaultive behavior? Thank you for the question. I'm not in a position to respond to or talk about any specific investigation. Okay, all right. Do you know if, so you don't know this Lieutenant Lancaster, placed on administrative leave, like right away, placed on administrative leave. I placed deputies on, I had 600 or so, placed them on administrative leave when there was some type of investigation. Lieutenant Lancaster is on administrative leave, which I learned she was placed on it immediately after this incident, but I don't know where she is now, and apparently you wouldn't know either where this individual would be today that's been placed on administrative leave after the incident. I thank you again. I just, just reminded that the, it's also, custodial facilities are run by, not run by the marshal. January 2023 had an opportunity to visit the DC jail. Spent about an hour there, spoke with the director Thomas Faust. Are you familiar with Thomas Faust? Yes. Okay, he's the director. He and I got along. He's a former sheriff. I'm a former sheriff. We just connected right away. Great, great individual. The guys in the jail seem to be pretty concerned. I went into the pod where these J6 detainees, we learned that the officers all wear body cameras. So everybody has a body camera in the DC jail. And Director Faust had the footage between Mr. Maccabee and Lieutenant Lancaster existed because I was concerned about this incident. People complained about it. The wife reached out to me, said, "Hey, my husband was sprayed with foam. He's a former law man. He deserved seven years." In fact, he later told me that I could come down and view the footage. I said, "I got some complaints here. Let me come down and view the footage of this Lancaster, spraying this, see if we have any issues."

Transcribed automatically. Expect errors in names and numbers.