1월 6일 국회 의사당 공격: 보안 실패와 정치적 책임

### 1월 6일의 사건 살펴보기 보안 실패와 정치적 책임
* 🗣 이 토론은 민주당과 공화당이 선거 기간 동안 제기한 이의를 중심으로 진행되며, **1월 6일 하원의장의 이의 제기 이전에는 국회의사당이 공격받지 않았다는 점**을 강조합니다.
* 📞 국회의사당 테러 당일 저녁 **펠로시 의장과 보안 당국자 사이에 세 차례 통화**가 있었던 것으로 드러나면서 보안 당국자와의 소통에 관한 펠로시 의장의 공개 발언에 의문이 제기되고 있습니다.
* 🔍 이 대화는 보안 조치의 부족, 특히 **1월 6일 방위군의 부재**와 이러한 결정에 대한 정치적 리더십의 함의를 조사할 필요성을 강조합니다.
* 🚨 이 증언에 따르면 펠로시 하원의장이 임명한 하원군사령관이 보안을 책임지고 있었으며 혼란스러운 상황에서 **주방위군을 소집하는 '광학'에 대한 우려**를 표명했습니다.
* 🤔 대화는 **전직 대통령의 개입**으로 옮겨가 선거 결과를 뒤집기 위한 조정이 있었는지에 대한 질문과 함께 증인이 부인하는 내용으로 이어집니다.
* 📺 체니 부의장은 **1월 6일 사건의 진실을 밝히기 위해 노력한 점**을 높이 평가하며 향후 민주주의에 대한 공격을 막기 위한 책임의 중요성을 강조했습니다.
* ⚖ 이 대담에서는 **1월 6일 사건에 대한 반응과 여름 시위에 대한 반응**을 대조하면서 정치적 폭력을 다루는 방식에서 인식되는 이중 기준에 대해서도 다룹니다.
* 📅 궁극적으로 이 토론은 향후 이러한 사건이 다시 발생하지 않도록 **보안 실패와 국회의사당 공격의 정치적 파급 효과**를 지속적으로 해결해야 할 필요성을 상기시키는 역할을 합니다.

이 위원회는 1월 6일 국회의사당 공격 당시의 보안 실패를 조사하여 향후 발생을 방지하는 것을 목표로 합니다.

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 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. Want to dive into the questions. Chief, in your transcribed interview, you mentioned that you met with the House Sergeant at Arms regarding the National Guard prior to January 6th. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And who was the House Sergeant at Arms leading up to and on January 6th? That would be Paul Irving. And the House Sergeant at Arms is appointed by who? Was 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 Sergeant at Arms in the days leading up to

January 6, uh, that Mr. Irving said he, quote, didn't like the optics, end quote. 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, quote, run it up the chain, end quote. Is that correct? Uh, yes, sir. That was a telephone call. I didn't see in person when I first made that request. The House Sergeant at Arms is considered probably the most senior security official on the House side. Uh, when Mr. Irving says he has to, quote, run it up the chain, end quote, what did that mean? Uh, I took that to mean his leadership chain. And who would be his leadership chain? If he's functionally the most senior, uh, security official on the House side, correct? That's his title. That's part of the title, the senior, um, 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. Is that 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 it ends, yes. Okay, so let's park that there and then let's jump to a second set here. In a press conference on January 7th, 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

three times were the first time when I went over to brief uh president vice president Pence at the secure location. Um, I had called uh um 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 capital. At that point, things were getting under control. Uh, went over there, briefed him on when we can get them back into Chambers with, you know, Mr. Irving being fully aware. Uh, he said he wanted to get speaker Pelosi on the phone. He made a phone call from his cell phone at approximately 534. Uh, where I first briefed speaker Pelosi. Uh, 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 uh, Jennifer Hemingway, I believe it was Jennifer Hemingway, handed me his cell phone, and it was Emily Barrett's cell calling her, and it was speaker Py on the other line. This is my second call was speaker Py 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 p.m. and the call ended. That was call number two. Call number three was 6:25 p.m. 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 Carum's cell phone. They dialed leadership who was over off-site, 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 calls, you had three calls. So, Speaker Pelosi's comments that she didn't speak to are inaccurate. That is correct, sir. Let me let me sh gar go back as it relates to the optics of bringing people up to Capitol Hill and running things up the chain of command.

ultimately to the speaker's office. Do you think Speaker Pelosi's office or Speaker Pelosi herself, um, politicized Capitol Security? Um, I have no idea on that, sir. Okay, uh, any other clarifications you'd like to make as it relates to Speaker Pelosi's comments that you didn't speak to her? Um, I just, you know, wish he had considered that, wish he had considered some of the stuff that I faced and the efforts I went through, uh, to bring in the outside resources on that day before she called for our resignation. Thank you very much for being here. I yield back since that interview to go back and check the record. So when did you speak with the former president on January 6? Did you to the former president before, during, or after the attack on the Capitol? Of course, I've talked to the Pres. Of course, I've talked to the president. I've been clear about that. I talked to him all the time. Um, this is not about me, Mr. Chairman. I know you want to make it about me. You

want to make it about individuals, other individuals, but this is about the lack of a proper security presence that day. That's what this committee, if this commit going to do something that's worthwhile, that's what they should be investigating. Of course, I talked to the president. I talked to him that day. I've been clear about that. I don't recall the number of times, but it's not about me. I know you want to make it about that, but this is about the why wasn't. How about this? Why wasn't the National Guard here that day? Mr. chairman, if I can reclaim my time, I just want if you ask that question, if you asked the speaker, why wasn't the National Guard here? No, my question to you. I'm asking the question to you, and the question, did you talk to the president, former president, before, during, or after the attack on the capital, or was it all three? The reason I asked is, you know, you had 84 days since you said you couldn't.

remember and you would check. So if you could just clarify the record, was it before, during, or after the attack on talking to President after the attack. So not before or during, right? Okay. And you U and you not been clear about that. Well, but here let me ask you a question. You brought up January six. All right. But yeah, but my understanding is that you said to a reporter from political that you spoke to him during. So is now after the attack. Are you during? No, I did not speak to the president during the attack. Um, so you admitted to speaking to the former president on January 6, the same day you voted to overturn the election. You know, facts be damned. And although you've routinely suggested that you're just another member of Congress speaking with the president, your name comes up again and again in regards to efforts to overturn the election. Um, and um, there is even reporting that back on December 27th, then President Trump spoke with then Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and others to discuss how

to reverse Biden's win an official who was on that call Richard Dunu notes you Mr. Jordan as a lawmaker who was referenced this is the same meeting where President Trump told the Justice Department according to handwritten notes by Mr. Dyu and I quote just say that the election was corrupt and quote leave the rest to me and the uh and and and the and the and the and the our Congressman did you discuss with President Trump a coordinated effort to overturn the results of the election I have no idea what you're talking about I have no idea what that of course not but you brought up January 6 Mr. Chairman what you brought up January 6 and you said we tried to overturn the results of the election by simply objecting no I just know I said by by objecting I here's what here's what I know say I and I I I don't know okay well I hope I get a chance to respond I just don't know of another member of Congress who is as deeply meshed in all of this as you are.

and apparently you're unwilling to give some of the more specific answers to this committee today. Um, I guess are you willing to tell the select committee what you know about events leading up to during. I've been clear all along. I've got nothing to hide. I've been straightforward all along and just and just so you know. I mean I um I'm looking here um this is a political story here. Uh quote you says look I definitely spoke to the president that day. I don't recall. I know it was more than once. I just don't recall the times. This is to Olivia Beavers and you later said that I'm sure that one of the Trump involved calls took place in the safe room because we were in that room forever. I mean that's what you yeah after the think that's what I said but what does this have to do with what does this have to do with Steve Bannon. What does this have to do with Steve Benn's. I'm just you you I thought that's why we were

here yeah well in your in your opening you didn't mention stanning Mr. Gates. No, I mentioned, I guess I did mention Bon's name. I mentioned you very first about inflation. I no, I didn't. I said there are four batches of subpoena. The first batch Bannon Meadows Patel SC first name I mentioned. You got to go back. I'm sure the reporter can bring up the record. Yeah, I think, I think what I come away listening to your opening statement is that you're more outraged by people asking questions, not at all, than police being beat. I'm more outraged by the attack on people's First Amendment liberties, beaten here on January 6th, and lives of the people who work for all of us being at risk. And so January 6, Mr. Chairman, if can I respond to something? Yeah, you may. January 6, 2017, guess who the first person was to object to counting the Electoral College results for Mr. Trump? Guess who it was? It was me. It was you. Guess which state.

Alabama, which state? Alabama, a state President Trump won by 30 points. So, you can object to Alabama on January 6, 2017, and for 4 years, you guys can go after President Trump, the Trump-Russia investigation. You can do that for 4 years. In October of 2020, Hillary Clinton said just weeks before the election, she said the 2016 election was stolen. So, you guys can investigate that all based on lies for four years. We're not allowed to ask questions for 4 minutes about the 2020 election. We're not allowed to object in Pennsylvania where they unconstitutionally changed their election law. But you can object to Alabama? No. Well, I'm glad you raised that issue. All right, Mr. Rasin can object. So, all right, it's my time now. So, I raised the issue of Russian interference in our election. I also raised the issue of voter suppression, which was a real concern in that election. I took the action, and I said at the time, it's a

symbolic action. I had no Senator to join with me, but I wanted to make sure that the issue of voter suppression and potential... excuse me, please, that there's a difference here. I did not organize a rally or have meetings to actually plan to undermine an election, and the Capitol wasn't attacked before I made my objection. There's a difference, the difference being Democrats are allowed, but Republicans... if you don't want to testify here, you're free to leave. You keep saying all kinds of things, don't give me a chance to respond. Seriously, I... well, I've given you a chance to respond, you won't let me get a question out. All right, go ahead, ask your question. The Capitol wasn't attacked before, after I made my objection. The Vice President wasn't rushed to a secure location, his life wasn't threatened. President Obama at the time, you know, didn't tweet out a video saying he loved rioters. There wasn't even a vote on my objection, so there's a false equivalency here, is an attempt to...

whitewash what happened on that terrible, terrible day. I was the last person off the floor on January 6th, and I came face to face with these people in the speaker gallery. And I will tell you, if you want me to describe what evil looks like, it's looking into those faces, those people who, while three police officers were in front of the door trying to protect all of us, were smashing the windows open to get at people. And so, you know, the notion that there's all this outrage today over people asking questions, and there's not outrage over the fact that the police, the Capitol police, who are here to protect us and who do protect us every day, were beaten. You know, people lost their lives, other lives were threatened. The fact that somehow we are asking questions about trying to figure out why did this happen, who is responsible, that somehow that is a bad thing. Give me a break. Give me a break. I mean, and I, you know, I and I you

know someone. One of you mentioned political theater. You know, I don't know if this is a political theater. I don't know what is, but let me just say one of the most genuine statements that I have heard uttered in the capital was by Vice Chair Cheney, who to her credit is embracing the truth and asking her Republican colleagues to join with her in making sure that the questions are answered in a way so we, the American people, know what happens so it never, ever, ever happens again. I mean, all of us are concerned about the future of our democracy in the aftermath of what happened. We don't want to see that happen again. So that's what this is all about. So we could talk about inflation, we could talk about the border, you could talk about whatever you want to talk about, fine, you're at the rules committee, you can talk about whatever the hell you want to talk about, but the bottom line is I think what we're doing here today is absolutely

necessary. Can I respond? You may. I'm not trying to whitewash anything. Republicans have been consistent. We have condemned violence every stinking time it happened. We condemned it on January 6, and 600 people are being prosecuted and held accountable for what they did wrong, as well they should be. But it would have been nice if you guys would have condemned the violence in the summer of 2020 instead of making statements like my colleague just read. It would have been nice instead of the Vice President of the United States raising money to bail rioters out of jail. It would have been nice if you'd have done that. No, no, no. This double standard. You guys get to say all the things you did about Trump for four years. You get to have the summer of 2020 and call it peaceful protest. We condemn violence every single time. It had been nice if you guys have done the same. I am so sick of the double standard. Americans are so sick of the double standard. Well, I think

Many of us did condemn violence wherever it may occur. But you know, let me just say this: you can yell and scream as much as you want. The bottom line is no, I'm not yelling, screaming. I'm reflecting where the American people are. They had it with the double. American people saw you're allowed to object. We're not. No, you could object. That's not the issue. The issue is not whether or not you raised an objection, Mr. Jordan. The issue is what transpired that day. The issue is that we had nothing. Is that after, well, well, we'll see what the investigation leads. But after all of this time still, you know, you cannot say those five words that the election was not stolen. Um, with that, I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from um, uh, Oklahoma.

Whole Room ERUPTS as Capitol Police Chief REVEALS Pelosi's SECRETS role in Jan. 6 protest

Mony Tatsch

이 토론은 2021년 1월 6일에 발생한 보안 실패를 중심으로 진행되며, 적절한 보안 부재와 주방위군의 부재에 초점을 맞추고 있습니다.

폴 어빙 하원 군사위원장은 펠로시 하원의장이 임명했으며, 사건 발생 전 주방위군에 대한 논의에 참여했습니다.

이 대화는 또한 폭력을 비난하는 이중 잣대와 2020년 시위에 대한 상이한 대응을 강조합니다.

1월 6일 부통령 브리핑 및 전화 통화

어빙 의장은 펜스 부통령에게 브리핑을 하고 국회의사당 상황을 평가한 후 펠로시 하원의장에게 전화를 걸었습니다.

그 후 하원의장은 상원에 브리핑을 하러 가던 중 파이 의장으로부터 전화를 받았습니다.

의장이 전 대통령과 통화한 시점에 대해 혼란이 있었고 어빙은 주방위군을 투입하는 것이 적절하지 않다는 우려를 표명했습니다.

리처드 두누는 트럼프 대통령과의 통화에서 법무부에 선거 부정 선포를 촉구한 조던 의원을 언급했습니다.

조던 의원은 선거 결과를 뒤집기 위한 조직적인 노력에 관여하지 않았다고 부인합니다.

펠로시 의장이 연락이 닿지 않았다는 발언과 모순되게, 조던 의원이 하원으로 복귀하는 것에 대해 지도부에 보고하기 위해 여러 차례 전화를 걸었습니다.

1월 6일 이벤트 및 정치 극장에서의 증언

연설자는 1월 6일 대통령과의 대화에 대해 투명하게 공개했다고 주장하며 여러 차례의 통화와 안가에서의 장기간의 체류에 대해 언급했습니다.

그들은 민주주의의 미래에 대한 우려와 재발 방지를 위해 사건에 대한 질문에 답하는 것이 중요하다고 말합니다.

연설자는 2020년 선거와 관련된 선별적인 질문과 수사를 비판하며 러시아의 선거 개입과 유권자 탄압 문제를 중요한 우려 사항으로 강조합니다.

연설자는 1월 6일 수정헌법 제1조의 자유에 대한 공격과 국민의 생명에 대한 위험에 대해 분노를 표명합니다.

이들은 2017년 트럼프에 대한 선거인단 결과에 이의를 제기한 자신들의 역할을 강조합니다.

토론은 선거 결과에 대한 이의 제기 논란과 그날 발생한 폭력 사태를 중심으로 진행됩니다.

국회의사당 공격과 유권자 탄압에 대한 증언

연설자는 자신의 행동과 공화당의 행동이 다르다는 점을 강조하며 선거를 훼손하려는 의도를 부인합니다.

또한 이의 제기 이전에 국회의사당이 공격받지 않았으며 표결도 없었다고 해명합니다.

또한 펠로시 의장과의 의사소통과 공개 발언 사이의 불일치에 대해 언급하며 사퇴 요구에 대한 불만을 표출합니다.