As President Biden plans to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year, some religious freedom watchdogs are sounding a warning about how Christians will face severe persecution once the U.S. military leaves the country, especially if the withdrawal is anything like the fiasco in Afghanistan.
Rev. Johnnie Moore, the president of the Congress of Christian Leaders and a former commissioner for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, along with conservative host Glenn Beck are sending a warning to Christians in the Middle East.
Beck shared part of Moore’s interview on Twitter where he asked Moore, “Should we be trying to convince those people…get out right now. Is this a time for a clarion call for all Christians in the Middle East?”
“I’m always hesitant to say ‘Get out right now,” Moore explained. “But these are decisions for these people to make. But I’m telling you, if I were sitting there in northern Iraq, watching the exact same people in Washington, D.C. do the exact same thing with another country…”
“And Glenn, everyone seems to have forgotten that Joe Biden said on July 27… just a few weeks ago,” he explained. “That he wants all of the U.S. soldiers out of Iraq too, by the end of the year. So if I’m a Christian or Yazidi or another threatened community sitting in Iraq, yeah I would be getting out of there as quickly as I could.”
“The fact of the matter is we could see it all over again,” Moore added. “But once this genie is out of the bottle, you thought ISIS was bad five or six years ago, you haven’t seen anything yet.”
Rev. @JohnnieM joins me with a WARNING for Christians in the Middle East as Biden plans to withdraw from Iraq too:
Meanwhile, the Taliban is finally allowing some Americans to leave Kabul, Afghanistan, but thousands of Afghans who helped the U.S. military are still stranded in their homeland. And their predicament poses a problem for President Biden who promised not to leave American allies behind.
It could be difficult for them to leave, since it may not be possible to get travel documents in Afghanistan now that all American diplomats and troops are gone.
As CBN News reported, as of Thursday, the charter flights at the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif have not been allowed to take off according to the U.S. State Department.
The six planes were chartered by conservative radio host Glenn Beck’s two charities. According to Beck, the hold-up was originally the State Department, which drew the attention of the Taliban. Then everyone was forced to de-plane and turn in their documentation, which really scared some people, who believe their lives are in true danger from the Taliban.
So these people actually left the airport.
Earlier this week, Beck said the State Department was finally working to negotiate with the Taliban to allow their planes to leave.
On Thursday, the department said the fact that these flights are still grounded is not the fault of the U.S. government, implying the Taliban is responsible.
Our healthcare system is broken, a fact nobody would have disputed in precovid days. Regulatory capture is a reality, and the pharmaceutical industry is fraught with examples. Yet we trusted private-public partnerships to find an optimal solution to a global pandemic, assuming a crisis would bring out the best in historically corrupt institutions.
Here is a brief list of less-than-savory behavior demonstrated by our titans of healthcare:
Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson plead guilty to “misbranding with the intent to defraud or mislead” and paying “kickbacks to health care providers to induce them to prescribe [their] drugs,” resulting in fines of $2.3 billion in 2009 and $2.2 billion in 2013, respectively.
Pfizer settled another lawsuit for “manipulating studies” and “suppressing negative findings” just a few years later.
Gilead Sciences paid $97 million in fines, because it “illegally used a non-profit foundation as a conduit to pay the Medicare co-pays for its own drug.”
In 2005, AstraZeneca’s drug Crestor was shown to be linked to a life-threatening muscle disease while the company withheld evidence of this and two dozen other effects from the public.
In 2012, GlaxoSmithKline paid $3 billion in fines, as it “failed to include certain safety data” relating to their drug, since labeled as connected to heart failure and attacks.
Thankfully, our public health guardians are in place to protect us from the greed and deceit of the private sector, right? Wrong. Enjoy another brief list:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) worked behind the scenes with company Biogen to alter previously conducted trials of their $56,000 per year Alzheimer’s treatment, and “by removing the subset of people for whom the drug didn’t work, they found a slight statistical effect in favor of the drug.” Even after doing this, an advisory committee voted 10–0 against approving the drug. The FDA approved the drug anyway, causing three committee members to resign.
In that case, the third-party advisors did the right thing. This is not always the case: a study by Science Magazine tracking 107 FDA advisors for four years found that 62 percent received money from related drug makers, with 25 percent receiving over $100,000 and 6 percent receiving over $1 million. It only takes a few corrupt advisors to fix a panel and feign medical consensus.
In 2017, it was revealed that the acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director for heart disease and stroke prevention had been secretly communicating with Coca-Cola, providing guidance on how “to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.”
The American healthcare system remains mired in good old-fashioned crony capitalism, fascism, corporatism, mercantilism, protectionism … fancy words for when private companies work with governments to subvert the forces of competition. The suppression of research into off-patent drugs is a nasty symptom of this problem.
While there are countless drugs to which this applies, we will discuss ivermectin. First, addressing the drug’s dismissal by its own manufacturer, Merck, let it be known that ivermectin is no longer under patent. Merck no longer owns exclusive rights to the drug’s production. The forces of competition have been bestowed upon the drug, thus making it far cheaper. Meanwhile, Merck is also currently rolling out an oral covid treatment, which the US government is providing $1.2 billion in funding to research. This would be under patent and may explain the company’s opposition to using ivermectin.
The usefulness of ivermectin remains debatable. However, it’s important to note that in early April 2020, a study at the University of Monash in Australia suggested it can be effective. Moreover, the drug is FDA approved, has existed for forty years, won a Nobel Prize, and is extremely safe when used at recommended levels. Given the crisis and ivermectin’s safety—safe even if not conferring big benefits for covid sufferers—the rush to condemn use of the drug appears suspect. Indeed, a week after the Australian study was published, the FDA advised against using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, forcing desperate people to the black market and to self-prescribe versions of the drug intended for animals.
The FDA noted subsequently that “additional testing is needed.” Yet, to date, there has not been a single completed government-funded study on the effectiveness of ivermectin against covid-19. Meanwhile, they have funneled billions toward research into vaccines and patented treatments. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded trials for remdesivir, still under patent with Gilead, despite it being less effective and having more severe side effects than ivermectin. The FDA approved remdesivir under emergency use authorization (EUA) despite published trials, later stating “remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits.”
One would think that if “additional testing” is so important, the US government might be interested in funding research to examine the potential benefits of cheap, safe, and proven drugs that have shown some promise in treating covid. But that’s clearly not what going on. Funding is geared toward helping huge pharmaceutical companies develop new patented drugs. As long Big Pharma wants it, and if there’s a profit to be made, apparently our government will be there to provide funding.
There’s a growing realization among Democrats that their plans for a $3.5 trillion spending package to reshape the nation’s social safety net and to tackle climate change will have to be slimmed down because of anxious centrists worried about the 2022 midterms.
Democrats by and large feel confident that President Biden’s ambitious “human” infrastructure agenda has strong public support and that a majority of Americans favor raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to help pay for it.
But there’s also a recognition that moderate Democrats in swing states and districts need to show they’re shaping the emerging reconciliation package.
And a part of that process may be slimming down the package from the $3.5 trillion goal set last month by the Senate- and House-passed budget resolutions.
“Most times when you face these situations there have to be some changes made in order to get the votes, especially when here in the [Senate] chamber it’s tied and only the vice president can break the tie,” said former Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who presided over the budget reconciliation process in 2009 and 2010 when Democrats passed sweeping health care reform legislation.
“You probably will have to shave this back some,” he said of the $3.5 trillion proposal outlined in the budget resolutions passed earlier this summer.
“I suspect there are going to have to be some changes in order to get the votes to pass it,” he added. “Biden has himself said that these things should be paid for. He said that very clearly and he said it repeatedly.
“The closer you get to actually paying for it, the better the chance you have of getting the votes.”
Some centrist Democratic strategists are already warning that the size of the human infrastructure bill needs to be substantially curtailed to avoid a political disaster in the 2022 midterm elections.
“You’ve got all these Democrats in the center who are quietly saying ‘I don’t want to support $3.5 trillion because who wants to run on that given the current climate?’ Have you seen some of the recent polls coming out of the states?” said one strategist.
By battling with progressives over the size of the package, moderates can insulate themselves from Republican claims that their party has been taken over by the “far left.”
Another factor is Biden’s declining approval rating.
A Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll Friday showed Biden with a 47 percent national approval rating and a 46 percent national disapproval rate.
A Civiqs tracking poll this week showed Biden’s approval ratings in several battleground states — Arizona, Florida, Georgia and North Carolina — trailing his disapproval ratings by 10 points to 14 points.
Two of the toughest Democratic votes to corral in the Senate belong to Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), who have both said in recent weeks, they will not support a $3.5 trillion package.
Moderate Democrats in the House such as Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.) are also threatening to vote “no.”
Former Rep. Ron Klink (Pa.), a centrist Democrat who represented a Republican-leaning district in western Pennsylvania, says there are other moderate Democratic lawmakers besides Manchin and Sinema who are balking at the $3.5 trillion price tag.
“They’re going to go back and forth,” he predicted about the upcoming negotiations over the size of the package. “There are other senators, too, that are just saying, wait, this is too much, this is too big.”
Klink, however, is urging jittery Democrats not to run away from Biden’s infrastructure agenda.
He warns that ducking for political cover was a fatal mistake made by moderates during the 2009 debate over the Affordable Care Act, which was followed by a landslide Republican victory in the 2010 midterm elections.
“You have to sell your constituents on what it is that you’re doing and why you’re doing what you’re doing,” he said.
Faced with mounting Republican criticism over tax increases that will be part of the reconciliation package, the White House is emphasizing the benefits for the middle class, stressing its desire to enact tax cuts for daycare, health care and working families with children.
Klink said Democrats also need to make the case that floods, drought and fires that have devastated the nation show the pressing need for more infrastructure investment.
But Klink acknowledges it’s a safe bet the total size of the spending bill will fall below $3.5 trillion, though likely not as low as the $1.5 trillion or $2 trillion goal that Manchin has floated as alternatives.
“I don’t think it will be $3.5 trillion but I think it will be much closer to that than $1.5 trillion,” he said.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) made an important disclosure Thursday evening when he told reporters that the revenue-raising package coming out his committee will raise well less than what is needed to fully offset Democratic leaders’ official $3.5 trillion spending goal.
Asked if his package of revenue raisers would reach $3.5 trillion, Neal quickly replied: “Oh, no, no. No, that’s not at the moment what we’re talking about.”
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Wednesday tacitly acknowledged the final package is likely to come in under $3.5 trillion by characterizing that number as a ceiling.
“I don’t know what the number will be. We are marking at $3.5 trillion. We’re not going above that,” she told reporters.
Some Democrats now say it was inevitable that the $3.5 trillion number was going to slip, even though it already represents a major concession by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and other progressives, who initially pushed for a $6 trillion budget reconciliation spending target.
“I don’t know what the final number’s going to be. I always felt it was going to be less than $3.5 [trillion,]” said Jim Kessler, executive vice president for policy at Third Way, a centrist Democratic think tank, and a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
But Kessler argued that the top-line revenue number that Neal says he will unveil this weekend won’t necessarily constrain the size of the reconciliation package.
“The budget reconciliation instructions, the budget resolution, basically says Ways and Means has to raise enough money to pay for what Ways and Means is going to spend,” he said, pointing out that offsets can come from other committees.
Even so, the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee are Congress’s two tax-writing committees and are expected to come up with the bulk of ways to pay for items in the reconciliation package.
Frank Clemente, the executive director for Americans for Tax Fairness, raised concerns earlier this week that the House tax reform bill will wind up raising far less than what’s needed to offset the $3.5 trillion spending goal.
“Based on my back of the envelope estimates of what’s been reported that House Democrats are considering, their revenue target is much too conservative,” he told The Hill.
Damning data proves clear risk of vaccinating children.
Research conducted by the University of California has found that teenage boys are six times more likely to suffer from heart problems caused by the COVID-19 vaccine than to be hospitalized as a result of COVID-19 itself.
Wow.
“A team led by Dr Tracy Hoeg at the University of California investigated the rate of cardiac myocarditis – heart inflammation – and chest pain in children aged 12-17 following their second dose of the vaccine,” reports the Telegraph.
“They then compared this with the likelihood of children needing hospital treatment owing to Covid-19, at times of low, moderate and high rates of hospitalisation.”
“Researchers found that the risk of heart complications for boys aged 12-15 following the vaccine was 162.2 per million, which was the highest out of all the groups they looked at.”
This compares to the risk of a healthy boy being hospitalized as a result of a COVID infection, which is around 26.7 per million, meaning the risk they face from the vaccine is 6.1 times higher.
Even during high risk rates of COVID, such as in January this year, the threat posed by the vaccine is 4.3 times higher, while during low risk rates, the risk of teenage boys suffering a “cardiac adverse event” from the vaccine is a whopping 22.8 times higher.
The research data was based on a study of adverse reactions suffered by teens between January and June this year.
In a sane world, such data should represent the nail in the coffin for the argument that teenagers and children should be mandated to take the coronavirus vaccine, but it obviously won’t.
In the UK, the government is pushing to vaccinate 12-15-year-olds, even without parental consent, despite the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) advising against it.
Meanwhile, in America, Los Angeles County school officials voted unanimously to mandate COVID shots for all children over 12 despite angry objections from parents.
The U.S Capitol Police (USCP) confirmed on Saturday that it has recommended “disciplinary action” for six officers over their handling of protesters on U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, following internal investigations.
The department’s first official update on the investigations comes eight months after the breach of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, which posed a major security threat to members of Congress.
The USCP, which is tasked with protecting the Capitol, said in a statement that the recommendations by its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) were for officers found to be in violation of its code of conduct. The OPR has been investigating a total of 38 cases related to Jan. 6.
Three officers were identified for “conduct unbecoming,” one for failure to comply with directives, one for improper remark, and one for improper dissemination of information, it said.
The wrongdoings are not criminal in nature, the department said, adding that a U.S. attorney’s office review concurred it “did not find sufficient evidence that any of the officers committed a crime.”
The USCP had already announced in January that it had suspended six officers with pay over their actions on Jan. 6, and that more officers were under investigation based on video and other open source materials showing instances of potential violations of department regulations and policies. It is not clear if these same six cases are the ones identified in the update.
The Epoch Times has contacted the Capitol Police for comment.
The accused U.S. Capitol rioter dubbed the “QAnon Shaman,” Jacob Chansley (C) and other protesters outside the Senate chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Potentially Aided by Some Police
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, told reporters at the time that the suspensions were related to officers “that potentially facilitated, on a big level or small level in any way” the breach of the Capitol building that took place during the joint session of Congress that saw lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence counting electoral votes.
Protesters were demanding transparency for audits of the elections after allegations of election fraud and concerns over Democrat-led alteration of voting rules amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Democratic lawmakers have pushed the narrative that the Jan. 6 breach was an “insurrection,” largely during the failed January impeachment effort against President Donald Trump. No one who participated in the breach has been charged with insurrection.
One of the officers suspended by USCP was caught on camera taking a selfie with a rioter. The second suspended officer was reportedly seen wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat and was seen directing people around, Ryan said.
Other videos show police officers standing motionless as groups made their way into the Capitol building. Some of those who entered the building claimed that officers allowed them inside.
According to the Sept. 11 update, the department has not been able to identify all officers being investigated. “Some complaints did not contain enough information to identify the officer at the center of the complaint,” it said of 12 of the 38 cases.
The update also said that a seventh case involving a USCP official is “still pending,” with the investigation involving alleged “unsatisfactory performance and conduct unbecoming.” An internal investigation of the official was triggered “after a criminal investigation in which charges were not filed,” it said.
The department did not provide further details, saying that “USCP internal investigations, including any recommended disciplinary actions, as well as personnel matters are not public information” and that officer names, witness names, and complainant names had been redacted from its report to the Department of Justice.
People who breached the U.S. Capitol gather in the building’s Rotunda in Washington, on Jan. 6, 2021. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
USCP operations are not subject to freedom of information laws, given the sensitive nature of their mission to secure the safety of members of Congress, although some members have urged the department to make their reports available to the public given the importance of determining the events of Jan. 6 and the need for transparency to restore confidence in the police department.
The USCP is “committed to accountability when officers fail to meet the standards governed by USCP policies and the Congressional Community’s expectations,” the statement reads.
“The six sustained cases should not diminish the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police officers,” it added. “On January 6, the bravery and courage exhibited by the vast majority of our employees was inspiring.”
Fall Out
Over 140 officers, including officers of the Metropolitan Police Department, were injured on Jan. 6, with $1.5 million in damage reported from the Capitol building. Two officers and four protesters died during and after the breach. USCP officer Brian Sicknick died from natural causes on Jan. 7, and officer Howie Liebengood died of suicide on Jan. 9.
Two older male protesters, Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, died naturally from hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and another, Roseanne Boyland, in an accidental drug overdose.
The fourth protester, unarmed military veteran and Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, was fatally shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd when she breached a door leading to the House Chamber. The department said that following its internal investigation, Byrd had acted within department policy, in agreement with an earlier DOJ finding. Babbitt’s family said it plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit for excessive use of force.
Over 600 protesters and rioters across nearly 50 states have since been charged in relation to the breach, and various federal agencies are probing crimes that were committed.
In this image from video, a man identified as Scott Fairlamb punches a Metropolitan Police Department officer outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (FBI)
USCP Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman told Congress in February that an estimated 800 demonstrators breached the capitol, while well in excess of 10,000 demonstrators traversed the Capitol grounds. According to Epoch Times reporters on site, the majority of the protesters who remained outside the Capitol building on Jan. 6 were peaceful.
Members of Congress criticized the USCP in the wake of Jan. 6 for their inability to secure the U.S. Capitol, with calls for investigations and reform to prevent a repeat of such security lapses in the future.
In January, House Appropriations Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said that according to briefings on the security failures, “It is now obvious that intelligence agencies had ample evidence an angry mob would descend on Washington, with Congress’s meeting to certify the presidential election as the intended target. The law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting the Capitol did not act on this intelligence or adequately prepare for the looming threat,” she said.
Kash Patel, who served as chief of staff to President Donald Trump’s acting U.S. Secretary of Defense, has also said that the USCP and Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C. turned down an offer from the Trump administration for thousands of National Guardsmen and women on Jan. 4. But the USCP, based on their assessment of the intelligence, believed that there was “no credible threat” for Jan. 6, Pittman told the February hearing.
Pittman apologized for the department’s failings, saying that their assessment of the intelligence did not indicate that “tens of thousands would attack the U.S. Capitol.” She blamed the lack of preparedness on the conduct of the large number of “everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate.”
Law enforcement agencies said in July that of those charged, more than 50 were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Meanwhile, the majority of the cases were over non-violent charges such as entering a restricted building, obstruction of an official proceeding, and civil disorder.
Many of those charged have been held in jail pending trial for eight months, including some who aren’t accused of acts of violence. A “Justice for J6” rally, spearheaded by former Trump campaign official Matt Braynard, to protest the denial of bail, medical care, and access to attorneys to nonviolent protesters is planned for Sept. 18.
The alleged attacker is an assistant professor of English and African American studies with a specialization in critical race theory
Penn State professor Walter Oliver Baker was arrested and charged with harassment, disorderly conduct and simple assault following an altercation with a counter-protester on August 27. The protest in demand of a university vaccine mandate was organized by Coalition For A Just University (CJU), a group that is “committed to working for greater transparency, equity, job security, and safety in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, and for the meaningful involvement of faculty and other workers in decision-making processes at the university.”
National File previously reported on the altercation in which Penn State Junior Avi Rachlin was assaulted at a protest organized by CJU. The August 27 event was organized in demand of a vaccine mandate for Penn State students, prompting Rachlin to show up and counter protest.
Rachlin, who was carrying a sign, was eventually swarmed by pro-vaccine protestors. One of the protesters struck Rachlin with his shoulder, leaving him with a bloody nose and a trip to the hospital. Police now say that was a Penn State professor.
A rally led by Penn State faculty and students asking for a COVID 19 vaccine mandate turned physical this afternoon at Old Main. A counter protester was present. Words and shoves were exchanged between the two sides.
Walter Oliver Baker, a Penn State professor, was allegedly behind the assault. He is facing multiple charges following the altercation, including simple assault. Baker is an assistant professor of English and African American studies with a specialization in critical race theory. “Baker’s areas of research include critical ethnic studies, nineteenth-century American literature and culture, critiques of racial capitalism and settler colonialism, and histories of African, Native, Chicanx, and working-class liberation movements,” reads his Penn State bio.
Police say the victim was pulled to the ground by Baker, where he suffered injuries to his face and head. They said the video that circulated on social media was helpful in tracking Baker down. Police also said surveillance video showed the professor walking back to his office following the altercation.
According to university spokesperson Wyatt Dubois, Baker was placed on administrative leave as the investigation unfolds. He has a preliminary hearing scheduled for October 13.
US Capitol Police Say 6 Officers Involved in Wrongdoing on Jan. 6
The U.S Capitol Police (USCP) confirmed on Saturday that it has recommended “disciplinary action” for six officers over their handling of protesters on U.S. Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, following internal investigations.
The department’s first official update on the investigations comes eight months after the breach of the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, which posed a major security threat to members of Congress.
The USCP, which is tasked with protecting the Capitol, said in a statement that the recommendations by its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) were for officers found to be in violation of its code of conduct. The OPR has been investigating a total of 38 cases related to Jan. 6.
Three officers were identified for “conduct unbecoming,” one for failure to comply with directives, one for improper remark, and one for improper dissemination of information, it said.
The wrongdoings are not criminal in nature, the department said, adding that a U.S. attorney’s office review concurred it “did not find sufficient evidence that any of the officers committed a crime.”
The USCP had already announced in January that it had suspended six officers with pay over their actions on Jan. 6, and that more officers were under investigation based on video and other open source materials showing instances of potential violations of department regulations and policies. It is not clear if these same six cases are the ones identified in the update.
The Epoch Times has contacted the Capitol Police for comment.
Potentially Aided by Some Police
Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), who chairs the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, told reporters at the time that the suspensions were related to officers “that potentially facilitated, on a big level or small level in any way” the breach of the Capitol building that took place during the joint session of Congress that saw lawmakers and Vice President Mike Pence counting electoral votes.
Protesters were demanding transparency for audits of the elections after allegations of election fraud and concerns over Democrat-led alteration of voting rules amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Democratic lawmakers have pushed the narrative that the Jan. 6 breach was an “insurrection,” largely during the failed January impeachment effort against President Donald Trump. No one who participated in the breach has been charged with insurrection.
One of the officers suspended by USCP was caught on camera taking a selfie with a rioter. The second suspended officer was reportedly seen wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat and was seen directing people around, Ryan said.
Other videos show police officers standing motionless as groups made their way into the Capitol building. Some of those who entered the building claimed that officers allowed them inside.
According to the Sept. 11 update, the department has not been able to identify all officers being investigated. “Some complaints did not contain enough information to identify the officer at the center of the complaint,” it said of 12 of the 38 cases.
The update also said that a seventh case involving a USCP official is “still pending,” with the investigation involving alleged “unsatisfactory performance and conduct unbecoming.” An internal investigation of the official was triggered “after a criminal investigation in which charges were not filed,” it said.
The department did not provide further details, saying that “USCP internal investigations, including any recommended disciplinary actions, as well as personnel matters are not public information” and that officer names, witness names, and complainant names had been redacted from its report to the Department of Justice.
USCP operations are not subject to freedom of information laws, given the sensitive nature of their mission to secure the safety of members of Congress, although some members have urged the department to make their reports available to the public given the importance of determining the events of Jan. 6 and the need for transparency to restore confidence in the police department.
The USCP is “committed to accountability when officers fail to meet the standards governed by USCP policies and the Congressional Community’s expectations,” the statement reads.
“The six sustained cases should not diminish the heroic efforts of the United States Capitol Police officers,” it added. “On January 6, the bravery and courage exhibited by the vast majority of our employees was inspiring.”
Fall Out
Over 140 officers, including officers of the Metropolitan Police Department, were injured on Jan. 6, with $1.5 million in damage reported from the Capitol building. Two officers and four protesters died during and after the breach. USCP officer Brian Sicknick died from natural causes on Jan. 7, and officer Howie Liebengood died of suicide on Jan. 9.
Two older male protesters, Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, died naturally from hypertensive atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and another, Roseanne Boyland, in an accidental drug overdose.
The fourth protester, unarmed military veteran and Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, was fatally shot by Capitol Police Lt. Michael Byrd when she breached a door leading to the House Chamber. The department said that following its internal investigation, Byrd had acted within department policy, in agreement with an earlier DOJ finding. Babbitt’s family said it plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit for excessive use of force.
Over 600 protesters and rioters across nearly 50 states have since been charged in relation to the breach, and various federal agencies are probing crimes that were committed.
USCP Acting Chief Yogananda Pittman told Congress in February that an estimated 800 demonstrators breached the capitol, while well in excess of 10,000 demonstrators traversed the Capitol grounds. According to Epoch Times reporters on site, the majority of the protesters who remained outside the Capitol building on Jan. 6 were peaceful.
Members of Congress criticized the USCP in the wake of Jan. 6 for their inability to secure the U.S. Capitol, with calls for investigations and reform to prevent a repeat of such security lapses in the future.
In January, House Appropriations Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said that according to briefings on the security failures, “It is now obvious that intelligence agencies had ample evidence an angry mob would descend on Washington, with Congress’s meeting to certify the presidential election as the intended target. The law enforcement agencies tasked with protecting the Capitol did not act on this intelligence or adequately prepare for the looming threat,” she said.
Kash Patel, who served as chief of staff to President Donald Trump’s acting U.S. Secretary of Defense, has also said that the USCP and Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington, D.C. turned down an offer from the Trump administration for thousands of National Guardsmen and women on Jan. 4. But the USCP, based on their assessment of the intelligence, believed that there was “no credible threat” for Jan. 6, Pittman told the February hearing.
Pittman apologized for the department’s failings, saying that their assessment of the intelligence did not indicate that “tens of thousands would attack the U.S. Capitol.” She blamed the lack of preparedness on the conduct of the large number of “everyday Americans who took on a mob mentality because they were angry and desperate.”
Law enforcement agencies said in July that of those charged, more than 50 were charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. Meanwhile, the majority of the cases were over non-violent charges such as entering a restricted building, obstruction of an official proceeding, and civil disorder.
Many of those charged have been held in jail pending trial for eight months, including some who aren’t accused of acts of violence. A “Justice for J6” rally, spearheaded by former Trump campaign official Matt Braynard, to protest the denial of bail, medical care, and access to attorneys to nonviolent protesters is planned for Sept. 18.