you can watch it live starting at 4:30 pm eastern on c-span3. are free app or online. c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. live and on-demand. keep up with the biggest events , live streams and hearings from the u.s. congress. white house events. records. campaigns. and more from the world of politics. all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for tv networks and c-span radio. plus podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the qr code to download for free or visit our website c- span.org/c-span now. your front row seat to washington anytime, anywhere.

c-span shop.org is the online store. browse our collection of products, apparel, books, home decor, and accessories. there is something for every c- span fan. and every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-span shop.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. including midco. ♪ midco supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers. giving you a front row seat to

democracy. next former members of the d.c. national guard testify in the military response to the was capital attack on january 6 , 2021. they describe what they witnessed among senior military leaders on that day. and pushback on an inspector general's report that concluded pentagon officials responded appropriately. this hearing, from the house administration subcommittee on oversight, is two hours. [inaudible conversations] the subcommittee on oversight will come to order.

the subcommittee on oversight will come to order. without objection the cha >> the subcommittee on oversight will come to order. without objection the chair may declare a recess at any time. also without objection the meeting record will remain open for five legislative days the members may submit materials they wish to be included therein. thank you ranking member torres, and our courageous whistleblowers for joining us for today's oversight hearing. these whistleblowers are coming forward today to share for the first time under oath the first- hand account related to national guard deployment on january 6. none of today's whistleblowers were interviewed under oath by the department of defense inspector general for the select committee. january 6 2021 highlighted a

combination of failures at many levels. for today's hearing, we are examining the department defense and d.c. national guard's response to the violent breach of the capital. we will get into it. i would like to play a brief video about the timeframe of the delay. >> is this the video we received just this morning? last night? okay. [background noises]

alright, want to thank the maturity for indulgence of playing the video. it's important to set the stage of just how important three hours in 19 minutes can >> i want to thank the minority for their indulgence in playing the video. it's important to set the stage about how just important three hours and 19 minutes can be. on a day like that. at a previous hearing we heard testimony from former he was capital police chief about the former speaker and congressional leadership delay. at the request for assistance. on january 6, 2021 the d.c. national guard received the first request for immediate assistance from the was capitol police. is protester started to gather

and force their way into the capital complex. however at this time the police board had not officially approved the request. at roughly to: 12:00 pm protesters breached the capitol and began assaulting police officers. staffers and members of congress were ordered to evacuate including myself and others that are here today. capitol police attended to secure members and clear the capitol but were quickly outnumbered. there've been many testimonies of that day but one thing is clear, the was capitol police requested and needed urgent assistance from anyone who would answer the call including the metropolitan police department and various federal law enforcement entities and the d.c. national guard. however there was a delay deploying the national guard for over three hours. almost one hour after the capitol was breached 3:0 4:00 pm the acting secretary of defense christopher miller approved the d.c. national guard to deploy to the capitol.

just a brief history lesson for those who do not know, executive order 11 485 legates oversight of the d.c. national guard to the department of defense. in 1969 memo further designates this authority specifically to the secretary of the army. on january 6, 2021 the commanding general of the d.c. national guard, william walker, reported directly to the secretary of the army. the d.c. national guard was at the armory, 1.2 miles away from the capitol, waiting for authorization to deploy to assist civil authorities and quell the riot. however, the d.c. national guard didn't arrive at the capitol until almost 6:00. that's three hours and 19 minutes of delay. during those hours chaos engulfed members of congress, law enforcement officers, reporters, staffers and citizens. during those hours necessary help from the d.c. national guard was not on the way. our goal today is to get to the bottom as to why.

it took too long for the d.c. national guard to arrive at the capitol. the 113th wing capitol guardians have a proud history of protecting our nations capitol and serve our nation's leadership. nevertheless the new jersey state police were nearly 150 miles away responded to the capitol before the d.c. national guard. additionally the pentagon knew there was a threat to government operations because by 3:30 7 pm the pentagon said its own security forces to guard the homes of defense leaders. at 3:30 7 pm no d.c. national guard forces were on the way to the capitol. drought might subcommittee extensive investigation into the events of january 6 in the select committee on january 6, we have uncovered concerning interest in these regarding the mobilization of the d.c. national guard. through phone records, first- hand accounts, sworn testimonies we have gathered there appears to of been a significant delay at the department defense in either deploying the national guard or

communicating the order of deployment. either way, the purpose of this hearing is to hear the d.c. national guard story for the first time ever about the three- hour and 19 minute delay. on november 16, 2021 the department of defense released a report reviewing their role in response to january 6 which claimed that the d.c. national guard was deployed to the capitol as quickly as possible. however, the report also credited significant delays in deployment to d.c. national guard, commanding general major general william walker, neglecting to mobilize after receiving orders. specifically, the dod ig report concludes the leader of the national guard response, major general walker, received direction from the secretary of the army to deploy the d.c. national guard to the capitol twice. once at 4:35 pm and again at 5:00. major general walker denies that either of these calls to place despite the many

inconsistencies and contradictions of the department of defense is responsibility that they, the select committee on january 6 ignored these discrepancies despite them being shared privately by their own staff and barreled forward with the dod side of the story. following the release of the dod ig report multiple whistleblowers were present with major general walker have come forward to share their experiences. according to their testimony, hours of vital response time were missed because senior army officials had personal concerns regarding military presence at the was capitol. today we have the responsibility of recognizing these d.c. national guardsmen, listening to their testimony, and honoring their patriotism. these brave men who showed up to defend the capitol and were discovered and ignored when they tried to come forward. i reached out to the dod ig regarding concerns with the report and contradictory narratives for nearly 2 months i have not received any answers. today we will learn more about

what happened that day. regarding the delay. we will hear a side of the story that has been ignored for too long. was the portly today we will look to the future and make sure are capitol, capitol guardians and law enforcement partners are more prepared today than they were three years ago. we are only able to conduct this oversight because whistleblowers have come forward to share their stories. i encourage anyone to reach out to the subcommittee as our investigation continues. i recognized ranking member torres for five minutes for the purpose of providing an opening statement. >> thank you, chairman, and think you two are witnesses for being here today and for your service to our nation. particular on january 6. you sacrificed your sign to protect us and we owe you a debt of gratitude. we are here today discussing the delayed national guard response to the capitol for one reason and one reason only. donald trump dispatched an armed mob to try to overturn the election he knew he lost. and for three hours and 19 minutes is that violent mob assaulted law enforcement and

hunted for members of congress and the vice president who they were trying to hang, the national guard was forced to wait, and wait, and wait. all because of the chaos at the pentagon caused by the commander in chief and the fear that he would involve the military in domestic clinical affairs. a big no-no. we teach worldwide to emerging countries. this was a commander in chief who, as the right unfolded, didn't call his acting secretary of defense or secretary of the army who asked why the national guard was missing? were were they? a commander in chief who after he learned someone was shot, didn't care. he didn't call the national guard directly. a commander in chief whose aids and family partied and danced

as the mall prepared to overturn the capitol . a commander in chief who sat in his dining room watching it all unfold on tv like it was an action movie. with an ending favorable to him. how did we get here? in response to the june 2020 responding to the murder of george floyd, president trump said he would." to put down the protest and even asked secretary of defense why the military couldn't just "shoot the protesters in the legs or something? ". the secretary found the president's comments so disturbing he held a press conference saying he opposed evoking the insurrection act. then, in december, as trump

continue to's bread conspiracy theories, supported by members of this congress sitting here today, about the election being stolen, talk of invoking the insurrection act reached a boiling point. it got so bad that his own secretary of the army and the army chief of staff, a four star general issued a joint statement saying, "there is no role for the was military in determining the outcome of an american election." and as our top military leaders worried the president would declare martial law, the rest of the national security apparatus was in total disarray. people were getting fired or resigning left and right. everyone remembers that, right?

and with only 71 days left in his term, trump terminated the secretary of defense and replaced him with an acting secretary of defense who was completely, completely over his head. contrary to attempt to rewrite history, the january 6 select committee conducted more than two dozen interviews and reviewed over 37,000 pages of documents related to the national guard, and dedicated 46 pages of its final report to this issue. the select committee found that the chaos led an ill-equipped acting secretary of defense issuing an unclear order to the secretary of the army. and order so uncl it was interpreted differently by the acting secretary of defense, the army chief of and the secretary of the army. three people, three different interpretations. it is all there in the select committee's final report and

the dozens of relevant transcripts available online. adding to the chaos, these top army officials exercised extreme caution and imposed unprecedented restrictions on when and how to deploy the guard on january 6. this was the direct result of the president's decision to involve the military in domestic affairs . two are witnesses, i am so sorry. i am so sorry that trumps defense department and army leadership failed you and they failed us on january 6. you should never have been forced to sit on your hands while we were lying on our stomachs. planning to use a pen in our purses as a weapon to defend ourselves against the mob that was sent here to kill us by the president of the united states

of america. we were preparing to die. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields. the chair now recognizes the full committee ranking member for the purpose of making an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you two are witnesses for your careers of distinguished service. the d.c. national guardsmen are known as the capitol guardians. and we as members are only able to do our jobs in the days and months that followed the january 6 because you stood guard over us as you did. and for that and for all of your long service, we owe you enormous debt of gratitude. so thank you. i want to be clear, we are here today for a single reason. an unpatriotic, cynical, power- hungry man incited a deadly insurrection as part of his month long effort to overturn a

free and fair american election. we are here because of his lies about the 2020 election. it's hard to believe, it's frankly even hard to say, but it doesn't make it any less true. yet, many cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it. many in this room. as a result, we are here because of the majority's 15 month quixotic mission to find malfeasance from the january 6 select committee who investigated the insurrection, where no malfeasance exists. frankly, just as a question of jurisdiction, it should be raised, if this hearing is about the chain of command, and/or communication between the various elements of the defense apparatus of the u.s., then it falls to the house armed services committee to do that investigation. they should be doing it. i do agree. but this is clearly not the venue for this to happen.

i do want to address something at the outset. there is a notion that persists the president trump ordered or pushed 10,000 national guard troops ahead of january 6. it has been debunked repeatedly and is also a red herring. and here is why. is the chair has stated, a 1969 executive order delegated authority over the d.c. national guard to the secretary of defense who in turn delegated that authority to the secretary of the army. but the president of the united states ultimately sits atop the chain of command. what he did with the national guard before january 6 doesn't matter compared to his actions or, i should say, inactions, on 6 january itself. and what he never did on the sixth was call the secretary of defense, secretary of the army, or the d.c. national guard itself to find out why they were not on the scene or to order them to the capitol for that three-hour a 19 minute delay. so i want to quickly dispense with the claimant once and for

all that he ordered 10,000 troops. acting secretary defense provided the following answers under penalty of perjury. the first question, the 10,000 troops, did you take that as a request for you or in order for you to deploy 10,000 troops?'s answer, and i quote, no, absolutely not. interpreted it as a bit of provincial banter, or president trump enter the you are familiar with and in no way did i interpret that as an order or direction. it was also asked, in february 2021 mark meadows said on fox news," even in january there was a given as many as 10,000 national guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. is there any accuracy to that statement?" mr. meadows answered, not for my perspective. i was never given any direction or knew of any plans of that nature. so no, there was obviously we had plans for activating more

folks but there was not anything more than contingencies. and then a few questions later, to be crystal clear, the question was, there was no direct order from president trump to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for january 6 is that correct?'s answer, "that is correct. there was no direct order. there was no order from the president. i think that is all you need to know. under oath the secretary defense ver happened. here's the bottom line. the president of united states limited -- when he pleaded his followers into believing the election was stolen from him. some -- summoning an armed mob to washington and unleashing them on the capitol. and then did absolutely nothing to stop what unfolded. people died. we almost lost our democracy. we could've have 100 hearings to deflect blame but the facts in akron to change. president truman famously had a sign on his desk that said the buck stops here. president trump's sign would

read, the buck stops anywhere but here. he lit the fire, fan the flames, the defense department to lead the troops, and he wants everyone else to take the blame. frankly, i find a pathetic. i agree with senator mitch mcconnell who said former president trump's actions the right were disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty. former speaker kevin mccarthy says trump bears responsibility for his actions. and i agree with senator lindsey graham who said, all i can say is count me out, enough is enough. i only wish that they and the rest of the publican party agreed with their prior versions of themselves. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. just for the record, this hearing is not being done in isolation. it is carefully coordinated with the house armed services committee and not only has a blessing but a bipartisan blessing to hold this hearing. also, without objection, i would like to submit for the record secretary millers transcribed interview under oath to the select committee of

january 6, two experts. on january 3, did you have or even prior did you have all the authorities needed in terms of activating, deploying the d.c. national guard? and he said yes, i felt i did. did you need any additional authorities or was there a discussion about your authorities in any way at the january 3 meeting? no, i felt like i had all the authorities i needed and did not need to discuss anything with the president regarding authorities. another question. so mr. miller, did you try to reach president trump that they? i did not. why not? i had all the authorities i needed to perform my duties, responsibilities that day and didn't need any other guidance from the president. i recognize the gentleman from virginia, mr. griffis, for five minutes for an opening statement. >> let me start by submitting

for the record the army timeline of events from december 31 2020 through january 7, 2021 that report dated january 7, 2021. >> without objection. >> i find some of the comments this morning interesting because i too was on the floor that day. and i find it interesting because there's an allegation that the commander-in-chief has the call everybody who's in the chain of command to make sure his orders are followed. it is my understanding, and i believe that the evidence that they will show, from these gentlemen who have given their time and our whistleblowers, meaning they are coming forward with something others may not want to hear, that we will discover through their testimony that in fact the president had given the instruction, perhaps, misunderstood on january 3, but certainly on january 6, prior to that instruction being relayed by his officers in

accordance with the general military procedure to the d.c. national guard. and that is a big part of what this hearing will be about today. and i think it's important that we keep that in mind. further, we have heard a lot about the attempts to rewrite history. because, the january 6 committee is allegedly supposed to have done this. but we will here, i believe, from these gentlemen today, that they were not talk to by the january 6 mission. and further, that commission will forever in history be tainted, the first time in history in an attempt, to write the history after the fact, the both sides, both major parties in this political situation that we have found ourselves in in the last 200 years, both

were not invited to participate in an equal manner. that the republican representatives who were supposed to be on that, who were supposed to be part of the january 6 committee, were not allowed to be present. they were not allowed to cross- examine witnesses. they were not allowed to ask for witnesses these four brave gentlemen here with us today. they weren't allowed to call those witnesses to appear in front of the january 6 committee. so while the january 6 committee may have found some interesting information, they intentionally chose not to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, at the very best it can be described as a partial attempt to put forward facts that favored their side of the narrative, and not to get to all the facts. and his jack the famous character from dragnet used to say, the facts, we just want the facts, ma'am. that is what we are here to do today. to try to make sure we are

getting to the facts. not the emotions per say, but the fax from four brave gentlemen who serve our nation and have served our nation, who have come forward. i don't know any of these gentlemen. i don't believe any of them has a political ax to grind. they are here to deliver the facts. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. without objection, all other members opening statements will be made part of the hearing record if they are submitted to the committee by 5:00 today. pursuant to paragraph b of committee rule 6, will witnesses please stand and raise your right hand? do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? let the record show the witnesses have answered in the affirmative and you may be

seated. i will now introduce each of her witnesses. first witnesses commander sergeant major michael brooks. command sergeant major brooks, his career spanned 29 years with combat tours in iraq. he spent the end of his career in the d.c. national guard, including at the joint task force d.c. mr. brooks now works at a company that seeks to protect national and economic security from undue foreign influence. on january 6, 2021, he was a senior enlisted advisor to major walker and advised that all enlisted matters. i next witnesses colonel earl matthews, decorated military veteran with a long and accomplish career in government and the private sector. colonel matthews served as deputy assistant to the president and senior director for defense policy and strategy on the national security council staff. he also served as the armies acting general counsel and principal deputy counsel as well as deputy legal counsel to the german joint chiefs of staff. on january 6, 2021, he was the chief legal advisor to major

general william walker and was with him all day. our next witness is prettier general aaron dean with a similarly accomplish career in military service. he served in operation desert storm and a combat tour in iraq. he also served in the d.c. national guard for over 35 years, exemplifying what it means to be a capitol guardsman. on january 6, 2021 he served as major general walker's general and principal advisor. our final witness is captain timothy nick, an active member in the florida national guard. captain nick hasn't experience in law enforcement including is a current officer in the was the good service. captain nick previously served with the d.c. national guard public affairs department. on january 6, 2021 captain nick was the aide to major general william walker and took detailed notes of actions of major general walker on the day. thank you gentlemen for your

service to our country and your strength and courage to come forward and share your accounting of events of january 6, 2021. as a reminder we have read your written statements and they will appear in full in the hearing record. under committee rule 9, you are to limit your oral presentation to a brief summary of your written statement, unless i extend the time period in consultation with ranking member torres. these remember to turn on your microphone, using the button in front of you, so that members can hear you. when you begin to speak, the light on the timer in front of you will turn green. after four minutes, light will turn yellow. when the red light comes on, or five minutes has expired and we ask that you please wrap up your comments at that moment. i recognize command sergeant major michael brooks for five minutes. >> good morning chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

i am michael brooks, the former command senior -- >> i'm sorry, could you pull the microphone a little closer to you? people in the audience are having hard time hearing. you can start over and we will reset your time. >> is a better? good morning, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am retired michael of brooks, former senior enlisted leader for the strict natural this couple guarding >> march 1 of 2023 with 29 years of active service in the army and army national guard. while i am no longer in service, i continue the defense as a compliance and it is the vision specialist with the complaints and adjudication office of information and medications technology and services. of the bureau of industry and security. i subvert, -- i served as the

command senior enlisted leader of the d.c. national guard from 2017 to december 2020 too. i reported directly to commanding general and from 2017 until his retirement and selection is a 38 sergeant at arms for the house of representatives, my commander was ager general william j walker. as his senior enlisted advisor i reported only to him and was with him throughout the days four, the day of and the subsequent weeks and months that followed the events of january 6 2021. imagine my surprise when the dod ig released a report without once interviewing myself or other critically significant d.c. national guard members with firsthand knowledge of what occurred that fateful day. not anonymous witnesses or anonymous officials, but senior ranking military members in the room on the calls and on the secure video teleconference. i am not here to discuss the

army that i love and served for nearly 3 decades. but to correct the record and speak for the hundreds of enlisted soldiers and airmen of the d.c. national guard who have always answered the call to serve without political bias or prejudice. have always faithfully fulfill their oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. those capitol guardians who continue to do so, even today, after being degraded by senior officials of the army and the army staff, in their and biased report, -- i believe those who steer the narrative of the dod report did so not for historical documentation or to enhance future military responsibility capability, but to protect and advance individuals who sought to shield themselves from responsibility. to overly enhance their role and perceived significance in a critical moment in history of our nation's democracy, in their truth, in truth, their actions, no matter how innocent they believe them to be, led to an awful mark on our military. showing an incredible lack of

respect for the service of those who serve in the d.c. national guard before, during and after january 6, 2021. trust in the army's most senior leadership was lost. their actions highlighted the lack of knowledge and understanding of the d.c. national guard, its authorities and capabilities. prior to the protest following the murder of george floyd in may 2020, i do not believe any of them understood just how unique the d.c. national guard is. and the responsibility that is delegated from the president, to the secretary of defense, and further delegated to the secretary of the army. i believe it is this lack of understanding that led to the significant delays in the military response on january 6. i will not see her today and say we had been given authority to immediately respond, when the chief of the capitol please me that first frantic call for support at 1:40 9 pm. that we would've prevented the breach of the capitol. what i can tell you with

absolute certainty is that we had a force equipped and ready to respond and despite the inaccuracies of the dod ig report, we had a plan and would like the opportunity to try. instead, we waited for hours, less than two miles east of the capitol building, absolutely frustrating knowing our capitol had been breached and not understanding why we had not received the authorization to respond. i cannot tell you the number of times someone has asked me, where were you? where was the national guard? or how can you call yourselves capitol guardians? there is no easy response to those questions and the truth is, we were there and we were ready. we just weren't authorized to respond. and that is difficult to explain. the soldiers and airmen of the d.c. national guard deserve better. they deserve to be recognized for their sacrifices over a prolonged period of civil unrest for may 2020 to may 2021. i look forward to your questions.

thank you. thank you, sergeant major. i know recognize colonel earl matthews for five minutes. >> chairman, ranking member, embers of the subcommittee, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. my name is earl matthews and emma colonel in the u.s. army reserve. i'm in the 25th year of my military service. i love our army. and i'm committed to our army values. i am here today because -- i am here today because two central -- senior general officers, general charles a flynn and walter e piatt acted contrary to those values. they have flied -- lied to

congress, federal investigators and the american people about why it took so long for the district of columbia national guard to deploy to the u.s. capitol january 6, 2021. the distortions contributed to deeply flawed and flawed department of defense investigation into deficiencies in other inquiries. on january 6, 2021, i was on duty and present during numerous conversations, video conferences and phone calls leading up to, during and after the riot which was engulfing the capitol . when i say these general officers lied, i do not do so lightly or cavalierly. i speak from personal knowledge, having interacted with them on january 6 in my official military capacity. unfortunately, some senior

officials within the department of the army in the department of the defense sought to protect or promote generals flynn and piatt. these senior civilian officials have excused, condoned, or overlooked the misconduct of these officers. is a former acting general counsel of the department of the army and his chief legal officer, take these matters seriously, even if others don't. i am glad the subcommittee has an open mind and is committed to the dogged search for the truth. in my formal statement which i provided to committee in advance of today's hearing, i detailed general flynn's internal piatt misrepresentation to congress investigators. during today's hearing i hope to discuss with you how they lied, where they lied, and in my opinion, why they like. inc. you very much.

thank you, i recognize brigadier general aaron dean for five minutes. >> good morning, mr. chairman, ranking member, embers of the subcommittee, i am retired. let history record this moment that i in my capacity as the second-in-command of the district of columbia national guard entrusted with the sacred duty to advise and assist the commanding general on matters of operation significance concerning deployment of the na 2021 to address the grave assertions and inaccuracy contained in the inspector general's report, beauty ig 2022-039. i believe it's my duty and moral obligation to stand before you today and illuminate the truth. i stand resolute bearing witness to the unwavering brief this and unparalleled dedication of the district of columbia

national guard. i want to answer questions honestly, as witnessed through the lens of my 34 year career in the district of columbia national guard. i rebuff in the strongest terms, the insidious insinuation that the district of columbia national guard faltered in its duty, that it languished in incompetence when called upon to safeguard the sanctum of democracy. today i will tell the truth to the best of my recollection. unblemished by falsehoods, and in doing so, exonerate the honor of the brave soldiers, and airmen who stood unwavering in the defense of our nation. me my testimony serve as a testament to the spirit of those who answered the call of duty on that historic day. >> >> thank you, general dean, i recognize timothy nick for five minutes. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is

timothy nick and i am a captain in the army national guard. i here today to aid the am subcommittee resolving factual errors in the official record happened on january 6. specifically regarding the alleged district of columbia national guard, delayed response caused by critical presidentially appointed senate confirmed pentagon senior officials. i was concerned by the events that unfolded that day on the united states capitol. as a federal officer of united states secret service former state trooper with the florida highway patrol my heart goes out to all law enforcement officers, sisters and brothers that held the line that day to restore public order to the chaos. i am here to my councils and dan meyer of the law from the firm has advised to be getting with my role as a confidential source of the select committee to investigate january 6 attack.

first, i want to explain my role in january 6. i was assigned as a personal assistant to major general william walker, the commanding general. it was my second day on the job. please focus on alleged facts about, found in november 16, 2021 department of defense inspector general's multidisciplinary review into the d.c. national guard response and department of defense role that day. i can say unequivocally that the inspector general's review of inaccuracies, statements and perhaps false narratives regarding how senior officials -- responded. for instance during a conference call at 2:30 1 pm with the u.s. army u.s. capitol police, metropolitan police, d.c. government and u.s. secret service uniformed division, walter piatt, director of army staff in the army's lieutenant flynn were on the call. also, was colonel john lewis,

executive officer to the secretary of the army. the army falsely denied the general flynn was ever on the call. this is false and material on its face. lieutenant flynn was on the call and even participated in discussions. the defense inspector's review also rounds language papering over the fact that lieutenant general piatt, and lieutenant general flynn, while on the call, discuss how they did not like the optics, that is a direct quote. and, they stated it would be the best military advice to recommend to the secretary of the army, to deny the request from william walker to deploy the national guard and eight years capitol police in restoring restoration of order and liberty and capitol hill. in addition, former secretary claims he was on a 2:30 1 pm call and spoke to nicole. this is false, unless he was in the room shadowing the call, he

did not speak nor identify himself. he was not on the call. he was in route to washington, d.c. regional office at the federal bureau of investigation to support that agents concept of operations plan for january 6. he went on to claim that he called and spoke to major general walker at least twice. ordering deployment of the d.c. national guard. this is also false. had no time to general walker take any calls nor did he hear from the secretary on any ongoing conference calls or the secure video conferencing throughout the day. this i know because i was with the command general the entire time recording events. throughout the date major general walker told by staff officers to standby with respect to deploying the capitol hill. only at 5:0 9:00 pm in the early evening, which i wrote down in my wheel book, was the d.c. guard given order to deploy to assist capitol police. we arrived too late. one american lay dead will others were injured including federal and local law officers.

we were ready and standing by. i know we were able to deploy immediately when general walker made the request, the national guard could've helped in civil disturbance and restore public order. the national motto is always ready and always there. d.c. national guard was ready to help. but we were not allowed to do our job due to paralyzed decision-making by acting secretary of defense, chris miller, and ryan mccarthy. this led to federal leadership in the pentagon. this led to a crisis in federal leadership in the pentagon and delayed the d.c. response by three hours and 19 minutes. thank you for the opportunity to bid -- appear before you today. i look forward to answered questions you may have. >> thank you, captain. as we begin our question session, i want to emphasize how much we appreciate all of you coming forward. i know, is a veteran of the armed forces myself, this takes an incredible amount of courage to come forward and tell the truth.

we will now move into the question session. just a reminder, et cetera the microphones are very close to you during this time. i recognize the gentleman from virginia for five minutes. >> we have a sergeant major, a colonel, a brigadier general and a captain. your testimony is compelling. thank you. not to the questions. on january 6, 2021, where each of you gentlemen with major general william walker from 1:40 9 pm through 5:50 5 pm? yes or no. >> yes, i was. >> yes. >> yes. >> the department of defense inspector general report, dod ig report alleges the secretary of army contacted major walker multiple times january 6 during that timeframe. some allegations are three and some are two. but the assertions would be that 3:0 4 pm, 4:30 5 pm and 5:00.

do any of you recall anyone of those calls taking place? >> can amplify that? was appointed of limitation. i was in the army reserve and national guard. in june of 2017 i was appointed acting general counsel department of the army. the next month he was the pointed sector of the army. ryan mccarthy's my colleague and friend. i told the committee, he was a good secretary near me. had a great deal of affection for him, i know he did for me. i'm not here to badmouth him. but, i have to set the record straight. and never called mccarthy a liar, two reasons, it wasn't clear to me he was saying some of the things they said he said.

some of the things were said by others were trying to pick themselves. the other thing is, he was my friend and you just don't cold front a liar. but, at 2:31 they said he was on a call with general walker and he tells them to move the cure of to the armory. that did not happen. ryan mccarthy didn't speak in a car. this card. it was a d.c. government conference bridge. it incorrectly states he requested the call. i help facilitate that call, general walker was in a call with dr. rodriguez the homeland security advisor for the mayor. all of us at the dais on the call. he never spoke on the call. i knew his voice quite well. if he had said anything i would

say that. we were told he was unavailable. i called executive officer to speak with him and told he was unavailable. piatt and flynn were on the call. subsequent lead, he wasn't involved in the call. for what reason i don't know. he did so under oath. may brooks, myself and lieutenant nick were all interviewed and we told him that. to me this is material because flynn, under oath twice, to the house oversight committee and to the select committee the human participants in the call. that goes to his integrity, and ability. >> let me underline this. colonel, you are also an attorney. you got your degree from harvard law school. >> i have a mortgage and great falls virginia. i have no reason to be lying. >> you understand, if you like to congress, title 18 1001 make

that a crime. is that correct? >> unquestionably. >> you also understand that is a member of the legal establishment that if you were to lie under oath, your license to practice law, no matter the fact that you have a jd from harvard could be in jeopardy? is that correct? >> yes or. you have to enter of, you like to congress, it's a federal crime. i submitted a document stating that these men were liars and i standby at 100%. and it is a stain on my army that they got away with it and no one said anything about it. and they even sent piatt to the us to have them promoted. he was a liar. and all of us will attest to that. >> you want the truth the come out. >> no doubt about it. >> good, bad or ugly? any of the four witnesses want anything but the truth to come out? good bad or ugly, doesn't matter, is that correct?

you want the truth? >> yes sir. >> brigadier general? >> that's correct. >> all right. well, i've got lots of other questions to ask. but i appreciate you jumping in and clearly, with your heartfelt emotions, telling us that things weren't exactly true and in fairness, the january 6 committee was not telling the truth. is that fair, colonel? >> they were not telling the truth, but i think they knew that though and they disregarded it. this is what i mean. so, general flynn testified before the house committee june 15, 2021. during his opening statement and questioning he stated explicitly that he was not on that phone call. he made no statements on that call. subsequently, he was interviewed by the january 6 committee and he also stated he was directly asked by the senior estate of counsel, did you make any statements on the call and he said he did not. he was not on the call, he says. that is perjury in my opinion,

i'm a lawyer, it's a corporate decide but that's perjury. the important point is later i raise that by the select committee that >> unfortunately my time is a. hopefully you'll get another opportunity to talk. i apologize. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields, recognize the ranking member, ms. torres for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. colonel matthews, i spent more than 17 years as a 911 dispatcher and went through some very difficult times in the city of l.a., ronnie king riots, the verdicts, 9/11 i was tasked with putting together mobile field force units to dispatch critical locations to ensure that those would not be attacked. so, i know what an eoc is supposed to look like. i know what orders to follow during certain types of emergency. i was prepared with a manual that was provided to me. things that we have practiced time and time and time again.

during an emergency, you agree that it is vital that we have a unified quick response and a unified coordination that has clear communication, correct? >> no question. >> i was struck by your written testimony when you said that the d.c. national guard was delayed because millie mccarthy and believe that the president of the united states might deploy the national guard improperly on that day, and had taken measures to prevent this. this must've been incredibly frustrating for you and for your colleagues in the guard. what you think senior military leaders believe the president of the united states might employ the national guard improperly on january 6? was it based on their words, actions, or both? irrational. >> that at one point he wasl.

walking down the >> secretary ryan testified on the january 6 committee at one point he was walking down the pentagon hallways and one of the most seasoned reporters asked him whether the army was planning to seize boxes. do you know if ideas like the president seizing ballot boxes was something secretary mccarthy was considering when making decisions about deploying the guard on january 6? >> i think it was, but i think it was not a rational belief. >> was there widespread fear within the department of defense about the president using the military or other lovers of the state to impact the election around the time of the 2020 election? >> it was not a widespread fear. it was a fear among a clique of officers led by chairman joint chief of staff who talked about so-called wright state moment. >> the new york times reported

in january 2022 the president trump actually directed his attorney, rudy giuliani, to ask the department of homeland security to see if it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states. i'd like to ask for unanimous consent to enter this article entitled, trump has role in proposals to seize voting machines, into the record. >> without objection. mmand sergeant major brooks, you served in the army and army national guard for 29 years. you spent the months after january 6 right here on this capitol hill protecting the city tail of democracy. i understand that the entire time you're deployed you slept in your office with the exception of maybe one week over the course of months. you clearly are a patriot who loves our country.

how did you feel watching the capitol get overrun, knowing the you are almost walking distance away, but not permitted to come assist law enforcement in defending it? >> it was very disheartening to see. i believe it was something that, you know, i think any of us who serve in the military, it was something we didn't think we would see in our lifetime. it was very frustrating to know that we have the capability and personnel and were unable to respond. >> brigadier general aaron dean, what is the basis and rationale on which the department of defense and d.c. national guard rely in determining the equipment, tactics, techniques and procedures that the guard could use to respond to escalations in the protests on january 6's? was is a typical? >> i don't think so, it wasn't atypicals. >> we are just months away from

the 2024 election. and the man who incited the 2020 insurrection is on the ballot again. what corrective actions has the national guard bureau of department of defense taken to ensure the national guard can plan, coordinate, and execute command and control response to threats in the national capitol region? >> i can only really talk about that district of columbia national guard in its preparation, especially around january 6. we match capability with request. so if there is a request, we match the capability we have. and we had right control capability on that day, to provide services for the capitol. >> so you would say over the last four years the smoke has been cleared and everyone is clear on how to respond and politics will not take priority over necessity? >> i can say the d.c. national guard is always ready to respond. >> thank you sir. >> and was ready before that date. >> thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back, not recognizing congressman anthony d'esposito. >> thank you, first question

for everyone, we can start and go down the line. did you testify in front of the january 6 select committee? >> no, i received a phone call. >> you said testify, i have an informal interview? >> great. but it was not -- >> please move the microphone closer. but the answer was no? >> no. >> colonel, you are interviewed but never in front of the committee? >> correct. >> breeder general? >> no. >> captain? >> informally interviewed never in front of the committee. >>.it. is a chairman mentioned in his opening remarks we are here today to not only correct the record, but also make sure we are better prepared today then we were. right? we want to be better prepared as a nation, as an agency, we want to be better prepared for the next, god forbid, incident, then we were that they. not really to focus on

president trump. that's not we are really here for today. so, captain nick, in your opening testimony or the one submitted to the committee, you said that about two 3 pm conference call, and i quote, tenant general p ott and lieutenant general flynn, while on the call discussed how they did not like the optics. they stated it would be in their best military advice, to recommend to the secretary of the army, ryan mccarthy, to deny the request from command general william walker to deploy the d.c. national guard and aid the capitol police in the respiration of ordered liberty or some have called it, democracy, and capitol here does help. >> may brooks, during the bipartisan interview in march 20 before you are asked if you recall hearing the word optics on your 2:30 pm call.

you responded, yes. and i quote, general flynn and p ott made numerous comments about the optics on having the guard on the capitol and how they would much prefer that the guard relieved in pd officers elsewhere in the city so that they could respond to the capitol. ". for everyone, and will start with command sergeant major brooks, why would these military experts want to send the national guard to relieve mpd officers elsewhere after the capitol was breached at 2:12 p.m.? >> in my opinion it was a senseless recommendation. the logistics and amount of time it would've taken to replace individual mpd officers across the city would've taken way too much time and further delayed. >> the key term there is a senseless. colonel? >> so, this mission was for law enforcement. the never wanted the guard on

the streets in the first place. they thought it was law enforcement mission. they believed it would've required 100,000 demonstrators before the d.c. guard was necessary. that was the army's thinking. and they also said they wanted no polarization, no involvement in the election certification process. that was their attitude. we were not allowed to be east of ninth street. which is where the capitol is. we had to have the secretary of the army approval to move 300 guards one block. >> baseless decisions. breeder general? >> so, i did hear the word optics and they did use it. especially, specifically lieutenant general piatt said optics. his concern was he did not want soldiers or airmen on the capitol grounds with the capitol in the background. they were giving every other reason why we should be around

the capitol, away from the capitol, and not responding to the capitol. part of what i believe is i believe they are unfamiliar with our true capability and what we are designed to do as a national guard. >> can you say that again for everyone to hear? >> i think they are unfamiliar with our true capabilities and what we are designed to do as a national guard under title 32. >> precisely. captain? >> i didn't hear the word -- i did hear the word optics also. and lieutenant general flynn did say it wasn't in their best military advice to approve the request. >> i only haveseconds, i like to go down the line once again answer this question. was a clear at the time that the number one priority was to restore order or to protect the congress, staff or visitors here at the capitol complex? captain? >> absolutely. >> it was clear we need to be at the capitol at the time. >> but was that their number one priority? >> it was not. >> breeder general? >> the number one priority was

to make the police respond and not the national guard. >> colonel? >> absolutely not. >> it was not the priority, sir. >> thank you. i think it is clear. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> now recognizing joe morelle. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to start my question, i apologize i only have five minutes i will try to get through this quickly, first of all, i appreciate very much your frustration. this is your job to defend the capitol and for the reasons both at this hearing and a lot of conversation, you were not called to do that. obviously it is palpable how strongly you feel about this missed opportunity to defend us. and i appreciate that and i don't think there is any disagreement here you should've been here much sooner. and i certainly don't know that anyone argues that it was your fault that that happened. i am a shocked, anthony d'esposito said we're not to talk about president trump. to me that is a little like

asking misses lincoln, other than the incident, how did you like the play? the truth is, the commander-in- chief could've ordered the national guard. as i said earlier, and frankly, mr. griffith said, i'll have to go back and look at the record, that the president ordered the troops out on january 6. there is no evidence anywhere that i have heard of, other than him saying it, there's literally no evidence, logs from the white house, no evidence anywhere the president did that. i don't know much, i'm a civilian, heard of the president of united states as soon as the breach happened, as soon as there was any measure of violence at the capitol, i would've assembled people in the situation room, i don't care about the secretary of defense was there, secretary of the army was there, and the commander-in-chief of the u.s. and so, i guess i begin with general dean, if an order came

from the white house from the president, that deployed the national guard, with that order have been questioned by anyone? >> i would answer this we. i will say that that order was delegated. the responsibility of the response from the commanding general was written, in a written document to him the basically gave him parameters on what he could do and what he couldn't do. >> i appreciate that. i don't believe the delegation of authority exempts the higher authority. if a call came from the president of the white house sang the president wants us deployed, if the secretary defense or somewhere else would you've ignored the order? >> no. >> again, i don't to draw you into it. those who want to absolve the higher levels of command, likewise, if the secretary of army or secretary of defense, if secretary had miller -- secretary miller had called general walker and said, deploy the national guard immediately, would anyone have question that order?

>> no. i will speak for my perspective. we wouldn't of questioned it. but we would've wanted it cord needed based on the document that was sent by the secretary of the army. >> not to interrupt, you would've sought a matter to verify and make sure that that was legally the appropriate process. but you would have acted immediately, no? >> i think the whole thing is that would've been a conversation. there was this talk about, they need a con up. concept of operation. that's a discussion. in a crisis, that is a discussion. and so with that, there would've been a discussion about the deployment of the national guard with any order given by any senior official. >> this is necessarily a question, but, what i hear is, a lot of confusion between the white house, the department of defense, the secretary of the army and his office. i don't know what happened. i guess there are varying

accounts. i think each of you is here to testify is that the order didn't come down. >> please? >> no had. >> chain of command runs to the president, secretary of the army general walker. sector of defense authorized the d.c. national guard to deploy at 3:00. the d.c. guard was able to deploy at 3:00. had the capability ready to at 3:00. but the order didn't come from the secretary of the army. >> i understand. >> that was the bottleneck. the president didn't follow the chain of command. >> i would say this, excuse me, i'm going to reclaim my time. apologize. if i were president of the united states, and had ordered it, if that were true, there is no evidence that happen, but let's say it had been ordered, and 20 minutes goes by and nothing is happening, i'd be on the phone again to my secretaries and to general walker sang what is going on? i ordered you out, move out. with all due respect, the

conversation should've happened. i don't know if it did or did not. >> congressman, if the president would've called the secretary of the army, the secretary of the army was that we are moving as fast as we can. we need more information. that's what the secretary of the army said in sworn testimony. >> that is not what happened. 's but he did say that in his testimony. >> he didn't say the president of the u.s. ordered him. >> he said it would not of made a difference. the presidents call would not of been a difference. >> i disagree. >> i think you are right also. >> let me reclaim my time. my time is over. the point entering to make is, i don't disagree. this is an important conversation. i don't think it's one for our committee. the armed services committee out to be holding this and there is a question to make sure the come january 2025 we

better be sure we have communication that is clear, compelling and the chain of command. but i do think this, there is no way to resolve response ability of the president, the secretary of defense or the secretary of the army. you may dispute would happen, and i think that is fair, something should happen that trigger the deployment of the national guard sooner so that you could've done your jobs and we wouldn't be having this hearing this morning. with that, you'll back. >> the gentleman yields back and agree with him on the last statement, we need to be prepared for the next time have a january 6 come up, which is in the law. i would also correct the record, i did say the president , the gentleman is correct, that is not in the evidence, the president had peevishly given christopher miller the authority to act, as he stated in his testimony, which was previously submitted into the record. and christopher miller is the one who gave the order they did not get followed apparently by the secretary of the army. i now recognize dr. murphy for his five minutes of question. >> thank you, i apologize if i'm a little out of breath. it's just being old. thank you all for coming

forward. it takes absolute courage, absolute courage. every meeting we have now has trump derangement syndrome talking to it. this was a dereliction of duty by the secretary of the army who refused, by the way, to come before this committee because he knew his culpability, he knew that he lied and he was derelict in duty. and i appreciate from the bottom of my heart, you guys standing up for the united states of america. you took a to a, as did the secretary, and you are keeping your oath. i deeply appreciate it. at your own personal cost. because we know the weaponization of this government is occurring at an exponential rate and it's just privy, it's just proof in the pudding that this is what we are dealing with. i swear, why do not have bipartisan support in getting to the bottom of this, it's beyond me. it's everything about trump. captain nick, you know, the summer before in 2020 when there was an absolute disaster in this country where riots and

burning of federal buildings occurred, we saw billions of dollars, multiple deaths occur. speaker pelosi, i believe is culpable with part of this in allowing this paving the way for the terrible thing to happen january 6 22 dismissing america's memory of what happened the summer before. in contrast, the protest at the capitol on january 6, which we know were all wrong, there was no hesitation in creating a politicized unity. we had a former republican who sought as a personal grind to go after president trump. basically, not allowing evidence to come before the committee. it has been more than three years. members of the d.c. national guard are coming forward with your oath to provide clarity. all just ask, captain nick, you mentioned you were a confidential source for the select committee. in addition, you you go on to state confidentiality was breached to the national media.

would you mind expanding upon that? first, i'd like to correct the record from a previous statement from your colleague. when he asked a question about pentagon officials and their desire to send troops. i said absolutely, i meant they did not at that time want to send troops to the capitol. just for furcation. after january 6 i was informally interviewed by the select committee on january 6. i gave informal testimony and hired counsel. after giving my written notes and informal testimony a couple weeks later i was contacted by a news outlet from the writer requesting comment on my handwritten notes they got a copy of. i contacted dan who contacted the select committee to resolve that. but, it had to be liked at some point probably the select committee because that's the only people i talked to give my

notes to. >> it is obviously evident, with anybody with an objective eye, that committee was put forth to tell one thing. if that committee had gone in front of anything illegal department, you would have cross examination, other witnesses, et cetera. we never saw any of that to get to the actual truth, which is what all americans, no matter which party, should believe in doing period. i just want to reiterate something. i guess this is to colonel matthews in general dean, turning to the matter of security, secretary of the army said the d.c. national guard wasn't, was not, prepared for immediate deployment. to agree with that statement? >> that statement is false. >> we were prepared in many ways. we even had backup plans. we call them branches and sequels. right? so, not only did we have a force that it andrews air force base it was training and doing

civil disturbance that we can, prepared to deploy on that day, that was ready to deploy on that day, we also had traffic control points that were at mpd and those members had right control gear in the trunk. not visible to the public. but for themselves and self protection in case mpd had to respond, they had the appropriate gear to provide civil disturbance right control efforts. if needed. and so we had the capability, we had the planning, we have the know-how. so the question that i have is, of all the events, of all the inauguration events that the guard supported, out of the nato summits, summer of 2020, covid, we were not able to respond to this? we were incapable?

that is categorically false. >> my time is short, but i find it a slap in the face to all the good men and women who serve in our armed forces to say you are not prepared. a slap in the face. and because this guy wanted to save his butt with the hope of getting in the biden administration, that is point blank what happened. thank you, you'll back. >> after consultation with ms. torres we've agreed to do a second round of questioning. i would recognize ms. torres for an additional five minutes of questioning. >> thank you. the claim that somehow the select committee didn't investigate the national guard response to the security failures at the capitol on january 6 is inconsistent with the facts. as i mentioned, the select committee interviewed 24 individuals and reviewed 37,000 pages of documents related to the national guard. on january 6. 46 of those pages are in the final report was issued. if you search the transcripts

of those interviews held with these witnesses ahead of this hearing, you will see the significant number of questions used for testimony from the select committee is a foundation. just because there wasn't a court reporter, doesn't mean that it didn't happen. as i told you in the back room, i was in the balcony while all of this was unfolding. i was also witness to an assault of an officer. with the door swung open on the balcony that i was sitting. but just because they didn't interview me for that into thin -- incident, doesn't mean any of those investigations did not happen. let me just remind everyone about what the resident was putting out social media during that time. at 2:24 pm the president tweeted out, regarding vice president pence, not having the

courage to do the wrong thing that he wanted him to do. at 3:13 pm the president had issued another statement saying, i am asking for everyone at the was capitol to remain peaceful. no violence. remember, we are the party of law and order, respect the law and are great men and women in blue. thank you. he didn't tell people to go home. he didn't tell them to go home. it took many of his own closest allies to get him to this point. the president didn't want the violence against the police or members of congress or against his own vice president to stop. the truth is, he wanted the violence to continue until he could take custody and continue to keep custody of his position. at 4:17 pm he finally posted

video that contained many lies about the election. but finally encourages people to home. and that's when they finally started home. those are the real facts of what happened on that day. so, in addition under democratic leadership, and i know you want to continue to blame democrats what happened on that day, the democrats did not tell the mob, the angry mob that was armed, to go to the capitol . democrats are not responsible for that. the request about this january 6 attack, we have gone back and forth as to who was ordered to do what , that information is very clear. there were no clear directions. because, if there were clear directions, everyone would've

moved in unison. everybody would've been together, putting together those plans that you said already exist. so, colonel matthews, you seem to want to respond. please go ahead. >> so, the committee interviewed , again, us, we all told them their issues with the credibility of several witnesses. people have responded honestly as part of the investigation. and that was disregarded. and that goes to the credibility of what they were telling the committee. for instance, the select committee stated in its findings that are two rf, debatable its purpose was. there is no debate. it was a civil disturbance response. designed to respond to a right. >> i think you're missing the point. there would have been no riot,

there would have been no riot, had the president of the united states not set up the stage in order people and told them that he would join them at the was capitol. there had been no galley that was erected to hank vice president. if the president had not wanted them to stop us from certifying the election. you're missing the point of all of what happened. six months prior to january 6, the chaos that was happening within the branches of the military that are swore to never get involved in domestic affairs. i yield back. >> i apologize for brief absence, i have another committee that a bill got called up right at the worst time that had to present.

i think a couple of points of clarification. the capitol breach again will before the people at the white housmade it down to the capitol. the gallows were actually erected at 6:00 in the morning and no one knew exactly what mike pence was going to do until 1:30 pm. these are just some of the questions, of the narrative, the came out from january 6 report which is this. this much. this is how much is discussed about the d.c. national guard. the primary objective the select committee was to investigate the security failure at the u.s. capitol because we have to identify the failures before we can fix things. there was an entire team, the blue team, who was commissioned with doing that. i challenge anyone to look in here and find anything of substance from the blue team whatsoever.

so this is white's important that we do the oversight that is the job of congress, and specifically the subcommittee, to look into what happened. this is clearly within the security failure of the capitol. the should not be political. the should not be in one way or the other. regardless of who is coming to the capitol. regardless of who broke into the capitol. that should have never happened. there should've been no breach of this capitol. resources are here. the idea that the new jersey national guard would get here before our own national guardsmen, whose job is to, as colonel matthew said, riot control, traffic control, this is their job. to come in and help defend this capitol. and so, with that, i do have a few questions. dod ig report alleges dod officials did not delay or obstruct a response to the

capitol. sergeant major brooks, i'll start with you. do you believe deployment of the d.c. national guard was delayed? >> yes. >> would you believe delayed it? >> secretary mccarthy and senior officials in the army staff. >> okay, why do believe that they delayed it? >> i believe the misunderstanding of the capabilities of the d.c. national guard and the seriousness of the situation. honestly, i have no idea why we never received that order. all i know is that they were more concerned with what would look like soldiers with the capitol in the background than protecting the capitol of the united states. >> colonel matthews, same question for you. do you believe that deployment of the d.c. national guard was delayed? >> yes or. i believe it was a result of an overcautious, reluctant am hesitant facilitating leadership.

and i think they were concerned about the optics, the political optics of military presence here. and i don't think they trusted the commander in chief, and i think that was because of our senior ranking military officer who is making disparaging remarks about the president to them. you got to remember the people who ran the army are very close associates of the german joint chiefs of staff. they owe their positions to him. and he was not, i mean, there are books about how chairman millie was impeding the ability of the president. so, i think that issue there, sir. >> so just to clarify, you think that there was a delay that was calculated, for one reason or the other? but you are not indicating that ther was a nefarious purpose than that, just we don't walk out of here with conspiracy theories that the dod wanted the capitol to fail. i just want to make sure th that is not you're going with

that. >> i'm not saying that. i am saying that the conditions were set by this talk, this talk of a coup, let me be frank about, a bunch of black kids in the d.c. got a go to usurp the election for trump? that's crazy talk. it was out there and it's in books. i mean, millie has talked about it. >> will have got you, colonel matthews, do you believe the dod ig report accurately reflects the events of january 6, 2021? >> that dod ig report is full of incorrect information. even the select committee's report has shown that. can i give a couple of examples? >> sure. >> 1635 ryan mccarthy called to go down to the capitol. if you read his transcript from the select committee, he said he never did that.

he was getting ready for a news conference. he was taking notes and writing and preparing for a televised news conference. he overheard brigadier general lynn eve. buddy said never told him to go. they point in each other's direction. the dod ig puts it in. than they claim had to walk her again at 5:00. at 25 minutes, and direct him to go. that's absolutely false. mccarthy was in a televised press conference. inspector general has an allegation to correct the record. where does general walker go? you smeared this man by anonymous sources and were talking about general officers in the army who are bitter because walker's testimony in march. that in like that and they wanted to get lieutenant general piatt promoted. general millie engages in that, read his transcript from the

select committee, he implies walker was lying or exaggerating and everything general millie says in his transcript interview from committee is incorrect. the committee staff had to know it. >> let me just clarify something. general walker did testify under oath to the select the select committee under oath, that correct, the evocation of the dod ig report is a general walker falsely testified, is that fair? >> to the senate, he testified in march, march 2021. this came out november 2021. the application was he was not truthful in his testimony. this is a sitting officer. appointed by speaker pelosi. a sworn career federal law enforcement ex they are implying he committed outright perjury. i took exception to that. i wrote my memo, i wasn't working for general walker.

nothing to gain from that. but it was the right thing to do. this man was responsible for all of your personal safety. dachshunds but let me reclaim my time. there other questions i need to get to. i want to make sure that you understand that -- the implications of the dod ig report was that general walker falsified testimony or was not truthful. would you believe that he would be selected to be the head security officer of the house of representatives nancy pelosi if it was known that he had lied under oath? i just want to make sure we're talking about someone who was selected by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be sergeant at arms here. this is a bipartisan issue that we are talking about here. let me move on, quickly. captain nick, the dod ig states

they received a copy of conttes from sanitary parties aid the camp. did the request a copy of the notes that they? >> no. >> i r spoke to anybody in the department of defense. they never requested my notes and never contacted me. >> interesting. i will do a couple more questions and will continue down the aisle. the dod ig report alleges that in june 2020 that taught secretary mccarthy could not simply rely on the d.c. national guard to figure out the details. general dean, what you make of that statement? >> i think he is unfamiliar with what the d.c. national guard's can do and its capability. i think he is probably being advised by senior active component officers at never

spent a day in our life in the national guard. and they are advising him what the national guard should or should not do. it's like an officer in the navy talking about a simmering. you're in the same service, but you do different things. i think part of the issue is, taking military advice from a senior active component officer about national guard issues pertaining to civil disturbance it is out of there wheelhouse and i think sometimes they can provide inaccurate permission. and in doing so, it creates a lack of trust because now you don't know who to believe. you don't know if you're to believe the people were so posted advise you on military matters or the national guard. i would propose to you that you need someone to advise you on army and the air force national guard matters, not just military matters. >> okay, thank you. sergeant major brooks, same question. let me precede that with, there were a lot of acts of violence and riots throughout 2020. we have that in georgia. as a

response to the rights in atlanta, the governor of georgia called out the state patrol and the georgia national guard. no one raised an issue with that because that is a job of the national guard, to respond to the governor and provide for civil disturbance and support and right control. really the same question for general dean, is that not understood by certain dod officials, that ultimately, that is the same role as the d.c. national guard, it's just the chain of command is different because d.c. is not a state? >> yes, sir. the d.c. national guard is unique in that aspect. in fact there is d.c. code the gives special authority to the d.c. national guard the no other national guard in the country have to conduct business

within the district and conduct law enforcement operations in support of, you know, federal or district agencies. i believe the general dean is absolutely accurate. i asked the question, where was the chief of the national guard bureau in this when you are discussing guard capabilities ? you were only acting, asking active duty military who never served in the guard, did not truly understand capabilities and authorities, and at no time, you reached out to the four- star general in charge of the national guard to get information. although you had all the information necessary if you just understood the role that have been delegated to you many months or even prior to. i think it is incredibly important, going forward, that the secretary of defense, the secretary of the army, the chief of staff of the army, and include the sergeant major of the army, are thoroughly

briefed on the authorities capabilities and the responsibility that has been delegated to them over the d.c. national guard and its ability to respond to the nation's capitol. we thoroughly train our ability to be a reserve force for the active component. what is the active component not thoroughly train on us? >> thank you. i appreciate the thorough answers there. very important issue. i recognize the full committee ranking member for five minutes. >> thank you. i will admit, i am a simple guy. and i do want to do some follow- ups to c-span3 force questions which are important. also recognize general walker was held in high esteem by members of our style desk side of the aisle. we have as much faith in him as all of you did during that time. the way i see this, and maybe i am wrong, if i am the president

of the united states, the commander-in-chief, even though i've delegated authority, i think it some period after 3:00, when i see that there doesn't seem to be much movement, going to pick up the phone and call the secretary of defense, and secretary of the army, and say exactly what is going on? i have issued orders or haven't, there's confusion. at some point i would had my chief of staff called general walker and say, exactly what is happening on the ground? my only point is, it would not of taken me, and again, i'm not sophisticated, but it wouldn't have taken meet three and half hours i'm sitting in the house watching this unfold, confident in my view that while i have signed the necessary papers, so not sure it's happening, but it's all good because i signed the papers. this is an attack on the united states capitol. the citadel of democracy here in this country and around the world. so, for all the other misdirection here, and i'm not

suggesting that we are trained to bring the president into this unnecessarily, it's that the president is necessarily part of the chain of command. by the way, so is the secretary of defense and so is the secretary of the army. i'm not absolving them, they clearly had direct line responsibility to make sure this happened. at some point when this is going on, in the midst of the chaos, if only a few minutes goes by and something is not happening, i'm picking up the dam phone, i'm going to find out exactly what is going on. but to this point, we have high respect. the greatest respect fo general walker. we would've continued him as sergeant of arms, my friends over there make the decision to remove him, and that is fine. they have that responsibility. so let me ask this, i'm not sure if anyone can answer this, but let me direct at first to sergeant major brooks, tell me what the protocol should be, going forward, since we are less than what is supposed to

happen, tell us in the future, whether it's january 6, 2025, or any other day that involves a breach of the capitol or issues, what is the protocol? what should we know needs to be in place the people fear wasn't? how we make sure this doesn't happen again? what is the protocol like? >> when positive step i believe the has been taken is i believe they have given the authority to the chief of the capitol police to call on the guard without further approval. that is a huge step. secondly, i believe the d.c. national guard has been neglected for many years for what i believe to be the lack of knowledge or understanding. it was put on a shelf, those were delegated authority over it, secretary running secretary of defense, did not thoroughly understand the responsibility. you know, they are ultimately one of the commanders, one of the senior leaders of the d.c.

national guard. over the 17 years that i served in the d.c. national guard, repeatedly, the national guard bureau came down and removed units, military police units, that would respond to the capitol , remove them from the d.c. national guard without objection. if the governor of your state was told they were going to move one of their guard units, your governor would be upset d significant challenge to that. correct? the correct -- the secretary of the army is supposed to be our governor and defend th national guard from losing its capability to support and defend the capitol of the united states. that has been neglected for decades. he needs to change. the d.c. national guard should be the elite unit it was designed to be under president thomas jefferson.

it is responsible for the seat of democracy. it's not responsible for a state, territory, it's responsible for a city. is the only guard responsible for a city. just happens to be the capitol of the most powerful nation in the world. and i think that is significant. and if that change does not come, if this happens again, and unfortunately, in our political environment i think there's a chance. >> i appreciate that response and i most -- almost out of time. leading up to january 6, recognizing the challenges, from the president to the secretary defense to the secretary of the army, there should've been a lot of work in preparation for, not on that day, but in the weeks and months leading up to make sure the lines of committee kitchen were set. that there was a series of protocols that would be followed if and when things happened and that clearly didn't happen. but again, gentlemen, i appreciate all of your not only testimony and being here today

but your long service and support of the u.s. i go back. >> not recognizing the gentleman from virginia. five minutes. >> i submit to you, gentlemen, that if the president of the united states had gone outside the chain of command and general walker directly, bypassing his acting secretary of defense and secretary of the army, he might very well be a hearing to figure out why the president was interfering with the national guard. would you agree with that? >> i think that would've been highly irregular. >> it would've been highly irregular. >> keep in mind, during that time, talking about the president properly using the military, they wanted to take precautions against that use. they wont have it both ways, he didn't call. if you would've called it would've said he was trying to break the chain of command. >> that is exactly what i was hearing, i just wanted to put it and make sure we had on the record. i put on the record previously in my previous line of questions that all of you were there with major general

william walker from 1:49 pm through 5:55 pm. during that time period we already established he didn't receive any calls from secretary mccarthy. but did he try to reach out to secretary mccarthy during that timeframe? did you will witness any attempts by him to reach out?just asking for facts. captain? >> yes, sir. i witnessed him trying to reach out multiple times. >> in fairness to sector mccarthy, i said he was in comedic auto. i was saying, the pentagon is a big building. cell phones don't work. if you're in the pentagon you not going to be reachable by cell phone. and if he is in a skiff of the chairman or the secretary of defense, it's reasonable he would not be able to be reached except through his front office. i gave secretary mccarthy the benefit of the doubt. >> and i appreciate that, we're just trying to get the

facts. brigadier general, my understanding is that you would've been second in command behind major general walker, is that correct? >> that is correct. and, if for some reason, because we heard earlier that, as part of the doig report, that there were attempts to reach general walker, which also didn't happen. but let's assume for the sake of argument they couldn't reach him for some unknown reason, when the proper move that have been to call you in this case of emergency or orders have been given to activate the national guard? >> that is correct. >> it's interesting because the report says, i'm not a military man, so bear with me, i might be asking something you know and i don't, and that is, the major general walker indicated he had called to initiate

movement. now, i understand there wasn't a call. but what does initiate mean? does that mean to get in lend assistance? what does that mean? >> initiate movement means that you actually give the order for a force to move. so, in this case, it would've been our qrs or any force that was qualified to do civil disturbance. >> so that would've been the order to head to the capitol and lend assistance. okay. that is why i asked. i wanted to know. and captain nick, i think this is in the record, but let's just get out there again. what time did the d.c. national guard learn they were authorized to deploy to the capitol? >> i wrote down in my notes 5:09 pm. which was relayed from the general on a secure teleconferencing line in our office. >> 5:09 pm. now, asked if there wasn't any action, the president should've

jumped the chain of command and called general walker, but, if you are lieutenant general piatt lieutenant general flynn and you knew there was supposed to be deployment or initiate the move, when you have reached out to somebody if you couldn't get a hold of walker? i understand they were on the call the whole time, but when they have been able to properly call brigadier general dean? i will let anybody answer. >> yes, sir. i think we missed a key point in all this conversation when we were talking about who and what. we go back to the significant fact that the only reason why we are here today is because secretary mccarthy in his approval letter removed major general's ability to execute his immediate sponsor authority. secretary mccarthy changed the

memo from secretary of defense to the secretary of the army. the one that we got from secretary mccarthy stated that major general walker could not deploy the qrs without the secretary of army's explicit order. >> i want to just clarify the term immediate response is used incorrectly. >> emergency response. >> correct. >> and when was that memo or order given to not do anything without the direct call from the secretary of the army? >> january, -- >> several days before january 6? >> i appreciate questions, i appreciate you all. thank you for your courage being here today. i know it's put you under a lot of stress. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields. now recognizing the gentleman from new york. >> sergeant major brooks, at the time, you were the most senior noncommissioned officer in the organization. can you share briefly what was happening at the d.c. armory between 3 pm and 5 pm on

january 6? >> immediately upon receiving the 1:49 we, the d.c. national guard, initiated movement from andrews air force base to the armory. so they were there. we were then taking the soldiers that were coming in for the second shift the were already at the armory, we had geared them, with right control gear. we had moved our transportation onto the armory drill floor so not to arouse any public awareness of what was actually going on. and they were loaded and standing by ready to. they had been divided up into simple -- civil disturbance platoons. appropriate leadership, which constantly matches the mpd structure for civil disturbance as well because as we have stated previously, we trained with them so we wanted to be as

close to their force packages possible. >> great. you train with them to the work you're prepared to do, which is exactly the opposite of what so-called leadership was telling you your mission was. >> yes. but, i think they like to say they are untrained, and they point was conducting training and some airmen may have had the first experience of training. the army and air force get new privates and airmen everyday. they are assimilated into the formation and trained and trust their leadership have their best interest and would not put them in a situation but they were not prepared for. i believe that our leadership, all the way down the chain, prepared our soldiers as best as possible to perform the mission they were given. >> so on january 6 between 3:00 and 5:00 they were trained, prepared and ready to respond. >> absolutely. >> okay, thank you. brigadier general dean, according to his testimony to

the dod, secretary mccarthy told general walker to "posture his troops", get ready to go. on the 2:30 pm call. is that accurate? >> that is not accurate. there was no mention, first of all, secretary mccarthy wasn't even on the call. i will say this. he wasn't identified on the call nor did he speak on the call. >> understood. colonel matthews, if i leave anything out, please correct me. you were acting general counsel to the army. you were principled deputy general. you are deputy counsel to the chairman of the joint chiefs. you were special counsel to the director of national intelligence. you served this country faithfully in combat in both iraq and afghanistan. >> i did. urate nova grad. >> yes or.

>> and your a harvard law grad. pretty well accomplished. let me ask you a question, you have one minute and 40 seconds, sir. you were in charge on january 6, tell me your plan and what you would've done differently. >> in charge of the d.c. guard, the army or what? >> you could've made any decision necessary to keep this place safe. >> i would've picked the phone and told the d.c. guard to deploy to the capitol immediately and told walker to have everyone in the building get down in right gear and support the capitol police. i will say this, sir, at 3:04 pm secretary miller did give was not conveyed to general walker. so that authorization had been given, secretary miller had all the authority he needed. he didn't need to hear from the president. the president had given him the authority he needed to act. so, i think there was a bottleneck and it wasn't at the

d.c. guard level. and it was not the osd level, in my opinion. >> well, i guess again, the goal here today was to make sure we are better prepared next time, brigadier general, you have one? >> can answer that quick fix to me, what i would've done in the position at the pentagon, or if i was the secretary, one i would've given general walker more latitude. i wouldn't have written the memo so constraining the bid take one person to, you know, mobilize the d.c. national guard. >> that was clearly done by design. >> and secondly, i would've given him the authorization to deploy, if there was a threat to life or limb. and then i would've said when you get there, give me a call and we will discuss how the d.c. national guard is actually going to be deployed. >> my time is expired. thank you for your service to this great country. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields.

i have some closing questions and then we will adjourn after that. i just want to do a quick review before asking these last couple of questions. from the information that we obtained from the select committee january 6, transcribed interviews, logs from beauty officials, we have a timeline of the authorization process of the national guard. we know on january 3 that the president, president trump ordered that the guard be ready for potential deployment based on intelligence the had been received. as i mentioned earlier, secretary miller did testify to the select committee, he had full authorization to deploy the national guard. on january 6. did not need any additional authority from the president of the united states. there was a breakdown in an order. secretary miller testified that he gave an order to deploy the national guard to

the capitol . somewhere, there was a breakdown in that order. with artist communication or a delay, sergeant major brooks, if general walker were to give you a direct order, you lawfully, and according to your oath, same as i took when i joined the military, you are obligated to carry out that lawful order, is that correct? >> yes, sir. any moral, legal authority order given is my responsibility to carry out. yes, sir. if you did not carry out that order, would that be considered a election of duty? >> absolutely. and general walker could take action against me. >> do you feel there was dereliction of duty in the chain of command on january 6? >> not within the d.c. national guard, sir. but from higher levels, yes, sir. i do believe that senior officials within the secretary

of the army, and senior officials in the army staff were derelict in relaying the authorization from secretary miller down to the appropriate level of execution, which would've been major general walker, sir. >> i know it's a difficult question. and i apologize for that. but to get to the truth, we need to know what really happened. while we are here, and this is open to anyone that can answer this appropriately, and maybe i will directed to general dean to start with. secretary mccarthy claims he was making a tactical level plan at the mpd headquarters. did you ever see this plan? >> not only did i not see the plan, he was at the wrong agency. so the lead federal agency for this particular event was the

capitol police. so my question is, why are you at the mpd headquarters and not at capitol police? because the capitol police has responsibility for security of the capitol. >> that was my follow-up question. the deployment was to the capitol. that was the plan. that's what we did.the plan. was the national guard deploy as you become under the authority of the u.s. capitol police and you are sworn in authority of the u.s. capitol police. you are sworn in. your officers of the u.s. capitol police. your operation plan, in reality is get from here to there, get sworn in and what the chief is going to tell you. >> never asked and dependently.

we always take direction from civil authority. we work from somebody. that is what we did during. we worked for npd all over the city. or for secret service police or park police. >> just to make sure i understand, there was a discussion of a plan, get to the bus, get to the capital. is that what you are saying, sergeant major brooks ? >> we do our normal planning operations. we already had a rally point identified for the soldiers who were on traffic control points within the city. . all we had to do was communicate to those service members to rally at that point, don your riot gear. everyone else at the armory and moving towards direction. exactly as mentioned, once we arise, it's called defense so support to civil authorities. once we arrived, we are

supporting the civil authority in this case, the capital police would've given us direction on where to be and what to do. >> okay, thank you. >> this is my last question. general dean, i will start with you because you would have been the senior member at the time. the order that finally came. what time was it again? >> general dean, at 5:09, did secretary mccarthy give general the order at that time? if not, can you explain how you got the order? >> from my understanding it is that general mcconnell gave the order but he said he received it from secretary mccarthy. general walker turned and told me and i told the corporate response force it is time to move. >> anybody else? >> i was sitting right next to

general walker in the conference room and the general condo is not in the chain of command. he was conveying an order that was authorized to go when i was told that not that it came from secretary mccarthy, that it came from secretary miller. disclaim that secretary mccarthy called general out because it's not true. secretary mccarthy has stated that it was not true. and the way we got it was related through video teleconference. >> somebody called you on video teleconference to give you that order? >> the conference was ongoing and it was going. they happen to be in a conference talking to us and mentioned we had the operation to go. >> he claims that but that is not what happened, sir. somebody in the back of the room said these guys are good to go? he claimed later that he asked general walker why are you still here? he argued that had the

authority. he implied that walker had the authority and he was just hanging out on the btc, twiddling his thumbs while the city was being in a riot d condition. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman -- can i add that it all does not make sense if you follow because if major general walker had been told numerous times, had been giving a lawful order to do something, why was there never an action taken against major general walker for dereliction of duty or using an officer? there was not an inkling of charging him anything. that whole narrative that we were just sitting around waiting is false and it is disrespectful to the men and women that did that job think that we just sat and waited while the capital was under attack. >> he wanted to resign. i asked to do that.

>> he actually told me the same thing. he said should i send them, should i send them? i said don't send them. you did not get the order him a it is in writing that you don't send them. do not send them. >> i want to thank you all. i'm sorry? okay, i will do these and i will recognize you for that. >> i want to enter for the record a memorandum from the secretary of the army dated january 4th, 2021 as the employment guidance for the district of columbia national guard. also, a letter from the secretary of the army to major general william walker dated january 1, 2021 recommending approval of the request of mr. christopher rodriguez. this is support of the civil

authorities of the district of columbia. without objection, i entered the ranking member. >> i have a few items i would like to enter to the record. i want to also acknowledge and say thank you to everyone that is here today. we know that the chaos at the pentagon was caused by the commander-in-chief and the fear that he would involve the military and domestic and political affairs. i want to enter into the record following articles. a political article entitled trump could've helped response to that january 6th ryan bryant but didn't.. a letter posted on the select committee website to the general counsel of the department of homeland security, related to the disposition of interview transcripts. pages 99-101 of acting secretary of defense, cristobal

miller's interview. an article in which it declares a false claim that the jan. 6 committee suppressed testimony from anthony or nato that proves former president donald trump pushed for 10,000 national guard troops at the capital. a cnn article entitled trump secretary denies that there were orders to have 10,000 troops ready to deploy on january 6. a washington post article entitled the false gop plane claim that pelosi turned down. an email from mark meadows to john dated january 5th, 2021 in which he says that the national guard will be activated so they can protect pro trump people. the select committee to investigate the january 6 final report and summaries of the many capital police inspector general reports requested leadership of this committee

last congress. >> without objection. >> thank you. >> again, i would like to thank each of our witnesses for coming forward to share their story. again, for anyone who is watching who wishes to share their story with my subcommittee, plt hesitate to reach out at cha.house.gov/whistleblower/sui without objection, each member will have five legislative dave's days to assert material into the record. if there is no further business, i think the members for their part of the patient and without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.

[inaudible conversations] >> this afternoon, officials from the office of information

intact knowledge and testify on president biden's 2025 budget request. before a house veterans affairs subcommittee. you can watch it live on c-span three, our mobile video apps or online at c-span.org . with bio and contact information with every house and member of the congress. important information on congressional committees, the president's cabinet, federal agencies and state governors, the congressional directory caused 3295 $32.95. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operations. scan the code on the right. order your copy today.