In politics, it seems, everyone has a boogeyman — something convenient to dredge up now and then to scare voters into your corner. For Republicans, it’s the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. Democrats, meanwhile, have January 6 of last year. Whatever real concerns remain about the storming of the Capitol on January 6 last year are, sadly, being overshadowed by the political posturing of the House’s Select Committee. Meanwhile, security protocols at the Capitol — some ordered by House speaker Nancy Pelosi — have prolonged the sense of insecurity for members of Congress, with unnecessary measures presupposing another attack is imminent.
Those measures hit a new low recently, with five former USCP analysts speaking out against them. Represented by attorney Daniel Gebhardt, these unnamed analysts worked in the department’s intelligence division during and after the events of January 6. Beyond merely investigating threats to members of Congress, they claim they were ordered to “conduct research” on their families and affiliates. As reported by Politico, one instance involved an investigation of a pastor, merely for officiating a funeral attended by a member.
Analysts were also ordered to investigate congressional staffers, which included examining personal social-media profiles. According to Gebhardt, the analysts were alarmed at the ethics of these orders given the lack of probable cause, and the risks they posed to the First Amendment rights of those investigated. To them, it was “without proper predicate” to obtain this information and a “misallocation of resources” needed to stop further attacks.
After expressing their discomfort to senior USCP officials yielded nothing, the analysts filed complaints with the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Capitol Police Inspector General. Gebhardt said his clients then faced internal retaliation for their complaints. This isn’t the first such accusation made against USCP. Last November, another anonymous whistleblower sent a 16-page letter to congressional committees — claiming that “abuse and mismanagement of intelligence operations” was ongoing at USCP, with a culture of “intimidation” against those who spoke up.
Conducting Google searches on guests is routine, but deep-dive investigations into the families of congressmen is far more serious. Unfortunately, such security theater is not uncommon on the Hill these days. Speaker Pelosi has imposed many measures that reflect her public paranoia about Capitol security nearly one-and-a-half years after January 6, when the threat has long passed. These include metal detectors for members who enter the House chamber, with $5,000 fines for non-compliance, and keeping a high-security fence around the Capitol complex for six months after January 6. Rather than invite collaboration over security, these have merely provoked partisan backlash. Representative Steve Scalise (R., La.) argued that these measures appeared more designed to impede lawmakers from voting than to protect Congress.
The USCP’s conclusion that “there does not exist a known, credible threat against Congress or the Capitol” should cause Hill paranoia to diminish. Instead, it is now trickling down through the ranks and dividing Congress over a threat that doesn’t exist.