Today is the second anniversary of the January 6 insurrection. I didn’t use that term for some time, preferring to call the day’s events a riot until evidence beyond Donald Trump’s rhetoric came to light. Once it did, I was much more comfortable with “insurrection.” What I remained uncomfortable with was the argument that law enforcement’s response on that day was lacking, as if their shortcomings might absolve Trump in some way. So today’s link is a learning experience for me, a reminder that this website isn’t about posting what’s comfortable. It’s about posting what’s informed. Donell Harvin’s column in Politico is certainly that.

As his bio notes, Harvin is a homeland security expert. He was also at the center of the city of Washington D.C.’s intelligence apparatus on January 6th. As such, he had a front row seat to the day’s security breakdowns. Those looking to discount Harvin should note he testified before the January 6 Committee three times on what he saw leading up to the sixth as well as his recommendations moving forward. As for what he saw, Harvin says evidence of an attack was so persuasive he coordinated a call with all the state and local intelligence fusion centers across the country, something never before done. Yet his warnings went unheeded and received little notice in the committee’s final report. As for his recommendations, Harvin says they’ve received little attention as well.

While the committee deservedly lays responsibility for January 6th at Trump’s feet, it does the nation a disservice by papering over the day’s security failures. Investigating law enforcement’s actions doesn’t exonerate Trump, just as investigating Trump shouldn’t exonerate law enforcement. That doesn’t mean the two share equal blame for what happened. It does mean, if the failures are ignored, January 6th could happen again.