After a year of intense scrutiny following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, the Capitol Police is facing fresh criticism of its intelligence-gathering tactics from some of its own former analysts.
An employment lawyer, who represents five people who worked in the department’s intelligence division in January of 2021, says his clients believe Capitol Police conduct veered beyond protecting members to raising First Amendment concerns.
Dan Gebhardt, of Solomon Law Firm, PLLC, says his clients have long harbored grave concerns about the Capitol Police intelligence division’s practices. In a lengthy statement to POLITICO, Gebhardt laid out some of those concerns, underscoring tensions that have quietly plagued the department.
Among the allegations from Gebhardt’s clients: Capitol Police intelligence analysts were directed to scrutinize a religious leader who officiated a funeral that a member of Congress attended. Analysts were also directed to “conduct research” on the relatives of members of Congress as part of their security work, according to his statement. And they didn’t like it.
“Analysts’ complaints were filed with the USCP chain of command, Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and Inspector General (IG), as well as Congressional committees,” he said.
Since President Donald Trump’s supporters attacked the Capitol, the Hill’s police department has gotten a new chief and two new directors of its intelligence division. And the department staunchly defends its efforts to track and mitigate threats to members of Congress.
Specifically at issue is the way employees in the Capitol Police’s Intelligence and Interagency Coordination Division assess threats related to lawmakers’ meetings and events away from Capitol Hill.
As part of a longstanding practice, members of Congress often share information with Capitol Police and the Sergeant at Arms regarding those gatherings. Lawmakers’ offices typically send over dates, times, locations and expected attendees for events that can range from large fundraisers to small dinners at supporters’ homes.
Replies
First amendmen? What first amendment?