Beleaguered Architect of the Capitol J. Brett Blanton shocked members of Congress on Thursday by admitting he was not on Capitol grounds for the tumultuous January 6th attacks during a query into alleged ethics violations while in office.
At a special hearing called by members of the House Administration Committee, Blanton said he was “monitoring developments remotely” during the riots while declining to provide his specific whereabouts in what came as a surprise to committee members of both parties who also took offense to his apparent frequent tardiness from the grounds that continues to this day.
Blanton, who remains the only member of the U.S. Capitol Police Board not to resign in the wake of the incident, also answered questions about his misuse of government-provided SUVs and deliberate misrepresentation of himself as a police officer among other accusations which include giving private tours to “patriots” in the weeks leading up to January 6th, 2021.
“I wholeheartedly reject any [assertion] that I engaged in unethical behavior doing service to my country,” the former Navy officer and Deputy Vice President for Engineering at Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority told lawmakers.
His appearance comes in the midst of multiple calls for his resignation by prominent D.C. figures. The office had previously been subject to a last-minute attempt to limit his powers and initiate his removal in response to the revelations, though the measure failed.
Watch Ranking Member @RepJoeMorelle question the Architect of the Capitol, J. Brett Blanton on his alleged misuse of his government vehicle in our hearing this morning⬇️ pic.twitter.com/Z4DyvTAF2G
— Committee on House Admn. Democrats (@HouseAdm_Dems) February 9, 2023
Blanton, who serves in a ten-year appointment, declined to state whether he will resign. The Biden Administration has also not stated that they will ask for a resignation. In a statement to Scripps News, the department's Inspector General said Blanton could also face felony charges related to his family’s use of the SUVs, adding that there was “more to investigate” based on the murky answers provided in Thursday’s hearings.
Editors Note, February 13, 2023: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed a quote to Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The DOJ has confirmed that Inspector General Horowitz did not make the reported comment.
10 Comments
This is just suuuuuuch BS: during the January 6 riots, "...Blanton said he was “monitoring developments remotely” during the riots while declining to provide his specific whereabouts..." I mean jeez. I've worked in Facilities at a sensitive facility, I've done all of the emergency scenario training and been on call, there is no reason not to BE THERE or be able to explain where you were unless you were doing something wrong. Maybe he was hiking in the Appalachians?
Also, he's not an architect.
How exactly was he monitoring it remotely? If he was, how the fuck could he not report for duty?
The fact that he wasn't reporting to duty and showing up late just says he doesn't care about his job seriously enough. It may be understandable if he was at a meeting that day but that should be easy to explain. Only a guilty person of something wrong would be a reason to be hesitant. This would lead to concluding that he may have been there with the crowd. Alternatively, it could be for some hanky panky but we don't know. If it was job related, there would be good reason he may not have been there at the moment. Remotely monitoring the site is not that hard to believe. It could be a reason he stayed off-site if he became aware of the insurrection before getting there and stayed off site for his own safety. News was onto this pretty much the moment it happened because media was already present for the event. His attitude or behavior of showing up late might be reason for termination of employment. It must be clear that there are a plenty of federal architects who are not licensed architects. There isn't an explicit licensing requirement. So more detail on the guys background as to whether he did architectural duties of an architect or is it engineering or is it nothing but administrative duties. Now, honestly, a person who is an Architect of the Capitol should be licensed in the District of Columbia or other states or federal territories that does licensing and reciprocate. If the role is just a facilities manager, the title should be changed to Chief Director overseeing a department or Office that could be called "U.S. Capitol Facilities & Architectural Services Management. The person called Architect of the Capitol should be an architect and supervise the architectural projects on the Capitol grounds and other important government sites. Another person as "Architect of the United States" (who would also need to be an architect) who oversees and whose office reviews all architectural projects at all federal buildings throughout the U.S. and even hold oversight of the "Architect of the Capitol".Similar titles for engineers but for engineering projects. That would be my personal opinion of a major overhaul the whol federal architects and these titles.
Doesn't the Surgeon General also have to be a real MD? If he's not an architect, then why isn't the department of professional regulation in DC looking into this? Aren't there state regulations that define who can use the title of "Architect"? Why aren't these regulations enforced, especially when misappropriated by tech companies for so called "software architects", or other such malapropisms
Washington D.C. is not subject to state regulations. However, Washington D.C. does have a territorial architectural licensing board (NCARB member board) that are among a number of federal territories that do have licensing boards. Not all federal enclaves in the U.S. does and that makes federal more complicated. The Architect of the Capitol, probably should be licensed in D.C. Then we may have an Architect of the U.S. who is in charge of architectural matters at federal jurisdiction outside of District of Columbia and who may need to be just licensed somewhere in the U.S. but having a D.C. license would be great in that case. License in D.C. is required for architectural services for architectural projects in D.C. so this is why I think the Architect of the Capitol should be licensed in D.C. because the capitol is in D.C. However, the capitol building and property might be like a special federal enclave within the federal enclave of District of Columbia where it stands apart like a separate jurisidiction. So we would have to look into that a bit. However, the role should be properly titled with the appropriate responsibility. I don't think an engineer or a role that is more a Capitol campus facilities maintenance director (much like a college campus facilities maintenance director) is really a role that should have the title Architect involved at all. The role should involve architectural services. That's my personal opinion.
Former Architect of The Capitol
b3ta you beat me by 13 minutes.
He's FIRED!
FIRED!
Honestly, they should take some (at least) of what I said regarding the position of Architect of the Capitol.
good. Mayor pete should be next
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.