Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Lawmakers Grill Secret Service Director Over Trump Assassination Attempt; Secret Service Director Testifies on Trump Assassination Rally. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired July 22, 2024 - 10:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:30:00]

KIMBERLY CHEATLE, DIRECTOR, U.S. SECRET SERVICE: The Secret Service does deploy an asset like --

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: There were reports that the shooter used a drone just a few hours before the rally start time. Is that accurate?

CHEATLE: I have heard those same reports. And again, I'm waiting for the final report from --

COMER: Do you know -- if you can't answer the question, that's your answer. But can you answer this? Do you know? Do you know? I'm not asking yes or no. But do you know if the shooter used a drone before the shooting?

CHEATLE: That information has been passed to us from the FBI.

COMER: How many Secret Service agents were assigned to President Trump on the day of the rally?

CHEATLE: Again, I'm not going to get into the specifics of the numbers of personnel that we had there. But we feel that there was a sufficient number of agents assigned.

COMER: There are reports that several agents assigned to the rally on July 13th were temporary agents. Agents not normally assigned to President Trump. Is that accurate?

CHEATLE: What I can tell you is that the agents that were assigned to Former President Trump are Secret Service agents that provide close protection to him, and that was what was actual on that day.

COMER: How many temporary agents were there that day?

CHEATLE: Quite frequently, sir, during campaign events, the Secret Service utilizes agents from HIS, the Department of Homeland to help --

COMER: But you don't know how many? You can't answer?

CHEATLE: -- supplement our plan.

COMER: Had the investigators reconstructed the shooter's precise movements over the past days, weeks, and months?

CHEATLE: So, again --

COMER: We need to have confidence that if the FBIs leading this investigation, that they're leading a credible investigation. Because there's some of us sitting up here today that don't have a lot of confidence in the FBI. So, I will repeat the question, have the investigators reconstructed the shooter's precise moments over the past days, weeks, and months?

CHEATLE: I understand your question chairman and I share your concerns about wanting to make sure that we have factual information. The FBI is conducting a criminal investigation, the Secret Service is conducting an internal investigation. There are a number of OIG investigations and there is the external investigation.

COMER: OK. Last question for me. Before July 13th, had the Trump detail requested additional resources?

CHEATLE: What I can tell you is that for the event on July 13th, the details that were request -- the assets that were requested for that day were given.

COMER: OK. My time has expired. Chair now recognizes ranking member asking for five minutes.

REP. JAMES RASKIN (D-MD), RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's been reported that before Former President Trump got up on the stage at around 6:00 p.m., On Saturday, July 13th, that the local police had identified and even photographed a man who was acting suspiciously. And this man who turned out to be the gunman had been flagged as a potential threat. Is that accurate?

CHEATLE: What I can say is that the individual was identified as suspicious.

RASKIN: So, he was known to be suspicious before Former President Trump took the stage?

CHEATLE: That is the information I have received.

RASKIN: Why was he allowed to take the stage with a suspicious person having been identified in the crowd?

CHEATLE: Sir, I appreciate the question, and I'd like to make two points. If the detail had been past information that there was a threat, the detail would never have brought the former president out onto stage. That is what we do, and that is who we are. We are charged with protecting all of our protectees.

RASKIN: So, you distinguish between someone who is suspicious and someone who's threatening? Is that right?

CHEATLE: We do. There are a number of times at protective events where suspicious people are identified and those individuals have to be investigated and determined what is it that identifies that person as suspicious.

RASKIN: So, did you deny a request for additional resources that have been made by the Trump campaign?

CHEATLE: There were no assets denied for that event in Butler on the 13th.

RASKIN: I see. So, you're saying there were requests made for additional assistance for other specific events rather than for the campaign as a whole. Is that right?

CHEATLE: I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.

RASKIN: Well, you seem to say that there were not additional resources requested for that event. And forgive me for being unfamiliar with this. Is it requested event by event or is it requested just in general for the campaign?

CHEATLE: So, if I can explain the advance process. When the -- when an event or an venue is identified by, in this case, campaign staff, then the campaign staff works together with Secret Service agents who go out and conduct in advance. Generally, that is a five-day time period. Were those discussions are had about what the perimeter is going to look like, what the size of the event is, what the venue is.

[10:35:00]

And then, from there, there is a request made to mitigate potential risk and threat. And I'm saying that on that day, the requests that were pushed forward were granted.

RASKIN: So, the Secret Service did not know that the gunman actually had a weapon before President Trump was allowed to get up on the stage?

CHEATLE: To the best of our knowledge and the facts that we have at this point, that is correct.

RASKIN: So, can you answer this question, which I think is on the mind of most Americans thinking about this? How can a 20-year-old with his father's AR 15 assault weapon climb onto a roof with a direct 150- yard line of sight to the speaker's podium without the Secret Service or local police stopping him?

CHEATLE: So, again, sir, I will say we are nine days out from this event and I would like to know those answers as well, which is why we are going through these investigations to be able to determine that fully.

RASKIN: OK. It's been reported that the shooter was not carrying a driver's license or any form of identification. They had no idea who he was, but then he was quickly identified, I think, within 30 minutes by using the serial number on the AR-15 under a tracing system. That is now controversial. Some people say we should get rid of it. Some people want to keep it. But is that right that the serial number was the key information which led to the identification of the shooter? CHEATLE: That is my understanding, sir. Yes.

RASKIN: OK. If an American citizen were just to stop you and say, Director Cheatle, we support your work to the tune of billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of employees. What went wrong? What would you say?

CHEATLE: Again, knowing that we're nine days out? I would say as I have said from the very outset, I accept responsibility for this tragedy. We are going to look into how this happened and we are going to take corrective action to ensure that it never happens again.

RASKIN: Well, I appreciate that. And I hope you will act with vigor and focus and intensity and it seems you understand the gravity and solemnity of this to the American people. Millions and millions of Americans don't feel safe with all the AR-15s out there. We thought at least the president of the United States or a former president of the United States would be safe, but now that's not even clear.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you.

COMER: Chairman yields back. Chair now recognize the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Jordan from Ohio.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, were you guessing or lying? The day after President Trump is shot, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said, "The assertion that a member of the former president's security team requested additional security resources that the U.S. Secret Service or the Department of Homeland Security rebuffed is absolutely false.

The next day, Secretary Mayorkas said, that is an unequivocally false assertion. We had not received any requests for additional security measures that were rebuffed. But five days later, "The Washington Post" said this, top officials repeatedly rejected requests from Donald Trump's security detail for more personnel. The next day, "The New York Times" said this, Mr. Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned down some requests for additional federal security assets for Mr. Trump's detail. So, which is it?

Because both statements can't be true. Were you guessing or lying when you said you didn't turn down requests from President Trump's detail?

CHEATLE: Neither, sir. And I appreciate the question.

JORDAN: Well, what were you doing? Because those statements don't jive.

CHEATLE: So, what I can tell you is that for the event in Butler, there were no requests that were denied. As far as requests --

JORDAN: Well, maybe they got tired of asking. Maybe you turned them down so darn much, they said not worth asking. How many times did you turn him down ahead of that?

CHEATLE: I think that it is important to distinguish between what some people may view as a denial of an asset or a request is not --

JORDAN: Well, is Mr. Guglielmi your spokesperson? He said he acknowledged the Secret Service had turned down some requests. I'm asking how many?

CHEATLE: A denial of a request does not equal a vulnerability.

JORDAN: Well, tell me what it is.

CHEATLE: There are a number of ways that threats and risks can be mitigated with a number of different assets, whether that be through personnel, whether that be through technology or other resources.

JORDAN: Well, tell the Committee which it was. They asked for additional help in some form or another, you told them no. How many times did you tell them no and what did you tell them no to?

CHEATLE: Again, I cannot speak to specific incidents, but I can tell you in general terms, the Secret Service is judicious with their resources based on --

JACKSON: What does some request mean? How many times? Some indicate -- request is plural. So, more than once they ask for additional help, and you turned them down. What did they ask for and how many times did you turn them down? Pretty basic questions.

[10:40:00]

CHEATLE: So, again, without having all of the details in front of me, sir, what I can tell you is that there are times --

JORDAN: You didn't get briefed on how many times you turned down the Trump detail when they asked for additional help?

CHEATLE: I'm sorry.

JORDAN: You didn't get briefed on that before you came to this hearing, knowing you were going to get asked that question?

CHEATLE: What I can tell you is that in generic terms, when people -- when details make a request, there are times that there are alternate ways to cover off on that threat or that risk.

JORDAN: But that's not what he said. He said they were denied certain requests. Some requests. This is your spokesperson, not me talking. This is the Secret Service talking. And what a change from absolutely false, unequivocally false to, oh, by the way, there were some times where we didn't give them what they wanted. That's a huge change in five days.

And the fact that you can't answer how many times you did that, that's pretty darn frustrating. Not just for me, but for the country.

CHEATLE: I hear your frustration.

JORDAN: Let me ask you this, were any of those requests denied to President Trump's detail after you knew about the Iranian threat?

CHEATLE: What I can tell you, again, I don't know the specifics, is that there are times when we can fill a request. It doesn't necessarily have to be with a Secret Service asset or resource, we can fill that request with locally available assets --

JORDAN: You spoke to anyone at the White House since July 13th?

CHEATLE: Yes, I have.

JORDAN: Who'd you talk to?

CHEATLE: I have briefed the president and the vice president.

JORDAN: Talked to the First Lady?

CHEATLE: No, I have not.

JORDAN: Talked to the White House staff? Anyone in the White House communications?

CHEATLE: No, I have not.

JORDAN: Have you talked to the counter sniper who took the shot that took out the bad guy?

CHEATLE: Yes, I have.

JORDAN: And can you tell us about that conversation?

CHEATLE: I would not want to reveal conversations that I've had with my employees.

JORDAN: But that's exactly the kind of information the American people want to know. American people who pay your salary.

CHEATLE: I understand. This is an ongoing investigation and I --

JORDAN: Who's all doing the investigating at Secret Service? I know the inspector general, but is there also an internal investigation in addition to the inspector general?

CHEATLE: We are conducting a mission assurance investigation internally, yes.

JORDAN: You know what it looks like, Director, it looks like you won't answer some pretty basic questions. It looks like you got a 9 percent raise and you cut corners when it came to protecting one of the most important individuals, most well-known individuals on the planet. A former president, likely the guy who's going to be the next president. It looks like you guys were cutting corners. That's what it looks like to me. Is that true?

CHEATLE: I am here today because I want to answer questions, but I also want to be cautious. JORDAN: You might want to, but you haven't answered -- I don't think you've answered one question from the chairman, the ranking member, or me. Well, we got a lot of other people asking. We'll see if your record improves. But right now, you haven't answered I don't think any questions. I yield back.

COMER: Gentlemen, yields back. Chair now recognize Ms. Norton from Washington, D.C.

DEL. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the summer of 1963, as a law student, I traveled to the south to work in the civil rights movement. When I arrived in Jackson, Mississippi I was met by civil rights activists who showed me around town and tried to convince me to work in Jackson that summer. I recall talking with him and his wife about the raw atmosphere in Jackson.

Later that day, he took me to the bus station for my trip to my assignment. That night he was assassinated outside his home. His name was Medgar Evers. I condemn the political violence. It is a threat to democracy. I want to discuss one of the roots of political violence, guns.

For years, Republicans, including a member of this committee, have introduced legislation and amendments to repeal or block the District of Columbia gun violence protection laws, including its bans on assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

The shooter at the Trump rally used the mass shooters gun of choice and assault weapon, specifically an AR-15 style rifle and presumably a large capacity magazine which is defined in D.C. as a magazine that can hold more than 10 bullets. Under current D.C. law, D.C. does not recognize concealed carry permits issued by other jurisdictions, but it does issue concealed carry permits to both residents and non- residents.

However, D.C. imposes a number of requirements on concealed carry applicants, including suitability, such as not having exhibited a propensity for violence or instability. Moreover, D.C. residents where the -- restricts where the guns can be carried, such as a political demonstration near the White House and Naval Observatory or near people under Secret Service protection provided the permit holder has been given notice.

[10:45:00]

This week, the House is expected to consider the fiscal year 2025 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Bill. This Republican drafted bill would allow an individual with a permit to carry a concealed handgun issued by a state or territory to carry a concealed handgun in D.C. regardless of that jurisdiction's permit requirements. A Republican has filed an amendment to that provision to allow such an individual to carry a magazine of any size with that handgun. In short, the pending bill and amendment would allow any person with a carry permit issued by another jurisdiction to carry a concealed handgun with a magazine of any size in any location in the District of Columbia. The Secret Service is responsible for protecting a large number of people and facilities in D.C. Director Cheatle, would Secret Service protectees in D.C. be safer or less safe if people who have exhibited a propensity for violence or instability could carry concealed handguns in D.C.?

CHEATLE: I think being a Secret Service agent and an officer or a law enforcement officer in any state is difficult. They are required to make decisions and snap judgments in the blink of an eye. And I think that the officers and the agents that work here in the D.C. area do a great job of monitoring the public and reacting to threats as appropriate when they arise.

NORTON: Would Secret Service protectees in D.C. be safer or less safe if people in D.C. could carry concealed handguns with large capacity magazines?

CHEATLE: I think, ma'am, that we work in parameters where we travel around North America and the rules on open carry and concealed carry are different from state to state and that is part of what the Secret Service takes into account when we develop a security plan. Obviously, anyone that comes into one of our protective sites, we would establish magnetometer support, metal detectors that personnel would have to process through eliminating that potential.

NORTON: Would Secret Service protectees in D.C. be safer or less safe if more people could carry handguns in D.C.?

CHEATLE: I think, again, as I stated, ma'am, we want to make sure that we provide a safe environment for all of our protectees. And whatever measures we would need to put in place for a secure site, we would do so.

NORTON: I yield back.

COMER: Gentlelady's time has expired. Chair now recognizes the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Turner from Ohio.

REP. MIKE TURNER (R-OH): Director Cheatle, your opening statement indicates that the Secret Service constructed a security plan for the site in Pennsylvania. I'm assuming that security plan would also include the security footprint for the site, but it also would be based upon a threat assessment for the risk threats associated with Donald Trump and the crowd in attendance. Would it not include a threat assessment?

CHEATLE: Yes, it would.

TURNER: So, that threat assessment, as we know, basically would have started with, there's a generalized threat against Donald Trump because he is a presidential candidate. Then it would have gone to -- he's a former president, and he gets security coverage just as Bush, Clinton, Carter, Obama do, and then you also have the heightened political environment.

Even for those, it's clear that the security footprint that the threat assessment was insufficient, which permitted that a 20-year-old to actually enter with the weapon and shoot Donald Trump. But I want to ask you about two other aspects of the threat assessment. It is known and public that Iran is a threat risk for Donald Trump. They're a threat risk for John Bolton, former Secretary of State Pompeo, and Donald Trump because they have indicated they want to assassinate them as a result of retaliation for the killing of Soleimani. That is both, for Iran, a generalized threat. They're targeting these individuals. But also, most recently, a specific threat to Donald Trump himself.

Now, I want to enter into the record by -- you see, a Department of Justice public affairs release, a CNN article, an article from Fox News, and an article from CBS, all of which acknowledge --

[10:50:00]

COMER: Without objection to order.

TURNER: --that this threat exists for Donald Trump from Iran, and that there are specific threats, most recently, that have been acknowledged. Director Cheatle, have you read the intelligence of the journalized threat to Donald Trump by Iran as a result of their desire to retaliate for the killing of Soleimani?

CHEATLE: I have.

TURNER: Have you read or been briefed about the intelligence of this specific recent threat to Donald Trump from Iran?

CHEATLE: Yes, I have.

TURNER: Director Wray, when we were getting our briefing, indicated that he thought the threat assessment should have included this threat from Iran. Is it your testimony today that the threat assessment, since you've read this intelligence, was sufficient to protect him from this threat from Iran?

CHEATLE: My testimony today is that the information that we had at the time was known. That it --

TURNER: Was it sufficient? Director Cheatle, was it sufficient for the Iranian threat that you said you have read the intelligence briefings for?

CHEATLE: That information was passed to --

TURNER: Well, I'm not asking the bureaucratic issue of who did it get passed around to. Director Cheatle, was it sufficient for the specific and generalized threat to Donald Trump's life from Iran?

CHEATLE: Yes, I do believe it was.

TURNER: Director Cheatle, is an Iranian assassin more capable than a 20-year-old?

CHEATLE: Sir, I think we've acknowledged that there was gaps and a failure that day. We are not -- TURNER: When I raised this issue with Director Wray, he was incensed.

He was shocked that the threat assessment of Iran did not seem to be, as we -- and I discussed, baked in to your security footprint and your threat assessment. And he went on to say that the generalized threat that he has told the whole country that we are under from a terrorist -- a potential terrorist threat, he has said we're under the highest threat level since 9/11, that the lights are flashing red. And he has specifically indicated that people have crossed the southern border as a result of the Biden administration's policy and that there are in our country today, terrorists and individuals who are affiliated with terrorist groups and organizations. That would be a heightened threat environment, Director Cheatle, would it not?

CHEATLE: Yes.

TURNER: In his public statements, he has said, he is making these statements because he wants people to take them into consideration in threat assessments, specifically. Now, that would be a threat not just to Donald Trump, but it would also be a threat to the crowd there, wouldn't it?

CHEATLE: Yes.

TURNER: Are ISIS terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists and international groups and terrorists more capable than a 20-year-old in pulling off their mass shooting or an assassination of Donald Trump?

CHEATLE: Sir, again, there was clearly a breakdown and a failure that day.

TURNER: Have you read the intelligence of the terrorists that are currently in the United States that Director Wray speaks and those individuals that are here that are affiliated with terrorist groups and organizations that are in the process, as Director Wray said, of representing a significant threat of a terrorist attack occurring in the United States?

CHEATLE: I have read reports that apply specifically to the Secret Service's mission.

TURNER: Director Cheatle, because Donald Trump is alive, and thank God he is, you look incompetent. If Donald Trump had been killed, you would have looked culpable. There is no aspect of this that indicates that there has been any protection to Donald Trump.

The threat was identified before he took stage -- the stage. And the shooter was only killed after Donald Trump himself was killed. Not only should you resign, if you refuse to do so, President Biden needs to fire you. Because his life, Donald Trump's life, and all the other people which you protect are at risk because you have no concept of the aspect that the security footprint needs to be correlated to the threat. I yield back.

COMER: Chair now recognizes Mr. Lynch from Massachusetts.

REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Cheatle, there were multiple security failures at the former president's rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. First of all, there was a failure to isolate the podium from exposure to direct fire. Do we know who made that decision to allow that rooftop to remain as an unprotected area? Do we know who came up with that security plan that omitted that?

CHEATLE: Sir, I don't have a specific person to identify for you.

LYNCH: OK, well, that's what I'm looking for. So, let's move on. There's also a breakdown in security and failure to confront the shooter over an hour before the former president began his remarks when the shooter was identified as a person of interest.

[10:55:00]

What particularly allowed agents or law enforcement to identify him as a person of interest?

CHEATLE: So, I appreciate the question. And again, I will say that we are nine days out and there are a multitude of interviews that are still taking place.

LYNCH: OK. So, did he have a range finder? There were some reports that the individual had a range finder. That would certainly raise my suspicion. Did he have a range finder?

CHEATLE: Yes, he did. But may I explain that at a number of our sites, especially when you're at outdoor venues, a range finder is not a prohibited item. It is sometimes an item that is brought in by individuals if you're going to be --

LYNCH: But did anybody confront him on that? Anybody ask him questions? What are you doing with the range finder? Anybody confront him on his presence, where he was in proximity to the president?

CHEATLE: So, again, to my knowledge, I believe that that was the process that was taking place, was to locate the individual.

LYNCH: Did they confront him? Did they go up to him? Did they talk to him?

CHEATLE: I do not have those details at this time.

LYNCH: Those are important details. There was also a failure to communicate between law enforcement to act quickly upon information provided by either local law enforcement or rally attendees that the suspect was positioned on the roof. There were minutes of delay before any meaningful action was taken, even though he was several hundred feet from the podium. And this was obviously minutes before the shooting.

Let me ask you, there was considerable delay in removing the president from the podium after the shooting began. He got shot in the ear. It was still over a minute before he was removed from the stage. Meanwhile, this shooter had multiple clips, several clips. He got off eight shots, and he had the capacity and the ability, if he was not neutralized, to basically mow down that whole Secret Service detachment as well as the president. What, from your own investigation, caused that delay under the circumstances?

CHEATLE: What I can tell you is that when the agents identified that the shooting was taking place, in under three seconds, they threw themselves on top of the president.

LYNCH: Oh, I understand that there was heroism there. No question about it. No question about it. But protocol would indicate -- and these are -- you know, these are the opinions of various former Secret Service agents, people who have done this work in the past, that over a minute of exposure on that podium with a shooter with a high- capacity weapon would already wounded the president and could have got off we don't know how many more rounds. And yet, the president remained exposed, even though he was joined in that exposure by the Secret Service in their heroic acts. It just -- it -- I don't know if there's a good explanation for that.

CHEATLE: Our personnel created a body bunker on top of the president.

LYNCH: I get that. I get that.

CHEATLE: Shielding him.

LYNCH: Yes, this was this was an AR-15 style weapon that would have made pretty quick work if he was determined and able to do so. This is not the first investigation that we've had of the Secret Service during my time here on this Committee. And the last one we had, our previous investigation determined that the "Secret Service was experienced a staffing crisis that poses perhaps the greatest threat to the agency," and that's a quote. Is that staffing crisis still in place? Is that still something that you deal with on a daily basis?

CHEATLE: As of today, the Secret Service has just over 8,000 employees. We continue to hire knowing that we need to ensure that we keep pace with --

LYNCH: What would be the full complement of --

COMER: Gentleman, time has expired. But please answer the question.

LYNCH: Yes

CHEATLE: I'm sorry.

LYNCH: What would be the full compliment that you're looking for? You've got 8,000. And how many how many would be a full compliment for the service?

CHEATLE: So, we are still striving towards a number of 9,500 employees approximately in order to be able to meet future and emerging needs.

LYNCH: OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesy. I yield back.

COMER: Chair recognizes Dr. Foxx from North Carolina.

REP. VIRGINIA FOXX (R-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Cheatle, what grade would you give the Secret Service's performance in Butler, Pennsylvania on July 13th?

CHEATLE: As I've stated, ma'am, this was clearly a failure.

[11:00:00]