Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

FBI & Defense Officials Testify On Deadly Insurrection; D.C. National Guard Commander: Order To Deploy Came Three Hours After Capitol Police Chief Notified Me That Capitol's Perimeter Had Been Breached; FBI Promises Changes After Capitol Attack Intel Failure; Senior Pentagon Official: 36-Minute Delay From Defense Secretary's Decision To Deploy National Guard Until Commander Was Notified; Texas Eases Restrictions As State Sees Uptick In New Cases. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired March 03, 2021 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM J. WALKER, COMMANDING GENERAL, DC NATIONAL GUARD: But it doesn't always have to be when in extremist's circumstances we can get it done over the phone very, very quickly.

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): What if - if I understand it right, it's normally an elaborate process done in advance. And in fact the information came to you on January 1; you got back a response on January 5.

So this was before January 6. But it had this provision that this restriction that I think you've testified to be unusual that required re consultation on January 6 in a fashion that deeply inhibited the ability to move quickly.

WALKER: That's right, Senator.

MERKLEY: OK. Thank you. I wanted to turn to undersecretary Smislova. And you've been with the department for how long?

MELISSA SMISLOVA, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ACTING INTELLIGENCE CHIEF: 17 years sir.

MERKLEY: For 17 years and I think you were the deputy undersecretary on January 6, is that correct?

SMISLOVA: Yes, Sir.

MERKLEY: OK. Well, I was struck by different reports that came from officials saying that there was a mood within the department. And I'll just quote one formal official reports, "nobody wanted to write a formal intelligence report about this, in part of the fear that such report would be very poorly received by the - folks within DHS.

And to follow this up, Brian Murphy, former Head of DHS, and I don't know you also the deputy to him as well.

SMISLOVA: I was one of his deputies. Yes, sir.

MERKLEY: He noted that DHS officials had ordered him to stay away from the threat of white nationalism that Chad Wolf and Ken Cuccinelli also had asked him to modify Intel assessments to ensure that they matched up with public comments by President Trump to downplay - downplay the threat posed by white supremacists.

In your time at DHS, it's very important that intelligence is unaffected by politics. It's like the root information. Did you get a sense that there was kind of a troubling cloud as reported in various sources including from the former head of DHS, that there was this troubling cloud of political influence over the quality or the kind of determination of how intelligence was prevented, presented to officials?

SMISLOVA: I can say that INA's reports did not change. We did not change our assessments based on any political pressure or interference. We did publish the homeland threat assessment. It's a publicly available document that does state that white supremacists are the most persistent and legal threat and lethal threat to the homeland.

MERKLEY: So did you ever feel any pressure or receive any encouragement even kind of a lesson formal way? I am not talking about a written document that you needed to be very careful about clarifying the threat posed by white supremacists?

SMISLOVA: I did not personally receive that.

MERKLEY: And do you consider Brian Murphy's report that that type of pressure was applied to be accurate or inaccurate?

SMISLOVA: He has - his the whistleblower complaint and it is still being duplicated.

MERKLEY: Now I understand but I'm asking you, you were right there and the leadership that you never got a sense that there was any type of political influence like he reported regarding encouragement to downplay--

SMISLOVA: I did not personally have that influence pushed upon me, sir.

MERKLEY: OK. Thank you. Someone suggested that the reason that there were formal intelligence assessments regarding earlier events including the protests in Portland. But not such a detailed presentation related to January 6 was because of this pressure to downplay to some degree the threat posed by white extremists.

SMISLOVA: I would like to point out sort of that the two instances are very different. Our support during some of the civil unrest than the post test specifically in Portland was the direct request of our own DHS federal law enforcement partners. And in that capacity we were reacting to a pattern of violence that had shown itself for several weeks. Our open source team did an excellent job in many instances of providing specific information that kept those officers safe.

They were reporting things like bricks may be used today as a weapon another day. It might be bugs spray combined with leaf blowers or lasers. Our work by contrast leading up to the election and January 6 is quite different. It's a different kind of an environment.

There's not that pattern, violence, it is a different kind of assessment. So I do suggest or that it's - it's impossible to compare the two.

MERKLEY: All right, thank you for your testimony.

SMISLOVA: Thank you.

MERKLEY: Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Chair.

[12:05:00]

JOHN KING, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Welcome, everybody. I'm John King in Washington and welcome to Inside Politics. Thanks for sharing a very busy day with us. You've been watching a very, very important hearing in the United States Senate.

Part of the continuing effort to find out just what happened on January 6, the day of the Capitol insurrection and just what went wrong, why security was not in place beforehand, better security. And why once the riot is breached the perimeter got into the Capitol?

Had the vice president, the Vice President-elect 535 members of congress at risk? Why there was not a greater response including from the National Guard? Let's discuss the important things we just heard. With our group CNN's Lauren Fox is with us, our Former Homeland Security Official Julia Khayyam is with us.

CNN's Josh Campbell and CNN's Barbara Starr. And Barbara, I want to start with you at the pentagon because one of the big questions here was the perimeter was breached. The Capitol Police Chief called the DC National Guard Commander desperately saying I need help.

Listen to General William Walker here say he got it. He understood the urgency he wanted to deploy his troops. But--

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALKER: At 1:49 PM, I received a frantic call from the Chief of the United States Capitol Police Steven Sund where he informed me that the security perimeter of the United States Capitol had been breached by hostile rioters.

Chief Sund, his voice cracking with emotion indicated that there was a dire emergency at the Capitol. The approval for his Chief Sund's request would eventually come from the acting secretary of defense and be relayed to me by army senior leaders at 5pm, about three hours and 19 minutes later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Barbara Starr that is just incredible - important three hours in 19 minutes. And just incredible to make you stop and think what the hell was going on at the pentagon that they had to run this up and down the bureaucracy so many times that they couldn't say yes, absolutely, immediately now.

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know I think let's start with the conclusion in the year 2021. Washington DC clearly not capable of being defended on the ground quickly. Multiple legal jurisdictions, multiple law enforcement agencies, the DC National Guard, the FBI, which was in the lead that day.

And an inability not legal for the pentagon obviously to go to Capitol Hill without all the approvals being done. It's a totally separate branch of government. What the army has said to the news media repeatedly, as soon as they got the request, they began working at.

And that they did get very rapid approval from then acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller to go ahead and do it. That approval had to come from the Defense Secretary; the Secretary of the Army had to begin enacting everything that it would take to make it happen.

Their explanation of why it has taken so long to get that to get those troops right up to the Capitol ground. It's the National Guard; they are not a rapid response force. General Walker would be well aware of that.

The troops were not already mobilized because everybody said they weren't needed. The intelligence didn't show in advance to plan a day or two ahead that they got them mobilized, got them the equipment they needed which they did not have and got them there as fast as they could.

That's the pentagon's point of view. But I will tell you that the Army Secretary at the time, Ryan McCarthy has been adamant from the very beginning that the system is broken that there are too many players.

Decision making is very diffuse, it's very distracted. General Walker has been very clear repeatedly that he feels there were delays the pentagon has been very clear. They believe they moved as fast as they could.

And that what they needed to have is direct word from the Capitol Police on the ground at the Capitol grounds, not just from watching television reports, but very direct word from the Capitol Police.

What the situation was on the ground, where those National Guard troops needed to go? How they would have a plan essentially to begin to try and take back control of the situation on the ground. All of that took time.

And by any measure obviously it took too much time. The real question right now today is what happened. But the way ahead how to make sure all of these problems are fixed. It doesn't happen again John.

KING: I think there's no question they need a new command and control structure. They need a new system in which they declare in advance this is going to be a big deal. Therefore throw out the current bureaucracy and have a streamlined system in place.

But and I want to come back to that, the structure in place. But Juliette Kayyem, to this point where the pentagon says and the people in charge in the Trump administration in those days say they did - you match it up.

You could hear General Walker's frustration because he said during the summer he placed a few urgent phone calls to deploy the National Guard when you had Black Lives Matters Protests in DC. And he said every time during the summer he placed the call. He got approval. He placed the call. He got approval. He placed the call, he got approved.

[12:10:00]

KING: This is a pro Trump mob going into the United States Capitol. He says he placed the call and he got this.

Just wait - here I'm going to read it for you here. The army senior leaders did not think it looked good. It would be a good optic. They further stated it could incite the crowd. It would not be their best move or their advice to have uniformed guards on the Capitol.

I was frustrated. I was just as stunned as everybody else on the call - certainly General Walker's perspective. And again we need to listen to every voice involved here and get through to the end. But it's certainly his perspective that this event was treated very differently by the civilian leadership at the pentagon.

And he didn't say it, but it's hard to come away that he didn't think that this was because this was a pro Trump crowd; they were going much more slowly.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, FORMER ASST. HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: I think that's the inevitable conclusion at this stage because it doesn't just begin on January 6. What Walker just described today was actually a greater understanding by the National Guard and the pentagon of the intelligence that was telling them this is likely to be a violent crowd.

It did not take rocket science; it does not take an FBI report to tell us that. Everyone who was following Donald Trump during that period and was following the Right Wing websites knew that there was a planned fight, you can describe it however you want.

But those - that was the language that they were using. By early January there begins to be a discussion about what's important here. The pre deployment of the National Guard, so that they're on the fifth. Imagine if the National Guard was there, would that mob have actually even tried to enter the Capitol?

No, because that's why you pre deploy assets beforehand, so that they are actually you know a deterrent from the kind of madness that that we saw. The mob then sees oh my goodness, there's an open Capitol. Let's go up.

So you have the pre deployment challenge that's never explained by the pentagon. And then this change that's done in early January not after Lafayette but early January that says you need an additional level of approval.

At the very moment that your intelligence is telling you, we may have a problem on this date when most activities most homeland security threats, you do the opposite. If you believe that there's going to be a threat, you give the operational components like the National Guard greater leeway because they're seeing what's happened.

And then finally this three hour delay is inexcusable. I don't understand it. It's clear Walker doesn't understand it. If they keep saying that the system did work. The three hour delay can only be described as someone is running it around somewhere.

And I know conspiracies here. Those are the questions that are still unanswered. But the mistakes were made well before January 6 at this stage.

KING: And Josh Campbell, another mistake or another point of interest that's caused question going forward. And we need to give these people grace, especially in this example. But the night before on January 5, the Norfolk FBI field office received some intelligence and it was not vetted.

It was raw intelligence which can be wrong can be right can be somewhere in between. But they passed along the idea that they saw this online posting that people were coming to Washington. They were coming on a war footing and that they were talking about that you know either Trump stays in power or we fight.

And we know it was received on the fifth and under - what everyone has said is it was received and essentially the middle management had it, but it was never passed up the line. Senator Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, former Governor was asking why, why didn't somebody at the FBI pick up the phone listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MAGGIE HASSAN (D-NH): It is very hard for me to understand why somebody didn't pick up the phone. And I'd like to understand to whether any of the following were informed at the intelligence the President, the White House Chief of Staff, the Attorney General of the United States, the Speaker of the House of the Senate Majority Leader.

JILL SANBORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FBI'S COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION: Not to my knowledge, ma'am. And I think you heard the director say this yesterday and I echo at 100 percent. Anytime an attack happens. We're going back and we're going to figure out what we could have done better and differently. So I echo your - there's always processes that can be improved.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: There are so many different ways to come at this. And again you don't know if it's true or not. But you do know there are thousands of people coming to Washington on a day when the vice president the vice president elect and every member of congress are going to be in that building.

You know what the president has tweeted about it beforehand. You know some of these people are troublemakers. Why, why and what - why did is not go to the White House where somebody says Mr. President, maybe you shouldn't speak at that rally, given this intelligence, what needs to be done?

We've had this conversation after 9 or11. We've had this conversation after other events where you have dots. What has to be done to make sure somebody pulls the alarm?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well something you just said there at the very end was key and this is what Senator Hassan was hitting on as well. And that is whereas before we heard yesterday the FBI director and today the FBI official there say that this reporting out of Norfolk appeared more aspirational.

[12:15:00]

CAMPBELL: It was raw. They didn't know whether these people were actually talking about doing bad things had the capability. But to your point and to Senator Hassan's point, this was the United States Capitol on a day that the vote would have been certified; you had the vice president there as well.

And so this isn't just your run of the mill threat against some facility, some building. This was against the legislative branch of government, the point being that perhaps something targeting that area, that building should have been elevated.

Now the FBI says that they did what they should have. They sent this information in three separate ways briefing it through their joint terrorism task force. But again the question gets back to the significance of that date, the significance of that target that raises that important question.

Whether someone should have picked up the phone and started setting hair on fire. I think the one thing that we can say is that I think you can draw a line between the failures of preparation to get information to where it needed to go and the response that we saw.

And the reason I say that is because there's this saying in military and law enforcement circles that you don't just sit around admiring a problem. You try to solve it and put yourself in the shoes of military officials on the day that this Capitol building is being stormed.

Of course the question there that Juliet hit on that we'll all been you know sitting here with just puzzlement watching, why did it take three hours to get the military to deploy? You have to wonder had this intelligence made it to where it needed to go. Would these people have been making decisions and thinking about

things in real time? Or excuse me, prior to that that they were trying to do in real time? Because we know based on what we just heard from the senior defense official, the secretary of the army between the secretary of defense actually giving the authorization.

And it actually getting to the National Guard, the secretary of the army according this person wanted to decide well, let me understand the dynamic. How is the - how are these forces going to be used? What is their purpose? What are the missions?

All the questions that should have been asked prior to this incident were being trying to decipher it in real time. Of course the big issue here being as those three hours were passing, this was three hours that people were being fatally injured, bones were being broken.

Officers were being crushed in doorways as pentagon officials and you know those in law enforcement circles there were apparently sitting around admiring the problem, rather giving the National Guard the authority they needed quickly to go and try to solve it.

KING: And let's come back to that. And this circles back to those three hours. Lauren Fox, Senator Roy Blunt at one point was trying to work through the timeline. When after the testimony was that it was at 432 that the pentagon finally said yes, let the National Guard go in.

But General Walker says he didn't get the phone call for another half hour plus listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAJ. WALKER: Army senior leaders told me at about 17:08, 5:08 pm that the secretary of defense has authorized our approval to support the Capitol.

ROBERT SALESSES, SENIOR DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: That's when the secretary of defense made the decision at 432, as General Walker has pointed out because I've seen all the timelines. He was not told that till 05:08-- that's what--

WALKER: How's that possible? Mr. Salasses, do you think that the decision in the moment we were in was made at 432? And the person that had to be told wasn't told for more than a half an hour after the decision was made?

SALESSES: Senator, I think that's an issue.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: It's an issue as you watch this play out and this is a horrific event. This is a rare example where we are seeing a bipartisan proceeding here where the senators are acting fact questions. This is not there's some exceptions to that some criticism of some of the Senators.

But mostly it is fact based questioning. The question is where does it go from here? This committee now after days of hearings will continue and they will have an assessment.

Does this make the case all of these questions about number one, the convoluted bureaucracy in the first place between the Capitol Police, the DC Police, the National Guard, the pentagon, other federal agencies involved do streamline that process?

Number two, do they have a commission? Does this actually make the case now for 911 style independent commission?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well I think on the second question that is still open for discussion. You have a lot of Republicans arguing that if a commission is going to be developed, it has to be evenly split. Right. And that's the fight that Democrats and Republicans have been having on Capitol Hill.

I will say you know what stuck out to me as part of this hearing was the fact that you had bipartisanship in questioning why the department of defense had not deployed the National Guard sooner?

You had Senator Roy Blunt. In that clip you just played you also had Senator Rob Portman asking very specific and targeted questions about why that delays that three hour and 90 minute delay had actually occurred.

And you heard from General Walker that he was ready at some point and just had people waiting on a bus ready to be deployed if that was necessary because he was so sure, he was just about to get the OK to send guard troops into the U.S. Capitol.

And I will tell you that on the day of the insurrection I was texting with Republican Senators who were asking me have you heard anything about the National Guard me asking them. Have you heard anything about the National Guard? That was a scary moment.

[12:20:00]

FOX: Scary couple of hours during the day as everyone on Capitol Hill was waiting to see whether or not the guard was going to be sent in to save what was unfolding on Capitol Hill because people members specifically, they were scared. And you see that reflected in the hearing today.

And they're very specific questions. They're trying to get answers not just because it's good for the country, not just because it's good for future events, but because it's good for all of their safety as well on Capitol Hill.

KING: And as we get some of the important answers, they tend to raise even more questions which is why we make the point that there's the investigation needs to continue. Whether it's 9/11 commission or getting some of the people, you have to get the motivation of some of the people who are involved in the delays here.

Might be good reasons. But let's get them on the public record. I suspect not in some cases. Lauren Fox, Barbara Starr, Julia Khayyam, Josh Campbell, appreciate very much for coming in to help us. We'll continue to watch the hearing too and bring you any news comes from it.

Up next for us there were big changes in the COVID vaccine rollout timetable. But President Biden still says and he hopes Governors will listen. Caution critical.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:25:00]

KING: We are at what you might call another crossroads moment in the fight against Coronavirus. On the one hand some very promises news. President Biden says a new production deal will help cut by two months the timeline to have enough vaccines out there for every adult American to be vaccinated.

Now the president says that will be the end of May. Previously it was the end of July. That's good news. But the White House has open tension now with states that are easing restrictions saying we need more time this is not the time to drop things like Texas just did its mask mandate.

Let's walk through the numbers and tee up the important moment. Number one is the confirmed case timeline. If you look at this, there's no question, follow the red line. This is the peak of the horrific winter peak.

And then down you come here 55,000 new infections reported yesterday. Here's the concern at the White House. Yes, this is well down from 250,000 even close to 300,000 on Sundays, but appears to be a plateau in the mid 50s here.

That's still a high benchmark. If you go back and look at here and here where we had the previous surges, the White House as it appears to be flattening out here wants to shove it down even more.

Hospitalizations again way down from the peak seems to be a plateau just under 50,000. 46,388 hospitalizations Americans hospitalized with COVID yesterday, so a big improvement. But still the White House COVID team insists a moment of caution here.

Here's the status number of all we're currently - 516,000 plus Americans have died because of COVID. The ensemble forecast of the CDC says nearly 50,000 more Americans will die by the end of the month. 48,000 more Americans by the end of the month based on current projections.

This map is getting better if you will. This is the percent of the population partially vaccinated in most cases, the Johnson and Johnson new vaccine is one shot, but the previous vaccines are all two shots. And you see Alaska 23 percent, 21 percent in South Dakota into the teens in most other states moving up, moving up and aggressively in recent days.

Why? Because of this. 2 million vaccines just shy of that. We're averaging now 1.9 million vaccines a day significantly up from the 900,000. When President Biden took office, there was a dip here, the harsh winter weather that is back on track there.

Here's the challenge. The White House says we're making progress don't ruin it. But 27 states have announced easing of their COVID restrictions since January 30, 15 of those states in the last week alone.

Just yesterday for example, the Governor of Texas saying no more mass mandate, Texas Governor Abbott says is completely open. Alabama has a big deadline on Friday; its mask mandate expires then. Watch that as another state example.

Just want to show you the Texas and Mississippi cases both of these states have decided it's time to move on from the severe COVID restrictions. Both of those states even though well down from the winter peak up a little bit in their recent cases, up a little bit in their recent cases.

This is why you have this open tension now between the Biden team and governors, mostly Republican governors, but not exclusively the Biden team listening here saying look, we're making progress.

This is not the time though to drop things like a mask mandate, urging citizens maybe ignore your Governor stay safe.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DR. ROCHELLE WALENSKY, CDC DIRECTOR: Every individual has empowered to do the right thing here. Regardless of what the states decide for personal health, for public health, for their health of their loved ones and communities.

I would still encourage individuals to wear masks to socially distancing to do the right thing to protect their own house.

ANDY SLAVITT, WHITE HOUSE SR. ADVISER FOR COVID RESPONSE: We are actively being very, very clear on what we think needs to happen. And so we hope that other elected officials who have the authority in their domains will in fact, listen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: This now to offer his insights and expertise is Dr. Michael Mina. He's a Professor of Epidemiology at Harvard. Dr. Mina it is good to see you. Walk through this I call that a crossroads. I don't know if there's a better term for it.

But you could hear right there, the CDC Director and Andy Slavitt, the White House COVID Coordinator essentially say you know, they're not using this language but saying governors, please stop. And if Governors are doing these citizens, please don't listen to your governor.

We've talked repeatedly over the last year about the importance of consistent communication. That's not consistent.

DR. MICHAEL MINA, PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, HARVARD CHAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH: That's exactly right. This is - this inconsistency is not a good thing for us. We've had enough of that over the last year as we know. This is just not the time to completely let our guard down.

I think we can - you know, this is the time to have hope that we're really getting into a reprieve from this virus at least for the coming months. But it is absolutely not the right time to tell people to disregard this virus just as we're getting the vaccines.

They're just as we're nearing this major milestone of getting most of the vulnerable people in our communities protected. This is the time to just remain vigilant and you know it's just a mask continue wearing our masks. It's a - it is a small effort but goes potentially far away.

KING: Will help someone out there who might be listening and might be getting conflicting information. The Biden team says you know, be vigilant. Your Governor might say we're 100 percent open like in the state of Texas.